Saturday, December 3, 2011

The Ron Paul Political Report: Special Issue on Race Terrorism

One of the most entertaining aspects of yesterday's Ron Paul rundown is watching comments and Tweets roll in declaring that it contains no proof of Ron Paul's racism and everything of my perfidy or incompetence. In many cases, much of this outrage seems to be the product of a complete unfamiliarity with how links work. ("He didn't even prove that thing he said in blue words!") But most of it probably extenuates from the need to rationalize away all criticism of His Auric Eminence.


Thankfully, most of the rationalization is dumb. Let's take a look:


1. "You're saying this to defend Murderer Obama, who you will never criticize!"
God help you if you can figure out what this has to do with anything. You don't have to turn around and badmouth Guderian for there to be any validity to saying that Patton was a dick for smacking a soldier around. Similarly, Ron Paul's volumes of racist bile don't disappear just because an author fails to bring up the racial attitudes of people totally unrelated to him. Besides, good luck finding a kind word about Obama in these pages in the last year or more.


2. "Ron Paul was totally endorsed by the Texas head of the NAACP!"
Have fun with that one, since it's wrong. (That's a link, Ron Paul fans. If you click it, it takes you to something that substantiates that point.) Finding someone dumb, naive or cynical enough to support things against their own racial interests isn't especially difficult — we must confront the reality of Alan Keyes — and the testimony of an individual against thousands of pages of documents published voluntarily over the course of a decade is materially worthless. Shit, out of over 31 million Iraqis around the globe and despite independent intelligence analysis, Ahmad Chalabi thought that whole invasion thing was a baller idea. By that criterion, Ron Paul's opposition to the War in Iraq is wrong: why else would one person come forward and express so unpopular an opinion if it weren't compellingly, overwhelmingly correct? It was an Iraqi calling for bombs, for God's sake.


3. "Ron Paul said he isn't racist, and it's even on Youtube, so he's not racist."
Water wet, grass green, sky blue, racist person asserts to the press that he's not racist. There's a tremendous upside to advocating racist policies and vociferously denying your own racism, because the contradiction allows your supporters to rationalize the discrepancy and confuses the incurious with mixed messaging. Besides, when push comes to shove, lazy people are usually happy to assume that the ("liberal") press got the story wrong. Explicitly owning your own racism is only a losing gambit: undeclared racism already nets you the true believers, but whipping out rhetorical swastikas only alientates those who were perplexed by the ambiguous. Besides, you open yourself to litigation, prosecution or restraint. Did you know that career Holocaust denialist David Irving believes he's not an anti-semite despite the fact that he likes to imply that the Jews brought pogroms and a genocide on themselves?


4. "Well, Ron Paul can't be racist, because racism is a form of collectivism."
Good idea. People can't have irrational beliefs or undertake irrational actions because they believe in political abstractions that they superimpose on those beliefs/actions and zap them out. It's like playing Missile Command, but in your brain, with philosophy. For instance, I forcibly penetrate women with my penis until I ejaculate. But I can't commit rape, because I'm a Communist: rape is theft, and I don't believe in private property.


5. "Yeah, well, you don't have any proof of his racism anyway."
This is always fun. For a group of people who believe in rational-actor theory and count many Objectivists among their ranks, Ron Paul fans sure seem to consider debate reality-optional. Invariably, documented and verifiable evidence is wholly unnecessary to substantiate a point they're making and woefully insufficient to back up anything their opponent might suggest. Despite citing Barron's, The New Republic (home of our publisher Marty Peretz), David Neiwert, ABC News, GovTrack.us, DailyPaul.com, The Ron Paul Archive and even Libertarian online clubhouse magazine Reason, I apparently either had no sources or just had "bullshit" sources. Okay.


By now, you might have noticed that each paragraph in this column is separated by an embedded image. Each comes from the June, 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report's "Special Issue on Race Terrorism." (Open each in a new tab to embiggen.) Perhaps these sources will count, because they come from Ron Paul. They present the Unerring Word of Paul, or the endorsement of the Unerring Paul. Again, as explained in the Vice article, Ron Paul supporters must confront a very limited number of interpretations of the above data. Either their chosen candidate wrote this racist excrement; or he endorsed someone else's writing this racist excrement and knowingly published it under his own name; or, over the course of thousands of pages and roughly a decade, he was such an incompetent manager of his own profit- and brand-making communications enterprise — and evidently too lazy or stupid to bother reading a dozen pages per month — that this kind of unforgivable shit went out in his name, proving that he isn't even electable as the treasurer of his local Klavern, much less the leader of the fucking free world.


But let's not kid ourselves. Even though Reason published an article showing his defense of the newsletters, the fact that he later repudiated the opinions in them, under the heat of a national campaign, will be enough. What strength can Ron Paul's printed words and spoken statements have next to the power of stuff He said later? In the defense of liberty, we cannot risk doubting the inerrancy of The Leader, especially when He has told us to ignore the other thing He said, for the opposite thing He said.


For more on Ron Paul:

100 comments:

  1. Special thanks to reader Heresiarch, who sent in the scans of the Ron Paul Political Report.

    ReplyDelete
  2. paul fans, in an unwitting tell, are idiots fascinated by shiny things, like the gold standard

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have far more respect for the Palin and Cain fans, because, unlike the Paul fans, at least they dont pretend to know anything….The Paul fans think they are God's gift to man, but are clueless as shit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is Vice gonna run this rebuttal, too? I wish they would, because I'd love to see the all the Paultard responses.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Probably not, for various reasons. But I'll see if I can at least put a tag or a footnote with a link back here for people who want to continue the conversation. On the other hand, continuing the conversation would involve having people scream at me about the Gold Standard and negative liberty and completely made-up shit about American regulatory history.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm baffled by the Lew Rockwell ghostwriter defense: if Paul let Rockwell write his pamphlets without okaying the content, and was really appalled by the racist crap that went out in his name... why on earth would he cover for Rockwell?

    I mean, a normal person in that position would capital-p Pissed. A normal person would throw Rockwell under the bus and take pleasure in doing so. Lew Rockwell nearly ended his career by sneaking Stormfront-level nastiness into Paul's personal missives and... Paul just shuts up and takes it. Accepts responsibility, even.

    I think that *if* Lew Rockwell wrote those items, and *if* Ron Paul really is not a racist who holds those views or endorsed their publication as an ultra-sleazy strategy, then Lew Rockwell simply must have weapons-grade dirt on Ron Paul. There is no other explanation.

    Personally though, I think the ultra-sleazy explanation is the most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One piece of legislation that is racist sponsored by Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know, right? If only there were some evidence that Ron Paul were a racist and that it would influence his governance apart from everything in this article and in the previous one. Like everything above these words or the fact that Ron Paul believes the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment should be repealed. But aside from that, gosh, wouldn't it be nice had some kind of dispositive proof?

