Tuesday 10 January 2012

Old Bookmark I had - on Ron Paul, Libertarianism and Nazism.

Ron Paul debacle exposes the racist underbelly in the Rockwellian camp.

01.09.08 (9:58 pm)

This blog, part time that it is, has been trying to warn people about the infestation of bigots and racists who have invaded the libertarian movement. Starting in 2005 we issued our first warning and we did our best to link to the sources and show evidence. Unfortunately much of the evidence is personal experience, simply knowing the people involved.
Our warnings were basically ignored. And now the whole issue has exploded with the shocking (to some) revelations of Ron Paul’s newsletter and the vile statements that were published there.

The Paul newsletters were usually a joint project between Paul, Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert. Perhaps they all were but I will only say what I’m confident about. Paul really did provide the name and the public face. He was the bait to attract the subscribers. The money came from Blumert to set things up and Rockwell did much of the writing. Of course Paul was fully aware of the newsletters and can’t really argue that he didn’t know what was published.

After all these articles appeared over a period of years. We are talking multiple issues and multiple years. To say Paul didn’t know implies he was totally comatose. It went on too long and in too many issues for him to feign ignorance.

The New Republic article accurate notes that to understand Paul you have to understand the Mises Institute -- the fount from which so much racism in the movement comes. And it noted that the crowd at the Mises Institute “are nothing like the urbane libertarians” at Cato or Reason. In fact they are unlike the libertarians I knew most of my life. As we have shown here repeatedly, people connected with Rockwell and his misnamed Institute regularly hang out with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and hate-mongers for all kinds. This article was correct to point out how the Mises Institute and Rockwell play a prominent role in the disastrous newsletters that were recently republished.

My understanding over the years has been that the newsletter was in fact written by Lew Rockwell. Mr. Rockwell is notorious in libertarian circles for having been the author. The problem is that this was one of those issues that was so widely known that no one archived the evidence. It just was. And Rockwell is refusing to talk. Paul is refusing to the name the individual who wrote the hate material.

So why won’t Paul name him? He has referred to him as a “former aide”. People assume that means he and the individual are no longer associated. That is a false assumption. Many people who are “former aides” merely move higher in the hierarchy. Rockwell was a former aide. He was also Paul’s business partner in the newsletter and has remained a major confidant and adviser to Paul. I suspect that Paul won’t name names because his previous answers were intended to imply he was so shocked by the content that he dismissed the writer.

Paul could get away with that excuse when it was limited to one issue of the newsletter. Now it covers many issues over many years and that doesn’t wash. The rumor is that Rockwell was the author and he remained Paul’s close ally and ghost writer for many years. They are still closely linked. So Paul’s previous answer would be exposed as intentionally misleading if he were to reveal that he and the actual author were still working together. If Paul was ever actually embarrassed by the content, and there is zero evidence he was, then he clearly wasn’t embarrassed enough to severe his connections with the alleged author.

Rockwell’s group publishes Paul’s books. I think we’d find that Rockwell, or other Mises Institute individuals, actually author much of Paul’s work. Paul’s books are on a far higher level than some of his rambling answers or explanations when he is interviewed. That seems a strong indication that Mr. Paul didn’t write his own books.

So I do, in large part, buy Paul’s story that he didn’t write much of this material. Though I can’t rule out that he wrote some of it. But the line that he didn’t read it or know about it is just too absurd to be believed. Nor do I buy that he was repulsed by the content of these newsletter since it looks to me that he has continued his close allegiance with the likely author of the pieces.

Does Paul agree with the hateful comments. I don’t know. He’s smart enough to know not to say such things on the campaign stump. And my interactions with Paul were always in the role of questioning him on things where he was defensive and trying to cover his ass on unlibertarian votes or positions he took.

The reason for this blog was to warn people about this festering sore before it really did a lot of damage. But Paul, who is closely allied to this vipers nest of Rockwellians, rose to some prominence mainly due to his strong opposition to the war -- one issue where he is right I might add. Unfortunately Paul’s close alliance with bigots meant that at some point the sordid newsletters would be exposed.

