Friday, 23 December 2011

Ron Paul under scrutiny - racism? Whooops.



Source: FoxNews

It's also featured in the Guardian.
Ron Paul: racist newsletter scandal won't go away
Ron Paul says he knew nothing of a racist newsletter published under his name two decades ago. But he hasn't offered a convincing explanation – and that could hurt him in Iowa
And it's at their source too, of course..



Honest Ron. sure.
Paul has claimed that the newsletter, which compared African Americans to zoo animals, warned of a coming race war, and generally promoted racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views, was written by other authors and he was unaware of its content — even passages written from his perspective. He has not offered up any of the names of the six to eight writers he said were responsible for writing the incendiary material, however, and reporters are pressing him for more details
"racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views" - never! I mean, why would racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views be found amongst Ron Paul's racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia support?

He now says he disavows such views. Maybe someone should tell his "racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia" supporters that he's disavowed them?

Why hasn't Paul ever told them?

** ETA - Here's a link to one of Ron Paul's solicitations for subscription to his "newsletters".

36 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??

the_last_name_left said...

Hey, that's the way to go avoiding the issue. Well done - robot.

the_last_name_left said...

The comical aspect seems lost.

that Ron Paul would charge $200 for a newsletter.....and $100 for another newsletter....and another $60 for another one. Each were called different things, but were essentially all sold as "Ron Paul's Newsletter".....

3 different varieties of the same shit for an extortionate price.

What could go wrong?

Ron Paul's qualifications for President? He's run a lucrative "newsletter". Oh wow.

But what a newsletter, huh?

Appearing under Ron Paul's name and contributing to his cause.

So what are the names of the authors of these newsletters that Ron Paul "did not write" but allowed to be published in his name.

Paul claims he was unaware of the contentious contents and that he "disavows" himself from them today.

But who were the authors?

If they happen to be longtime comrades of Ron Paul then his claim to ignorance and disavowal will begin to look a little less than honest.

Not good for candidate Paul, presumably.

But IIRC those newsletters have already been previously explained - as an example of the Rockwell-libertarian effort to embrace "the crazies". (Something like Nixon's appeal to the South (?) - is that right?) An appeal to the racism, paranoia and nationalism of fringe-conservatism as a conscious political strategy. The Ron Paul newsletters were apparently a product of this strategy (Rockwell and ..... the other guy....I've forgotten atm.

These are some of the major people that have been providing the intellectual link between Austrian School Miseian radical free-market stuff and the ideas and constituencies of the American far-right.

Anyway - atm the point is who are the authors? If they're Ron Paul's intellectual, philosophical, political, economic and ideological peers then Paul is going to be hard-pressed to sustain his present position of disavowal.

He's toast.

Well, let's hope so. But being a twat isn't a disqualification from high office, in America.

On the other hand, I like RP being in the debate because his views make extreme opposition to them look like a thoroughly reasonable choice.

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
socrates said...

Yep, this is not good.

It reminds me of Brad Friedman's close affiliation to neo-nazi sympathisers. His moderator Agent99 and all those friends of hers like Big Dan and Plunger.

VR's affiliate The Lonestar Iconoclast published Eric May.

Hmmm, maybe coming up with factoids like that is why I was sued by the Speedway Bomber?

Ron Paul does appear to be toast because of this. Brad Friedman can think similar type junk won't catch up to him. We shall see.

the_last_name_left said...

Merry Christmas S. :D

It's quite reassuring to see this stuff bubble-up now that Paul's support appears to perhaps make him more of a possible candidate.

I wish I still had the stuff I'd dug up on this before. Because I'd previously been through these newsletters, and the whole thing about who wrote them, and what Paul had claimed responsibility for, etc.

Troofers will happily turn a blind eye to Paul's claims to disavow the contents of these newsletters, and accept he had "nothing to do with them".

But few others will.

They should be dynamite under his campaign. One might have thought the contents of those newsletters touched some sort of 3rd rail in (serious) American politics.

We shall see, I suppose.

I didn't put a direct link up, but the newsletters themselves are quite a blast - they read like the running order and script for the Alex Jones show.

Which is no surprise to anybody, of course - Ron Paul is pretty tight with Alex Jones AND ALL THAT - and always has been.