    ReplyDelete
  9. A piece of legislation please? Also i don't believe that he has ever said that the 14th amendment should be repealed, if he has please let me know where. I really am interested if he has ever said that the 14th should be repealed. I think the 14th is one of the greatest and find the disregard of it by southern states for over 100 years horrible. i just believe in the fundamental human right to associate with who you want to own your own property. I think no form of discrimination should be tolerated and if a business discriminates i would not support them and i would hope most of society would not. But I or no one else should be able to force the owner or a private building to not discriminate. Because that point of view is giving up on the ability to convince people that discrimination is bad. You can not force someone to believe something you can only show them how much better your point of view is by actions and results. Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the right to regulate what happens in a small private instate business?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Racist legislation? I doubt you've ever sponsored any either, but what does that prove?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The point was that it would effect his governing, he has been in office for many years and if these are his true beliefs and they effect his choices for decisions regarding office then why cant you name a legislative choice that was effected by these beliefs. Are you saying he's a racist that never expresses his point of view or acts on it? I disagree with Paul on several issues i just find this type of name calling to be distracting from the real issues at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. - We the People Act
    - Any anti-entitlement legislation he's proposed. It has been an actual principle of the GOP for over 40 years to use states' rights as codeworded racism and that calling for the dismantling of the American social safety net is designed to appeal specifically to the racist attitudes of whites who mistakenly believe that these programs benefit only minorities at whites' expense. that might seem like wishfully interpreting every anti-entitlement proposition he's submitted and forcing a narrative on his his actions, but oh, shit, look at exactly what he says in all those fucking newsletters.

    "Are you saying he's a racist that never expresses his point of view or acts on it?"
    OH SHIT, LOOK AT ALL THOSE FUCKING NEWSLETTERS.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "hey, here's all this proof of ron paul being a racist."
    "yeah, but, aside from that, do you have any actual proof that he's a racist?"

    "um, these newsletters are exhibit A. they're racist. exhibit A exists. A is A."
    "I haven't seen any evidence of A."

    "seriously, A is A."
    "yeah, but that could be B."

    "there's over 1,000 pages of this shit stretched out to a decade and a half. it has his fucking name on it. he defended it. for years."
    "yeah, i just need some actual proof that he's a racist. like, maybe if he submitted 'HR:1488 Ron Paul's Racist Act for Fucking the Lazy Subhuman Nigger Thieves by Ron Paul, Who Is Racist.' until then, there are just way too many ways to interpret writing with his name on it calling black people lazy, stupid animals who steal from white people."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like how you used embiggen. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why is the bottom cut off? Where you would expect a signature?

    ReplyDelete
  16. that's the part where it says "written by Somebody Not Ron Paul who is Not Ron Paul so you can't blame Ron Paul." we cut it off, because we're making shit up. we're afraid dr. paul's grassroots base is so powerful it could end the fed

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the right to regulate what happens in a small private instate business?"
    Interstate commerce (Art I Sec 3 Clause 3, definition of 'interstate commerce' comes from Gibbons v Ogden (1824)) . Instate businesses have to buy out of state stuff in order to operate properly, and can effect out of state businesses.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think no form of discrimination should be tolerated and if a business discriminates i would not support them and i would hope most of society would not. But I or no one else should be able to force the owner or a private building to not discriminate.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    This idea expressed by libertarians if pure fantasy. Look there is no way a government can remain neutral on the racist actions taken by private citizens.

    Either the government will enforce the right of racists to practice their racism which of course would mean the government supports racism, or the government would protect the rights of the discriminated.

    For example, Let's say a racist owns a store that doesn't allow black people, and a black person comes into this person's store, what happens next?

    Well, the store owner could call the police, the government, and have the police, the government, enforce the owner's racist ideology, which of course would mean that the government supports racism.

    The store owner could also use physical violence to remove the black person from their store for being alive and black and in their store, and our criminal justice system, the government, could say that the racist had a right to violently remove this black person from their store for being black.

    No matter how anyone slices it, there is no way for the government to remain neutral on such actions. The government will either have to enforce the rights of racists to be racist, or the government will protect the rights of all Americans.

    Many libertarians argue that the government should protect the rights of racists.

    The fact that R. Paul and his son seem to believe this disqualifies them from holding public office, in my opinion, and is just irrational thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But Ron Paul's position is completely justified. Just read this shocking testimony from the second of the attached documents:

    "My friend waved to the tiny child who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically) 'I hate you, white honkey.'"

    Department of Education, gone! Take that, little three-year-old girl! No preschool for you, ha ha! Tautologize that!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think no form of murder should be tolerated and if a person murders I would not support them and I would hope most of society would not. But I or no one else should be able to force the owner of a weapon to not murder.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's like the Poe's Law of politics in here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Am I the only one who thinks that you're just pulling the racist card? Anybody in politics can called a racist in some way or another. It's an unavoidable topic, and it's impossible for anyone to be perfectly politically correct towards every group of people. Especially considering how old he is, and how far our society has come in the last few decades.

    So he may or may not be more of a racist than you or anyone else you deem reasonable... and we'll probably never know how he really feels since he denies it. But does it really matter? Do you really think if elected he would selectively remove the freedoms of minorities? That sounds about as crazy as the conservatives who think Obama wants to put whites in camps.

    Or you think simply out of principle he should not be supported because of his racist ties? But is there anyone with no discriminatory ties? I'm sure you have your own discriminatory ties and so does anyone you support.

    Your ultimate point seems to suggest we should hold out for some ideal perfect person to lead us in "challenging a complacent corporatist two-party system". That person does not exist.

    These articles are only divisive. No one has gained a better understanding of race relations or learned of a candidate. Any supporters successfully dissuaded by your character attacks can now return to their apathy, content that the struggle for freedom is pointless. Their best chance for hope turned out to be a racist. Great job.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's true that most people in politics can be called racists.

    That's because most people in politics are racists.

    Hope this helps, commenter B. Godfrey.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank goodness for B. Godfrey, one of the few among us who is not so cynical as to give up on a man simply because he is an insane racist.

    ReplyDelete
  25. But guys, I think B. Godfrey has an excellent point: Ron Paul denies being a racist. And if you can't take a politician at his word then really, where are we, as a society

    ReplyDelete
  26. Also, B. Godfrey, that quote, about "challenging a complacent corporatist two-party system"? Who were you quoting exactly? Interested to know if it's the voices in your head. Get back to me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ron Paul isn't a racist!

    Just because Ron Paul is against abortion, gun regulations, taxes, civil rights laws, and wrote a long-running newsletter that you call "racist" doesn't mean he supports racists or misogynists. He might support some of the same things, or be working towards some similar ends, but not out of hatred or bigotry, he does those things because he believes in a broader philosophy. It's just because you don't understand Ron Paul's philosophy, that you label him a racist.

    A racist is someone who deals with their own insecurities, shortcomings and bigotry by following a simplistic, fact-free, insular ideology that makes themselves feel smarter than everyone else. They can't handle being questioned because their entire mental being is tied up in their delusion. Libertarians are completely different though. You won't catch objectivist, fact based, libertarians being so irrational. Nope. Not ever.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's just because you don't understand Ron Paul's philosophy, that you label him a racist.
    No, it's because he published thousands of pages of a racist newsletter for over a decade, put his name on it, endorsed and defended it that I call him a racist.


    A racist is someone who deals with their own insecurities, shortcomings and bigotry by following a simplistic, fact-free, insular ideology that makes themselves feel smarter than everyone else.
    I'm gonna take a page from your playbook here and say that this is wrong, because a racist is someone who says or does racist things. A is A.

