Is Ron Paul a Racist?

[Nolan]

Someone else posted these elsewhere on the forum. I'd like to hear the OI's thoughts/responses/rebuttals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4P87p-Arcw&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCSZRuS2YfU&feature=related


And there's also this which I thought some might find interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPD832-gsw&feature=related

[IcarusAngel]

Ron Paul isn't even relevant any more, give it up. He got beat down by liberals. I've never seen liberals so pissed at a candidate - they bashed Ron Paul more than Giuliani. The New Republic article is one of the things that took him down.

Frankly, given that he's anti-science, pro-creationism, pro-cult logic, I think he deserved it.

[Dimentio]

Ron Paul isn't even relevant any more, give it up. He got beat down by liberals. I've never seen liberals so pissed at a candidate - they bashed Ron Paul more than Giuliani. The New Republic article is one of the things that took him down.

Frankly, given that he's anti-science, pro-creationism, pro-cult logic, I think he deserved it.

Sadly, I saw that he got 41% in a recent poll.

[anticap]

Why does it even matter? He's currently the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus (he even wrote at least one book with the sole purpose of praising and advocating Misesite "economics"). That's what makes him dangerous, not his embarrassingly unscientific opinions on the implications of melanin levels among Homo sapiens.

The vicious racism of the Tea Partiers who revere him doesn't hinge on his validation, and it certainly can't be amplified by him.

But to answer the question anyway: Yes. Without even watching those videos I can confirm his racism. I've heard the tone of his voice shift ever-so-slightly but oh-so-tellingly when he says "blacks" (the only term I've ever heard him use to refer to African Americans). I also witnessed his meltdown on Tim Russert's show, where he said everything necessary to confirm his racism without actually mouthing the words. It was such a spectacle that, as much as I loathe him, I actually felt sympathy for him -- until the next day, when I began reading the apologetics from his slavish spin-meisters.

Incidentally, this "Tea Party" has been brewing a long time. I've watched it percolate since early '07. Of course they go back a lot further, but this particular one is not at all fresh. It's just that the capitalist media has finally judged it safe to cover.

[Dimentio]

Why does it even matter? He's currently the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus (he even wrote at least one book with the sole purpose of praising and advocating Misesite "economics"). That's what makes him dangerous, not his embarrassingly unscientific opinions on the implications of melanin levels among Homo sapiens.

The vicious racism of the Tea Partiers who revere him doesn't hinge on his validation, and it certainly can't be amplified by him.

But to answer the question anyway: Yes. Without even watching those videos I can confirm his racism. I've heard the tone of his voice shift ever-so-slightly but oh-so-tellingly when he says "blacks" (the only term I've ever heard him use to refer to African Americans). I also witnessed his meltdown on Tim Russert's show, where he said everything necessary to confirm his racism without actually mouthing the words. It was such a spectacle that, as much as I loathe him, I actually felt sympathy for him -- until the next day, when I began reading the apologetics from his slavish spin-meisters.

Incidentally, this "Tea Party" has been brewing a long time. I've watched it percolate since early '07. Of course they go back a lot further, but this particular one is not at all fresh. It's just that the capitalist media has finally judged it safe to cover.

Its basically an internal quarrel between different factions of capitalists. The Tea Party movement is a fascist mob which has been generated to ensure the continued dominance of a particular group of capitalists over another group of capitalists, while the ordinary people would continue to have it lousy. Its depressing really.

[anticap]

I suspect that the eager coverage of the Tea Party phenomenon may have something to do with the Overton window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window). I mean, it's not like leftists haven't been just as active -- in fact we've been far more active, and for far longer -- but we don't get the coverage. We all know the reason why, but it still isn't necessarily obvious why right-wing extremists get coverage. As much as we like to talk about how extreme right-wingers are in general, the fact is that the right-wing establishment doesn't want to go as far as these extremists do (not because they're our friends, but because they espouse somewhat different tactics for acting in their capacity as our enemies). But I think they cover them anyway, because by putting the most extreme of the right-wing on constant display, the Overton window is shifted rightward, making the right-wing establishment appear less unpalatable by comparison.

Of course, this can work both ways. ;)

[Skooma Addict]

None of those videos were convincing, and the first two seemed more like weird propaganda videos. I don't think RP is any more or less racist than most people are. Most people do view each race a little differently, but I don't really care as long as they don't hate people of different races or stuff like that.

Either way, it seems like RP is becoming more and more popular each day, which I think is pretty good since he is far better than any other member of the unproductive political class.

[anticap]

he is far better than any other member of the unproductive political class.

Politicians do not constitute a "class" any more than police do. Both constitute part of the enforcement apparatus that is necessary to maintain the private property regime on which capitalism depends.

Misesite "class" theory is laughable. It is cut from whole cloth for the sole purpose of propping up the rest of Misesite "theory." It is literally no more substantive than a shim that one would use to level a wobbling piece of furniture.

[Nolan]

Politicians are only the face we put on capital. They are intertwined with the owning class whether they themselves own a means of production or not.

[Skooma Addict]

Politicians do not constitute a "class" any more than police do. Both constitute part of the enforcement apparatus that is necessary to maintain the private property regime on which capitalism depends.

Misesite "class" theory is laughable. It is cut from whole cloth for the sole purpose of propping up the rest of Misesite "theory." It is literally no more substantive than a shim that one would use to level a wobbling piece of furniture.

I think there is a political class as they are the rulers. I think your class theory is laughable.

[Dean]

I think there is a political class as they are the rulers. I think your class theory is laughable.
It isn't a clean cut system. The capitalist investors and corporate executives don't ignore state power as a medium to exact their goals, and likewise the state doesn't ignore the companies that define markets in its considerations.

The problem with propertarian theory is that you presume that everyone lives in a vacuum and every individual activity can be seen and critiqued from that narrow, singular viewpoint.

The material facts contradict your attitude harshly. The state, just like the capitalist class, utilizes its functions to effect change in markets, and capitalists use whatever means are at their disposal (kinds of capital) to exact change in the state.

The fact that you think there are two clear cut classes just shows how clueless you are in regards to the real systems of state and economy which are in effect today.

[Skooma Addict]

It isn't a clean cut system. The capitalist investors and corporate executives don't ignore state power as a medium to exact their goals, and likewise the state doesn't ignore the companies that define markets in its considerations.

Correct, people don't completely ignore the political class.


The problem with propertarian theory is that you presume that everyone lives in a vacuum and every individual activity can be seen and critiqued from that narrow, singular viewpoint.

No I don't.


The material facts contradict your attitude harshly. The state, just like the capitalist class, utilizes its functions to effect change in markets, and capitalists use whatever means are at their disposal (kinds of capital) to exact change in the state.

The state intervenes in the market, along with many other things. It is also not just capitalists who try to change state policy (many times to the detriment of other capitalists), but workers and other interest groups do this all the time as well.

[Crusade]

Ron Paul isn't even relevant any more, give it up. He got beat down by liberals. I've never seen liberals so pissed at a candidate - they bashed Ron Paul more than Giuliani. The New Republic article is one of the things that took him down.

Frankly, given that he's anti-science, pro-creationism, pro-cult logic, I think he deserved it.

Huh? Ron Paul has more liberal support than any conservative candidate.

[Dean]

The state intervenes in the market, along with many other things. It is also not just capitalists who try to change state policy (many times to the detriment of other capitalists), but workers and other interest groups do this all the time as well.

Workers groups and other interests groups are driven by capital, too. The AFL-CIO is a great example of this, as is AARP and AIPAC.

They each take in capital from their constituency and effect change on public policy with that capital. They represent the interests they need to - the AFL-CIO, for instance, is not particularly representative of the interests of its constituency, and actually has diverted funding to neoliberal expansionism. AIPAC and AARP are both drawing on collectively powerful capital and representing their interests, in their own respective ways and degrees. If the firms themselves do not make a profit, they constitute a means to make a profit, be that in terms of military, political or strictly economic capital, for their respectively represented interests.

In addition, you've failed to explain where the state - whose leaders are defined by campaign spending and their relations to finance capital - is somehow "non-capitalist." It acts in ways which very clearly further the interests of its controllers, with the capital it has available.

[cska]

Ron Paul is an extremely stupid capitalist. That said, I would rather have him as President than one of the Republocrats. That is solely for RP's foreign policy. After all, I don't think it is possible to make domestic policy much worse than it currently is...

As far as the videos, I stopped watching the first one when it started sounding like it was trying to brainwash me. That KKK guy endorsing Ron Paul is no more of a problem than Bin Laden telling Americans to listen to Noam Chomsky. :laugh:

However, the Young Turks video was pretty disturbing. Not because of the laws he would pass, as almost all politicians, Obama included, don't give a damn about the average black man. However, what is disturbing is that he is under no illusions as to how he is fighting racism or what not, but clearly believes that black men are criminals, something only hardline Republicans say publicly. :blink:

[Drace]

His not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

[SubcomandanteJames]

All capitalists are racist, either by how they interact with another race, or by their support of class antagonisms that cause racism.

[9]

To the OP, why does it matter? I don’t think personal attributes are particularly relevant here. To use an analogy: is Obama racist? I don’t know, I doubt it; it would be pretty weird. The fact remains, though, that he represents a bourgeois state which enacts and enforces deeply racist policies, so what difference does it make whether or not he is racist on a personal level? I don’t understand some American leftists’ obsession with impotent rightwing figures and groups. So much attention is directed at these irrelevant marginal people while a lot of times very little is said about Obama and the Democratic Party, or when something is said, it a lot of times sounds closer to a defense than a criticism.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Ya he is definitely not a hero of mine. I feel almost ashamed of the libertarian and austrian economics movement b/c of all the social bigots that have infected it.

[MMIKEYJ]

Ron Paul isnt a racist.. He's awesome.

Liberty is the cure for what ails America....

[9]

Ron Paul isnt a racist.. He's awesome.

Liberty is the cure for what ails America....

lol

[Nolan]

Ron Paul isnt a racist.. He's awesome.

