Ron Paul’s Leftist Anti-Americanism

Dennis Prager, World Net Daily, January 17, 2012

In the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on Jan. 7, Rep. Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here … that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system.”

He said this racism has to do with “enforcing the drug laws” and then added: “They (blacks) get the death penalty way disproportionately.”

Two groups immediately defended Paul—his supporters and commentators on the left. The former support anything Paul says, and the left supports anything Paul says that portrays America as ugly (see, for example, the defense of Paul by left-wing USA Today columnist Dwayne Wickham, whose columns are regularly devoted to how much blacks suffer from American racism).


It does seem that the Texas congressman’s description of the American justice system as racist is part of Paul’s generally dark view of America.

The claim that America disproportionately executes blacks is a falsehood, disseminated on virtually every left-wing website, from the ACLU to all the anti-death-penalty sites. The only way it can be regarded as true is if the disproportion is in relation to the entire population of the country: Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population and since 1976 have been about 35 percent of those executed for murder. But this is a statistic that tells no truth because it is meaningless in terms of determining alleged racial bias.

This is very easy to prove. Males make up about 50 percent of the American population but make up about 99 percent of those executed. Is the American justice system wildly anti-male?

Of course not. The statistic that matters in assessing bias in executions is the proportion of murderers of a given group who are executed, not the group’s proportion of the entire population.

And here, it is clear that blacks are actually under-represented in executions.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death-penalty organization, between 1976 and January 2012, 441 blacks (35 percent of the total) and 717 whites (55 percent of the total) were executed. Given that blacks committed more than half the murders during that time (52 percent versus 46 percent by whites), if we are to assess racial bias based on proportionality of murderers executed, the system is biased against whites, not blacks.

Because this fact is both obvious and irrefutable, virtually none of the anti-death-penalty sites note it. Instead, they focus on the race of murder victims and even the race of prosecutors—in other words, the race of just about everyone except those convicted of murder.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • B

    Nothing worse than to have your remarks murdered by a brutal gang of facts. Ron Paul is either pandering to blacks or fell victim to the liberal propaganda himself and actually believes it. I’m not sure which is worse.

    • Let’s not forget who exactly making this accusation. 

      Dennis Prager – Yes, he also happens to be Jewish. 
      I wonder if his criticism of Paul stems from his foreign policy positions?

      I’ll report, you decide. 

      Watch the Video:

      • Anonymous

        So what if Prager is Jewish? So was/is French Neo Con President of France Sarkozy, who came to power by talking and acting tough against Arab rioting in French industrial suburbs. Why is Ron Paul giving openings to Neo Cons – Jewish and Gentile? Why is he being soft on Black crime, traitorous on Black crime? Regular White Americans in South Carolina and all other states don’t want to hear ridiculous Libertarian nonsense that the US justicie system is RACIST against Blacks and that Blacks should be “free to choose” to use and sell crack cocaine, run wild, do whatever they like according some ridiculous liberal/Libertarian theory.

        This Ron Paul Libertarian cult is really getting to be a plague on our people!

      • Anonymous

        Yes, Prager…….one in a long line of Phonycons who hates Ron Paul……
        because Dr Paul does not want the USA to be the global babysitter.

      • B

        I watched Ron Paul make the remarks so who reported on it is irrelevant to me.

  • B

    Nothing worse than to have your remarks murdered by a brutal gang of facts. Ron Paul is either pandering to blacks or fell victim to the liberal propaganda himself and actually believes it. I’m not sure which is worse.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul was accused of the terrible sin of RACISM in his 2008 run for President. So now he panders to Blacks in some Libertarian way. I shudder to think what 80 year old Ron Paul will do when he is accused of being homo-phobic, but I think Amren readers should not support 80 year old White men engaging in Black on White gay porn just to prove they are not racist/homophobic.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is both a reactionary and a radical. The drastic changes he advocates are at best irrelevant to fixing the economy. They could make things much worse. 

    • Marcy Fleming

      They are right on target but a true blue NY Times reader like you would oppose them.

      • Snowhitey

        These guys just don’t get it.

        If you don’t understand the Federal Reserve System, read “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”  We are not in the economic state we’re in by accident.  We are not in any state where in by accident. 

        If you don’t understand why Ron Paul is so important to this nation, and possibly the world, listen to:

        You’ll in for the ride of your life!

        He may not only save your country, he may save your life.  Most Americans don’t have a clue as to what is really going on behind the scenes.  When they finally find out (notice I didn’t say figure it out), it will be too late.  If Paul isn’t elected, I’m considering the possibility of emmigrating.  That’s how important I think it is.

        Race is very important but there are things more important.  Freedom and liberty will give us the freedom of association.  Freedom to choose our associates, our employees, our tenants, etc. without the long arm of the government interfering.  And, who the heck wouldn’t want to get rid of the IRS?  You’re not in control of your life and you don’t even realize it.

        If you believe the system is rotten to the core, Ron Paul in 2012 and no one else!

  • Anonymous

    Keep sayin’ stupid things like this Ron, and you have no chance.  Paul has said some racial conservative things in the past (although he denies it now), and his response about birthright citizenship is spot on.

    The biggest problem is he will spend his political capital dealing with drug laws, military spending, and the Federal Reserve when the biggest issues are immigration (illegal and legal), affirmative action, and other racial issues.  Romney will be moderate on economic and military policies which should allow for more pro-immigration enforcement.  If racial conservatives keep the pressure on Romney, he may be the easiest to sway…

  • The author, Dennis Prager  is Jewish.

    • Anonymous

      Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew.   How does this affect the data delivered in the story?

      • Anonymous

        Agreed. And I vote that Amren shouldn’t publish comments consisting of meerly ad hominem attacks that some person’s views should be dismissed because he/she is Jewish, same as the Left/Neo Cons work to dismiss all of our views because we’re supposedly….


        • Anonymous

          Well actually, I don’t think that Amren ought to edit out or censor out any comment made by anyone.  It is completely anti-Jeffersonian to do so.  Only people who are afraid of what a discussion might reveal are in favor of censoring.  Successful competitors know themselves better than they know their adversaries.

          I don’t think I notice “Neocons” accusing anyone of being racist.  But by your definition ALL the Republican presidential candidates are Neocons because they will walk lockstep against “racism.”

          I personally believe that everyone is inherently racist and since negatives give definition most often, we as white race realists ought to embrace our racism and not deny it. 

          The idea that we have some different views and separations within our own camp is obvious and historically always present.  The question is; can we tolerate ourselves enough to have any chance of survival as whites, or do we attack those we see as Neocons, or Christians, Jews,  Pagans,  or even philosophical atheists?  Is there only room for whites who have ONE strict point of view?

          • I don’t think I notice “Neocons” accusing anyone of being racist. 


            No, they call us anti-semites when we reveal their true intentions. Think not? Then listen to Hannity’s show some time.

    • Anonymous

      I am so sick and tired of the “blame the Jews for everything” mindset.  They are not behind this whole conspiracy, if you will.

  • Prager might have an axe to grind against Ron Paul, and some of it might have to do with the I and J an Z business, but in this case, a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Repeating for those needing one more time:  Almost nobody goes to prison just for possessing small quantities of most illegal drugs alone.  Those who seem to be doing time for, e.g. possessing a little bit of weed, bargained down a lot of serious charges down to pleading guilty and accepting prison time for the weed possession.   The prosecutors need these victimless drug crimes and process firearms crimes because they’re safety/fallback charges in order to circumvent nullification happy black juries and reluctant witnesses (remember the St. Louis Knockout Martin Luther King story?) 