    One racist thing you could do AND say would be publishing thousands of pages of a racist newsletter for over a decade, put your name on it, endorse and defend it. This is something Ron Paul did. Ron Paul is a racist. A is A.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's quite possible Ron Paul could turn out to be Hitler.

    But fuck, at least Hitler was economically good for the Germany.

    I figure at this point, I may as well accept the reality of this bullshit world and if everyone else seems to have some sort of special interest status quo tie into the system that keeps them alive except me, then fuck you all.

    I'll support the racist that tells me I'm getting my freedoms over the other bullshitters that seem to tell me that I'm evil for being born, and that really I should be financially ass raped at every given opportunity to save some rich bankers.

    I mean at this point, it's not like we've much else to lose. It's this, or just finally accept the only way to survive in this world is to exploit and manipulate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Man you have a lot of fucking idiots posting responses here.
    If people can't see that Ron Paul is racist, can anyone guess what they are, what ideals they have?? Anyone??
    I'll give you a hint, it's something Ron Paul is and has.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It isn't racist if it's true--or if it is, then so what? The charge of racism falls flat (for me) when Ron Paul says, "The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism," and then goes on to point out that black culture is (1972) more nearly, more often, aligned with barbarism. Barbarism is simply anti-Romanism. It's exactly what the Black Panthers espoused--and what they espoused in the 1960s filtered into widespread black culture by the 1970s. And that isn't "bad." To take up an anti-mainstream, anti-government, anti-power ideology is actually pretty honorable. But for Paul to identify it isn't bad either. Here's an analogy: blacks as early Christians; Ron Paul as the Roman government in the 1st century. Listen to Tacitus on Jesus:

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind"

    Now, sure, we may identify either with Pilate & the Romans or Jesus & the Christians--but the resistance against Rome was warranted. And Tacitus's history is justifiable.

    --more complicated than "black & white."

    ReplyDelete
  32. So what if Ron Paul is racist? --a white person

    ReplyDelete
  33. rigmarock: The quote was from a vice magazine post on the same day as this post by "Mr. Destructo" - http://vicemag.tumblr.com/post/14123717839/last-weeks-post-about-ron-paul-discrimination
    ... if you had spent 5 seconds on google you could have easily found that before resorting to rude insults. “If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

    Mornacale: The point I was making is that anyone - but especially politicians because it's intrinsic to their job - can be found to be discriminatory in some way or another. Did Obama's affiliation with Black supremacy dissuade your support with such passion?

    No one is completely politically correct, and no one will ever fully understand people different than themselves. Ron Paul's policy has always been to work for as much freedom for every human in our country. So you either find this issue important as a unforgivable character flaw - but we all share this flaw. Or you find it important because you believe his policies as a president will discriminate against minorities - but I think that is quite a stretch, about as possible as the suggestions that Obama as president would discriminate against whites.

    It's just as much of a leap to find relevancy in these 20 year old papers as it is to ignore them as a mistake.

    Anyway, it seems clear that everyone on this site and sites like it already have an opinion. I came here looking for real information but all I found is political mud throwing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. B. Godfrey, had I wanted to call you vile names I would have gone with something a little more virulent than asking about the voices in your head. Maybe "dumb racist shithead who sucks".

    But as far as I can tell, your argument amounts to "so what if he is?"

    Which is cool, I guess. I mean, why worry if your candidate believes in the fundamental inferiority of something like 15% of the general electorate. Way to own it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Also why did you ignore the really clever point about Ron Paul being a politician and denying being a racist? My guess is because you can't act all aggrieved and play up your victimhood. You didn't come looking for info, you came offering an apologia for the publisher and defender of racist literature over more than a decade. At least call a spade a spade.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Did Obama's affiliation with Black supremacy dissuade your support with such passion?"

    Did Obama publish newsletters over 10 years supporting black supremacists while holding elected office? No? You mean these things aren't equal?


    "Ron Paul's policy has always been to work for as much freedom for every human in our country."

    Unless that person is seeking an abortion, is black and seeking equal protection under the law, OR freedom is restricted at the STATE and not federal level. Then it's ok.


    "It's just as much of a leap to find relevancy in these 20 year old papers as it is to ignore them as a mistake."

    I would probably need this false equivalence to be true if I wanted to support a racist candidate too. Otherwise the equal-(in)validity world of Matt and Trey would collapse around me. Steer a course for the middle... and the Truth!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear rigmarock & anonymous,

    I never said "so what if he is". I said you and everyone else could be skewed as a racist if someone felt like doing so. You're either not reading or not comprehending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card

    I did catch your "really clever point", but assumed I wasn't expected to respond to your sarcastic - and obvious - comment. Considering the sparkling jewel of his "racism" is this 1 paper he didn't write 20 years ago about the LA riots, I'm not completely convinced he is much more than racially naive. Who isn't? Especially considering the context!

    I read the documents and judged for myself. Did you? And I'm still looking for the remaining "thousands of pages" of racist documents.

    Assume what you wish. Understand what you can. I came here to find out more about a candidate to make an informed judgement. I found some good information, but mostly logical leaps made from personal sensitivities.

    ReplyDelete
  38. B Godfrey--

    Here are your words you disingenuous fuck: "So he may or may not be more of a racist than you or anyone else you deem reasonable... and we'll probably never know how he really feels since he denies it. But does it really matter?"

    But oh I guess I'm just assuming what I wish when in your reality a bunch of equivocating and weaseling fundamentally changes the meaning of "does it really matter [if he is a racist]?"

    ReplyDelete
  39. Also cute: "logical leaps"

    Tell me which is a "leap"

    A) Ron Paul's name is all over this newsletter and he defended the racist shit in it. He must be a racist.

    B) Ron Paul's name is all over this newsletter and he defended its contents. He must have had nothing to do with it and anyway it's not really all that racist, just racially naive. You guys are "pulling the race card", and I'm totally not using a rhetorical device to undermine legitimate concerns about racial prejudice. Liberal media.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Coming up on Et Tu, Mr. Destructo?:

    B Godfrey reveals this was all performance art and he didn't actually write that post; it was written by a political operative and released without B Godfrey's knowledge or approval. B Godfrey loves Obama and I am owned.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rigmarock, you missed the point of that rhetorical device - which I clarified in the very next sentence. I suggested the implications of a truly racist candidate which are clearly ridiculous. It was not my argument, and if you attempted to comprehend the surrounding sentences as a whole you would understand that. This would also explain your inability to understand the documents in this article.

    I will not continue a discussion with an individual incapable of simple discussion without slinging insults. You've made your character and priorities crystal clear.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The logical leap is...

    C) The document is more naive than overtly racist. It does not promote the discrimination of any race, but actually attempts to show how racism is an issue from every side. It was insensitive and naive while making these points. It was written right after the racially divisive LA riots, while we enjoy 20 years of hindsight. Understanding all that and still calling the man a racist is a leap and fair to categorize with a rhetorical device.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I will not continue a discussion with an individual incapable of simple discussion without slinging insults. You've made your character and priorities crystal clear."

    "I read the documents and judged for myself. Did you? And I'm still looking for the remaining "thousands of pages" of racist documents."