Every increase in the Paul campaign also increased the chance that these newsletters would be made public. I suspect Paul and Rockwell were counting on the relative obscurity of the publication and time to make that impossible. I believe some of the later years, without the racism, are available on line but neither Paul nor the Mises Institute would put the early issues on line. In fact Paul claimed he didn’t have any copies and couldn’t release them. But copies were found and that is what brought forth the rather unpleasant publicity.

The real tragedy here is that libertarianism itself is smeared because of this. Ron Paul was promoted as some sort of icon. Rockwell’s site published the claim that “’the Ron Paul question’ constitutes a litmus test for libertarians. Simply put, the ‘Ron Paul questions’ consists of determining whether or not a person supports Dr. Paul. If so, as I see matters, he passes the test and can be constituted a libertarian; if not, his credentials are to that extent suspect.”

What cheek!

Here is what is absurd. The racists at Stormfront have been cheering Paul all along. Many of these people are open about their race hatred and their support for Hitler or some form of racialist agenda. But they support Paul. According to Rockwell’s site, if someone supports Paul, “he passes the test and can be constituted a libertarian”. So apparently the Nazis are libertarians but many prominent libertarians are “suspect” because they don’t support Paul. Well, since Mr. Paul’s racist newsletters were exposed the number of libertarians in the world apparently dropped because lots of people are now sorry they were backing Paul.

I will state my main thesis again. It is lethal and destructive for any libertarian to be associated with bigotry and racism. Not only is it destructive to the cause of liberty but I would assert that it is morally wrong and contemptible. I don’t care how “pure” this individual pretends to be -- in fact many of the most racist types around the Rockwell circles brag about “anarcho-capitalist s” though their anarchism consists of massive state aggression against immigrants. Libertarians need to take back their movement from the racists and the bigots and let they people know they are not welcome. Maybe the bad publicity associated with the Paul debacle will do that, but I won’t hold my breath.

SOURCE: http://rightwatch.tblog.com/post/1969971088

35 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

Goodness, I just read this article. It sounds like it written by YOU.

http://www.cafemom.com
/group/99198/forums/read/
15652017/Top_10_Racist_Ron_
Paul_Friends_Supporters

What I find absolutely hilarious about this page is the fact that the writer after each person's name fails to mention either WHY some of the beliefs held by the person is BAD, OR fails to mention the link to Ron Paul for the things that ARE bad.

Examples:

Under Willis Carto it says:

"Willis Carto is a holocaust denier, Hitler admirer and a white supremacist. A former campaigner for segregationist candidate George Wallace, Carto founded the National Alliance with William Pierce, the author of the “Turner Diaries,” which is credited for inspiring Timothy McVeigh. Carto founded the Populist Party in 1984 and ran David Duke as a presidential candidate."

God knows what all of the above has to do with Ron Paul, the writer OMITS that.

"Carto also founded the American Free Press, which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), where Paul’s column runs."

LOL. I guess if the SLPC calls someone a hate group, that means they ARE. I have debunked them many times on my site.

"Paul has not sued Carto for running his column or explained how it wound up in a white supremacist publication."

Maybe he didn't know it was there???? DUH. What would the lawsuit be for?? Exactly what?

"The New York Times writes that Paul used the subscription list to a white supremacist publication of Carto’s to solicit donations."

Well, there you have it, the truth tellers NY Times have spoken! So it MUST be true! LOL

Real Truth Online said...

Under Chuck Baldwin:

"Chuck Baldwin is a neo-Confederate New World Order conspiracy theorist who praises the confederacy and its leaders, Robert E. Lee andStonewall Jackson, and calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.”"

The writer does list list what exactly is the BAD thing here. Baldwin is correct. The South was right. Notice how the writer does not REFUTE it, but simply just lists the belief and its implication that it's erroneous??

The writer also omits the fact that one major belief among those who despise Lincoln is that Lincoln was a major racist who did not free one slave and wanted all blacks out of the country. That's fact. Lincoln's hero was Henry Clay, President and founder of the American Colonization Society, that wanted all blacks shipped to Liberia. Odd that Baldwin would be racist if he hates the racist Lincoln. Hmmm.

"Baldwin writes a weekly column on the white supremacist site Vdare and is a proud supporter of American militia movements."

He writes it FOR the site or the site just POSTS his columns? Again, that is OMITTED.

"Baldwin is also an Islamaphobe and homophobe."

The proof is OMITTED.

