December
25th 2011
Posted under Election 2012 & Political Correctness & Race & Republican Party & Ron Paul
At least some “conservatives” aren’t afraid to defend the Ron Paul newsletters which, as I said below, are generally defensible from a conservative standpoint. VDARE steps up to the plate.
Cecilia on 25 Dec 2011 at 5:08 am #
Well, the assholes at VDare are a bunch of racist pigs anyway, so what do you expect. Most Republicans, thankfully, have sense enough to reject racism. Hopefully, people will see that Ron Paul is bad news and not vote for him. I don’t want that loose canon anywhere near the white house.
mpresley on 25 Dec 2011 at 2:42 pm #
There is nothing so evident and predictable in our politics as the attempt to avoid unpleasant but critical issues. It is generally the case that two topics, above all others, are completely off-limits: the Negro and Jewish questions. With Paul, these enter “through the back door,” as it were. Surreptitiously the latter question arises due to his critique of central banking, and his eliminativist position on foreign aid. His points are viewed by some, mostly the neocons, as evidence of a crypto anti-Semitism.
The Negro question, because anyone who ever thought about it understands that an elimination of domestic welfare, a curtailment of AA, along with a significant reduction in the federal bureaucracy would destroy much of the black “middle-class,” and decimate a large undercurrent living hand to mouth by way of white subsidy. But one cannot say it openly because reality cannot be admitted into the debate. Instead, the newsletters are used to underscore and substantiate the inherent racism of Paul’s libertarian views. It becomes ad hominem instead of a policies and issues analysis.
Some speculate that Llewellyn Rockwell wrote (or was otherwise responsible for) the articles in question. One does not imagine it to be so given his organization’s current editorial stance, and I understand that Lew denied the charge? But people change, and who can say for sure? Someone wrote them, but someone is laying very low.
Paul states that he never read them, and his credulous supporters believe him, I guess. Or they don’t care. A casual observer of the spectacle is reminded of Obama sitting in pews, but not hearing the sermon. Whether the white Paul can obtain similar mileage from the black Obama’s “I was looking the other way” excuse is a big question.
American politics are hopeless. However one thing can be said about Paul. He brings something to the table that has been missing since George Wallace ran in ’68—an attempt to arrest an ongoing political inertia that has not served the dispossessed majority very well. At least Wallace was up-front about it, while Paul just seems goofy, or perturbed and angry, when pressed. I’m not sure that walking out of an interview is the way to go, but then again I’m not running for anything.
In any case, and as strange as it may seem, both Wallace and Paul had/have a “rock star” aura about them, as anyone who ever attended a “Stand Up for America” stump speech can attest. And within the context of their respective times, their actual platforms were not unrelated.
Aaron on 25 Dec 2011 at 5:59 pm #
I guess I’m the only person on the “racist right” who thinks the language in the newsletters is indefensible. Red Phillips says the newsletters are defensible from a conservative viewpoint, but I wonder, how is such uncharitable language defensible from a Christian viewpoint?
Aaron on 25 Dec 2011 at 6:07 pm #
Ron Paul has been compared with George Wallace on the newsletter thing, too. Ta-Nehisi Coates says that both were non-racists who consciously decided to adopt racism as a political strategy. That seems a valid comparison to me.
I agree that Ron Paul is an excellent “message candidate,” though I think he’d be a disastrous president. When you’re promoting an extreme and threatening ideology, it’s best to use a moderate and non-threatening tone and demeanor. Ron Paul is great at doing that. He has true anti-charisma charisma. Compare his style to someone like Pat Buchanan, who has a flame-throwing style that excites the small base but just pushes most people away.
mpresley on 25 Dec 2011 at 6:26 pm #
Aaron: The handful of examples I’ve looked at are rather tame both in substance and editorial style, in spite of whatever certain commentators have implied. They are undoubtedly out of the mainstream, but out of the mainstream is where we must go if we are ever to have a chance to correct past political abuses.
Also, I’m not sure what “language” you mean, or how it relates within a “Christian” context. But whatever you mean, “language” is not really the issue, is it?
Again, I am not a Paul supporter, but I suspect that many of the attacks upon him point to something below the surface, and something that those making the attacks are hesitant to say openly, perhaps for fear that it would display their own hidden agendas.
RedPhillips on 25 Dec 2011 at 7:44 pm #
Aaron, I admitted that the language was “indelicate” (that’s the word I used), and that Paul should have appologized for the language.
You have to remember the context of the time and the medium. These were newsletters before the widespread use of the internet. People who subscribed to newsletters were generally people who were distrustful of the MSM and wanted something they couldn’t get from the MSM or mainstream conservative sources. So you couldn’t just serve them up routine op-eds. That is not an excuse, indelicate language is indelicate language, but it is context. Anyone who got newsletter appeals in the day will understand the medium.
