GOOGLE RON PAUL

From a liberal rag, some Ron Paul. I recommend you read it, but it's hella long, so here are some exerpts:

Quote:

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."

[...]

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."

[...]

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 Republican 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.

[...]

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

[...]

Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

[...]

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."

Now, I know what some of you are going to say. If you want to see the special newsletters, they have 'em.

So how do you feel about this? Is it a smear campaign, or did you already know how fucking insane Paul is?

Most amazing jew boots

I don't think much of Ron Paul, but I'm not exactly about to take anything from The New Republic at face value.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I just skimmed through, but his suggested alternate names for New York made me laugh.

How ya doing, buddy?

knk msnbc also has a copy of the newsletters, although I didn't see them on their website when I last looked. I have no doubt that they're real.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

To be fair to Paul, it's highly possible that someone else (like Lew Rockwell) wrote them and used his name, and that Paul doesn't actually believe what's in them.

At the same time, what does it say about Paul if he couldn't bother check what was being published with his name on them, and just what kind of people he had let use them? The fact that he said he "doesn't know" who wrote them and that he somehow can't find out seriously damages his credibility.

This, combined with his poor finish in the New Hampshire primary, effectively ends his campaign.

Most amazing jew boots

The thing of it is that Paul did know who wrote the letters. He was an aide who was fired, and the style of writing in the letters and statements from former Paul staffer Eric Dondero confirm that the author was Rockwell, who has been an advisor to Paul in the past.

I talked about this a lot already in my chocojournal, but the Mises Institute is pretty fucking awful. There was an Austrian economics organization in Romania that considered calling themselves the Hayek Institute because Rockwell has so thoroughly smeared any association with Mises. Mises himself fled the Nazis, and now Herman Hoppe, a Mises Institute author, is a holocaust denier.

Around 1988 Rothbard suddenly became anti-semitic and started appealing to far right paleocon sentiments. The idea was that using a message of hate would foment a class war that could overthrow the state. Of course it was fucking insane and would never work, but it's smeared Rothbard's positive contributions and Rockwell has carried on the tradition.

I doubt that Paul is a racist and just has a lot of racist friends, but he is practically a neoconfederate, which basically means he shouldn't be president ever.

The fact that libertarians have known about these letters for a long time but their support has only waned once it's become an MSM talking point is very telling about the dangers of personality cults.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The fact that libertarians have known about these letters for a long time but their support has only waned once it's become an MSM talking point is very telling about the dangers of personality cults.

I doubt this fine bit of propaganda is aimed at libertarians. It's aimed at progressives who are breaking off from the Democrat candidates to support Paul, or openly calling for a break with the Democrats because of the War. The liberals must be pretty worried about losing progressive support. They probably should be. The Republicans really got hurt politically when Roosevelt pulled them out of the party.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I doubt this fine bit of propaganda is aimed at libertarians.

Not sure if I'm breaking this to you, but this isn't propaganda. Everything I know about Rockwell and the Mises Institute suggests that Paul is probably a neoconfederate, especially considering his We The People Act.

What happens to libertarians is the association with Paul. Libertarians latched themselves onto his bandwagon before everybody understood that he's more of a paleoconservative than a real libertarian, and the association of Paul with libertarianism in the public sphere will discredit the movement since libertarians have come to the defense of Paul in the past. Even if, to be fair, that defense has usually been an answer to criticisms of his foreign policy, and not allegations of racism, though I was a denier when the news of the letters first broke.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Not sure if I'm breaking this to you, but this isn't propaganda. Everything I know about Rockwell and the Mises Institute suggests that Paul is probably a neoconfederate, especially considering his We The People Act.

Again. This little bit in the New Republic is meant to discredit progressives calling for support of Paul. That's where the real propaganda resides. It's aimed at under-minding progressives supporting Paul.

"HOW DARE THEY SUPPORT A CANDIDATE THAT IS SO RACIST, ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

Libertarians have no other viable candidate to support. Progressives on the other hand are a different story.

Most amazing jew boots

Ah, I see what you're saying. Regardless, libertarians shouldn't be supporting a candidate just because he wants to end the war in Iraq and the War on Drugs. We shouldn't have to form a coalition with 9/11 Truthers and Stormfront to do so, either.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Watts

Libertarians have no other viable candidate to support. Progressives on the other hand are a different story.

