Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Tuesday, 19 February 2008

Theobromophile has asked me for some links illustrating the “Neo-Nazi” support that cause me to cast a jaundiced eye toward the possibility of a Ron Paul presidency.

As Reason magazine points out, it’s a little weird that numerous racist statements appeared in Ron Paul’s newsletter, with his name on them, and yet he seems to have been unaware of the content of his newsletters, and unaware of who wrote them.  You don't find a lot of strenuous opposition to Ron Paul there - but occasionally you can find an opinion piece there or two with some tepid dithering about how much the Neo-nazis love Ron Paul, or the theocrats, or racist statements appearing under his name in his publication that he controls.

For instance Ron Paul on Dr. King Then vs. Now

But, even if you accept his assertions that he isn’t a racist, didn’t write the racist literature, and doesn’t know who wrote it…that’s not a ringing qualification for the presidency…then again, given the Reagan presidency, maybe it IS.  Maybe “I didn’t know what was happening on my watch, and I don’t know who did what, and I can’t tell you who is responsible” is a presidential trait. (Some publications have alluded, based on confidential sources that the writer of the racist statements was Lew Rockwell, whose online website Ron Paul has written numerous articles for…and who WAS Ron Paul’s ghostwriter for a time).

There’s no way to know as long as Ron Paul doesn’t know who did it, or won’t say.  Generally, an overview of the comments found on the internet has been a flurry of fingers all pointing different directions.  Nobody who is in a position to know who wrote a number of racist statements over a period of years under Ron Paul’s name seems to want to go on record as saying who did it.  At lease, not that I’ve been able to find.  And who can blame them? Given the calumny and invective directed against anyone who says anything about it?

But even though racist statements appearing on his newsletter, under his name, going without retraction or correction would be sufficient to nail a liberal…the assertion that he didn’t know what was going on, and didn’t know who did it, seems to be enough for his supporters. On maybe it’s just that the people who would care haven’t given it a lot of thought because they don’t think he’ll actually win, they just want him to keep pounding away at whatever issues specifically affect them.

If you read the comments thread here, you can see that the Nazis expect Ron to do it for them.  He has publicly spoken on almost all of their issues, and come out smelling great to them.  The only thing he has NOT come out and said is the magic 14 words.

Orcinus also covers some of the extra curricular activities of Randy Gray, Ron Paul's Midland County coordinator.  You can see a chummy picture of Ron with him there too.  Randy Gray doesn't seem to mind that Ron Paul hasn't said the 14 words out loud in public.  He's all in.

The promotion of Ron Paul by David Duke don’t seem to get any detraction among his supporters, even with authentic pictures of Old Duke as a young man in a Nazi uniform, and his close personal friendship with George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi party.

It’s difficult to impress conservatives with references to the “codes” employed by Ron Paul to convince White Nationalists to extend to him this kind of ardent support:

After all, many people who oppose “multi-culturalism” have a laundry list of reasons that have nothing explicitly to do with “race”.

After all, going after the Federal Reserve and the banking system is a favorite of conservatives of all stripes…it’s just the Nazis and neo-confederates who think he really means “The Jewish Monetary Conspiracy”.

And being against our involvement in the U.N. doesn’t necessarily mean that he believes that it is secretly run by a Zionist conspiracy like the Nazis do.  So when he talks against the “New World Order” the fact that THEY think they know what he means is not proof that he means it.

And wanting our government to stop supporting Israel isn’t inherently anti-semitic, lots of people what to stop supporting Israel and have a long list of reasons they can give that doesn’t include the fact that Israel is full of Jews.

And refusing to return the Nazi money (he hasn’t yet, has he?) or donate it to some good cause certainly doesn’t seem like the action of a person who wouldn’t be their man on issues important to him, but it can be explained away if you want to explain it away.

Come on, that’s WHY they call it “code” and “pandering”…because you CAN’T pin a specific attitude on someone with legalistic precision.

But don’t take it from me (following quote from Orcinus):

If you doubt that Paul has the support of our proto-fascists, don't take my word for it -- take theirs. This endorsement, for example, recently appeared on national KKK leader David Duke's website. And I'll let an anonymous commenter from Stormfront, the far right's favorite Web watering hole, have the final word:

Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!


After all, Hillary’s claim that she can take gobs of corporate money and never give them preference makes me chuckle a wry, mirthless chuckle.  Why should I feel any different about a guy who does not repudiate the ardent support of neo-nazis?

Her simultaneous pandering to the looniest left of the party and to already over-blown corporate interests is CODE for “I’ll keep running things the same way we ran things before” which to me means that and in eight or twelve years we’ll lose the country to an expansionist Republican government again….and it will be because we pandered half-heartedly to the loony left, without fixing the over-reaching by the right…and the middle where all the work is done and where all the bills are paid gets left out in the cold again.

Yeah, I realize that this is circumstantial evidence, and that it wouldn’t convict someone in a court of law, but a person can’t deny that it seems a little cavalier to shrug and say, as I have heard people say “Nazis have a right to express their opinions too.”

Well…of COURSE they do, and I’m glad.  Otherwise, how would we know what they’re up to?  And when they say “This guy stands for almost everything we want”…I get nervous and think “I’m pretty sure that things that give Nazis hope are not things I want in a candidate.”