    To be fair, nobody really should have to continue a discussion with someone who is either too stupid to click links on this very page or disingenuously refusing to do so because it immediately sandbags his facile "considering the sparkling jewel of his 'racism' is this 1 paper he didn't write 20 years ago about the LA riots" argument -- even the most optimistic and generous interpretation of which is also torpedoed on this very page.

    Reading: give it a whirl!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dear anonymous,

    Only 1 of the links in this article cites any racist writings. And guess what? It only cites this very same paper! There are not "thousands of pages" of anything. Just his responses to this 1 insensitive paper and a few other random quotes from interviews possibly skewed as racist.

    I would love to read the "thousands of pages" of but they don't exist. You, actually, are the one who has a problem clicking links.

    And before you tell me how this is a newsletter with thousands of issues, I know. The assertion made in this article is that there are thousands of pages of racist material, that is just not true. There are not links to it anywhere. I wish I had whatever you guys are smoking.

    I need to stop responding to you imbeciles. It's obviously pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cool, so you're not going to be addressing the part of your post that I quoted and explain why my interpretation was incorrect? Cool. Oh, because I can't comprehend surrounding sentences or some shit? Cool. Mind if I cut some of your weaselly bullshit then? "So he may...be...a racist[.] But does it really matter?"

    Here's the thing: yeah, it kinda does matter. That you cannot see that it drives policy decisions and affects budget priorities is more of a reflection on your idiotic insularity than anything else.

    "I will not continue a discussion with an individual incapable of simple discussion without slinging insults. You've made your character and priorities crystal clear."

    Dude, you spent hundreds of words disingenuously arguing counterfactual bullshit. Frankly I'm surprised you can still type, given that any rational person you know in real life should have broken your fingers with a goddamn sledge out of frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Only 1 of the links in this article cites any racist writings. And guess what? It only cites this very same paper!"

    lmao, kill yourself

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I would love to read the "thousands of pages" of but they don't exist. You, actually, are the one who has a problem clicking links."

    hhahaha oh my do you really believe this? hahahahhaahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  48. hey here's a thing:

    newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

    Anyway, as Kirchick said in his piece on the new republic site (one of those link things, don't worry if it's hard to find, not important) the older archives were difficult to track down. It's okay though! Since it is behind a pay wall you can claim victory since you can't actually see the evidence yourself. As we all know, evidence concealed by fiat currency ceases to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I hadn't actually read any of those newsletters before now. Damn. They're way way worse than I thought. Indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
  50. He is for Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and for ending the war on drugs.
    He wants to get rid of the inflation tax-
    which hurts the poor--He would pardon non violent drug offenders from prison.
    Listen to the man himself!
    (You'll have to fix the link to watch this.,)
    youtube(dot)com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

    ReplyDelete
  51. Seriously, anon, if you can't offer a new perspective or even bother to read the discussion up to now why do you even post? Oh I remember, it's because you're basically a cultist and rote repetition is all you've got. Seriously, "he wants to release nonviolent drug offenders" and "racism is a collective notion" have to be like the Ron Paul rosary.

    ReplyDelete
  52. lets just get one thing straight. lets be completely honest! to some degree all of these white candidates are all racist... they live in pompous white communities, have pompous white friends and have that one black friend that they think makes them not racist.if you think that newt gingrich,mitt romney, rick perry,rick santorum, michele bachmann,and john huntsman wouldnt cringe at the fact of a minority moving in to the house next door. than your all in denial.plus most of them hate muslims. who are muslims in america? black people mostly.when these idiots start world war 3 and the draft is put into effect guess whos going first? minorities!!! every candidate wants to attack iran. well guess what, if we attack iran, china and russia has already said theyll side with iran. so when we are waiting for the radiation to kill us we can all shake each others hand that we elected the president that destroyed the world. but atleast they pretended to like black people right......

    ReplyDelete
  53. Fleet footed black men? All you have to do is turn on ESPN and you will understand that one.
    Or go to D.C. and see how sad the judicial system is there. If your black and before a judge you will probably go to jail.

    Lets treat the people who burned, beat and robbed during the L.A. riots as the ones who are not the racists. Just ask Reginald Denny, the man who was pulled from his truck and nearly beaten to death because he was white.

    The reason there are not big protests about this is most of it has truth to it and we all know it.

    I love how offended people are about the Korean comment. Does anyone remember "Boyz n the Hood"?
    To claim that a street kid has the demeanor of a 23 year old and a sheltered kid less so. It is like no has heard phrases like," I had to grow up quick, I lived on the streets" or "he is street wise".
    Also, to claim that a single newsletter published is not the same thing as 15 years worth of newsletters that have nothing to do with race. So people trying to say there is a 15 years of letters like this is a big lie.

    Who wants to end the war on drugs which has devastated black society? Who would say black society is better of since the 1960's. When these days murder is one of the leading causes of death of young black men.
    Please, also act like black people are not racists. What church did Obama go to?

    ReplyDelete
  54. So well done.

    Better than any column in the Post.

    ReplyDelete
  55. fuck you nigger.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hey worthless author looking for attention. Read this:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

    NAACP supports Ron Paul

    ReplyDelete
  57. 1. Item #2 in this post is a link that proves your statement is untrue.

    2. The link you just posted even contradicts your statement "NAACP supports Ron Paul." Try reading all of it. Go on. All the way down to the end.

    Congratulations, shit-for-brains. You even provided documentary proof that you're wrong. It's so cute when the idiots come in the self-owning model.

    Yours,
    Worthless Author Looking for Attention

    ReplyDelete
  58. I love how the Paultards came here to defend the man and only wound up proving the point with their own racist drivel.

    Nice work, fucknuts.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sad day for the U.S. The guy who has been fighting for freedom, peace, sound money, along with predicting the financial problems we have is feeling the wrath of his past. I became a Ron Paul supporter 5 years ago after learning about the Federal Reserve and seeing how it is the cause of most of the countries problems. I bought his books and it explained everything I was thinking about the Govt making it harder for everybody to get ahead. I heard about and read the newsletters above 2 years ago and it did not sound like the same person. I've heard all of RP's denials. (He was practicing medicine at the time and somebody else wrote them, etc.).

    But lets assume he did write them. I think it puts the U.S in a bind. All of the other GOP candidates and Obama want to continue the (military, drug) wars, continue the spending, and continue the bankrupting of the U.S. making it impossible for anybody to get ahead or truly be free. Ron Paul wants to end all of that and has been saying it for 20 years in Congress.

    I was a teenager in the 90s and from what I can remember you had to drop a N bomb to be deemed a racist. I didn't see any N bombs in those letters. Some of the things in those letters would have been in the gray area of PC for the 90s but not racist. That's from the memory of a white kid growing up in the suburbs who listened to 2Pac and Biggie throwing out N bombs like its their job. If those letters were written today then it would be impossible to deny being a racist.

    I guess it comes back to this. Supporting any other candidate besides RP is supporting the death of more of our troops and innocent poor people in the Middle East. We will continue on with the bankrupting of the U.S, have to deal with more Govt in our lives, and leave a U.S where the next generation will have it worse than ours. That's a hard pill to swallow. Or continue supporting RP who might have a biased background but whose public views for the last 20 years are to make sure nobody dies for no reason, individual liberties, and sound money. The things that actually matter.