    Almost everyone in prison for drug crimes are either multiple dealers or big time traffickers.  Remember, the law presumes that people who possess at least a certain quantity of illegal drugs aren’t using all that stuff, they intend to give them or sell it to someone else (“with intent to distribute,” is the legalese.) 

    Lost in all this Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich hoopla was another piece of racial idiocy from Monday’s debate, from the other Rickroller, and his flippant remark about felons voting.  Heritage (again, not my favorite source) didn’t miss it, either:

    Rickroller II used some of the same moronic “disparate impact” reasoning that Ron Paul sometimes does, and also threw in the obligatory reference to MLK.

    • Anonymous

      While I am not for legalization of pot, and note that Ron Paul IS – I do understand the argument that even though you are correct about those in prison for being drug dealers or worse, a high number of pot users get citations and therefore misdemeanor records, and apparently at at young age.  This sets the stage for further problems with law breaking as a pattern is often set before 18.  There is some value to the argument that decriminalizing ALTOGETHER small amounts of pot would be the better choice between the risk of encouraging use and creating lifetime handicaps for so many, so early. 

      Ron Paul is for decriminalization of marijuana as part of his view of minimal government instrusion as a libertarian.  I don’t agree with it, but this is why he gets so much support from young people.   It may be clever, but it doesn’t impress me that he is a man of any particular strong set of ethics, especially since his view of health care delivery is pretty much “pay or die.”  (He is an MD and swore to the Hippocratic Oath).

      • If I were giving Ron Paul’s campaign public relations advice, I would be advising it to sell the legalization argument in terms of restoring the proper relationship between citizen and state, not carte blanche for druggies to do drugs.  After all, he is a doctor, so he has to know that other than in rare circumstances, there is no medical benefit and a lot of medical harm to using and abusing these substances.  If I were a politician running on a legalization platform, I would publicly and explicitly ask for those who are only going to vote for me because they want legal dope not to vote for me, because it’s not my intention for anyone to get hooked on this junk, and I wouldn’t want it to be said that I ascended to public office on the votes of insane mentally screwed up stoners.

        • Anonymous

          I just posted some further thoughts on this question on another post.  You might find it an interesting add to the conversation.  Perhaps the middle ground/acceptable compromise would be to legalize them, but require matching funds for anti-drug abuse campaigns.  I know, more tax dollars, bigger government, etc.  However, I am convinced that the state of America’s growing dysfunction is largely affected by our drug addled national consciousness.  As I wrote in the above post referred to here; increasing general drug use helps encourage native population replacement with sober, and often more reliable immigrants.  I want to illustrate this with something I have posted in the past;

          In California one way that Hispanics took over was through the home construction labor force.   I recall well that white contractors turned to them after many years of increasing white labor becoming unreliable due to meth use.  I knew some construction workers and saw their pattern.  They’d do speed to work fast and hard, and then do more with pot added when they went out to party after work.  This lifestyle became the culture of construction labor.  It eventually produced a white labor force that was unreliable.  I have an old friend who has been a contractor in California for many decades.  This is his story as well. 

          Of course, the other elephant in the room is the illegal use of prescription drugs.  The black market in opiates like Oxycontin is huge and has killed plenty of young white kids for some years now.  This problem ought to at least allow some doubt of the claim that legalizing illicit drugs will cut down the problem.

          What we have got, is a major threat here.  We ought not let our other political beliefs interfere as we look for a solution.  But it may be that there is really no solution and we are just witnessing the momentum of the general collapse. 

  • Anonymous

    He is not pandering to blacks, he is inoculating himself for political realities.  Please tell me there are some poli sci majors here–if deeply in debt?

    • Anonymous

      I am sick of candidates “innoculating” themselves at our expense. Whether it is Gingrich saving affirmative action, Perry getting rid of the Confederate license plates or Paul lying about blacks and crime, all these guys are the same.

      If Paul wants to pander let him pander to us. Until then don’t give this coward and liar your vote.

      • Anonymous

        He is pandering to white liberals and independents whom he is trying to get votes from. “our expense” what is it costing you?

        Here is a contradiction. There is a segment that favors the war on drugs as a proxy means to manage the inner cities–this is very expensive, and obviously, is not working. Try something else, already. Wipe the drug dealing business out–and it is a little much that Fox News can report that US troops are guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan, with an end in the homeland.

        Enough is enough.

        • Anonymous

          It is costing me as it helps spread the myth of white racism being responsible for the problems of blacks.

          • Anonymous

            Is there a constituency to bother to tailor rhetoric towards at expense to others who bother to vote?–I hope this is obvious–calculations have been made. Look at South Carolina where they mindlessly cheer on more debt financed war and misery for their sons and neighbor’s son.

            Tom Tancredo is now begging for more refugee scam artists–Marxists at that, and yet not an article on the subject even here at AmRen.

            So which is it: is the drug war a proxy for security service management of inner-city race relations or not? Why is the US military protecting the poppy crop in Afghanistan and managing the urban distribution at the homeland?

  • Paul’s still the best candidate, but the criticism is valid and needs to be said.

  • Anonymous

    We already have scores of liars in government, at all levels.  One more that is a closet white supremacist won’t make much difference.

    You may be right, but even if you are, we know that Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States.  His foreign policy commentary alone disqualifies him from the start.  He is saying some things that are good for people to hear, but the story is already out about his “former” opinions on race matters.

    I think Ron Paul may likely run on a third ticket.  This will split the conservative vote and BHO will get another term and the black hold on America will be extended and consolidated, bringing whites closer to both extinction and revolution.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t count out disaffected liberals unhappy with Obama’s string of broken campaign promises.  They could break ranks for a Paul independent run.

      Probably wishful thinking, but I’m making it a point to try a little more optimism this year….

  • Anonymous

    Paul is without question the most anti-white candidate. He sounds like Jesse Jackson on racial issues.

    His pandering is not going to win Paul any black votes and it will lose him many white votes. His numbers are already down in South Carolina.

    What do these brain-dead Republicans think is going to happen when they spit on their base?

  • A bit OT, but Andrew Breitbart and our good buddy Tim Wise are currently in a smackdown on Twitter.  Breitbart isn’t my favorite source right now, with his anti-Ron Paul histrionics, so I don’t have a horse in this race.  But it should be fun day at the track.

  • Marcy Fleming

    Dennis Praeger is a neoconman warmonger whose first loyalty is to the State of Israel. Praeger has always been the first to accuse paleos of racism.
    Ron Paul is right about the war on drugs failed century old (1913) farce. Of course, more Blacks are convicted of drugs because more Blacks are convicted of ALL CRIMES.
    Big surprise, Eh ?
    Paul is far and way the best and I speak as an Irish Jew who totally disagrees with him on abortion and God.
    Use your brains, friends, don’t fall for this neocon rot.

    • Anonymous

      OK, fine – Agreed.

      But why does Ron Paul feel the need to pander to Black drug dealers?  Why does he do this? Why do Ron Paul supporters enable this kind, sincere 80 year old patriot to do this pandering?

      • Marcy Fleming

        He’s 76 and he’s not pandering, he has always opposed these laws.