Liberty is the cure for what ails America....

Whoaa that's deep bro pass the bong

[GPDP]

Ron Paul isnt a racist.. He's awesome.

Liberty is the cure for what ails America....

What is this even supposed to mean

You sound like one of those stereotypical 60's hippies that say "all we need is love and peace and music, man."

[LeftSideDown]

Can I start a new thread? Was Marx and Anti-semite? Will this discredit everything hes said?

[9]

Can I start a new thread? Was Marx and Anti-semite? Will this discredit everything hes said?

Not at all. Then again, that Marx was an "anti-Semite" is a bogus claim to begin with. In any case, Ron Paul never needed racism to discredit his hilarious "ideas"; they discredit themselves, to pretty much everyone who isn't under the influence of PCP.

[Left-Reasoning]

Why does it even matter? He's currently the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus

This is far from the truth. Eliminating corporate subsidy and the federal reserve is not the most "pro-capitalist" position.


(he even wrote at least one book with the sole purpose of praising and advocating Misesite "economics").

What!? Austrian Economics!? If he supports Austrian Economics, he is truly lower than scum!

[GPDP]

What!? Austrian Economics!? If he supports Austrian Economics, he is truly lower than scum!

Indeed. He would often name-drop the Austrian school when asked about economic issues. It's why so many ancaps and Misesians have such a hard-on for the guy. More often than not, he's the only reason anyone has even heard of the Austrian school, and a huge part of its proliferation on the interbutt.

[IcarusAngel]

Left Reasoning was being sarcastic. He's an austrian and an active member at Mises forums, even subscribing to their most extreme theories about logic etc.

[GPDP]

Left Reasoning was being sarcastic. He's an austrian and an active member at Mises forums, even subscribing to their most extreme theories about logic etc.

lol I thought so. I had him confused with hayenmill for some reason.

[Left-Reasoning]

He's an austrian and an active member at Mises forums,

I'm an active member on the Mises forums?


even subscribing to their most extreme theories about logic etc.

What extreme theories about logic?

[IcarusAngel]

LOL. Notice the cult behavior on display here. You could imagine a scientologist doing this. "What extreme beliefs? Everybody believes that an alien from the Galactic Confederacy brought billions of people to earth in a DC-8 space craft 75 million years ago."

Now the Misean:

"Everybody believes that human nature is reducible to an axiom. Every college in the country teaches this. Psychology is a study of human action in history, not a study of the mind.

Mises was the greatest thinker in history. He invented optics, geometry, economics, psychology, logic, and the laser printer. He's so smart he discovered many of these principles before he was even born. "

They basically replace "God" with "Mises" and proceed to worship him.

[Skooma Addict]

LOL. Notice the cult behavior on display here. You could imagine a scientologist doing this. "What extreme beliefs? Everybody believes that an alien from the Galactic Confederacy brought billions of people to earth in a DC-8 space craft 75 million years ago."

Now the Misean:

"Everybody believes that human nature is reducible to an axiom. Every college in the country teaches this. Psychology is a study of human action in history, not a study of the mind.

Mises was the greatest thinker in history. He invented optics, geometry, economics, psychology, logic, and the laser printer. He's so smart he discovered many of these principles before he was even born. "

They basically replace "God" with "Mises" and proceed to worship him.

Lets see.

You start off by claiming that asking for clarification is cult like behavior in order to escape having to give an actual response. You then commit strawmen so at to dismiss opposing claims beforehand so you do not need to deal with them. Great argument. :rolleyes:

And trust me, you are more obsessed with Mises than any "Misean" I have ever met in my life. You even have in him your sig, lol.

[anticap]

This is far from the truth. Eliminating corporate subsidy and the federal reserve is not the most "pro-capitalist" position.

And here again we see a rabid, slavering, right-wing attack-dog, jumping to conclusions that could have been avoided by a simple, careful, intellectually honest reading.

I say "Ron Paul is the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus"; you hear "Ron Paul holds the most pro-capitalist position conceivable."

It's no wonder that you people are so confused: you probably haven't even managed to comprehend your own reading material, much less that of your supposed opponents (who are, in fact, your greatest allies, as they are fighting to bring about a world where you will enjoy the full fruits of your labors).

[Left-Reasoning]

And here again we see a rabid, slavering, right-wing attack-dog, jumping to conclusions that could have been avoided by a simple, careful, intellectually honest reading.

I say "Ron Paul is the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus"; you hear "Ron Paul holds the most pro-capitalist position conceivable."

Comrade, last time I checked there were plenty of "members of the state apparatus" who favor corporate subsidy and the Fed.



It's no wonder that you people are so confused:Who precisely are my people?


you probably haven't even managed to comprehend your own reading material, much less that of your supposed opponentsMy supposed opponents? The capitalists?


(who are, in fact, your greatest allies, as they are fighting to bring about a world where you will enjoy the full fruits of your labors).The capitalists? I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what they want.

[Tungsten]

Politicians do not constitute a "class" any more than police do. Both constitute part of the enforcement apparatus that is necessary to maintain the private property regime on which capitalism depends.

The politicians are the ruling class. The public sector and the people who legitimise and empower it are part of the ruling class. The corporations are part of the ruling class. Special interest groups are part of the ruling class. The police enforce the ruling classes orders and are thus part of the ruling class too.

There is no private property regime, as the ruling class violates private property millions of times every day; they do this in order to survive. They allow some private property rights only because it's more productive than full socialisation.

------


All capitalists are racist, either by how they interact with another race, or by their support of class antagonisms that cause racism.


Free trade is good, therefore some races are superior to others.

:laugh:

Great reasoning, that. Are you incapable of seeing any social ill except in terms of class warfare?

Racism most likely originates from an instinctual aversion to "that which is different" that all humans have to some degree. With racists, this instinct has gone unchecked and has been taken to an extreme. I suspect homophobia is pretty much the same.

[RGacky3]

There is no private property regime, as the ruling class violates private property millions of times every day; they do this in order to survive. They allow some private property rights only because it's more productive than full socialisation.


Do you know how much money the corporate elite have? As opposed to the government? Do you know how much of industry and Capital the corporate elite control? As opposed to government? Do you know how much of the resources the corporate elite control? As oppossed to the government? Do you know how much the government sucks up to and appeases the corporate elite? As opposed to the other way around?

The GOVERNMENT is the ruling class?

[MMIKEYJ]

What is this even supposed to mean

You sound like one of those stereotypical 60's hippies that say "all we need is love and peace and music, man."

Yeah I know.. Liberty has been such a mantra in the USA that people nowadays dont even know what it means.. It was to be re-learned and re-understood.

Liberty is personal and economic freedom.. thats it. People have a right to do what they want as long as theyre not infringing on the rights of others.

And I know common law and property rights arent going to be popular on this board but I think repsect for property rights goes a long way into understanding the human psyche and some of the problems society has today.. at least in America.

[MMIKEYJ]

This is far from the truth. Eliminating corporate subsidy and the federal reserve is not the most "pro-capitalist" position.



What!? Austrian Economics!? If he supports Austrian Economics, he is truly lower than scum!

Id rather have Austrian economics than keynesian economics anyday.. keynesian economics robs the people.

[RED DAVE]

Yeah I know.. Liberty has been such a mantra in the USA that people nowadays dont even know what it means.. It was to be re-learned and re-understood.But pro-capitalist types are not the ones to do the teaching.


iberty is personal and economic freedom.I agree: the freedom to control the fruit of one's own labor against capitalist exploitation.


thats it. People have a right to do what they want as long as theyre not infringing on the rights of others.I agree. The infringements of capitalist on our rights are disgusting.


And I know common law and property rights arent going to be popular on this boardTo say the least.


but I thinkDo you really think, or do you just parrot what you have learned from others?


repsect for property rights goes a long way into understanding the human psyche and some of the problems society has today.. at least in America.Considering for the first 100,000 years or so of human existence property did not even exist, that's a hell of a thing to say. And most of the problems that exist in society today stem from the capitalist notion of property rights.

RED DAVE

[Tungsten]

Do you know how much money the corporate elite have? As opposed to the government? Do you know how much of industry and Capital the corporate elite control? As opposed to government? Do you know how much of the resources the corporate elite control? As oppossed to the government? Do you know how much the government sucks up to and appeases the corporate elite?

The government doesn't have any money other than that which it takes from those it governs. The corporate elite operate some private enterprise but are able to do nasty stuff using government sponsored violence, such as setting up barriers to entry, usually in exchange for campaign contributions. The government is just another corporation anyway. Did you ever wonder why corporations back political parties (social democrats etc.) that would at first glance appear work against their interests?


As opposed to the other way around?

It's not a one-way street.

-------------------


And most of the problems that exist in society today stem from the capitalist notion of property rights.
I'd love to see how this is backed up.

[Kassad]

Id rather have Austrian economics than keynesian economics anyday.. keynesian economics robs the people.

And Austrian economics concentrates wealth in the hands of an elite few while those who are left poor, disenfranchised and starving are left with absolutely no means of picking themselves back up. Try bringing that economic horseshit into poor neighborhoods and see how that works out for you. Workers need emancipation from all capitalist economics and exploitation.

[Tungsten]

And Austrian economics concentrates wealth in the hands of an elite few while those who are left poor, disenfranchised and starving are left with absolutely no means of picking themselves back up.
*Yawn*...concentrates wealth...elite few...poor...disenfranchised...*snore*.


Try bringing that economic horseshit into poor neighborhoods and see how that works out for you. Workers need emancipation from all capitalist economics and exploitation.

The social acceptance of an economic theory by your pet group is not a valid measure of whether it works or not, or any real measure of its "fairness". Decentralised economics, and end to "welfare" on all levels and a reduction in tax burden would most likely benefit the vast majority of people.

[Demogorgon]

Decentralised economics, and end to "welfare" on all levels and a reduction in tax burden would most likely benefit the vast majority of people.
That was tried before. It is difficult to see how it might have been considered to benefit more than a small minority of people.

[Dean]

The social acceptance of an economic theory by your pet group is not a valid measure of whether it works or not, or any real measure of its "fairness". Decentralised economics, and end to "welfare" on all levels and a reduction in tax burden would most likely benefit the vast majority of people.

Decentralized economics certainly would. However, your mode of economic organization is incredibly centralizing, by nature of the accumulation of capital. This is precisely why we need real decentralization of economic power, which can never be attained by competitive models which reward accumulation of capital.

[Left-Reasoning]

And Austrian economics concentrates wealth in the hands of an elite few while those who are left poor, disenfranchised and starving are left with absolutely no means of picking themselves back up. Try bringing that economic horseshit into poor neighborhoods and see how that works out for you. Workers need emancipation from all capitalist economics and exploitation.

Austrian economics =/= capitalism.

[Obrero Rebelde]

Ron Paul is racistly out of touch with people of color. So is the Libertarian Party, yet they're always around opportunistically scheming to co-opt our struggles and really know nothing about Black, Raza, Asian or Native Peoples.

SOCIALIST REVOLUTION IS THE CURE FOR THE AILING "AMERICAN" EMPIRE!

[Obrero Rebelde]

Kassad, I posted the above under "Is Ron Paul A Racist?"

How did it end up here?

[The Ben G]

Yes, he is.

[MMIKEYJ]

But pro-capitalist types are not the ones to do the teaching.

I agree: the freedom to control the fruit of one's own labor against capitalist exploitation.

I agree. The infringements of capitalist on our rights are disgusting.

To say the least.

Do you really think, or do you just parrot what you have learned from others?

Considering for the first 100,000 years or so of human existence property did not even exist, that's a hell of a thing to say. And most of the problems that exist in society today stem from the capitalist notion of property rights.

RED DAVE
Maybe one day when we get technology like Star Trek and can replicate anything we need, Ill be in agreement with you.. But for now, Id rather stick with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.

[MMIKEYJ]

And Austrian economics concentrates wealth in the hands of an elite few while those who are left poor, disenfranchised and starving are left with absolutely no means of picking themselves back up. Try bringing that economic horseshit into poor neighborhoods and see how that works out for you. Workers need emancipation from all capitalist economics and exploitation.
Capitalism does have rich and poor - no doubt. But the communist alternative is guaranteed mediocrity. No thanks.


Anybody can succeed and be rich in a capitalist society.

[RED DAVE]

Maybe one day when we get technology like Star Trek and can replicate anything we need, Ill be in agreement with you.. But for now, Id rather stick with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.I could tell you what to stick and where, JTM, but I'm not in the mood for a verbal warning. :rolleyes:

Then again, you could ask Dr. Paul to help you with that operation.

RED DAVE

[Cal Engime]

Maybe one day when we get technology like Star Trek and can replicate anything we need, Ill be in agreement with you.. But for now, Id rather stick with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.If you are an Austrian, then Adam Smith included major mistakes in his work which form the foundation of Marxian theory, and was in fact a step back from earlier liberal economists like the Spanish Scholastics and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot. Contrary to popular belief, Adam Smith was not the founder of economics, liberal or otherwise.

[anticap]

Id rather stick with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.


No opponent of Marxism deserves any reply unless he first directs his criticism against Smith and Ricardo.

http://marxists.org/archive/beer/1921/11/anti-marxism.htm

[I'd replace "Marxism" with "Marx," as Beer was talking about how Marx stands on the shoulders of those earlier political economists, who, like Marx, made their contributions "in times when people really searched for knowledge of industrial life, and not for apologias (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm)" (same quote); the -ism isn't necessary and only makes the quote unusable for non-Marxist admirers of Marx's political economy.]

[MMIKEYJ]

Here it is.. Rock Solid proof that Ron Paul is a racist

http://dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

[anticap]

Here it is.. Rock Solid proof that Ron Paul is a racist

http://dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

Clinton did photo-ops kissing babies, but that didn't stop him from killing a half-million of them.

Obama has past associates and even friends who are/were either socialists or far-left leaning, but that hasn't stopped him from opposing everything to the left of Reagan.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why does it even matter? He's currently the most virulently pro-capitalist member of the state apparatus (he even wrote at least one book with the sole purpose of praising and advocating Misesite "economics"). That's what makes him dangerous, not his embarrassingly unscientific opinions on the implications of melanin levels among Homo sapiens.

The vicious racism of the Tea Partiers who revere him doesn't hinge on his validation, and it certainly can't be amplified by him.

But to answer the question anyway: Yes. Without even watching those videos I can confirm his racism. I've heard the tone of his voice shift ever-so-slightly but oh-so-tellingly when he says "blacks" (the only term I've ever heard him use to refer to African Americans). I also witnessed his meltdown on Tim Russert's show, where he said everything necessary to confirm his racism without actually mouthing the words. It was such a spectacle that, as much as I loathe him, I actually felt sympathy for him -- until the next day, when I began reading the apologetics from his slavish spin-meisters.

To be fair, he wants to end the drug war and release anyone who's been locked for possesion, maybe even distribution, as well as prostitution and gambling.

I agree he's a nutjob, but that would do more to help african-americans than many liberals put together.

[synthesis]

His not
RKBlk1Vpeuw

That interview was addressed in the OP's videos, which most of you obviously did not watch. I agree that the tone of those videos was a little overdone, but it made some very strong arguments. Ron Paul said that "95% of black males in D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He opposed MLK Day, he was the only Congressman to vote against giving Rosa Parks a Medal of Honor, and he argues against the Civil Rights Act; worse still, in newsletters to his supporters, these actions are presented as "speaking for" the extreme social-right, yet in the mainstream, his rhetoric presents them as part of a much more palatable "private property" agenda.

I think most of you really underestimate the implications of Ron Paul's agenda in the social sphere. Not everything is solely rooted in economics, and furthermore, between the widespread support for "Dr. Paul" on Stormfront and the passive sympathy for his "public face" across much of the leftist spectrum in the U.S., I am genuinely frightened of an organically American version of fascism experiencing a resurgence in the near future.

[synthesis]

http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/20071220ronpauldonblack.jpg

Ron Paul and Don Black (creator of StormFront) (also in the OP's videos)

[MMIKEYJ]

http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/20071220ronpauldonblack.jpg

Ron Paul and Don Black (creator of StormFront) (also in the OP's videos)

and what is this picture supposed to prove?

[MMIKEYJ]

That interview was addressed in the OP's videos, which most of you obviously did not watch. I agree that the tone of those videos was a little overdone, but it made some very strong arguments. Ron Paul said that "95% of black males in D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He opposed MLK Day, he was the only Congressman to vote against giving Rosa Parks a Medal of Honor, and he argues against the Civil Rights Act; worse still, in newsletters to his supporters, these actions are presented as "speaking for" the extreme social-right, yet in the mainstream, his rhetoric presents them as part of a much more palatable "private property" agenda.

I think most of you really underestimate the implications of Ron Paul's agenda in the social sphere. Not everything is solely rooted in economics, and furthermore, between the widespread support for "Dr. Paul" on Stormfront and the passive sympathy for his "public face" across much of the leftist spectrum in the U.S., I am genuinely frightened of an organically American version of fascism experiencing a resurgence in the near future.
Ron Paul is the complete opposite of fascism..

[LeftAndRightUnite]

I've heard the tone of his voice shift ever-so-slightly but oh-so-tellingly when he says "blacks" (the only term I've ever heard him use to refer to African Americans). Can this tone be quantized or is it merely subjective?

[Nolan]

Ron Paul is the complete opposite of fascism..

No, that would be us. Ron Paul is simply a different brand of right-wing.

[LeftSideDown]

No, that would be us. Ron Paul is simply a different brand of right-wing.

Facism "Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality."

Have you ever listened to Ron Paul at all? "collective national society" sounds much more like communism to me than anything else. "Integrated collective community"? Not communist at all, nonono. This is what capitalists and individualists want, EVEN THOUGH it specifically says "rejects individualism."

Nevermind facts, they just get in the way.

[Nolan]

Nevermind facts, they just get in the way.

Indeed they do for you. This silly libertarian game of labeling "collectivism" as leftist and "individualism" as rightist is completely ahistorical and ignores what "left vs. right" means and what fascism really is. We might as well call every king and emperor in history a communist, because they weren't exactly individualist. We might as well call theocracy a communist idea with your ridiculous worldview.


Fascism seeks to put a new, revolutionary face on old ruling class ideas. Their brand of "collectivism" is distinct from leftist "collectivism" in that it is class-collaborationist and nation-based, as opposed to class-abolitionist and class-based. Furthermore, fascism is fundamentally social-darwinist and is in favor of hierarchical arrangements, like liberal capitalist ideology.



Have you ever listened to Ron Paul at all? "collective national society" sounds much more like communism to me than anything else. "Integrated collective community"? Not communist at all, nonono. This is what capitalists and individualists want, EVEN THOUGH it specifically says "rejects individualism."

Libertarianism, unlike the revolutionary left, does not have a monopoly on the extreme of its wing. You share it with some pretty rotten company and you might as well get used to the idea. Only in Uhmuricah does individualism = the right wing outside of the internet. :rolleyes:

[Cal Engime]

How do we define "the right wing?" What is "the left?" Does it have distinct goals from "the revolutionary left?"

[Dimentio]

Facism "Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality."

Have you ever listened to Ron Paul at all? "collective national society" sounds much more like communism to me than anything else. "Integrated collective community"? Not communist at all, nonono. This is what capitalists and individualists want, EVEN THOUGH it specifically says "rejects individualism."

Nevermind facts, they just get in the way.

It is not about ideology, but about interests. In some countries, fascism is taking the form of libertarian strains, due to the fact that one group perhaps view itself as superior to another and don't want to "pay any money to those pesky purple-coloured people".

[Bud Struggle]

It is not about ideology, but about interests. In some countries, fascism is taking the form of libertarian strains, due to the fact that one group perhaps view itself as superior to another and don't want to "pay any money to those pesky purple-coloured people".

That's pretty true. And what happens is that when certain labels become unfashionable like "Fascist"--then those labels are changed to something more modern and up to date and acceptable to the general population. And those groups also change their rhetoric to accomodate accepted norms--so thet aren't a superior race, lets say--they just got there first, etc.

The ends are the same though as if they were marching through the streets with brown shirts on.

[Nolan]

It is not about ideology, but about interests. In some countries, fascism is taking the form of libertarian strains, due to the fact that one group perhaps view itself as superior to another and don't want to "pay any money to those pesky purple-coloured people".

Fascism is most certainly an ideology. As I've said before, if it isn't based on the ideas of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, or other figures in those movements, then it isn't fascist. Other things can fulfill the same material role, like Pinochet's Chile. Calling something else fascism because it represents the same interests is like saying a tree is grass because they're both green.

[Dimentio]

That's pretty true. And what happens is that when certain labels become unfashionable like "Fascist"--then those labels are changed to something more modern and up to date and acceptable to the general population. And those groups also change their rhetoric to accomodate accepted norms--so thet aren't a superior race, lets say--they just got there first, etc.

The ends are the same though as if they were marching through the streets with brown shirts on.

Here in Europe it is mostly about a term called "ethnopluralism" right now, which is stipulating that the European people are repressed by "mass-immigration" and will cease to exist. Therefore, "we need to proooootect their huuuuman rights by discriminating Non-European immigrants". It's just so dumb...

[Dimentio]

Fascism is most certainly an ideology. As I've said before, if it isn't based on the ideas of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, or other figures in those movements, then it isn't fascist. Other things can fulfill the same material role, like Pinochet's Chile. Calling something else fascism because it represents the same interests is like saying a tree is grass because they're both green.

*sigh*

Mussolini, Hitler and Franco weren't even similar, except in the aspect that they all three were dictators. Hitler's national socialism isn't ideologically related with Mussolini's fascism and only took the methodologies from fascism.

Fascism developed from a mixture between Italian bourgeois nationalism, Sorel's ideology, the agricultural populist movements in southern Italy and the pro-war faction of the social democratic party in Italy.

National socialism, or nazism, developed from a mixture between German ultra-nationalism, antisemitic conspiracy theories, vulgar social darwinism and the rather bizarre worldview of an Austrian vagrant.

[Bud Struggle]

National socialism, or nazism, developed from a mixture between German ultra-nationalism, antisemitic conspiracy theories, vulgar social darwinism and the rather bizarre worldview of an Austrian vagrant.

Well put. But what made that particular mix so noxious and so insidious in the day to day world view mix? There's lots of local jokers in every country doing their best to advance themselves and their agenda yet they don't end the lives of millions as a byproduct.

There are obviously some political thought patters that are more evil than others.

[Dimentio]

Well put. But what made that particular mix so noxious and so insidious in the day to day world view mix? There's lots of local jokers in every country doing their best to advance themselves and their agenda yet they don't end the lives of millions as a byproduct.

There are obviously some political thought patters that are more evil than others.

I think it was the biological determinism which made national socialism so very much bloodier than fascism. Mussolini's regime was pretty much just the usual authoritarian dictatorship with an ideological fernissa. The mortality rates of Italian fascism was probably the lowest of all similar right-wing authoritarian dictatorships, until Hitler established the Salò Republic with Mussolini as a figurehead. It was first then the regime started to systematically perpetuate crimes against humanity.

[Dean]

just the usual authoritarian dictatorship with an ideological fernissa.
fernissa - Swedish for "varnish." And I thought I'd found a new English word :(

In any case, your posts are always interesting because your usage of language has a very unique character - not in a bad way, mind you.

That word just piqued my interest. Carry on....

[RED DAVE]

*sigh*

Mussolini, Hitler and Franco weren't even similar, except in the aspect that they all three were dictators. Hitler's national socialism isn't ideologically related with Mussolini's fascism and only took the methodologies from fascism.

Fascism developed from a mixture between Italian bourgeois nationalism, Sorel's ideology, the agricultural populist movements in southern Italy and the pro-war faction of the social democratic party in Italy.

National socialism, or nazism, developed from a mixture between German ultra-nationalism, antisemitic conspiracy theories, vulgar social darwinism and the rather bizarre worldview of an Austrian vagrant.*sigh*

You completely ignore the economic aspect of fascism, which was less pronoinced in Spain. The essence of fascism is the direct role of the state in regulating the economy. This involved the fusing of corporate, state and labor organizations.

It is this fusing of economic institutions of capitalism into the state that is the defining feature of fascism and which distinguishes it from other forms of capitalist dictatorships.

RED DAVE

[synthesis]

and what is this picture supposed to prove?Mikey, what do you think it is supposed to prove?

[MMIKEYJ]

Mikey, what do you think it is supposed to prove?
I don't know. Thats why I asked the question. You're the one who posted it.


So is it supposed to prove something?

[Cal Engime]

It's not hard to get a picture with a politician.

[MMIKEYJ]

It's not hard to get a picture with a politician.
Well thats certainly true.

[GreenCommunism]

ron paul has alot of support on stormfront because he is against abortions hidden behind states right. i have heard on another forum that the quote of 95% black male being criminal was actually sarcastic and meant that according to these statistics, 95% of black male are semi-criminal or criminal, what is semi-criminal by the way? that ron paul newspaper sounds alot like the john birch society newspaper's conspiracy that the united states government want to turn the united states into a communist country.

[synthesis]

I don't know. Thats why I asked the question. You're the one who posted it.


So is it supposed to prove something?

Ron Paul knows who the fuck Don Black is. Don't tell me you buy his bullshit about not knowing who wrote those newsletters, either. He didn't even try to seem apologetic about it.

I doubt I'll be able to convince you, in any case, so I'm not interested in debating this, but for the spectators, here's some relevant information.



For one thing, Ron Paul credits Murray Rothbard with his interest in economics.

Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse." (note: this is probably the most common argument used on StormFront)

The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-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 (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf).) 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."
David Duke donated $500 to Ron Paul's campaign and endorsed him for president. Traditionally, when you receive support from such politically damaging figures, you're supposed to make a big show out of sending the money back and disavowing their support. Instead, the campaign kept the money, and Ron Paul did not speak on it himself, yet his spokesman had this to say:
"If someone of a small-minded ideology sends money, it's his loss," Benton said. "First, it's $500 less for Black to use on whatever it is he does. Then, it's $500 more for Dr. Paul to use to protect the individual rights of all Americans."
However, the spokesman's statements raised the ire of some of Ron Paul's alleged compadres:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous - and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
Ron Paul denied knowing who published inflammatory material in newsletters bearing his name, such as:
[After the L.A. riots] order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.
Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after [homosexuals] came out of the closet and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.
MLK "seduced underage girls and boys" and AIDS sufferers "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick."

However, tax documents show that at the time of the newsletters' publication, Ron Paul had only four employees in Texas - his immediate family members and the archetypal reactionary Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell), who is generally acknowledged as the author of the newsletters (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/). They also show that Ron Paul & Associates was bringing in about $940,000 a year, and the newsletters are often asserted to be a large part of that income.

Look, the point is not that all of Ron Paul's supporters represent the foundation for the resurgence of fascist tendencies in America. Ron Paul is a politician first and foremost, and his rhetoric is designed to appeal to as large a crowd as possible while still maintaining his image as a "maverick" or whatever. But the extreme social-right (StormFront, etc) understands that their arguments form the basis for much of his policy, and they support his attempts to make them palatable to the mainstream by formulating them in mainstream rhetoric.

I don't doubt that many of Ron Paul's supporters see eye-to-eye with us on many issues, like U.S. foreign policy and drug legalization. But that's not the point. He is a politician, and you must understand that his "public face" is not as based on principles as you'd like to believe.

[MMIKEYJ]

Ron Paul knows who the fuck Don Black is. Don't tell me you buy his bullshit about not knowing who wrote those newsletters, either. He didn't even try to seem apologetic about it.

I doubt I'll be able to convince you, in any case, so I'm not interested in debating this, but for the spectators, here's some relevant information.



For one thing, Ron Paul credits Murray Rothbard with his interest in economics.
David Duke donated $500 to Ron Paul's campaign and endorsed him for president. Traditionally, when you receive support from such politically damaging figures, you're supposed to make a big show out of sending the money back and disavowing their support. Instead, the campaign kept the money, and Ron Paul did not speak on it himself, yet his spokesman had this to say:
However, the spokesman's statements raised the ire of some of Ron Paul's alleged compadres:
Ron Paul denied knowing who published inflammatory material in newsletters bearing his name, such as:
MLK "seduced underage girls and boys" and AIDS sufferers "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick."

However, tax documents show that at the time of the newsletters' publication, Ron Paul had only four employees in Texas - his immediate family members and the archetypal reactionary Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell), who is generally acknowledged as the author of the newsletters (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/). They also show that Ron Paul & Associates was bringing in about $940,000 a year, and the newsletters are often asserted to be a large part of that income.

Look, the point is not that all of Ron Paul's supporters represent the foundation for the resurgence of fascist tendencies in America. Ron Paul is a politician first and foremost, and his rhetoric is designed to appeal to as large a crowd as possible while still maintaining his image as a "maverick" or whatever. But the extreme social-right (StormFront, etc) understands that their arguments form the basis for much of his policy, and they support his attempts to make them palatable to the mainstream by formulating them in mainstream rhetoric.

I don't doubt that many of Ron Paul's supporters see eye-to-eye with us on many issues, like U.S. foreign policy and drug legalization. But that's not the point. He is a politician, and you must understand that his "public face" is not as based on principles as you'd like to believe.
Oh I see.. So let me get this straight now.. Since fascists believe in gravity, and you believe in gravity, that means you must be a fascist?

Thanks for playing....

[synthesis]

Oh I see.. So let me get this straight now.. Since fascists believe in gravity, and you believe in gravity, that means you must be a fascist?

Thanks for playing....

Please explain the implications of this argument as it relates to mine. As is, it suggests that you did not read roughly the last half of my post.