"Not only did Baldwin endorse Paul for president in 2007, but Paul returned the favor, endorsing Baldwin, who he calls his “friend,” for president in 2008."

Again, OMITTED is what is wrong with this.

"While Paul was quick to criticize Michele Bachmann for her Islamaphobia, he has said nothing about Baldwin’s, the man he endorsed for president."

But where are the Islamaphobic statements? OMITTED.

"Here are some choice quotes from Baldwin:

I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law."

One does not have to be homophobic to believe this. This could be a person's moral belief outside of "homophobia"

"I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist."

Again, implied that this belief is wrong, yet the refutation of it is OMITTED. Baldwin is right, the South was right. They obeyed the Constitution.

"I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government and big business to steal America’s independence."

Again, another implication this is erroneous while the refutation is OMITTED.

"The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception."

This is true---but then again, ALL religions practically are. It's not an Islamaphobic statement.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Don Black:

"Don Black is a former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, a current member of the American Nazi Party, and the owner and operator of the white supremacist site Stormfront."

And?

"Black regularly organizes “money bombs” for Ron and Rand Paul and has even taken a picture with Ron Paul, who refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront even with the political tradition of not accepting donations from people who seem unfit."

LOL. Can Ron Paul control who endorses him? That means Ron Paul has the same beliefs as them?? LOL

Ron Paul KNEW who Don Black was when posing for the picture? You have brought this up as well, and you have always IGNORED me asking you "Is Ron Paul suppose to ask everyone before a photo is snapped "Who are you and list your beliefs?" INSANE.

Any proof that the money was donated under "STORMFRONT" rather than Don Black who RP may NEVER have heard of? NOPE. NO proof. That is OMITTED.

"Black, who was sentenced to three years in jail for trying to overthrow the Caribbean country of Dominica in 1981, supports Paul through his Twitter account and on message boards for Stormfront."

What exactly is RP supposed to do about this? Assassinate the Twitter founder?

"Black told the New York Times that it was Paul’s newsletters that inspired him to be a supporter"

And? First of all NO proof is out there that RP wrote them. Even if he did, is the writer suggesting that the source of inspiration should be the one charged with a crime? Then why did police not arrest and jail J.D. Salinger instead of Mark David Chapman for killing John Lennon? Chapman claims he was inspired by "The Cather in the Rye"

Again...OMITTED.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Lew Rockwell:

"Lew Rockwell is a close friend and adviser of Paul’s who served as his congressional chief of staff between 1978 and 1982, worked as a paid consultant for Paul for more than 20 years, and was an editor and alleged ghost writer for his racist newsletters."

Proof? OMITTED.

"Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship with."

This institute is about Austrian Economics! What is the implication about that? Where's the bad thing? OMITTED.

"The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is listed by the SPLC as a neo-Confederate organization. They also add that Rockwell said that the Civil War “transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order” and that the Civil Rights Movement was the “involuntary servitude” of (presumably white) business owners."

ALL TRUE! Notice the writer fails to refute ONE WORD. [because they can't]

"Rockwell was listed as one of the racist League of the South’s founding members but denies membership."

Proof that it's racist? OMITTED.

"Rockwell regularly posts articles on his website, attacking a New World Order conspiracy."

Again, the implication here is that this belief is wrong, but the refutation...OMITTED!!

Real Truth Online said...

Under David Duke:

"David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews control the Federal Reserve."

Actually many do!! AGAIN, the implication that NWO conspircay theories are BAD...no refutation...it's OMITTED.

"On his website, Duke proudly boasts about the endorsements and kind words that Paul gave him in his newsletters and in turn endorses Paul for president"

Exactly how does this prove RP is racist?? OMITTED.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Thomas DiLorenzo:

"Thomas DiLorenzo is another neo-Confederate who believes the South was right in the the civil war and that Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man who destroyed states’ rights."

They were, he was and he did". And once AGAIN, the writer does not refute this.

"DiLorenzo is listed as an affiliated scholar with the racist League of the South, which promotes segregation and a new southern secession."

Odd that DiLorenzo would be FOR segregation when he devotes several chapters in his books to how racist Lincoln was. Odd for him to BE racist whilst hating a racist. Hmmm.

"Paul invited DiLorenzo to testify before congress about the Federal Reserve and is close friends with Paul and works for the Ludwig Von Mises Instiute. Paul cited DiLorezno’s book when telling Tim Russert that the North should not have fought the Civil War."

Again, no mention at all of what is wrong with this, and ZERO refutation...ZERO. It's all just implication...ZERO refutation.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Von Brunn:[This is the funniest yet]

"James Von Brunn was a white supremacist and anti-Semite who opened fired at the Holocaust museum, killing an African-American security guard. Von Brunn was an avid Paul supporter who posted a message on the Ron Paul Yahoo Group, saying, “HITLER’S WORST MISTAKE: HE DIDN’T GAS THE JEWS.”

Proof he was an AVID RP supporter? Why post PROOF? OMITTED. Why would he say Hitler did NOT gas the jews?? He DID!

"In 1983, Von Brunn was convicted of kidnapping members of the Federal Reserve Board, a common target of Paul’s, and was sentenced to six years in prison."

LOL, so he did this FOR Ron Paul, even though Paul has never said one, single solitary word about HARMING them? He only speaks of AUDITING them. I love how they use the phrase "target of Paul's" to create imagery to suggest RP would advocate Von Brunn's crime. Complete propagandistic, psy-op bullshit.

Real Truth Online said...

Under William White:

"Bill White is a neo-Nazi who is a former member of of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement and founder of his own Nazi group, the National Socialist Worker’s Movement. He has called for the lynching of the Jena 6 and the assassination of NAACP leaders. White previously campaigned for Pat Buchanan and the Reform party. This year, White was convicted of threatening a juror but then freed by a judge who called the threats free speech. White is a former Ron Paul supporter who became disenfranchised with Paul, when a Paul spokesman called white supremacy “a small ideology.” Here is what White wrote about Paul on apopular white supremacist website:

[then the writer posts a long quote saying he has seen RP and his aides with members of stormfront and is mad that RP could call it a "small ideology"]

What is hilarious about this is the writer basically answers their own question. The writer first admits White became upset at RP and then White turns around and makes up claims that he has seen RP with these racist people.

Gee, did it ever occur to the writer that White wrote these words to denegrate RP for calling his movement "small"???

Nahhhhh.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Richard Poplawski:

"Richard Poplawski is a neo-Nazi from Pittsburgh who regularly posted on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Poplawski would post videos of Ron Paul talking about FEMA camp conspiracy theories with Glenn Beck."

Why is this Ron Paul's fault? Looks like another J.D. Salinger/Mark David Chapman guilt by association tactic again. I guess the writer has never heard of the FACT that the camps EXIST. Ask Oliver North, who wrote the plans for them. Look up "Rex 84" on wikipedia.

"Polawski was afraid of a government conspiracy to take away people’s guns and wound up killing three police officers who came to his house after his mother made a domestic dispute call."

What exactly does that have to do with RP? ZILCH.

Real Truth Online said...

Under Jules Manson:

"Jules Manson was a failed politician from Carson, Calif. Mason was also a big Paul supporter who would write, “I may be an athiest, but Ron Paul is my God,” on Paul’s website. Manson would also write, “Assassinate that n*gger and his family of monkeys,” of President Barack Obama."

I would like to hear what Manson's reaction was to RP saying MLK and Rosa Parks are two of RP's heroes. Hmmm?? So, is the writer implying that if Manson uses the word n*gger, he got it from RP? He may have got it from Mark Twain--he used the word in Tom Sawyer...why is no one blaming Mark Twain? No evidence RP ever used the word. OMITTED.

"This is not guilty by association."

Are you fucking shitting me? This whole fucking PAGE is guilt by association!

"Ron Paul has spread white supremacy on conspiracy theories for years in his newsletters."

The writer provides ZERO proof of this. ZERO. NONE.

"The racism and conspiracy theories have driven some people to violence. Not only have Ron Paul’s racist supporters endorsed him and his views, he has endorsed them through his positions on the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, without disavowing the support he gets from racists. This is guilt by racism."

LOL, by being CORRECT about the Civil War that Lincoln destroyed states' rights and acted as dictator and invaded the South over an issue [secession] that the Constitution PERMITS??

And as far as the Civil Rights movement. The writer is just plain ignorant on this issue. Ron Paul is not against Civil Rights. He is against government regulating HATE, because it can't be done.