        • Anonymous

          Marcy Fleming writes:

          Marcy FlemingCollapse”He’s 76 and he’s not pandering, he has always opposed these laws.”Jackellis responds:Translation – Ron Paul has been pandering to Blacks for a long, long time and RP was a race denying libertarian idiot in his 40s, 50s, 60s and now in his late 70s.

          • Marcy Fleming

            Not true, read his speeches opposing all civil rights acts and read his Newsletters.

    • B

      So when someone you don’t like puts forth facts that are not to your linking you are supposed to just ignore them? I guess because I watched (and cringed) as Paul made these silly remarks about the death penalty and blacks that I gave no thought to who the reporter was because what was reported in the article here was consistent to what I remember hearing Paul say. Praeger’s motives are irrelevant so long as the information is accurate. 

      • Marcy Fleming

        Praeger has never been accurate on anything, he’s a neocon shill. Paul’s statistics are right but the point to remember that when drug prohibition is repealed the police can go after Blacks for the many real crimes they commit.
        Paul opposes the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The other GOP candidates support both as well as the 1990 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 ADA law. All of which Paul opposes.

  • Anonymous

    Though a long time reader as well a subscriber to AR for many a year, I am truly disgusted to see this article printed here. Anyone who cannot see through Prager’s ulterior agenda(as others have already noted)here is either blind, or more distressingly in agreement with his broader position. Many who will condemn Paul now, lionize Pat Buchanan, always prepared to forget the Ezola Foster fiasco. 

    I am so disappointed in AR right now. Whether intentional or not, printing this here does our enemies work for them. Sometimes the bigger picture gets lost in the obsession with black America’s perpetual dysfunction and what results from it.   

    • Forget Ezola Foster?  I won’t, even if I live to a thousand years old.  That was stupid to the power of stupid.

      Could Prager have left histrionics like “Anti-American” and “dark view of America” on the cutting room floor?  Yes.  Has he always had an ax to grind against Ron Paul?  Probably yes.  Here’s the sine qua non question:  Would Prager have written this screed against another Republican candidate if s/he said this about drugs and the death penalty, yet has foreign policy positions with which he agrees?  I don’t know, but like I said above, Santorum had a similar foot-in-mouth moment in that debate.

      In spite of all that, he’s telling the truth.  Ron Paul is NOT a white nationalist or even a race realist.

      • Anonymous

        Of course he isn’t. Anyone who WAS either of thing – at least openly – couldn’t be elected dog-cather in this nation these days, and we all know it.
        I do wish Paul would phrase certain things better, and resist the temptation to race-pander as he done here,  obviously trying to distance himself from those evil “racist” pamphlets, etc.

        But all in all, he is so far and away the best of the lot, I just have to be suspicious and critical of placing such an article on this site, written a man who is, to say the very least, NO FRIEND to race-realism/white-nationaislm, etc.

        Anyone who knows Prager knows what his likely motives are here. And those that wish to ignore or downplay that for fear of its alleged “anti-semitic” implications fool only themselves.(that isn’t directed at you QD) 

      • B

        The article was more than appropriate for this site. It deals with racial propaganda about blacks being unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. Would you have any problem with this article if the comments by Paul were instead by Al Sharpton? For AR to ignore such an article gives “our enemies” the ability to say this site is biased.

        • Anonymous

          For Christ’s sake – the site IS biased!!! It is SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED!!! This site is about WHITE RACIAL INTERESTS – it isn’t a neutral political debate forum!

          My God – with the site makeover, did a whole crop of new posters come with?? I’ve heard more bunk on this site since the makeover, than collectively witnessed since AR started a discussion forum!!

          • B

            This site puts forth far far more factual data then it does opinions. While the scope of the content here may focus only on certain subject matters, that does not make the site biased in any way. How is it in “WHITE RACIAL INTERESTS” for example to admit Asians have higher IQ? That isn’t biased, it’s honest.
            If the day comes that there is factual knowledge that blacks are of equal intelligence and less prone to violence,  I bet AR would publish the data. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve noticed that too.  It’s like a huge new crop of reactionary trolls that have to be educated and encouraged to think a bit critically.  IN case you wonder, I have been posting here for many years, using different handles.  Some of us long time posters have disagreements, but I hope we’re deeper than just a bunch of white people arguing among themselves because they’re just cranky old men without enough women around!

      • Anonymous

        I agree with you.  So I guess we won’t have to shoot each other if we ever meet on the street?  I’m glad.

  • Anonymous

    I had heard about these comments and they troubled me but I chalk them up to ignorance.

    How many people can know all sides of all issues if all they read in the mainstream media are the same biased, slanted opinions? Presented with the facts, I would like to believe that Mr. Paul would have the sense to see the truth.

     Considering Mr. Paul’s stance to cut off foreign aid and end foreign wars, I can see why Mr. Prager wrote this hit piece.  He too has his own biases and beliefs.

    • Anonymous

      He also like many thoughtful Americans can see what occurred in the past when we were isolationist.  This alone is the reason that Ron Paul will not be elected.  His domestic policies might be provoking needed debate, but he’s got nothing going beyond continuing to allow the world into the US while were ourselves grow more introverted as a people.  Common sense says that this is a recipe for disaster for ALL Americans and North America entirely.

  • Anonymous

    When the neocons and liberal progressives are teaming up to do hatchet jobs on a politician talking about undoing the status quo, you should smell a great big rat.  Dennis Prager will be begging on the street with his shoestrings holding his pants up if Paul wins and his policies turn out to work, because there will be no more audience for his warmongering and water-carrying for the Zionist regime.  Keep that in mind.  In this regard there’s no difference between Prager and Jesse Jackson; they both need very much for their respective gravy trains to keep running down the tracks.

    The US government is our biggest enemy. Not Ron Paul, not liberals, not blacks, nobody else. When the US government was headed up by the largest Republican majority in a lifetime, did it do much to advance our cause?  No, they almost rammed through amnesty.  The Republican administration at it’s helm took every available opportunity to make sure we knew it was the most multicultural administration in history.

    You folks need to stop being butt hurt every time someone doesn’t toe the Amren line on blacks, and look at the bigger picture.  Too many here are looking for a messiah, and they’re just not ever going to get it so they should let it go.  Paul would work to dismantle the government. The government that practices discrimination-in-all-but-name against heterosexual Christian White males. He’d rein in the Justice Department. Hate crime witch hunts would likely be curtailed. If a critical mass of Whites took it upon themselves to carve out an ethnic homeland for themselves out of territory currently part of the US, the most visible American politician that would be LEAST likely to oppose them is Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul would leave you alone. I think at this point in time, with the state of racial affairs that exists in this country today, that’s really the best we could hope for.

  • Anonymous

    I sure hope he is just playing a political game. He denies his papers, says MLK was a hero, even tho he voted against the holiday, and now this.

    Robert De niro  in Casino “I just hope it’s not someone who I think it might be. I just hope it’s not them.”

  • Anonymous

    So it appears that either Ron Paul is obfuscating, or he actually believes that Negroes are being unfairly discriminated against.  Wonder which it is?  Maybe we should ask Lew Rockwell.

    The idea that if only street drugs were legal, all would be better in America, is naive.  Legalization will only hasten the decline of whatever is left of the nation because the soon to be overall majority, and certainly the current majority of blacks and Hispanic inner city dwellers, would ramp up their dysfunctional existence, along with their associated criminal activity.  Immoral behaviors cannot be isolated; they go hand in hand in hand.  So Negroes and Hispanic gang-bangers are going to become normally behaved citizens once drugs are legal?  Is that the plan?