The content of those newsletters (which RP now disavows himself of) is the same as the normal stuff - it's RP's regular crowd and constituency.

So how can he disavow himself of it? Well, he can't.

Such is the vanguard of the Troofers. Pathetic.

socrates said...

Thanks TLNL. Happy holidays and Happy New Year.

Paul should come clean. If he is a conspiracy theorist, he should own up to it. Then he might win.

But by not coming up with a polician's answer, he is allowing it to have a Streisand Effect.

I can't see Ron Paul being worse than Obama, Republican whippersnapper and all.

It doesn't seem to matter, unless Romney or Newt gets in. Then we are in trouble. Ron Paul may be a bit kooky. I don't agree with his social policies, but he is anti-war.

socrates said...

In hindsight, Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for President.

Real Truth Online said...

lol, my comments DELETED! LOL. Yet they didnt violate ONE of your stupid rules.

Why let FACTS on your website?? LOL

Real Truth Online said...

"It's quite reassuring to see this stuff bubble-up now that Paul's support appears to perhaps make him more of a possible candidate."

Ahhh, so you ADMIT that this shit is popping up because the establishment FEARS that Ron Paul has a GOOD CHANCE to win Iowa!! Quite funny that when others IGNORED Ron Paul in the past because they didnt think he had a shot, the newsletter stories didnt come up, but when he has a good chance, THEN it comes up.

Racism is wrong DESPITE whether your chances of winning caucases are good or bad, eh???

"The content of those newsletters (which RP now disavows himself of) is the same as the normal stuff - it's RP's regular crowd and constituency."

which he NOW disavows? He disavowed them 10 years ago. He disavowed then in 2008 when he ran. He disavows then now! He has ALWAYS disavowed them. But once again, FACTS dont matter to you.

"They should be dynamite under his campaign."

But the polls show they have not. Know why? Because people are smarter than that. They can tell the difference between a genuine scandal [like Cain's sexual harrassment] and shit like this that NO ONE believes because if this was a legitimate story, then why has Ron Paul won 12 times running for Congressman???? Are you telling me that this newsletter shit didnt come up ONE time in ANY of his 12 wins as Congressman?????

You will ignore this, I already know that.

Real Truth Online said...

You said you wouldnt be back at my site, but you HAVE been several times in the past week.

That's called a LIE. That destroys your credibility on ANYTHING you write, because now you are a known LIAR. Odd, you blatantly LIE and yet you claim you should be believed when you post stories. Ron Paul has denied he wrote these newsletters over and over and there is NO proof he wrote them, yet his credibility is shot to hell?

But you LIE and say you wont be back on my blog, yet you have returned, and your credibility is still in tact???

I'm laughing my fucking nuts off!

Real Truth Online said...

By the way, you still didnt answer this:

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??"

Will I get an answer anytime soon??

Real Truth Online said...

"I didn't put a direct link up...."

Yeah, why show PROOF of what you claim???

LOL

the_last_name_left said...

the usual guff from a typical Paul supporter.

Real Truth Online said...

"the usual guff from a typical Paul supporter."

That neither addressed nor answered my comments and my questions. Shall I repeat them at the risk of you calling it "spamming", because you have a reading disability? Or is it enough that you simply just go back and read the posts and address/answer them?

Which do you prefer?

Real Truth Online said...

So, when do I get answers and acknowledgements to my comments/questions??

Ever??

the_last_name_left said...

Ask a proper question in a civil fashion and you might get an answer. Otherwise, you get nothing except the space to make a fool of yourself and to illustrate what sort of people support Ron Paul and how.

Real Truth Online said...

This was the VERY FIRST post on this thread, that you NEVER answered. It was civil and respectful, and you NEVER answered. That alone debunks the notion that you ignore comments if they are vile and hateful, because you ignore the respectful, civil ones as well.

We all know why you ignore the ones that are civil: Because you have no answer for certain comments that challenge you. Here was the comment/question you didnt answer:

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??"

Calling you "chickenshit" is not disrespect, it's a fitting title to someone who is...well.....chickenshit!

the_last_name_left said...

That's your question is it?

That's it?

Your 'question' is actually a politically inspired rhetorical deceit - you completely misrepresent the matter.

You tacitly assert the newsletter was something Paul had absolutely nothing to do with and no responsibility for.

That's rubbish.

Now you're in a position of admitting the Ron Paul newsletters were indeed full of shameful garbage ..... and your defence is not just that Candidate Paul "didn't know about it" but that it was complete strangers doing it! Strangers with no affiliation to Ron Paul at all, apparently.

Rubbish.

You look pretty silly saying Paul had no connection to the newsletters.

And the defence that he knew nothing about it (for circa 20 years of newsletters)? Well, that's put to bed by the fact that Ron Paul's signed and accredited solicitation for subscribers to the newsletters contains the same "contentious" stuff.

Now you're in the embarrassing position of having to defend Paul against what you admit is contentious content of the newsletters......and you refuse to criticise him at all....or even acknowledge the problems all this raises with RP being a suitable candidate.

You're left to (laughably) claim it simply has nothing to do with Ron.

Good - your response, and all the others just like it will do for Ron Paul.

As people have long said about Ron Paul - "with friends like those....."

Real Truth Online said...

Odd...in all that writing I didnt see an answer to this question: [THIRD time now]..

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??"

And you claim I "spam"...yet it always takes roughly 5 , 6, 7, 8, 9 and many times over 10 times of me posting a question before you come anywhere NEAR an answer.

Gonna answer it this time??

Real Truth Online said...

HINT: It's a YES/NO question!!!

the_last_name_left said...

No, it takes at least a dozen goes before you ever get the point - often more.

Real Truth Online said...

"No, it takes at least a dozen goes before you ever get the point - often more."

In other words, I was right. You're too chickenshit to answer the question???

Here it AGAIN for a FIFTH time:

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??"

the_last_name_left said...

But that isn't what happened, Larry.

How much simpler can one make it?

Real Truth Online said...

Yet you STILL ignore my question. And just why IS that???? According to YOU, I'm a "kook" and a "nutter", yet I continually ask you questions you REFUSE to answer. Why is it that a "kook" is capable of asking TOUGH questions that you are afraid and chickenshit to answer??

Hmmmmmmm?????????

That makes you WORSE than a kook, right?? You're a dumbshit that has been outsmarted by the "kook" right??

Real Truth Online said...

"But that isn't what happened, Larry."

Enlighten me. Exactly what DID happen if what I said happened did NOT happen?

Please tell. I'm all ears.

the_last_name_left said...

Here's what happened - as you'd already know if you'd read the post:

The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."

Rockwell was publicly named as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian. "This was based on my understanding at the time that Lew would write things that appeared in Ron's various newsletters," former AL editor Mike Holmes told reason. "Neither Ron nor Lew ever told me that, but other people close to them such as Murray Rothbard suggested that Lew was involved, and it was a common belief in libertarian circles.

in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Real Truth Online said...

TLNL's new meaning of racism:

"Doing kind acts for people outside of your race"

LOL. I'm pissing my pants.

Let me also add that since you think that racism NOW means that you do kind acts for others outside of your own race, then why all the controversy over Ron Paul "maybe" being racist?

You JUST ADMITTED that it's ridiculous that that being racist doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you cannot do kind acts for others outside your race---did you not??? Then why all the hub-bub about RP being racist then if it means you do kind acts for people not of your race???

I can't fucking WAIT for your answer to that!

Oh let me guess, it will be yet ANOTHER question you IGNORE??

the_last_name_left said...

Most people would be ashamed of posting such drivel, Larry. You're a shameless joke.

Real Truth Online said...

"Most people would be ashamed of posting such drivel, Larry. You're a shameless joke."

Ahhhh, yes, but you IGNORED my question, didnt you???

I want an answer to my question.

"Let me also add that since you think that racism NOW means that you do kind acts for others outside of your own race, then why all the controversy over Ron Paul "maybe" being racist?

You JUST ADMITTED that it's ridiculous that that being racist doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you cannot do kind acts for others outside your race---did you not??? Then why all the hub-bub about RP being racist then if it means you do kind acts for people not of your race???"

ANSWER PLEASE.

Real Truth Online said...

Think about what you said for a minute. On my story where I posted that RP did a kind act for a black man and his wife, proving he's not racist...your comment was "ridiculous"---meaning, "just because one does kind things for blacks, doesn't mean they're not racist, right??? Isn't that what you're implying with your "ridiculous" response?

OK, so WHY THEN, if being a racist means you do kind acts for black people ANYWAY, then what is the racism controversy about then?? Isn't the entire point of the smear campaign against RP [that he may be racist] meant to suggest that he HATES or ABHORS black people?

If that is the case, then does it make sense that he do KIND ACTS for them? You say "ridiculous", meaning that doesnt mean he's not racist....right?? So, tell me, if RP is being NICE to black people DESPITE his "so-called" racism, what constitutes his racism??? Newsletters in which there is NO PROOF he wrote??

You're a fucking joke!

You ADMITTED by your "ridiculous" response that your new meaning of racism now means that one does KIND ACTS to those they are racist against. So, since your new meaning of racism is "kind acts to those outside your race"....then....

1. How is that racism?

2. What is the RP controversy about if racism means "kind acts toward those outside your race"???

ANSWERS please...ANSWERS.

Real Truth Online said...

Oh, and dont forget this question, that youve ignored 7 times now:

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

Answer please??"

the_last_name_left said...

Jeez.

If racism now means that "you do kind acts for others outside of your own race" what does 'racism' mean at all?

Don't be so stupid.

Your post about RP once doing a favour for some black bloke is what's ridiculous - you imagine it proves Ron Paul can't be racially prejudiced, and that it means he could never be a supporter of racism.

BTW - Paul's little maxim about individualists being incapable of 'racism' is pathetic too. What a glib little opt-out.

Anybody can be racially prejudiced - more likely everybody is prejudiced (to one degree or another.)

To claim it as an impossibility because one is 'a libertarian' (or whatever Paul imagines is the magic belief) is a joke of an opt-out. It isn't a serious response at all.

And perhaps now is a good time to raise the point about racism vs racial prejudice: they're different things (though the names are used interchangeably ans get confused etc)

Personal animosity and prejudice because of ethnicity, skin colour, whatever, is racial prejudice.

But there are forms of structural discrimination which we would call rac-ism. Eg segregated buses and schools, differentiated wages, race-specific laws and racially founded beliefs.

Even at its weakest the charge against Paul is that he has been personally gaining (politically and financially) from exploiting racial prejudice, homophobia and well....FEAR basically. Little wonder he's Alex Jones', the Troofers and Militia and Nazi folks' favourite politico.

Ron Paul was using The Spotlight's mailing list. That's Willis Nazi Carto's old newspaper. What a surprise!

And shock of horrors, his solicitation letters and his newsletters that proved so popular with the Nazis 20 years ago are now kicking-up a bit of trouble....... because of the contents.

Not that the Nazis, Willis Carto and the other assorted Crazies mind though - they love him more than ever.

And we've already seen how Paul believes taking political funding $$ from Nazis is more moral than taking money from Freddie Mac.....

the_last_name_left said...

Apparently Larry has posted the following rubbish 7 times:

---

"So, if I create a newsletter and attach your name to it [oh, thats right, you're too chickenshit to POST your actual name...frauds usually don't] and I printed a bunch of comments endorsing Rivero and Willis Carto and Alex Jones--all the people you despise---then YOU would ADMIT to writing them and you'd endorse them???

=====

It's irrelevant. Obviously. That isn't remotely what happened.

The premises of your question are wrong. W R O N G.

You're just making yourself look silly because clearly Paul had considerable involvement, even if he didn't actually personally author the lines in question (which we don't know).

Come on LArry, catch up? Get with it?

Real Truth Online said...

"If racism now means that "you do kind acts for others outside of your own race" what does 'racism' mean at all?"

That wasn't my quote you fuckface. You re-worded it. I said EXACTLY these words:

"OK, so WHY THEN, if being a racist means you do kind acts for black people ANYWAY, then what is the racism controversy about then??"

Now you've stooped to the level of MIS-quoting me! I didnt even think YOU'D sink that low! I was wrong.

YOU'RE the one that said it was "ridiculous" when I said that RP wasnt racist since he did kind acts for black people, implying you think that racism now involves kind acts to those outside your race! That was YOUR word, not mine!

Your failed attempt at calling RP a racist only makes you look foolish. RP will most likely win tomorrow in Iowa, THEN what will you say???