This is best summed up by someone who posted a comment under Andy Ostroy's article in December 2011:

"The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

The writer OMITS this as well.

There you have it. All 10 DEBUNKED.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry can't work out why "racism" is "bad".

Real Truth Online said...

EXCELLENT refutation once again!!

Racism is bad, but how is it tied to Ron Paul? You didnt debunk ONE fucking thing I said. [because you can't]

The TROOFER and "kook" wins again.

the_last_name_left said...

You want me to refute your response to an article I didn't write - an article which you brought here and which you've spent a while "refuting".

Why am I supposed to refute your refutation of the article you brought up?

But to throw you a bone......let's take just the first of your responses to your chosen article.

You say the article says that "Carto also founded the American Free Press, which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), where Paul’s column runs."

You dismiss that by saying "LOL. I guess if the SLPC calls someone a hate group, that means they ARE."

------

So.....you dispute Willis Carto's connection with "hate-groups".

What are you disputing exactly?

Of course, the SPLC could be wrong and maybe Carto isn't connected to any "hate-groups".

But we know that isn't true. He is.

So maybe it's this phrase "hate-groups" that you dispute?

Even if that's so, it's quite easy to understand how Carto and his various propaganda organs can be called "hate-groups".

The phrase is closer to the mark than, say, "a literary club", right?

So what exactly are you disputing about that?

Real Truth Online said...

"Why am I supposed to refute your refutation of the article you brought up?"

Because like I said, it's an article that looks like it came from you. I know it didn't, but it's EXACTLY like the shit you write.

"So.....you dispute Willis Carto's connection with "hate-groups".

What are you disputing exactly?"

That the SPLC can distinguish a hate group from their own testicles.

I'm not suggesting Carto is NOT with a hate group, he may be. But the SPLC is no authority on that. I have debunked them several times.

Of course, my main point is, this writer doesn't list ONE valid connection between RP and Carto...not ONE.

She says that Paul has not sued Carto------exactly what would the lawsuit BE? There is NO LAW against posting an article by someone else on your own website---except if you don't post the writer's name and you take credit for it.

Do you know how many websites and blogs there are? MILLIONS. Is RP supposed to hire 10,000 people to sit in front of computers all day long and find where his articles are posted???

If I posted YOUR articles on MY site, would that then mean YOU support 9-11 truth and believe in conspiracies??? {I'd like an answer to this]

The writer gives NO PROOF of ANY claim she makes---NONE.

Real Truth Online said...

I fucking answered your question and you delete the fucking comment...you fucking FRAUD.

the_last_name_left said...

No, I didn't delete it.

It just hasn't posted for some reason.

repost it?

You said "I'm not suggesting Carto is NOT with a hate group, he may be. But the SPLC is no authority on that. I have debunked them several times."

But you are happy to accept that the SPLC are CORRECT in this case, re Willis Carto? Yes?

Wiki claims Carto's paper the AmericanFreePress publishes a column by Ron Paul.

This is not a website, it's a 'newspaper'.

And you're wrong that RP can do nothing about it - AFP cannot publish Ron Paul's column without authority to do so - if it is copyrighted, which it is, unless stated otherwise, and/or Paul relinquishes copyright.

How do you know Ron Paul has not given permission to AFP to publish his column?

Prove he hasn't given permission?

the_last_name_left said...

Seems Blogger accurately decided it was SPAM, and filtered it out. lol.

I retrieved it from the SPAM bin, and now your comment appears in its right place. Impossible if I had deleted it.

Real Truth Online said...

"And you're wrong that RP can do nothing about it - AFP cannot publish Ron Paul's column without authority to do so - if it is copyrighted, which it is, unless stated otherwise, and/or Paul relinquishes copyright."

Yet, you publish Rivero's article almost on a daily basis??? Did you get permission from Rivero??

I didn't think so.

I wouldn't mind at all if a website or newspaper that held views I disagreed with published my columns without permission, as long as they credited ME with the authorship and didn't pass it off as their own.

For example, if a Christian website published one of my articles on Ron Paul and agreed with it [being that I am so opposed to religion and many elements of the Christian religion], I wouldn't necessarily be offended or upset with that as long as they were not implying I agreed with one of their Christian doctrines.