    As far as Prager goes, one must conclude that his primary argument against Paul is the latter’s views on foreign policy: that is, not opening up the Treasury and pledging our Military to Israel.  At the same time, he is correct in calling attention to Paul’s racial comments.

    • Marcy Fleming

      It’s worse than naive to continue to mindlessly support the 100 year old failure of the drug wars. People made the same imbecilic argument when Prohibition repeal was first proposed.
      The crime is precisely due to the illegality of the product.
      Police need to arrest Blacks for the many real crimes they commit, murder, mugging, rape and robbery. Not diverting resources to this drug war nonsense.

    • Anonymous

      Do folks like you believe there are thousands of people sitting around in this country thinking to themselves “if only drugs were legal, I’d have a needle in my arm all day!”

      People who want to do drugs are going to do them.  This was proven true during the Prohibion days and has been proven true during the War on Drugs days.  Both periods also proved efforts to restrict supply don’t work because the demand-driven price will always rise to a level that becomes attractive to people willing to risk being caught.

      So given these facts, it becomes obvious that the capital expended to fund the War on Drugs is not worth it.  Amreners have no difficulty seeing the opportunity costs of the Great Society programs; it’s the same with drug prohibition.  The repeal of the Volsted Act didn’t lead to an unrecoverable slide into debauchery.  Neither will the end of the DEA.

      • One of the favorite canards of the rabid drug warriors:  “Do you want your pilot to be high?”

        No, but I don’t want him to be drunk, either.

        • Anonymous

          This is a great point.  In the history of aviation there has only ever been one aircraft accident where a member of the flight crew tested positive for drugs: Trans-Colorado Air Flight 2286 in 1988.  The captain tested positive for cocaine.  But the data recorders showed the first officer was at the controls when the plane crashed.
          I fly recreationally and know a number of professional pilots; take my word for it, chances are if you fly regularly you’ve been on a flight where one or both pilots did not honor the old adage “eight hours, bottle to throttle.”  They’re only in trouble if they get caught, after all.

          I once took an aviation safety class and heard an anecdote about pilot selection and personality.  A major airline commissoned a study to identify qualities in their best pilots, so they could identify these qualities in applicants to the airline.  Turns out the most common shared qualities among the top pilots were hard drinking and womanizing.

  • To Everyone here:
     First to get stats. coorect black people are close to 15% of  this country pop. Look at  which will show you these facts. Next, Ron Paul is right on about our justice system.  I mean when the majority of people in prison are either people of color or poor people, yet the majority of crimes are committed by these white corporate raiders. Then it’s time to correct the problem. Also, Ron Paul is right about ending this insane war on drugs which is the equivalence of prohibition. If the insane war on drugs ended, all this crime would go away plus our city streets would be safe again. Too bad he’s not going to get the Repub. nomination or else Ron Paul woul, definitely have my vote.

    • You’re spot on.  I got a CCW permit to protect myself against Bernie Madoff.

      • To Question Diversity:
         Although you and i have differences on many issues; however, i agree with you on this. I, too, have a CCW against Bernie Madoff along with the rest of the crooks on Wall street regardless of race, color, gender, or creed. Thanks!!

        • Right over your head.  I guess you are that oblivious.  I suppose I need to autoattach all my posts with a 1-10 snark/sarcasm meter.

    • Marcy Fleming

      Great points EXCEPT Blacks have DECREASED from 14% in 2000 to 12% in 2010.
      Black women now have 60% of all US abortions.

      • To Marcy Fleming:
         Black people are 15%. Again check and you’ll see this. Right now this website is taking time to upload but once you check and you’ll see. 
              Now to Question Diversity, whether you’re being sarcastic or not i still agree. Fare thee well for now. Bye-Bye!!

        • Marcy Fleming

          Your source is WRONG. My source is the US Census which puts them at 12.3, down from 14.6 in 2000.

          • I’ve seen 12.6% in the latest census, still a far cry from 15%.


            For those people who think that black crime will disappear with the legalization of drugs, I can tell you that most of the local black crime does not involve drugs, unless you count the fact that the perps were stoned at the time they committed the crimes.

          • To Marcy Fleming:
             Not to be argumentative, but the census bureau tends to undercount groups of people that they don’t want to be around.  My source was based on legitimate scholars from universities that did the count you can look up the website to show where they got their info. from. This more legit. than the census bureau thanks.

          • Anonymous


            So the government that panders to blacks and excuses their failings at every turn is now trying to undercount blacks? Where is your source?

    • Anonymous

      The drug legalization issue is a two edged sword.  As a social equation, I’ve heard all arguments.  After considering cross mitigating issues involved, what stands out to me is that now that drug cartels are as powerful as they are (way beyond Prohibition) as an international phenomena, the idea that they will go out of business if illicit drugs are legalized is not a comparable or solid argument.  It may lead to lower prices for users, but it will not eliminate the illegal supply chain.  So the policing costs will not end.  The other really important element regarding legalization is that it gives a signal to many users and potential users, who are typically looking for permission/endorsement to be users.  The old argument that legalization would take away the allure of drug use to the young is invalid because laws would still exist for prohibiting minors from using legally.  The final and perhaps most important argument against legalization is the simple question, do we really want to add to our substance abuse problems by making it easier for people to use?  Do you really feel good about the function of a nation where so many are living sloppy, drug addled lives?  All that does is guarantee that the managing powers will continue to look to foreign nations with poorer and more sober population for immigrating and replacing our doped up and dumbed down native population.  As a white race realist, this makes legalization a path to further dispossession of whites in America and their eventual mineralization/extinction.

      Remember this, once you open a social gate, such as AA and the other Great Society style programs, it is very difficult to reverse because unless it is done quickly, it becomes part of the permanent culture – which is why Prohibition didn’t work.  So if the legalization is done, it is done, and we will be living with its consequences for as far as anyone could see into the future.

      • The obvious answer?  Require teenagers to do drugs, and declare a war on broccoli.

        Yes, I know, that hits a ten on the silly meter.  But it does have some sociological validity.

      • Anonymous

        I’ll say it again: there is not one solitary soul in the United States who wants to use drugs, but does not because they are illegal. 

        And it will absolutely eliminate the illegal supply chain.  Cigarettes are legal yet there is a black market in them as well because of taxation.  Black markets only exist because of prohibition or government meddling in markets that makes the black market cheaper.  The cost of drugs would plummet with legalization, rendering the black market no longer cost effective.

        This really is simple economics.

        • Anonymous

          Every plan I have heard of or read on the legalization of drugs calls for taxing them.  Otherwise taxpayers will be paying for the additional administration of the drugs.  As legalized they would have to at least be certified by the FDA as safe for use.  This has been discussed already.

          I lived in former Yugoslavia for several years in the 1990s and I can tell you that black markets for everything still thrive in the face of legality, even in police states.  Same goes for the Soviet Union, the Russian mafia is so powerful because they existed inside the Kremlin long before the collapse of the USSR. And they are everywhere.  They make the Mexican cartels look like little boys with squirt guns.

          The huge, international cartels that exist now would find ways, either through purchasing favor and being the legal distributors, or continuing their current activities, even both.  But they will continue.  We will be policing it one way or another, including increased damage and costs of increased use by citizens.   It has already been estimated that the cost of poor health in Americans is tallying up.  Add a new generation of drug addled youth to the work force and all you have is a good argument for their replacement by sober foreigners.

          Do you have kids?  You want them or their kids to smoke pot and try some opiates, or meth or ,….  ?  Ever seen a beautiful, nice girl turned into a drug whore?

          Your reasoning has nothing to do with economics, but theory around the issue of legalizing harmful, addicting substances.  History shows that such a theory is full of exceptions.  When Britain ruled China they legalized opium and China was destroyed.  When it recovered it did so through radical, totalitarian communism and millions and millions  of average people died miserably, and they still are not a free nation.

          Ron Paul and Libertarians make the drug legalization argument based on their overall theory of limited central government, but they do it without careful consideration or – fatally perhaps, not learning from history.

          • Marcy Fleming

            You have got to be kidding ! The consequences of any form of Prohibition are always much worse than the particular item prohibited.
            Mao killed 110 million Chinese people in 27 yrears.
            This is what you call “recovered” ?
            We need to totally decriminalize all drugs, NOT tax and regulate them through ‘legalization.’
            Read Our Right To Drugs by Dr. Thomas Szasz, who blasts both the criminalization of drugs and the forced drugging of psychiatric patients.
            Ron Paul can think outside the statist box unlike you.

          • Anonymous

            You assume the FDA would escape Ron Paul’s ire.

            Black markets exist in war zones in recently-failed Communist nations and in police states?  You don’t say?

            The Soviet Union made the Russian mafia.  It used to be called the KGB.

            Kids are already doing drugs.  Kids that want to aren’t stopped by prohibition.  It’s probably more encouragement than anything.  But the real reason they do so is because their lives are wrecked because their families are destroyed and they don’t receive any parenting.  Your beloved central federal government did that.

            You just listed and lamented a series of problems that are the result of government and you don’t seem to realize it, because your championing of government trends more toward faith than reason.  Do you think this is the first time I’ve heard a lover of Big Brother lament a series of problems created by Big Brother and exclaim that Big Brother must do something to solve them?

            You may be a smart doctor but you don’t know every damned thing about everything.  Government is little more than the biggest of the cartels.

            A quote for you: “Government is the only human enterprise that profits from failure.”

          • Snowhitey

            I can’t think of any vice that is elevated by making it illegal.  Can you?

            Destroy the black market in drugs, and you’ll destroy the problems associated with drugs.

            Ron Paul 2012!

          • Anonymous

            “You have got to be kidding ! The consequences of any form of Prohibition
            are always much worse than the particular item prohibited. ”

            > No, not always.  Having been a doctor as a lifelong career, I have seen a lot of alcohol related deaths, more than even drugs.  I survived a horrendous drunk driving accident (rear ended by a drunk at high speed) many years ago.  As an anti substance abuse oriented health care provider who also has law enforcement people in my family circle, I have to disagree with the notion that in this particular case, general historical comparisons are dangerous.

            “Mao killed 110 million Chinese people in 27 yrears.
            This is what you call “recovered” ?
            We need to totally decriminalize all drugs, NOT tax and regulate them through ‘legalization.’ ”

            I wish people like you would read entire posts before blasting off half-cocked.  It would help you to think outside the box a little, and add some real historical perspective.  I indicated that radical communism was the direct result of British colonialism as well as Western exploitations in the 19th century.

            Our Right To Drugs by Dr. Thomas Szasz, who blasts both the
            criminalization of drugs and the forced drugging of psychiatric

            > I know all about it.  I am doctor against drug use and it proliferation.  If people like you and Ron Paul had any real depth of thought, you’d know that historically, once you open a Pandora’s Box, it is very hard to shut it.

            “Ron Paul can think outside the statist box unlike you.”

            > Ron Paul is not thinking outside of the box on this issue.  Legalization of recreational and illicit drugs is a VERY OLD ONE.  And today’s advocates use the same arguments that were made 40 years ago, only enhanced.  Also, we have experimented with legalization in some states like California.  All it did was increase crime near outlets.

            The businesses that currently  produce “medical marijuana products have no real quality control, even for things like fungus, and things that could be harmful to users.

            You and people like you have NO real idea of the subject you are discussing.

          • Anonymous

            “You assume the FDA would escape Ron Paul’s ire.”

            > No I don’t.  I think Ron Paul might be crazy enough to let any sort of substance or untested product to be sold, leaving the responsibility and risk solely to the maker and user.  I suppose he isn’t looking at anything like TORT REFORM.  He probably has many supporters who are lawyers.  Litigation already has courts backed up, just imagine the new career opportunities for attorneys Ron Paul represents.

            “Black markets exist in war zones in recently-failed Communist nations and in police states?  You don’t say?
            The Soviet Union made the Russian mafia.  It used to be called the KGB.”

            > Blacks markets have existed every since rulers tried to collect “taxes” from its subjects.  Those failed zones have existed long before the advent of communism.  They came into being during Russia’s long history of  oppression and chronic shortages, (Plus a history of Islamic incursion in the south for slave trading, etc.).  The USSR only helped enhance the power of this old phenomena.  The Balkans (I lived there a few years) have a very large and old black market culture.  What forced its development was 500 years of oppressive Ottoman Turkish rule.

            I just love it when people come back with quick replies, thinking they really know something about history.

    • Anonymous

      “yet the majority of crimes are committed by these white corporate raiders.”

      One of these days I’m going to need to see a source on this ridiculous claim from the leftists or I’m going to declare it banned for all time.

      • Hey, think about Bernie madoff, Ray Stanford, the late John De lorean etc.
        Those are the folks making your life miserable. However, keep pointing your finger at the ” savage coloreds”. If the type of society you want gets into power, you better find a cardboard box, sleeping bag, and the nearest heat grate to sleep over. Also, be prepared to wait in long lines at the soup kitchen. That’s what your
        W.N. dream world will be like.  Believe me if you dare. Good luck in it!!

        • Anonymous

          JOHN DELOREAN?  Oh that deserves a big LOL.  I hope the moderator allows it. 
          You just keep on proving your own ignorance.  DeLorean was a victim of entrapment at the hands of the FBI.  He didn’t actually do anything but was pushed all the way by FBI informants.  He was however the father of the muscle car, which has greatly enriched my life. 
          And even if DeLorean really did traffic dope to save his company, I have a hard time seeing how this hurts me more than the black “friends” I used to have when I was young and stupid that used to steal from my home.
          Bernie Madoff hurt a bunch of people who were stupid and greedy enough to believe in his Ponzi scheme.  In my opinion that is just how painful stupidity should be.  He’s in prison, his son killed himself and his name is ruined.  I’d say he’s taken his medicine.
          I don’t even know who the hell Ray Stanford is, so if he’s hurting me he’s really sneaky about it.

          Of course I could have just saved myself the trouble and referred you to Figure 12 on Page 10 of The Color of Crime, which shows Black multiples of three to five times the White incarceration rate for white collar crimes…. 

          • Problem is, Madoff engineered his scheme to keep his returns high enough to keep people interested, but low enough to keep enough people from being suspicious.  It was still a Ponzi scheme, though, and it had to fall apart some time.

        • Zorro

          Bernie Madoff didn’t blow torch a 12 year old boy to death in Texas, named Jonathan Foster, and for a reference do a search for his name on the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website.