    We will see if this forces Dr. Paul to come clean or if he keeps denying it. In the end I'd still vote for a guy who wants to make sure no black, white, brown, yellow, orange, purple, pink, or blue people die in these endless wars. Last time I checked those newsletters didn't kill anybody or throw them in jail or put them in the poor house or create more inflation or destroy more individual liberties.

    ReplyDelete
  60. He just really didn't write any of that nor has any of those views. Not sure what the obsession with trying to prove he did is. It comes across eerily similar to the birthers.

    But what do you want from a bunch of people who wish Chris Hitchens to rot in hell. Seriously, who are you people?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm a little torn here. I've liked almost all that Ron Paul's had to say on pretty much every topic to date - fair to say I'm in his camp. With that said, it isn't pleasant seeing these NLs for the first time, but I'm willing to believe they aren't representative of his true opinions, then or now.

    Perhaps I'd be a little less forgiving if not for a)the total lack of viable alternatives, b)the damp squib Obama turned out to be as well as c)this coming out (or being rehashed) just at a time when Paul seems to be somwballing in popularity. The whole thing stinks of muckraking, if you can't beat him, discredit.

    Has this been picked up by a serious website yet?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "It comes across eerily similar to the birthers."

    Yeah, it is sort of like that. Excepting, of course, that birthers deny the validity of documentation and deny the authenticity of evidence contrary to their claims.

    So, in essence, claiming that Ron Paul isn't a racist is really more like being a birther than anything else, here.

    Hope this helps, you stupid fucking idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This smear campaign is disgraceful.

    The media's attempt to paint Obama as a racist through his association with Rev. Wright was a trussed-up ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, and so is this laughable character assassination attempt on Ron Paul. Whatever one thinks about the newsletters (I agree they are disgusting), the fact stands that Paul -- in word and in deed, has been the strongest defender of minority rights in Congress for over thirty years.

    Beyond the offending newsletters, there is not a single video, soundbite or article that corroborates allegations of Ron Paul being racist. Paul's been an outspoken public figure for decades; if he's hiding a secret Klansman in his oversized suit, it shouldn't be hard to find. But there are only the newsletters.

    It's also clear that Paul -- while accountable for the content of the newsletters as publisher, clearly didn't write them. The purple prose and bigotry in those ugly things is completely inconsistent with Paul's writing style and themes in the hundreds of other books and articles he's authored. Additionally, the objectionable content in the newsletters is mutually exclusive with all of the views Paul has expressed during his career.

    Sure, thirty of years of opposing racist policies could be nothing more than a very elaborate cover for hiding his "true" racism, but Paul's rhetoric is backed by his voting record. Dr. Paul has never hesitated to take politically dangerous positions in defense of minorities (opposing the death penalty, racial profiling, wars on brown people, and the imprisonment of non-violent drug offenders are not exactly hallmark policies of the Republican Party (or racism)).

    See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMQmInReYlI

    Ron Paul's either a racist or he's not.

    And a handful of bigoted statements from a newsletter that ran for decades doesn't trump the vast body of evidence supporting Ron Paul's anti-racist beliefs (i.e., his entire career and voting record). Moreover, I would argue that even if Paul DID write the newsletters, and lied about having done so, he would still be far less racist than Barack Obama, who has no problem ruining the lives of young black men by charging them with felonies for victimless crimes. Not to mention all of the dark-skinned Muslims the Obama administration has butchered.

    The fact that you're offended by words published in Ron Paul's name does not make him a racist. Is Dr. Paul morally culpable for unwittingly publishing bigoted statements? Sure, for whatever that's worth. He's apologized for publishing them, and has disavowed them...thousands of times. Through decades of unflinching advocacy for minority rights, Dr. Paul has more than made up for whatever harm he caused with the newsletters. If that isn't sufficient penance, you simply want Ron Paul to be a racist, all facts and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    And lest we forget the ludicrous double standards for charges of "racism", the Democratic Party and CNN had no problem giving the late Senator Robert Byrd an easy pass for his cross burning days as an "Exalted Cyclops" in the Klu Klux Klan. Yes, a Klansman was the longest serving member of Congress in history, and the Dems were fine with that. But Ron Paul? To the Wall -- march! If you think Paul's newsletters disqualify his candidacy, consider this Robert Byrd gem:

    "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Having not read any of these newsletters, even after seeing that they've been posted on here (b/c I'm too busy watching 'The Office'): What is racist about this newsletter?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Beyond the offending newsletters, there is not a single video, soundbite or article that corroborates allegations of Ron Paul being racist. Paul's been an outspoken public figure for decades; if he's hiding a secret Klansman in his oversized suit, it shouldn't be hard to find. But there are only the newsletters. "

    "Aside from all this evidence, you can't find any evidence."

    It's this insane denialism that so warms my heart.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If you're going to be evasive, please don't call me a denialist.

    Again, even if Ron Paul wrote the newsletters himself, the fact that he has battled racist legislation for decades completely demolishes your allegations of racism.

    If Ron Paul was a racist, why would he risk political suicide by arguing against the drug war, military occupation of the Middle East, and the death penalty on the grounds that these are racist laws? As a Republican, these positions do anything BUT resonate with his base. Moreover, Paul explicitly argues against such laws precisely because they are racist; the disproportionate number of blacks executed by the justice system is what motivated him to change his position on the death penalty.

    Paul's either a brave anti-racist or an unbelievably stupid racist. The evidence for the former (actually fighting racism) far outweighs the former (politically incorrect, racially charged comments in newsletters). If you think Paul's anti-racist record is consistent with racism, then I'm not the one guilty of "insane denialism".

    And, assuming I'm wrong and Paul is a racist, why not dispense with the double standard and forgive Paul? The Democratic Party and their sock puppets at CNN had no problem granting Sen. Robert Byrd (D-KKK) an easy pass and unqualified forgiveness for both burning crosses as an "Exalted Cyclops" and using the word "nigger" twice in a televised interview.

    Contrast CNN's "report" (read: apology) on Byrd's actual racism with their hyperbolic, intellectually dishonest smear attempts on Paul:

    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-04/politics/byrd.slur_1_byrd-race-relations-phrase-dates?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

    And how about from Bill Clinton:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ejCVcV-sNj8

    ReplyDelete
  67. a priori said...
    Someone named "a priori." There's a 10% chance that this guy isn't an Objectivist.

    If you're going to be evasive
    Now it's down to zero.

    Again, even if Ron Paul wrote the newsletters himself
    Check your premises. This is not a subjunctive conversation, and punting it to his explicitly writing it is evasive goalpost moving that cannot be sanctioned. He published racist newsletters. Under his own name. This is evidence of racism. Period. This is not conditional evidence of racism provided only that someone can prove he did yet another racist thing at some other point.

    the fact that he has battled racist legislation for decades completely demolishes your allegations of racism.
    Because racism is a form of collectivism, and he battles against collectivism. *ignores his battling the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment*

    If Ron Paul was a racist, why would he risk political suicide by arguing against the drug war, military occupation of the Middle East, and the death penalty on the grounds that these are racist laws?
    I have no idea. It's a good thing, then, that he opposes the federal war on drugs and tolerates 50 individual racist state wars on drugs and opposes overseas intervention because it represents an extension of federal power and a waste of tax dollars. (And ending our overseas adventures and funding has great appeal for racists. With our armies returned home and no monetary or military support for Israel, good, stout Ron Paul voters like Don Black can watch the Samson Option liquidate the kikes and the ragheads in one apocalyptic stroke.) And, yaaay, on the death penalty, you did find something where his comments on it relate to racism. Unless you're reading an interview where he's speaking to a different audience, and the death penalty instead represents wasteful government spending, or opposing the death penalty is part and parcel of a commitment to being Pro-Life.

    Paul's either a brave anti-racist or an unbelievably stupid racist. The evidence for the former (actually fighting racism)
    except for where it does not constitute evidence because it's not,

    far outweighs the former (politically incorrect, racially charged comments in newsletters).
    And now we've moved the goalposts further to "politically incorrect" and "racially charged" statements. Sorry, no, A Is A. Racism is racism. He printed racist things; he did a racist thing. But I admire the math here: the evidence of things that don't constitute proof of opposing racism does greatly outweigh reams of printed evidence of unequivocal actual racism.

    If you think Paul's anti-racist record is consistent with racism, then I'm not the one guilty of "insane denialism".
    You are guilty of insane denialism.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And, assuming I'm wrong and Paul is a racist, why not dispense with the double standard and forgive Paul? The Democratic Party and their sock puppets at CNN had no problem granting Sen. Robert Byrd
    But Byrd said he only joined the KKK to be anti-Communist and opposed the first Civil Rights Act because it extended federal power. These were defenses of states rights and opposition to collectivism, which we know is the real racism.

    I'm just playing. I agree with you. A man who publicly repudiated his own racist past and made a frank acknowledgement of his wrongness, apologized for his personal actions on the record countless times, then went on to a decades-long career in which he voted for minority rights is just like someone who published racist commentary for over ten years, under his own name, defended those statements, then shamefully tried to blame someone else for them without naming them or accounting for his own failure of personal oversight and within the last year has advocated for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. They're basically the same guy.

    But you're right to impugn all of the above because, in an article about Ron Paul, I failed to condemn Robert Byrd. I also failed to condemn Big Bird. I also failed to address a lot of other shit immaterial to the point that Ron Paul printed racist things you're trying to handwave away.

    Also, lmao, you actually think CNN works for the Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I've just read the news letter and don't see many Racist remarks (IMHO ) I see that there are alot of right wing idea's in the news letter but nothing really Racist about the whole thing. I think it was written by someone trying to be fair about some of the reason behind the riots. You will most likely ignore me and this post because I do support Dr. Paul and I'm a young "white" man. But i'm always interested in others ideas so I gave the news letter a read and i can not agree with your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I suppose that if I feel that there's a tie between the disproportionate representation of blacks on welfare and in prisons and their culture that makes me a racist.

    I'm actually comfortable with that. I don't hate blacks, I just think their culture is profoundly different than mine and I'm tired of "paying" for it.

    I'm way more comfortable with Paul's "fault" of probably being a racist(but certainly not a collectivist) as long he treats everyone fairly regardless of color; especially versus all the other candidates running for office.

    So I'll vote for him regardless...let's face it though...the voting lines are already drawn primarily between those getting gov't checks and those not...and there are some racial demographics involved whether society is ready to deal with it or not.

    It's not like those people really have to worry, Paul is not getting elected anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Anonymous said...

    I'm baffled by the Lew Rockwell ghostwriter defense: if Paul let Rockwell write his pamphlets without okaying the content, and was really appalled by the racist crap that went out in his name... why on earth would he cover for Rockwell?

    I mean, a normal person in that position would capital-p Pissed. A normal person would throw Rockwell under the bus and take pleasure in doing so. Lew Rockwell nearly ended his career by sneaking Stormfront-level nastiness into Paul's personal missives and... Paul just shuts up and takes it. Accepts responsibility, even.

    I think that *if* Lew Rockwell wrote those items, and *if* Ron Paul really is not a racist who holds those views or endorsed their publication as an ultra-sleazy strategy, then Lew Rockwell simply must have weapons-grade dirt on Ron Paul. There is no other explanation."

    Ron Paul never comes out throwing fists at anyone. Notice how in the debates, when given a chance to totally trash one of his enemies, he chooses not to do so. I'm not surprised that he didn't go after the man.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't really find the newsletters to be all that racist. A lot of what I read is mostly stating that blacks are typically racist against whites. I don't really care about the content anyway, I know it doesn't reflect Paul's views. in Liberty Defined he constantly talks about how blacks are treated unfairly socially speaking but we must also admit that it's mostly blacks getting the welfare checks and doing the crime. But the points he makes is that most of these crimes are not real crimes, such as doing drugs, and it's because of their poverty which puts them into jail while people with money get out of it. ron Paul advocates that it's racist to be grouping people based on color, and you need to look at it on a case by case basis, on the individual person.

    One piece of information I can put into this is that I have read all of ron paul's books, and I know his writing style. None of this stuff seems to be his type of language. Maybe he's changed in the past 15-20 years on style but I'm doubting it. These newsletters are pushing for money out of people's pockets to be "saved" and at most it's just in his name because he was popular for the economical views at the time. There was probably a lot of writers to that newsletter and since there are so many of them, it would be easy for some to slip through past Dr. paul's eyes while he's spending his entire day delivering babies.

    I know the man very well from speeches, books and comments made by others. These newsletters are the only mention that ever suggest he believes any of this stuff. i discredit it simply because it doesn't follow the beliefs he's been pushing for 30 years. He's never changed policy for votes on any other issue, why would this be an exception?

    ReplyDelete
  73. WOW!! Bring on the propaganda, this is awesome. Type Ron Paul into google news and you get
    1)Ron Paul and the racist newsletters (Fact Checker biography
    2)Poll: Ron Paul holds slim lead over Romney, Gingrich in Iowa‎
    3)Ron Paul's Pro-Life Credentials Questioned By Personhood USA‎
    4)Ron Paul's Long Record of Glorious Failures in Congress‎
    5)Ron Paul In 2009: I Wouldn't Risk American Lives' To Save Jews ...‎
    6)Ron Paul 'Uncomfortable' Around Gays‎
    7)Ron Paul 90210: A liberal is naturally very anti-totalitarian.‎
    8)In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war"‎
    9)Ron Paul Under Fire for Praising Accused Traitor‎

    Americans!! They think you are that stupid that they will literally mind control you into thinking his a rascist. They will tell you what to think. His not rascist, do your homework‎

    ReplyDelete
  74. They think you are that stupid that they will literally mind control you into thinking his a rascist. They will tell you what to think. His not rascist, do your homework‎
    You first.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I didn't really find anything wrong with the newsletter. He is referring to the mob, emotions were high. Has any person seen clips of the riots? Some on the things that happened were disgusting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw2pRnBgeBU

    ReplyDelete
  76. I wonder who is behind the assault on Ron Paul. Let's see ... it would have to be a group that can't defend itself against his ideas, so it hurls the accusation of either racism or child abuse. Since Paul is apparently a moral person child abuse is out. So they use racism. Now who is Paul irritating? Just follow the money. Figure it out. Who stands to lose the most, either here or abroad, if Paul returns the USA to consitutional government?