See, what people like you don't get is that, you are so gung-ho to do the guilt-by-association shit, that you don't realize it is NOT necessarily being hypocritical for one group to believe something about one thing and another to believe something about another thing. It does NOt mean that BOTH groups hold the SAME views about EVERYTHING.

I love what BIll Maher says about religion but hate what he says about 9-11 truthers. I like some things Bill O' Reilly and Glenn Beck says. Does it mean that if I agree with them ONCE on ONE subject that I agree with them about EVERYTHING ALL the time???

According to shitbags like you and the fucking douchebag that wrote that RP article, yes, it does mean that. That is dishonest, hypocritical and being a big fat fucking liar.

If Willis Carto hates Jews but also believes in the Constitution as RP does, that does NOT mean that RP hates Jews. But to dishonest pricks like you, it very well means that.

That brings me back to the question that you REFUSED to answer:

"If I posted YOUR articles on MY site, would that then mean YOU support 9-11 truth and believe in conspiracies???"

A simple YES or NO will do. No long answer required. Naturally, you will avoid answering this because it means you will be trapped, and ignoring it is your only way out.

If you answer "yes", you'd be lying because you obviously dont believe in 9-11 conspiracies.

If you say "no", that means you're a big hypocrite about the RP racist newsletter issue, and every other issue concerning articles or content being published on sites or newspapers.

So, be a MAN and answer the question, DESPITE the fact that either answer will put you in a position that, like Ricky Ricardo used to say "You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!"

Be a MAN.

Real Truth Online said...

And don't give me the fucking "Stop with the profanity" bullshit as a way to divert from my question. It's REALLY getting old and your two readers have to be smart enough to know you use that excuse everytime you want to avoid answering a question. Put it to bed. It doesn't work anymore [it never did with me]. Just answer the question like a MAN, without the excuses, deflections and the hypocrisy.

the_last_name_left said...

Well, hold on. Let's take a look at this.

You admit, that this time at least, the SPLC is likely entirely correct - Willis Carto is a racist fascist, yes?

And that Carto's newspaper AFP publishes a regular column by RonPaul, yes?

What is the situation regarding copyright of these articles? Does RonPaul know about their publication by Carto? Does he give specific permission? Does Paul get paid for the column?

If Paul does get paid, obviously he's taking money of a racist fascist......he's taking money from "hate-groups".

If Paul doesn't take money, then he's gifting income to AFP, by allowing them to use his columns to generate sales and profit which will help further racist and fascist causes.....he's gifting to "a racist, fascist, hate group".

Neither position is without problems. Obviously.

Anyway.....does RonPaul know about AFP publishing his columns? Or not? How do you know? (You don't - as ever you're assuming everything).

Paul Craig Roberts tried pulling a similar defence when I showed he was being published in Carto's AFP. PCR claimed "anyone could publish his work". But I showed that his column was syndicated, and that prior written permission had to be obtained before publication - along with a fee.

You need to show Paul asserts no copyright on his column before claiming "anyone can publish it". They can't.

Here's something to consider.....

RonPaul was selling his newsletters. For several hundreds of $$ a pop.

DO you think just anybody would have been allowed to republish them for their own profit?

Of course not.

It's reasonable to conclude Paul gets paid for his column by AFP.

You have evidence he doesn't?

At the very least Paul is engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with a racist fascist "hate-group".

Paul helps them sell papers, and they help Paul reach their audience - whom we have already seen Paul acknowledge as the best fund-raising crowd.

Paul ackowledged they got more money from the crazies than anyone else - which is why they were using AFP's subscriber list as a target list.

Paul's newsletters were targeted at Carto's subscribers over 20 years ago (AFP was then called The Spotlight).

So we're talking about a relationship spanning decades. Yet you try to argue it's pure coincidence.

Then we have the content of the RonPaul newsletters, which was clearly designed to appeal to AFP/Spotlight/Racist/Fascist audiences.

Appealing to racists fascists and haters to make money? Nice.

Anyway, the point is, thios is a 20 year relationship - and RonPaul is still being published by Willis Carto.

You want to pass all this off as meaningless coincidence. It doesn't wash.

the_last_name_left said...

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

the_last_name_left said...