          Bernie Madoff, et al. didn’t viciously beat a 64 year old Vietnam Veteran who is blind in one eye, from combat during the War, nor did they commit the horrific Christian-Newsome murders, or that of the Witchita Five, or most recently of a woman in Wisconsin who was repeatedly raped and then beaten to death with a baseball bat. No, your precious black and brown animals did that.

          Bernie Madoff took money, life savings. These black and brown people took lives, in the most depraved way.

  • Tom1221

    Brilliant comment- Paul in and of himself may not be the great White hope, but his agenda will do a great deal of damage to those who would seek to impose their will on us through state power- and state power is really the only recourse for those who want to force corruption on a nation.

  • Anonymous

    Bannister writes:

    “First of all, Sarkozy ALSO told the French people that is was “their duty” to miscegenate and have babies with black people! How insane is that?”

    jackellis responds: 

    I am fully aware that Sarkozy is a double dealing , Jewish Neo Conservative who gets elected promising to crack down on Black and Algerian Arab crime/immigraton in French banlieues (French word for slum), then makes speeches calling to unite both sides of the Mediterranean (including all of Muslim Arab Algeria) in free zone – where there will be free movement of goods and people (mass invasion of unskilled Algerian Arab Muslim men in to France).

    This is what Neo Conservatives do – talk out of both sides of their mouths, making appeals to our White people on issues of crime and national defense, then turning around to screw us on immigration, race mixing etc.

    My point is there is no reason to give Neo Conservatives any undeserved openings by being soft on Black crime, insane on non White immigration like Ron Paul and most Libertarians do all the time.

    Why is (ok he’s a young 76 years old) Ron Paul campaigning in South Carolina by promising to turn lose all the Black gang members, criminals convicted of selling hard drugs? That’s not a winning issue to attract White voters in South Carolina or in any state, and Ron Paul isn’t going to win any Black votes by pandering to Blacks, trying to convince the MSM mainstream media that he isn’t “RACIST” talking this libertarian nonsense.

    Ron Paul and all race denying Libertarians need to get their old *#&# beat by Black thugs at the Wisconsin State fair – that’s the only hope of getting some racial common sense beaten in to them.

    Pathetic folks, really pathetic!

  • nra

    Ron Paul is no leftist. That is just silly. He is one of the handful of politicians who give a damn about the Constitution and the American Folk.

  • Anonymous

    I DO agree with you that with Ron Paul as president, the U.S. as we know it now.   Without a strong Fed the nation would further Balkanize, and quickly.  State governments would cease to be, and  likely a civil war would eventually erupt and foreign nations would add to the misery through things like Al Qaeda style  terrorist attacks and even perhaps military invasion from the south.  I do think that these things are inevitable.  I also think that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for this outcome, so maybe I should vote for him?  Perhaps I am a coward for not wanting to see this happen when I know it’s going to anyway?  I’m stuck.

    • Whew.  I’m so glad someone recognized the benefits of a strong Federal government.  Thankfully the one we have has precluded our racial dispossession through mass non-white immigration and other policies.  I’m so glad it was strong enough to prevent things like 19 Muslims hijacking airplanes and ramming them into WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon.  We have a lot to be thankful for, and our omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent central government is first on the list.

    • Anonymous

      Why would state governments disappear without the Feds?
      They existed before it did, after all.
      And nobody is going to invade the United States.  This is hysteria up there with the irrational fear of the Islamobomb being launched at us from Iran.  An invasion would require the greatest logistical effort in the history of man and no one nation other than the United States is capable of mounting such an effort.  Also, air superiority has been the key to success on the battlefield since WWII and I seriously doubt the Mexican Air Force and its F-5 Tigers pose much of a threat to the F-22.
      Much of the rest of the world is going to collapse right with us anyway, they’re going to have bigger fish to fry.

    • Anonymous

      Ha, ha,… sarcasm noted.  But regardless of your valid points, the idea that central government is only there for ceremonial purposes was tested in the years 1860-1865.  When Jefferson Davis turned to the drafting of Southern states and proposals of taxing, the theory of a weak, decentralized government was debunked.    Or to put it otherwise, the Union victory proved the theory of a strong (enough) Federal government.

      Aside from that, let me remind you that it the largest periods of growth for the Federal government was during Republican tenures (Regan most notable).  AND it was Regan who first used Amnesty for illegals.

      As for the Libertarian ideas, they seem more reactionary and anarchist than anything.  I just see increased local chaos with Ron Paul. 

      Also with RP as president, I assume we will ignore Iran’s nuclear ambitions, so the game will shift to detecting things like suitcase bombs at our borders and ports of entry.  I can really believe that a Ron Paul styled decentralized government would do a better job!  (Kaboom!  Sarcasm returned).

    • ignore Iran’s nuclear ambitions, so the game will shift to detecting
      things like suitcase bombs at our borders and ports of entry

      That’s called Sanity. 

      If Tehran is enriching uranium for peaceful energy production purposes, none of our business.  If they’re doing it to develop a conventional nuclear bomb to keep in country, none of our business.  If they attain a conventional nuke, then MAD comes into play.  In fact, Tehran getting a conventional nuke might serve to stop its apocalyptic religious rhetoric.  (Hint:  I’m nowhere near as sarcastic in person that I am online, because I’m carrying a gun around). 

      The time to start panicking is if Tehran distributes their enriched uranium in suitcases and deploys them around the world, or sends the stuff to Latin American regimes hostile to us to make dirty bombs.  The way to prevent the second scenario is to do the Robert Lindsay and start making nice with the left wing regimes in Latin America.

    • Anonymous

      “Why would state governments disappear without the Feds?
      They existed before it did, after all.”

      Fill me in on when there was NO Federal government.  I recall a president named Washington, who had first been the leader of a revolution to form the Federal Union of the states that formed simultaneously.

      But more to the point; We already have failing states.  Without the support of the Fed for funds and credit, they would have collapsed into anarchy already.  We already have the specter of foreign governments currying favor with states in violation of Federal laws regarding national  subterfuge.  (In the Southwest at least).

      It is easy to see your cartoon imagery of a Hollywood styled US military response to ANY invasion.  But let me tell you that we have had Mexican forces in the country in both earlier and modern history, just last year there were several incursions. This is not to mention the Mexican subterfuge of several border states.  For those who imagine their semi automatic weapons and sheet rock homes are any defense – and this goes for me too – we are suffering from overconfidence.

      *IF you follow the Chittum CW2 analysis, once the Fed is weakened enough and funds cut enough (as they would under Paul), this combined with extant racial and other tensions would see the CW begin within the Armed forces.  Chittum for example advises not living anywhere within ten miles of a military installation because of the fighting that will ensue.  Many long time Amren posters are familiar with the Chittum predictions and they are alarmingly coming true since he wrote them in 1995.

      And once the U.S. is in chaos, don’t you think for one minute that China would not think of taking advantage.  Refer to my other posts regarding the liklihood of Iranian suitcase bombs over missile delivery.  We’d have weaker ports of entry without a strong Fed oversight and we already have lots of border leaks that would be even harder for broke states to deal with alone.

      With no or little Federal government, natural disasters will see longer or ZERO recovery of affected regions.  There is a huge amount to consider.

      So many reactive replies…… try thinking things about a bit.