    ReplyDelete
  77. When Ron Paul supporters come here and say "I don't see what's so racist about those remarks", you're just providing more evidence that Ron Paul attracts racists as supporters.

    You should probably stop.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This is very interesting. And virulent.

    You've provided some intense food for thought. While all canditates for President are imperfect - the very position attracts the power hungry and zealous - it's good to know ALL of this. I'd've preferred less abuse, but hey, that's just me, I'm an anti-abuse-ist.

    Despite my distate of the verbal mud-slinging and name calling, you've all presented good points. So...thanks.

    I won't be back because for us anti-abuse-ists, good discourse doesn't proceed by calling someone a name that includes the word "f**k" in it. Even if you know them well and love them, (or perhaps most ESPECIALLY then...), which obviously does NOT apply to Anon, Seko, a priori, etc. you still don't call anyone that kind of name. I thought we all learned that in Kindergarten. At least we did in city public school. Grins.

    But still, regardless, thank you for putting all this out here.

    ReplyDelete
  79. You forgot on Mr. Destructo!

    The 'Wright Analogy':

    Paulites like to pretend that this is just like the Wright controversy for Obama. Actually its not AT ALL. What would be equivalent is if the pastor may or may not have not been Obama, if Obama had complete control over what was uttered in the sermons, Obama was actually present when nasty things were said, if the things that were said did not have an iota of truth to them given the black experience in America, if the things that were said were factually incorrect and based in anything but vile, despicable trash, and the church was the called the "Obama Church of Christ".

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thanks for putting the scans online. I was only 99% sure that Ron Paul was not a racist until I saw them. TOO BAD that the last page was cropped INTENTIONALLY by a few inches to hide the REAL identity of the author of the article. (You know, at the BOTTOM of the page where a byline might normally appear.) Obviously one of the freelancers (read agent provocateur) that was writing for the newsletter at the time.

    Given Ron Paul's consistent and longstanding opinion on various topics, it is no surprise that people would be working against him even back in 1992. After all, it takes years for the power elite to groom a potential sock puppet, I mean presidential candidate. Can't have an honest politician coming along and messing with their schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Does it perhaps anger you just a bit that what he's saying is true? Oh wait, that makes me racist doesnt it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I just stopped by to tell everyone I like puppies.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Who gives a shit if he's racist or not! It's not like the guy lives next door to me. Look at it this way... I'd much rather vote for the guy that's gonna bring our boys and girls home (ALL of them, not just the white ones) over the current batch of corporate shills that would have no problem sending good Americans off to die in their wars without ends. Ron Paul gets very little media attention, and when he does, it's always in a negative context. The corporate elite are scared shitless over this guy. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid people. America needs some shaking (waking?) up and Ron Paul's the only candidate that's remotely capable of making this happen. If you're happy with the status quo, vote for any of the other guys... and stop bitching!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Is this whole site dedicated to bashing Ron Paul and people who would support him?

    The logic in this article is primitive and full of fallacies. I surpassed my public education, but you dear author, apparently have not.

    You with your limited cunning will not stop Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Oh yeah yeah, those piles of newsletters with Ronny's name on top are all fakes. Totally. And the pic of Ronny chilling with the Stormfront founder is faked too. And the fundraising letters signed by Ron Paul are part of the same elaborate plot. Government can't do anything right- except orchestrate a complex plan to frame up a fringe candidate who has no shot of ever being president.

    And hey, Ron said he wasn't a racist! And Ronny also says he'd end all our wars! And he assures us all that life without a Fed government would be a wonderful thing, bearing no resemblance whatever to life in rural Florida or Alabama back in Jim Crow. Sure, reality and history contradict what he says, but Ron's word is good enough for me. I mean, a politician would never lie or have hidden motives.

    Right. Kool-Aid? You guys are drowning in it.

    ReplyDelete
  86. we have a racist in the whitehouse he admitted going to a church for 20 years ran by the hate monger Rev wright and stated he was his "mentor" in his book. deal with it hate is hate.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Wasn't this written by James B. Powell?
    Paul wasn't even an editor of this newsletter, he was the publisher. He did not read each article or above articles; that's what an editor does.
    Why is the bottom cut off the last scan?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Does a racist champion the end of the "war on drugs" by specifically citing how in disproportionately affects minorities, especially black?
    Minorities are disproportionately imprisoned for nonviolent drug infractions. Does a racist say that as president he would pardon all nonviolent federal drug crime prisoners?
    Why not look at the racist policies of people in power and the entire establishment. One thing is for, the establishment hates Ron Paul. Just think for a minute. Most of the comments here are insanely ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 'DPirate said...
    Why is the bottom cut off? Where you would expect a signature?

    December 7, 2011 1:17 AM
    Anonymous said...
    that's the part where it says "written by Somebody Not Ron Paul who is Not Ron Paul so you can't blame Ron Paul." we cut it off, because we're making shit up. we're afraid dr. paul's grassroots base is so powerful it could end the fed

    December 7, 2011 2:18 AM'

    Nice to see a true statement on this site, even if it was submitted anonymously and was probably intended to be sarcastic rather than truthful.

    ReplyDelete
  90. It appears as if the ptb have been scared of Dr Paul for a very long time. They've had rats in his woodshed for years. Protect and elect Ron Paul. Why does truth in government scare so many voters? Because the American foreign controlled media are filling their mindless minions with horsefeathers.

    ReplyDelete
  91. What an idiot....I mean the author of this post. None of that was penned by Paul and this whole premise is baseless.

    Why was the author's byline cutoff in the scans?

    Just another shill spewing disinfo...Funny how it's not as bad as racism to pander to the 1% and royally screw everyone else. Maybe you should write about the issues and stands of the various candidates instead of attacking the one you don't like...but of course that would open you up for rational debate....

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ron Paul is not a racist, that article has recently been proven to be written by someone else. Notice how the the end is cut off, and that is where James B. Powell signed his name to those articles. Try and lie and run away from the truth, but it will always shine through in the end. RP 2012!

    http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

    ReplyDelete
  93. Nothing you have said is true. That article you link to consists of someone deciding that this must have been written by James Powell because he said so. The Powell issue and this issue have been available in scanned form since 2007 and in hardcopy form in university archives in Austin and Wisconsin for decades. That author has found nothing new save a conclusion he wishes to reach based off zero new evidence. Sorry.


    Why was the author's byline cutoff in the scans?

    Just another shill spewing disinfo...Funny how it's not as bad as racism to pander to the 1% and royally screw everyone else. Maybe you should write about the issues and stands of the various candidates instead of attacking the one you don't like...but of course that would open you up for rational debate....

    Because most of the contents of the Ron Paul Political/Survival reports were written without bylines.

    Here, try reading over 50 of them.

    There is no byline in the scanned copy because there was no byline in the original. James Kirchick probably didn't perfectly line up the copy when xeroxing it; so what? The absence of evidence isn't evidence of something else, Rumsfeld. Sorry. You're again left with the fact that many of these articles were deliberately written in the first person to give the impression that they were personally penned by Paul in a newsletter named after him and, as indicated in the colophon, administered by a corporation he jointly founded.