This is Larry writing in September 2011:

----
"Another Reason I Love Barry Manilow: He Supports Ron Paul"

Manilow calls Congressman Paul “solid” and that he agrees with just about everything he says

Manilow contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign then and still supports him now.
-----

It's a good thing that Manilow supports RonPaul....it makes Larry like him all the more. But it's of no consequence that Willis Carto also supports RonPaul. Right....lol

Real Truth Online said...

"Anyway.....does RonPaul know about AFP publishing his columns? Or not? How do you know? (You don't - as ever you're assuming everything)."

What do you mean "How do I know"????

The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim that Ron Paul KNOWS his stuff is being published----not ME who is claiming he may NOT know!

What a fucking IDIOT you are!

"It's reasonable to conclude Paul gets paid for his column by AFP.

You have evidence he doesn't?"

AGAIN, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that he DOES get paid for it---NOT the one who claims 'how do you know if he's paid?"

Stop your fucking mind games, it doesn't work on me. Im too smart for it.

"It's a good thing that Manilow supports RonPaul....it makes Larry like him all the more. But it's of no consequence that Willis Carto also supports RonPaul. Right....lol"

What EXACTLY is your point here? Did you NOT read my posts? Apparently NOT since you didnt address ANY of them. So, I will re-post them. This time, ANSWER them.

You always fucking claim Im SPAMMING, BUT YOU IGNORE MY FUCKING TEXTS.

ADDRESS THIS:

"I wouldn't mind at all if a website or newspaper that held views I disagreed with published my columns without permission, as long as they credited ME with the authorship and didn't pass it off as their own.

For example, if a Christian website published one of my articles on Ron Paul and agreed with it [being that I am so opposed to religion and many elements of the Christian religion], I wouldn't necessarily be offended or upset with that as long as they were not implying I agreed with one of their Christian doctrines.

See, what people like you don't get is that, you are so gung-ho to do the guilt-by-association shit, that you don't realize it is NOT necessarily being hypocritical for one group to believe something about one thing and another to believe something about another thing. It does NOt mean that BOTH groups hold the SAME views about EVERYTHING.

I love what BIll Maher says about religion but hate what he says about 9-11 truthers. I like some things Bill O' Reilly and Glenn Beck says. Does it mean that if I agree with them ONCE on ONE subject that I agree with them about EVERYTHING ALL the time???

According to shitbags like you and the fucking douchebag that wrote that RP article, yes, it does mean that. That is dishonest, hypocritical and being a big fat fucking liar.

If Willis Carto hates Jews but also believes in the Constitution as RP does, that does NOT mean that RP hates Jews. But to dishonest pricks like you, it very well means that.

That brings me back to the question that you REFUSED to answer:

"If I posted YOUR articles on MY site, would that then mean YOU support 9-11 truth and believe in conspiracies???"

A simple YES or NO will do. No long answer required. Naturally, you will avoid answering this because it means you will be trapped, and ignoring it is your only way out.

If you answer "yes", you'd be lying because you obviously dont believe in 9-11 conspiracies.

If you say "no", that means you're a big hypocrite about the RP racist newsletter issue, and every other issue concerning articles or content being published on sites or newspapers.

So, be a MAN and answer the question, DESPITE the fact that either answer will put you in a position that, like Ricky Ricardo used to say "You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!"

Be a MAN."

the_last_name_left said...

Burden of proof?

lol. I didn't write the article - you brought it here.

The fact is, you do not know if RP has given permission to Willis Carto to publish his work.

Real Truth Online said...

You fucking little fraud you.

You just KEEP ignoring my fucking question...the one where you KNOW you are trapped by answering,. That is EXACTLY what makes you the hypocritical fraud you are....when you REFUSE to answer questions that force you to either LIE or makes a hypocrite out of you. You simply can't be a MAN, can you??

Here is my post for a THIRD time:

"If I posted YOUR articles on MY site, would that then mean YOU support 9-11 truth and believe in conspiracies???"

A simple YES or NO will do. No long answer required. Naturally, you will avoid answering this because it means you will be trapped, and ignoring it is your only way out.

If you answer "yes", you'd be lying because you obviously dont believe in 9-11 conspiracies.

If you say "no", that means you're a big hypocrite about the RP racist newsletter issue, and every other issue concerning articles or content being published on sites or newspapers.