    • Anonymous

      To Question Diversity;

      “If Tehran is enriching uranium for
      peaceful energy production purposes, none of our business.  If they’re
      doing it to develop a conventional nuclear bomb to keep in country, none
      of our business. ”

      > Well, I guess we just disagree on that one.  Once they develop one, it is too late.

       “If they attain a conventional nuke, then MAD comes
      into play.  In fact, Tehran getting a conventional nuke might serve to
      stop its apocalyptic religious rhetoric.  (Hint:  I’m nowhere near as
      sarcastic in person that I am online, because I’m carrying a gun around.”

      > So do I.  But I take your sarcasm as done in a good natured way, as mine is intended, while opening the discussion further.

      > Nothing has stopped the Islamic ranting.  I once knew the guy who was in charge of Global satellite surveillance in the Persian Gulf region as a military subcontractor for Northrop/Gruman.  He was there in 1978 and had to lay on the floor of his compound to miss being hit by bullets.   You  misunderstand the mindset in that part of the world; When your opponent shows weakness, you advance, when your opponent arms you either through negligence or ignorance, you use it as a means to your ends.  You are imagining an Islamic tradition of the Western style of REASON.  It isn’t there.  If they get a nuke, they won’t likely use a conventional one, they’ll do what they’ve been doing; use non-national nations as agents,  with regimes we need to retain relationships with.  BTW, the probability of suitcase bombs has been discussed already at top levels in the US Dept of Defense and the Pentagon and they have NO implementable plan to deal with it, but know it is the most probable scenario.

      “The time to start panicking is if Tehran distributes
      their enriched uranium in suitcases and deploys them around the world,
      or sends the stuff to Latin American regimes hostile to us to make dirty
      bombs.  The way to prevent the second scenario is to do the Robert
      Lindsay and start making nice with the left wing regimes in Latin
      America. ”

      > It will be too late then.  And just how do we make friends with Latin American regimes that are already traditionally Marxist and  share with Cuba an irreversible hatred?  Just a few days ago Hugo Chavez joked about nuking America.  Do we let more Hispanics into the U.S. and make illegals citizens? You see the practicality of such solutions.

    • How to make nice with the leftist nutcases in Latin America?

      Assure them that we won’t use the CIA to overthrow them or weaken their power.  On top of that, endorse that ideology as necessary for Indoamericans.  I only wish Mexico had a strong leftist regime; if they did, then they wouldn’t be encouraging their people to migrate northward.

  • Anonymous

    Well, that IS the problem; there isn’t much out there to be positive about.  For white race realists, there isn’t much to look forward to.  I also think that disaffected liberal will never-the-less vote for Obama.  Their dogmatic positions are just as well wired in as the most rancorous conservative.

    I think that what IS important is for US to NOT fall out among ourselves discussing this as much as can be helped.

    • Anonymous

      I strongly disagree. There is lots out there to be positive about. White voters in the US South took back their state houses, Governerships most Congress and US Senators this time as White Republicans. Good job.

      The Cold War is over – no more fears of White vs White world wars in Europe.

      Swiss People’s Party and other Nationalist/populist parties are doing great in Europe (just not in England/UK)

      Whites dominate middle and heavier weights in boxing – White boys can fight.

      Chicago lost ~ 200,000 poor Black citizens from 2000 – 2010.

      The cursed MSM – Mainstream Media has lost more and more credibility.

      Read the New York Times Obits and read about all the anti White folks from the 1960s and 70s that died.

      Whiter Hispanic women are marrying my White guy neighbors in their 40s and early 50s – good looking White kids.

      Now if only we could get race denying, idiot Libertarians to stop making fools of themselves in public!

    • Anonymous


      “I strongly disagree. There is lots out there to be positive about. White
      voters in the US South took back their state houses, Governerships most
      Congress and US Senators this time as White Republicans. Good job.” ………… etc.

      Well, to me your list is a drop of water in a bucket, a grain of sand….

      As a race realist, I am a realist first.  Here is a reply to the old optimist/pessimist proverb;

      “The optimist sees the glass half-full, while the pessimist sees the glass as half-empty.  But the realist knows that pretty soon, they’ll be another dirty glass to wash.”

      The white population is shrinking world wide and extant white nations are being converted to non-white.  This isn’t going to stop because we’ve had a few victories.  But it isn’t like us to not fight, regardless.  Therefore, I encourage you.

  • Anonymous

    jackellis;One item;  It isn’t merely Neocons who speak (or act) contradictorily.  Remember it was Regan in 1986 who provided the first amnesty campaign.  Not only did that allow a huge amount of illegals to remain, but it created the idea that the U.S. could be overwhelmed and forced to give amnesty whenever the issue arose again – and they knew it would.  I cannot begin to list all the corporations who have been using illegal labor  in order to make more profits and bust unions.  Now that this door is closing or at least under fire, the asylum system is being used to bring in groups like Somalis for cheap labor.You can’t just lay the blame on liberals or even Neocons.  I bet Sarkozy has to listen to huge numbers of French corporate leaders who scream about how difficult it is to find French willing to work, or work very hard. 

    I’ve lived in Europe and seen how it is. French people (like many others) are benefits oriented – maybe more than any other labor force in Europe.  From all I gather, French women are marrying or at least miscegenating at huge rates.  I think that Sarkozy AND the French government have come to the conclusion that since native French are ruined as a good labor force and Muslims are problematic, creating a new mongrel labor force is the next experiment.  (And bound to fail).  I know that the French government pays women to have babies, so many young women have babies out of wedlock with Africans and other non-French as fathers because French men don’t want the legal burdon, and the immigrants are also supported by the government welfare state.  I know this is true, I just spoke with a friend who owns property in France and is married to a French woman.It’s a real tragedy.  I wish Marine Le Pen good luck.

  • Dear Gawking European:
     Your analysis is right on. Heck, to take it a step further, the U.S. is in the same shape the
    Roman empire was just before collapse in 476  A.D. However, i wouldn’t gloat if i were you because your societies are only one generation away from America. Think about that and then work towards a rational solution that will help all people regardless who they are. So long for now.

  • You’re recommending dog whistling politics.  That is really risky from a communications standpoint, because when you dog whistle to 10 different people, they will get 10 different implicit messages.  Even when you say what you mean directly, a lot of people still get confused.

    Obama didn’t have to dog whistle to get almost 100% of the very jazzed black vote.  All he had to do was be black and show that he had a serious chance to win.

    • Anonymous

      Dennis Prager, being tied as he is to the mainstream Jewish community, has been an advocate for the neocon foreign policy agenda.

      However, he has also spoken out in favor of traditional American values and culture (Christianity, etc.), and has been opposed to the welfare state for decades — in stark contrast to the neocons. He should be given some credit for that.

      The neocons, on the other hand, do not speak out in favor of Christianity (or any aspect of traditional American culture, for that matter), and are pro-immigration and the welfare state. This is because there is nothing “conservative” about them, save for their willingness to wage one war after another in the Middle East.

  • Anonymous

    The other candidates are all for the globalist, neocon foreign policy paradigm; that’s true. I like his small-government economic platform as well.

    But isn’t he just as bad as the rest on the open borders/immigration issue? I thought he was once opposed to America’s out-of-control immigration situation, but then changed his tune during this election.