    Also, by "rational debate" I assume you mean a conversation with someone who doesn't fabricate and assign straw men motives to an author in order to dismiss them.


    Soil said...
    Does a racist champion the end of the "war on drugs" by specifically citing how in disproportionately affects minorities, especially black?

    Good question. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that people in government often do things cynically, to advance their own causes under the aegis of a more acceptable rationale when their purpose is not so noble. For instance, if you opposed the power of the federal government and your sole commitment was to shrinking the size of the federal government, ending the federal war on drugs because you oppose racial discrimination would be a noble and powerful message, certainly more resonant than an argument about the power structure of the republic. It only becomes cynical when your opposition to federal power and your touting of states' rights leads you to accept 50 individual state wars on drugs, which are just as racist and stupid as the federal one.

    Which Paul does.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I looked for the post where you mentioned that you do not support Obama because he is racist for attending Jeremiah Wright's church.

    I know Obama didn't actually say any of those things, but, since "there's no way [Obama] could have been ignorant of the content of [the hour-long sermons spoken in his presence for] over [twenty] years", we know he must agree with them.

    And I know that he never said he supported those things, but "Either [Obama listened to] this racist excrement; or he endorsed someone else's [saying] this racist excrement and knowingly [attended the church anyway]; or, over the course of thousands of [sermons] and roughly [two and a half] decade[s], he was such an incompetent [politician] — and evidently too lazy or stupid to bother [listening to an hour or so] per [week] — that this kind of unforgivable shit went [on around him], proving that he isn't even [aware enough to be] the treasurer of his local Klavern, much less the leader of the fucking free world."

    And I know here refudiated the statements by Wright but "Even though [his own books] published [stories] showing his defense of the [sermons], the fact that he later repudiated the opinions in them, under the heat of a national campaign, will be enough. What strength can [Wrights spoken] words and spoken statements have next to the power of stuff He said later? In the defense of liberty, we cannot risk doubting the inerrancy of The Leader, especially when He has told us to ignore the other thing [his pastor] said, for the opposite thing He said."

    Obviously, "[Obama] lacks the competency to control content [spoken in his presence] for over [two] decade[s], and is thus unfit to lead a country."

    And "He doesn't believe these things but considers them a useful political tool to motivate racist [blacks], which makes him fit to be a [Democratic] candidate, but too obvious about it to win."

    "[W]hen you opt to support anti-[liberty] and [Freedom] ideals by supporting [Obama the President], you end up supporting everything else about him. That includes those [sermons] and the unambiguous message to those who enjoy them: You can [listen to] these things and succeed; this works. The other good ideas to which he's signatory can't erase the fact that he [allowed for decades] those words [in Wrights sermons]. The moral weight of those [sermons] drags down even the most high-minded aspirations he has about civil liberties, and everything crashes down on all of us."

    "It's fine to have convictions about things [Obama] believes in. But when you voluntarily whitewash his record or choose to ignore it and champion him anyway, you are complicit in supporting the idea that racism and [oikophobia] are morally inconsequential to the process of running for President of the United States."

    As you have demonstrated above, none of that matters and Obama is actually a racist "unfit to be a human being" much less of our support.

    Can you point out that post for me?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  95. I looked for the post where you mentioned that you do not support Obama because he is racist for attending Jeremiah Wright's church.
    Why, yes, there is indeed a direct equivalency between attending a church and hearing sermons that are solely someone else's responsibility and whose content you are not aware of ahead of time, and deliberately printing and selling racist content over a decade, under your own name, in a newsletter named after you, with pieces written from the first-person perspective and addressing readers in a manner designed to sound like you, yourself, are personally addressing them and endorse this content. There is also a direct equivalency between someone repudiating the content of some sermons he disagreed with when challenged by the press and someone defending newsletters as his own for years, claiming that they were misunderstood and taken out of context, then completely failing to embrace his own politics of personal responsibility to claim that he was somehow unaware of the content of a 20-page newsletter published monthly, under his own name, for years, even as he allegedly earned over $1 million from its subscribership.

    Shame on Barack Obama for "The Barack Obama Sermons Said Out Loud by Jeremiah Wright but Actually Written by Barack Obama in the Church of Barack Obama, LLC." These two things actually are alike, and this is not an incredibly stupid argument.

    Also, lmao "refudiate."

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  96. I have it on good authority that the cut-off part of the scan contained Ron Paul's recipe for the greatest egg salad in the world, but the Trilateral Commission ordered ex-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, in hiding from the authorities, to excise it from the scan. WHY WON'T YOU RELEASE THE RECIPE, OBAMA???

    ReplyDelete
  97. Can someone explain why the entirety of each page is scanned, except the last page? It cuts off right where they would have the byline, the name of the author. Surely, if Ron Paul had signed his name there, the poster would have included the full last page. Chances are it'd be included even if no name was printed at the end of the page, because he could just say, "well if no name is written, it must be Paul". I'm betting that at the bottom of the article, there is someone else's name, and the poster of this article is intentionally hiding it from us. Please show us the FULL scan so people can stop judging a man based solely off of a misrepresented article. Thanks

    By the by, this same thing was pulled with another supposed "Ron Paul" article: "How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence", and they eventually found out that the piece they didn't show in the scan showed the author's name, James B. Powell

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous said...
    Can someone explain why the entirety of each page is scanned, except the last page?

    Because James Kirchick was Xeroxing about 200 of these pages in a row and didn't bother lining up the paper perfectly because he incorrectly assumed that Ron Paul fans wouldn't be so thunderfucking absurd as to believe that one inch off the bottom of a page would constitute a conspiracy to smear Paul. Or, at least, that one inch off one page would constitute greater material evidence than the hundreds of newsletters Paul published. (See more below!)


    It cuts off right where they would have the byline, the name of the author.
    Actually, that's not where bylines go, just in general. And that's not where "they" would have a byline, in Paul's newsletters, which almost uniformly have zero attribution, except on the front page banner where it says "RON PAUL'S... Report", but good job. You're on the right paranoid track anyway.


    I'm betting that at the bottom of the article, there is someone else's name, and the poster of this article is intentionally hiding it from us. Please show us the FULL scan so people can stop judging a man based solely off of a misrepresented article. Thanks
    Feel free to judge him by 50 more articles. All of them just as odious. Thanks:

    Game Over: Scans of over 50 Ron Paul Newsletters


    By the by, this same thing was pulled with another supposed "Ron Paul" article: "How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence", and they eventually found out that the piece they didn't show in the scan showed the author's name, James B. Powell
    By the by... if by "eventually" you mean "the moment it was published," and if by "this same thing was pulled," you actually mean "the proper use of attribution via byline was put on the front page of the Powell issue to indicate that this time the words and opinions were those of someone other than Ron Paul" you'd be right! Unfortunately, you're making your point.

    Which is totally wrong. Look. Go on look at that. It's just a picture. No reading necessary!

    Anyhow, "no reading necessary" seems to be the default attitude of Paul fans using the comments section these days. Nobody goes on to click any of the links provided at the end of this article. Nobody reads the comments already published. It's just lather, rinse, repeat of the same accusations and suppositions, no matter how many times they've been thoroughly dismissed. So the comments section is closed. Nothing new is happening here.

    ReplyDelete