So, be a MAN and answer the question, DESPITE the fact that either answer will put you in a position that, like Ricky Ricardo used to say "You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!"

Be a MAN."

the_last_name_left said...

You ask stupid questions then get upset when you feel they're being ignored.

A related question to the one you're asking is "Why on earth would someone imagine I supported 911 Truth simply by reading my stuff at a Troofer site?"

I don't support 911 Truth and that would be obvious.

With RonPaul and Willis Carto and AFP however, it's a bit different. Because Carto and AFP obviously do support RonPaul.

So it's not simple coincidence that relationships between Paul and unsavoury types like Carto keep popping up.

Paul said Gingrich taking money from Fannie Mae (for a job!) was "immoral" and he wouldn't take the money.....whereas Paul was happy to accept money from Don Black.

But of course Paul is happy taking money off them - that's why he used The Spotlight mailing lists.

They knew the fascists and extremists around Carto and the Soptlight liked what they heard.

And why wouldn't they? You've seen the newsletters?

You, like Paul, seem to accept the newsletters are offensive and need repudiation of sorts.



You don't want Paul to be viewed as responsible.

But it was part of Paul's business and ran by his long-time and close political circle.

And 20 years later Paul is still trotting out the general content of the newsletters.......and still taking money from the crazies, such as Stormfront, and is still being published in Carto's AFP.

You want to pretend it's all coincidence and/or simply meaningless or normal to have such associations. It isn't.

You're flip-flopping around to escape the import of it. Your silly question is part of that effort. Stop being silly......

Real Truth Online said...

"You ask stupid questions then get upset when you feel they're being ignored."

No fuckstick. It is an EXCELLENT question...which is why you IGNORE it. And I don't "feel" it's being ignored---it IS.

"A related question to the one you're asking is "Why on earth would someone imagine I supported 911 Truth simply by reading my stuff at a Troofer site?""

No asshole. Don't answer a "RELATED" question...answer the ONE I ASKED YOU.

Here is my question AGAIN [4th time now]------it only requires a YES or a NO...can you handle that?

"If I posted YOUR articles on MY site, would that then mean YOU support 9-11 truth and believe in conspiracies???"

YES or NO.

NO spin, no deflection, no answering "related" questions. Answer the VERY ONE I asked.

YES or NO.

Simple.

the_last_name_left said...

yes

you wouldn't print articles by anyone who wasn't a mad troofer. so the answer would have to be yes.

Just like with AFP - they don't publish and support things they oppose.

Real Truth Online said...

"you wouldn't print articles by anyone who wasn't a mad troofer. so the answer would have to be yes."

So, you ADMIT your answer is "yes"??

So, all I have to do is post your article on my site, and you will be admitting to being a truther then???

the_last_name_left said...

So what writing of mine can you include that sits comfortably and supportively in a 911 Troofer blog?

Have you already got stuff of mine at your blog supporting 911 Troof?

Have you been publishing such stuff of mine for 20 years?

Have I been making money out of your readership these last 20 years?

Have they been voting for me and working for my political elevation to power these last decades?

No.

So, clearly we have a significant difference between your scenario with me/911 Troof and that of Ron Paul/fascism.

Thanks for highlighting that.

Real Truth Online said...

"Have you already got stuff of mine at your blog supporting 911 Troof?

Have you been publishing such stuff of mine for 20 years?

Have I been making money out of your readership these last 20 years?

Have they been voting for me and working for my political elevation to power these last decades?

No."

You can't say "no" after you already answered....

"yes

you wouldn't print articles by anyone who wasn't a mad troofer. so the answer would have to be yes."

Jesus H. Christ...what a turd you are.

Real Truth Online said...

And this is who Socrates supports....a guy who answers "yes" then "no" to the same goddamned question on the same goddamned day.

You hear a knock on the door? They're coming for you with the straight jacket.

LOL

Real Truth Online said...

NO RESPONSE to my last posts. Exactly what I thought.

Pussy.

the_last_name_left said...

well, sorry, but you completely failed to understand my point. Didn't I make it clear enough?

Real Truth Online said...

"well, sorry, but you completely failed to understand my point. Didn't I make it clear enough?"

I understood it perfectly. You said "no" then "yes" to the same question on the same day.

Period.