Ok look, I've seen you describe yourself as a progressive several times. Could you please clarify your core stances and whatnot and why you identify yourself as progressive? Maybe I've been incorrectly thinking of you as a massive right winger. Progressives fight for things like animal and gay rights and whatnot right?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RABicle

Ok look, I've seen you describe yourself as a progressive several times. Could you please clarify your core stances and whatnot and why you identify yourself as progressive? Maybe I've been incorrectly thinking of you as a massive right winger. Progressives fight for things like animal and gay rights and whatnot right?

Oh no, I'm not trying to describe myself as a progressive. I don't think I have said anything to the contrary either. Just because I read their stuff doesn't make me one.

And yeah progressives fight for that kinda stuff. As well as certain state issues like Death with Dignity or Medicinal Marijuana laws which are very agreeable to my mindset. Despite being a Republican.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Brady I think he really is racist, if not as racist as many of his supporters and the excerpts suggest. I don't have any interest in arguing how much, quantitatively, he hates darkies, wimmin and the gays, because that really isn't the main thing. Reading the article I was surprised how much of a conspiracy crackpot survivalist he is, and as you said, the neoconfederate business is terrifying. It really says some big things that he was able to have a political career for this long.

Originally Posted by Watts

Again. This little bit in the New Republic is meant to discredit progressives calling for support of Paul. That's where the real propaganda resides. It's aimed at under-minding progressives supporting Paul.

Honestly, it really doesn't take that much to discredit a bunch of newly minted college students who think the Iraq war is bad, taxes are high and that we should legalize it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Reading the article I was surprised how much of a conspiracy crackpot survivalist he is,

I still get newsletters from the campaign, and it seems like there are more and more codewords for the Infowars people to pick up on.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I don't fear racism or homophobia. I don't like them, and wouldn't vote for politicians who blatantly support them, but they don't affect me and I'm rather selfish. What I do fear is Paul gutting all of the actual useful federal agencies such as the EPA and running around acting like a retard screaming 'the South will rise again'. Which is why I despise the man. Kucinich is everything everyone loves about Paul minus the batshit insanity.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

I don't fear racism or homophobia. I don't like them, and wouldn't vote for politicians who blatantly support them, but they don't affect me and I'm rather selfish.

That's charming, it really is. Do you think racists give you some sort of special bump since you're a white heterosexual male? You're also a fucking atheist who doesn't hate gays, jews or darkies. You're a liberal which means you love Big Government. You believe in evolution - not saying Ron Paul doesn't but a lot of these types don't and they hate anyone who does. They hate people who are pro-choice, and I'm presuming you are.

basically you're selfish but also not very well educated

birds of a feather I guess

RON PAUL

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

You believe in evolution - not saying Ron Paul doesn't

He doesn't.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I accept your apology.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

I don't fear racism or homophobia. I don't like them, and wouldn't vote for politicians who blatantly support them, but they don't affect me and I'm rather selfish.

Boy, that William Jennings Bryan sure was a card, huh?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Kucinich is everything everyone loves about Paul minus the batshit insanity.

This is what I don't get. Why are all these lefties supporting Paul when Kucinich or even Gravel share their anti-war views, and align with their other issues?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Because a lot of lefties are stupid. Also we cling to this idea that a Libertarian being the Republican candidate would be better thana conservative, to make the election a win win.

But yeah, any self respecting socialist endorses Kucinich and Gravel.
I'm sure we're all familiar withthe political compass

I'm the big dot obviosuly, the one just belowand to the right of me, she reckons Ron Paul is top shit, despite his veiws falling well in the purple corner. I told her that she's stupid.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Gravel supports the Fair Tax.

Kucinich endorses a bill that would ban psychotronic space weapons.

Batshit insanity, what?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

I accept your apology.

My point was that there are far better reasons to not support the man without having to dig to things other people said in his newsletter.

FELIPE NO

No, your point was that since you're white, racists don't have a thing on you.

I mean I really don't have to embellish that, I think it stands on its own.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Gravel supports the Fair Tax.

So does Huckabee and a lot of other conservatives. The Fair Tax is something a lot of left and right wingers can agree on. Just for different reasons.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Kucinich endorses a bill that would ban psychotronic space weapons.

Dude, we're totally gonna need those against the aliens.

Jam it back in, in the dark.