  • Anonymous

    Don Lew writes:

    “If Ron Paul says, “Blacks have been a huge negative effect on America.  We Americans can save trillions of dollars if we made a one time payment and shipped them all back to Africa.  As President that will be one of my goals. He would get many votes from honest Americans.  But he would lose many more votes than he would get.”

    Jackellis replies:

    OK, I agree that those comments would be considered “extreme” in the South Carolina GOP primary and lose RP votes.  But RP is not winning any votes by pandering to Blacks and pushing ridiculous Libertarian/Liberal nonsense that the large numbers of Blacks in US prisons is mostly due to the RACIST nature of the US criminal justice system that unfairly picks on Black people. Being a clueless Libertarian/Liberal idiot on crime and race – pandering to Blacks, that does not win votes in the South Carolina GOP primary or in any states with White voters. 

    American Renaissance is a magazine devoted to promoting the legitimate rights of White Indo European Americans and Whites still living alive on planet earth year 2012. I request that Amren readers encourage White candidates to take fair, positive positions on issues involving crime and race and please stop enabling, confused old White men to make ridiculous excuses for Black criminals who rob, rape, assault, murder, sell hard drugs to our people.

    14 words.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul is not the best public speaker.  He seems to forget that he’s not talking to an audience of Austro-libertarians.  I don’t think he’s very good at distilling his ideas for consumption by the layperson.  I also think a lot of this pandering comes from his campaign committee which boasts a number of younger people who take race issues for granted and have lapped up a lot of the government propaganda on this issue.  It’s extremely hard to get through university unscathed by this stuff these days.  Sometimes your very enrollment is dependent on toeing the line, and if you do that long enough eventually you will glean the characteristics of the people who exert this control.  It’s like a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

      None of these things are indicative of how he would function as president though.  That’s the key issue.  I really don’t care what he says or how he feels about blacks.  I care about him taking the helm of the ship of state and steering it back into the waters of a Constitutional republic where it belongs.  This is the best thing that could happen for a race realist/white nationalist.  That’s the ball on which we need to keep our eyes.

      You want a zealot.  A zealot has absolutely zero chance of being elected to national office in this country.  Would you feel better if your candidate said all the things you wanted him to and received zero votes except from the people who frequent this site?  That’s what they call a pyrrhic victory.

  • Anonymous

    And what exactly will you do when the 70 years of oursourcing your defense to America comes to an end?

    In case you haven’t noticed your monetary union is voiding its bowels.  Don’t gloat, the Atlantic has gotten very small in the past 100 years.  Small enough to be jumped by this kind of catastrophe.

    • Anonymous

      Gawking European;

      With Europe in even deeper trouble all around, I don’t get what you’re gawking at?  Have you fallen to the Euro-habit of criticizing America so that you can forget your own problems?

  • Anonymous


  • Zorro

    The man is saying what he has to say. Let him get in and then dump all the Welfare and Section 8  Housing etc., and then see how Leftists will paint him.

  • Zorro

    Watch them call him a Racist, next. This guy can’t win, no matter what he does.

    The Liberals hate Ron Paul, and the Neo-Cons do, too. What that should tell the average American is that Ron Paul is their man, and good for the country.

  • Anonymous

    I understand your point, but reading more books on crime and race, reading more honest articles, more crime and race statistics – this doesn’t work to change the talk of Liberal or Libertarian intellectuals. These Liberal/Libertarian intellectuals have carved out successful careers by avoiding, evading racial realities. Look what happened when Ron Paul was outed for publishing racial reality comments in his newsletter in the 1990s – Ron Paul was threatened with ex-communication; RP faced the reality that he would be banned from the MSM media, become a societal out-caste as an evil RACIST.

    All this fuss over some honest comments about Black criminals murdering and looting in the LA Rodney King Black riots.

    Ron Paul likes being on TV, he likes being invited to debates and his hard core group of Libertarian supporters like seeing him on TV, like having him invited to debates.

    We should all expect Ron Paul to continue to pander to Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims – just so his Libertarian/Constitutionalist show can go on and on.

    As for me, I’m tired of MSM TV shows – we’ll do well at the local level and we’re winning by finding good, younger candidates and by turning off the TV.

    Let’s turn off the TV folks.

    • WR the elder

      The racially controversial articles that appeared in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not written by Ron Paul.  One of them has the byline James B. Powell and given its textual similarities with the other “racist” articles he is probably the author of all the articles that have the mass media in such a lather.  Nor was Paul the editor of the newsletter during the span of time the articles appeared (Lew Rockwell was).   Paul was the publisher but whether he even read all the newsletters that came out is in doubt.

      That all said, there is no doubt that Paul is sick of the “Ron Paul is a racist” meme and is doing a certain amount of triangulation to avoid it.   There is nothing the left wing media loves to do more than pin the “racist” label on somebody.

  • Zorro

    Excellent post. I could almost swear I wrote that myself.

  • jeffaral

    Ron Paul, as a libertarian(whatever that means)  is so bad as the other candidates.  Please racial realists, don’t lose your precious time with him!

  • Zorro

    Europe is already taking on water, and sinking fast. Don’t be so smug, or you can forget that life jacket and life boat we could send you. Maybe.

  • Marcy Fleming

    WhiteKnight, you are one of the most consciously obtuse persons I’ve ever met.
    The drug war is a total 100 year old failure. Prohibition never works in any area.
    There’s nothing to debate here. Case long since closed.
    The Brits were out of China a half century before Mao came to power. They had nothing to do with Mao’s Communist Mass Murders unequaled in world history.
    Chiang himself probably killed 10 million from 1927-1949 and the Japanese that or double that.
    You remind me of Chomsky blaming Nixon & Kissinger for Pol Pot’s killing half of Cambodia.
    The rest of you anti-Paul people can just not vote, I don’t have any problem with that.

  • Anonymous

    For Ron Paul’s “faults” he is the ONLY candidate that has been consistent in his beliefs throughout the years.  Many of his solutions would indirectly make things better for us whites.   
    Please do not forget that Ron Paul is aware that he has to pander to the so-called “mainstream media” to avoid being “eaten alive” by them . . . being taken out of context, etc.  Ron Paul HAS to stay “race neutral” in order to “stay in the game”. 
    He is against much of the “civil rights (for some) laws . . . noting that they trample on “freedom of association” . . .
    Illegal immigration would be sharply curtailed by the loss of “benefits”; it would no longer be economically advantageous to come here.  Without welfare benefits and other “social services”, there would be little benefit to coming here.
    As for the drug legalization argument, freeing up prison cells for REAL criminals, reversing the corrosive effects on our Constitution (warrentless searches, confidential “informants”, the prison-industrial-justice system, crooked law enforcement, etc.).  During our first “drug war” (prohibition), end-users of alcohol were generally not prosecuted for possession.  All the present “drug war” has done is made some very nasty people rich.  In addition, all legal proscriptions against drug use in the workplace would remain in effect. 
    As to foreign affairs, it is sickening to see the rest of the candidates pander to Israel, even to claiming that they wish they were jewish (Ms. Bachmann).  I have no problem with Israel conducting its own “foreign policy”, just leave MY country out of it.  Eliminating foreign aid to ALL countries would actually be beneficial to Israel as the “apron strings” to the USA would be cut.  Ron Paul would also see to it that our “foreign entanglements” (American military bases on foreign soil) would come to an end.  It would be easy to station our military on our borders . . .
    Ron Paul is not perfect, but, compared to the rest of the crowd, he is the only real choice.