But as one commenter said here:

So maybe George F. and Lew Rockwell are "anti-state" collectivists, just as Sam Francis, Neo-Confederates and Neo-Nazis are anti-government statists. So what? They are still not individualists, and therefor NO FRIEND OF MINE, despite George F.'s crude "Jedi Mind Tricks" to prove otherwise.

Now are George F. or Lew Rockwell racist or bigots or just pretending to be racist in order to make allies with racists to achieve a political end? Does it matter?

Is Ron Paul accepting the endorsements and money and promotion of Nazis and neo-confederates and the like without repudiation because he agrees with them?  Or because they will support him in his candidacy, and he needs all the support he can get?  Does it matter?

Does Hillary Clinton unapologetically dismiss her huge corporate contributions as not important because she is a corporatist, or merely needs their help to win?  Does it matter?

So anyway, Theo, you asked for my reasons and I’ve given them.  You have no doubt heard all of this before, and you obviously don’t interpret it as I do, but I guess that’s the way our country works.

I’m glad that Ron Paul can run for president, and get in the debate, and hold the ideas up for scrutiny.  And I’m glad that most people look, and go;  “Oh good lord” and  look for just about anyone else.

At least for now.


Tuesday, 19 February 2008 06:50:22 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] |  |  | #
Tuesday, 19 February 2008 09:35:47 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
It's great that Paul's ideas of limited government and individual liberty are getting out there through the primary election, but it's unfortunate that once again, ideas of individual liberty and limited government get associated with racism and the like (through his fault, not his detractors). Proponents of limited gov't have unfortunately been associated with those of redneck tendencies, such as slack-jawed farmers or those wanting to "keep the blacks in their place".

Paul's hands in this are nowhere near clean, but I will give him a pass on the monetary issue and the "not supporting Israel" issue. Libertarians are strong on the issue of the gold standard. David Nolan, founder of the LP, lists it as 1 of the 5 fundamental issues that separate Libertarians from the rest. I am a supporter of Israel, but I would attribute his lack of support to his isolationist stance. And yes, I do know it's terribly convenient that these policies just happen to line up with an anti-semitic stance, but these two issues seem to be the LP party line.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008 10:44:49 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Welcome, and thank you for your visit and your comments. I appreciate your candor and your fair-mindedness.

An isolationist stance obviously does not make one an anti-semite, nor does it necessarily make one a nationalist of any stripe. And an isolationist stance would necessarily include wanting to end aid to Isreal. Combined with the other factors, however...I can't find ground to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's up to every voter to determine the weight a specific issue takes in their decisions,a nd how much they are willing to tolerate in a candidate and/or party that doesn't exactly match their ideals. And it's also up to each person the level of risk they want to take in figuring out what a candidate will do once they attain office and the campaign is over. I think most honest and intelligent people will admit that even their favorite candidate puts on make-up for the cameras...metaphorically as well as literally.

I view Libertarianism much the way I veiw feminism. I can't be a feminist, because even though I agree that women should be treated equally to men, I don't like the ways that idea is expressed in formal feminism.

Even though I agree that individual liberty is vital, I part ways with the mainstream of Libertarians in how they interpret what that means and how it is best accomplished.

I only looked into Ron Paul further at the urging of a libertarian commenter here (by the name of Mark, hoepfully he will show up here, if he is not too busy with his life) I am in a way, glad I did, and in a way I wish I hadn't ever heard of Ron Paul...but int he end I learned a lot, and that's not nuthin' - as they say in Firefly.

In the end what it comes down to is that it makes little difference to me if the Captain cultivates the barnacles or merely is incapable of scraping them off his hull...I don't want to sail out on his ship. :-)
Tuesday, 19 February 2008 12:53:27 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Discovered your jewel here from your comments on Theo's COTW thread.

I agree with you here. My political beliefs tend to be conservative with a strong libertarian bent. But I cannot support the Libertarian party or many of it's members and leaders because of what else they support.

We live in a fallen world, and while the government is NEVER the answer. It is a framework which allows the answer to work by God's design.

I don't like how liberal so many in my preferred party have become, and I fight to bring it back to it's strength and root.

Libertarians, in their philosophy, tend to by default (usually unwittingly) assume the universal egalitarian nature of humankind.

Keep up the good work, I'll be adding you to my blogroll.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008 14:25:01 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Welcome to my blog and thank you for your comments. I look forward to your continued visits.

In full disclosure, I'm a liberal who tends toward the Democratice Party. More recently than I have in the past. I used to be about 60/40 voting Democrat/Republican called myself an independant.

I'm not a Christian, and I'm not that nice when I think that people's belief leads them toward stupidity...though I'm sympathetic to those who try to use their faith in ways I see as constructive. I also don't mind getting smacked upside the head with proof of my own silly blindspots...though my first reactions are not always constructive.

At first blush, you don't appear to be someone who would necessarily think of my blog as a "jewel" however, I look forward to interaction all the same. :-)

Some commenters and I get into terrific wrangles, but those who stick around to see them through usually become part of the community whatever their presuasion.

I hope you are one of them.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: