Ron Paul: Unearthed Newsletters Reveal Racism
Well, it's all over the web, but maybe I'll get some hits too. Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul, Libertarian Ron Paul.... hit me, hit me, hit me, hit me....
Here' the Kirchick piece. 847 comments and counting. Excerpt:
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 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.
Anyway, none of this is surprising. As Stephen Bainbridge wrote back in December, "It may not be a case of birds of a feather, but it’s at least a case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas."
Susan, please feel free to chime in with your very own toldja-so.
Here's a good report from the PJ Media folks, excerpt from their list of racist pull quotes:
Ron Paul: “But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.”
Syntactically embarrassing; I imagine the "phony history" to which he is referring is that of hardworking plantation-owners using blacks as slaves. The "phony theory" undoubtedly refers to theoretical lynch mobs.
I feel bad for the well-meaning people who fell for this guy.
Dreher posted and the Man From K Street showed up:
ReplyDeleteCry not for Larison. Behind many a paleo's affected Tory elevated sentiments, there are a lot of dark, pug-ugly psychoses lurking about. Sooner or later they slip up, like Sam Francis or Joe Sobran, and let them break through to the surface. The greater frequency of blogging as opposed to print journalism means this can be expected to happen earlier in a career rather than hidden for decades, since there are more opportunities for 'inadvertent honesty'...
Exactly, exactly, exactly... honestly, what else do paleocons, libertarians and luny conspiracy freaks have in common? Not even marijuana. It's racism. Paul is a white race-baier; he's the flip side of Dennis Kucinich.
What a good liberal you've proven yourself to be, Pauli. I'm glad you've finally come out of the closet. It was a bold move; I'm sure concealing your true identity has been painful.
ReplyDeleteWhat you appear to be saying here is that commenting negatively about what you take to be negative behavior engaged in disproportionately by a certain group of people makes you a "racist"-- at least when you're white and the people you are commenting negatively upon are black.
Well, pat yourself on the head and call yourself a good boy for reapeating that tired old PC canard! How brave you must feel for daring to attack the very people we are all trained like Pavlovian dogs to loathe in the first place (i.e., the ones unlucky enough to be tarred as "racists.")
What you also appear to be saying is that someone who suggests that MLK Jr. lived anything less than an immaculate life, and even observes that he even appeared to be a rather sleazy man in certain respects, must ipso facto be, let's all say it togther, "racist."
Ditto one who notices that many black rabble rousers engage in hateful rhetoric towards whites. It sounds like a simple observation to me, but then that's probably because I must be a "racist" too, just like Ron Paul, that nefarious threat to all things decent.
I don't know why you hold such persistent antipathy towards RP, but I find it annoying and boring. Have fun picking from all of the mediocrities that make up the GOP lamestream. Speaking of lying down with dogs and getting fleas as a result...
LOL
ReplyDeleteComrades
ReplyDeleteLet's not bicker. Wasn't it Jesus who said, "How can you see the mote in your comrade's eye if he or she stands in the shadow cast by mountains of dead babies?"
It's an election year and everyone is worried about truth. What is truth? Random phrases strung together in a heated moment. Everyone needs to lower their expectations and take their blue pills.
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1659
Speaking of dead babies, around 1993 I was on my way out of libertarianism due to what I perceived to be a non-Christian strain, injected by Murray Rothbard (read this) and the anarcho-capitalist wing. The other wing, the "classical liberal", did seem to win out in the Libertarian Party in the mid-90's, I think that's when they shifted their platform to be pro-life.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Paul supposedly has great affection for Rothbard, (from the Bainbridge piece)
"Ron Paul is perhaps the most famous heir to the Rothbard tradition. He even has a portrait of Rothbard on his wall (that is, according to Wikipedia; Paul’s office declined to grant an interview for this piece). Paul claims to be the standard-bearer of a truer, more authentic conservatism...."
and I just can't imagine how an obstetrician who claims to be a Christian can get beyond the kind of hyper-individualistic thinking which would allow someone to advocate abandoning children and justifying abortion based on the rights of the individual. I might put up a whole post on that.
Oh, yeah, and there's that phrase "authentic conservatism" we all know and love....
What doesn't fit for me on the whole Rothbard-abortion-Paul connection is that Paul has had to frequently answer the question of how he can be a libertarian and oppose abortion, to which he has answered the being against abortion is true to libertarian principles, because libertarians are to do no harm to others.
ReplyDeleteHardly a Rothbard sentiment.
Lots of investigation to do on this one.
Now that you've been outed as a liberal, I expect to see some changes around here. Perhaps a nice, rainbow design? Certainly more stream of conscience rants.
ReplyDeleteTravis, the (big "L") Libertarian Party switched their platform to pro-life in the mid-90's, I think. At any rate, they are now. Ron Paul was always pro-life. Meanwhile, for your investigation, I would start by looking at the 2 major camps which comprise libertarians (small 'l') as I mentioned on your site. I don't think there are secessionists among the Classical Liberals even if they have an allergy to Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteActually I talked to an atheist, pro-life Libertartian around 1987 or so and she was trying to get the platform changed. I think it was Doris Gordon. The person who told me about the platform change was in college when I was out for years -- I had lost track, it was a college thing for me. The interesting thing is that their biggest turnout for pres. was during the Reagan landslide.
I was really into this stuff in college. I even got this Objectivist newsletter -- it had some really dark stuff in it, talking eugenics, etc. Some of them are basically materialists who don't believe personhood exists in a Christian sense.
I'm digressing... so before Nowicki jumps on me again, I know RP isn't into all this stuff I'm talking about. But the "fleas/dogs" thing is legit, I believe.
But whatever you do, Travis, don't assume like many Paul supporters do that everyone who brings up this stuff is trying to smear him because they hate him, love war, etc. For the record, FOX should have let him into that debate, IMO. But a serious candidate would have dealt with this stuff -- one thing Paul and Rothbard share in spades is being reality-challenged -- and a serious candidate wouldn't go NEAR "Truther" Alex Jones, please.
stream of conscience rants.
ReplyDeleteBreak out the bong and the bongos, man.
Pauli we hardly knew yee. Turns out ya don't want to put da darkies in their place and lock up all the immygrints. How can you call yourself a true conservative?
ReplyDeletebtw, don't allow Ron Paul's kraziness to detract from his economic argument. it's rock solid (sad to say)
ReplyDeleteanyone see dreher get trashed on the rodblog for continually trashing NRO by one Katie O'connor ? (and no it wasn't me). for some reason the comment remains undeleted.
So here's where I'm at - at this point, it looks to me like Paul wants to define himself as a Classical Liberal, and those are the views he holds; but he allowed himself to be co-opted by the Rothbard-Rockwell types (Rockwell in specific, actually), which demonstrates a serious lack of judgment for a guy who's such a critical thinker otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI've been digging around libertarian sites, focusing on the folks who were around when the newsletters were being written. The name that gets tossed around the most as the "ghostwriter" is Rockwell, which explains why, though Paul has repudiated the newsletters' content, he's never named the ghostwriter. Rockwell is still close to Paul and a huge Paul backer. Another serious lack of judgment.
Bad moves for Paul, and if my research here is correct, his political career is done.
That's pretty much the way I see it. "Unserious" is the way I characterize Paul, but not compared to my wonderful state rep, Dennis Kucinich.
ReplyDeleteAs Kathleen always points out, he's right on a bundle of fiscal issues. He'll retain his senate seat, I'll bet. I mean honestly, I hope he does -- he's a kook, but he's OUR kook.
First you commented about slavery. I had the misfortune of being around far left people. They tell stories of massive death camps in the previous centuries, cover-ups, and plans for future ones. When I was in college I heard Stokley Carmichael (sp?) speak. Talk about whacky, but they interweave truth into their lies and fear mongering so it sounds real and true. If someone with and opposite views is reacting to it, that is probably what they are reacting too.
ReplyDeleteIt is kind interesting to me that fringe seems to react to fringe. Worldnet Daily reacts to people like Kucinich, where you would ignore Kucinich.
Why are they kooks? I don't think people like Kucinich and Paul are kooks. They see real problems and give un-real solutions. For example, I LOL when I heard about Kucinich's department of peace. Then when I thought about it, I thought why not. Unfortunately that would involve confiscating my property especially my guns, but I get what he is trying to do. Remember guns are vote multipliers.
When Paul went on his rant in the debate I kept thinking just shut-up now. Stay on point. Most people are threatened by compound sentences and he was trying to atomize book level concepts into soundbites so he sounded kooky. He's trying to get you to think about root causes, when most people won't think at that level.
I think what is bothering Andy, is the double standard. Minorities and women can be racists and sexist, and if you criticize this then you are branded a racist or sexist.
If I were to say that technical teams with women and men are much more effective because women change the dynamic I fear I would get the sexist label even though the statement was positive. If I said that women managers have a tendency to not understand the male dynamic, and mismanage their teams, again I would be branded.
I think that would be useful knowledge for female managers but I would not want to risk discussing it. So I understand Andy's frustration. I will now be branded a kook for this long post. But people think I am a kook because I go to work in filthy rags and matted hair. Hey that's their loss.
Andy please come back. Pauli is not a liberal, he is just not very bright, and if you just educated him through patient argument you can win him over to your thinking. ;-)
Thanks Cubeland for the well-wishes; I haven't gone anywhere...
ReplyDeleteCubeland isn't a kook, he just plays one on the internets. Sorry for the "third wall" there.
ReplyDeleteI know a guy who used to do a lot of handyman work with me in Cleveland, installing water-heaters, roof work, etc., basically a day-laborer, good guy, gritty, few teeth. He was complaining about blacks, saying things like "Us white people are the real minority, Paul, you realize that." I thought, "Sure, in this precinct we are." But my point is that he wasn't running for office let alone president. In my opinion, it's perfectly OK to hold someone to a higher standard if you're going to hire them for a more important job.
Re: Kucinich's "Department of Peace", why not a department for the other 11 gifts of the Holy Spirit? I suppose the "Dept. of Modesty" and the "Dept. of Chastity" would be simply too much to ask for and would be seen as an enfringement on "freedom of expression". You can confiscate the people's guns but not their mini-skirts, high-heels and navel rings.
me: "He'll retain his senate seat"
ReplyDeleteObviously I meant his congressional seat.
I toldja so! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't see how Paul supporters could explain this away. One way his camp is spinning this is that supposedly he didn't write the bigoted stuff. However, it did appear in a newsletter with his name on it and appeared repeatedly over a long period of time. Even if he doesn't share those views, he's pretty dumb to not know what's being published in his own newsletter with his name on it. If he's that inattentive to his newsletter, how could he be a good President?
Susan, I don't necessarily think it's implausible that he didn't know what was going on with the letters at the time. He had a hefty lecturing schedule around the nation, he was doing his medical practice, had his family, and was planning and preparing for future political moves. He left the letter in the care of others, and there was a large number of writers at the time who came in and out - and never was a writer actually credited in the reports.
ReplyDeleteBad move, but not unrealistic to think it happened. Also, it didn't really happen over a very long period of time. The racist material came in fits and spurts in the early 90s. There was some conspiracy-theory stuff in the late 70s, but there were not decades of consistently bigoted tirades.