When I first heard about this I was very skeptical that there would be anything that damning because the people involved might have been trying to sell newsletters, but they weren’t stupid and completely clueless of the PC milieu and the bounds of acceptability. Once you cross a certain racialist line you get ghettoized and there is no going back. The people involved weren’t going to go there and that’s not what they’re about anyway.
Partially what this newsletter brouhaha is all about is that that line of what ghettoizes you and marks you as a racialist has moved to the PC left. What you could say in the late 80′s and early 90′s you can’t say now.
I don’t think Paul ever saw himself making a serious run for the Presidency. He saw himself, and his people saw him, as a message bearer who would run to make a point. Paul’s ran as a Libertarian in ’88, but basically ran as a right-winger upset by the direction the Republican Party was taking. (This pissed off a lot of Libertarians.) Remember he was considering a primary challenge to Bush in ’92 until Buchanan stepped up. So since he still had political asperations of a sort, he wasn’t going to blow that up by going all racialist if that was even in him which it isn’t. So the people he was trying to cultivate were right-wingers of the type who might vote in a Republican primary against Bush. What you say to that group might bite you in the rear if you ever seriously challenge for the GOP nomination, but he wasn’t (his people weren’t) going to say anything that would blow up their chances to run as a credible right-wing challenger and anything overtly racialist or anti-Semitic would even in the 80′s and 90′s.
Aaron on 25 Dec 2011 at 7:48 pm #
Some attackers are definitely out to get Ron Paul. Most of the media don’t seem to be, though. The media seem even now to be giving him an easier time than they would a “serious” candidate like Romney or Gingrich, if they had published stuff like that. And Ron Paul is obviously lying or at the very best withholding relevant information; no other candidate could get a pass on that, either.
I do think the language is mostly the issue. Sometimes it’s the not the language but the substance, like the claim that AIDS is transmitted by saliva – it’s likely that the author knew that was a lie. But mostly it’s the language. Some of it’s intended to excite hatred of blacks and other groups. Not just black rioters, but blacks. That seems to go against the Christian concept of charity. If that stuff’s actually charitable, I’d be interested in understanding how.
C Bowen on 25 Dec 2011 at 10:29 pm #
This is completely off topic but I am trying to figure out this bit:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”
Does anyone know what this means?
RedPhillips on 26 Dec 2011 at 2:22 am #
Savrola, we have nothing to do with the filtering process. The spam filter catches the comment and either sends to spam or pending approval. We then rescue it from either place if it is a legit comment. The spam filter has it’s own algorithm that is known only to it. It appears to pick up on certain key words or phrases. If you submit something and it doesn’t post then just be patient, we’ll rescue it the next time one of us logs in.
Aaron on 26 Dec 2011 at 4:33 am #
Just as a factual point, the early 1990s were the high-water mark of political correctness, as I remember it. I mean in terms of intensity and strictness. Since then, PC has gotten both less strict and more widespread. But even if you disagree with me on that, there’s no denying that the newsletters were offensive by the standards of their own day.
I’m not bothered by indelicate language in the newsletters. Indelicate language is calling rioters “animals” (not blacks in general, as some of the out-of-context citations imply). I’ve got no problem with calling them that, though obviously the rioters are human beings like you and me. But inciting racial hatred against blacks as a group – the blacks – is beyond indelicate. Same with spreading lies about AIDS and some of the other things in the newsletters.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Dec 2011 at 5:52 am #
We went through this whole newsletter business back in ’08. It was and still is a tempest in a teapot. I have certainly not read anything quoted which qualifies as inciting hatred against blacks as a group. Aaron, can you give an example of what you are talking about?
Aaron on 27 Dec 2011 at 6:36 am #
Kirt, I meant things like this:
That’s one example. “The blacks,” not “some blacks” or “some blacks such as [specific names].” In general, it’s the tone of the article that incites racial hatred.
Also, I think it’s pretty bad to spread lies such as that AIDS is transmitted via saliva. Presumably the author knew that was a lie.
Beyond that, there’s also the usual kooky paranoia – for just one examople, that bizarre thing about the “New Money.” That’s not just harmless kookiness. It’s appealing to paranoia in order to get your gullible, paranoid readers to send you money.
Aaron on 27 Dec 2011 at 6:41 am #
Kirt, here’s another example I meant to quote from the same article: “the thoroughly racist black community.”
Kirt Higdon on 27 Dec 2011 at 6:09 pm #
Aaron, at worst your quotes are over-generalizations and perhaps in context not even very much over. Any generalization (e.g. men are taller than women) admits of a lot of exceptions and everyone understands that. And I don’t see where they promote hatred of blacks. I don’t hate people who reject all that is Eurocentric; I’m just sorry for them because they are missing out on a lot. Same goes for anyone who rejects all that is Afro or Asiacentric.
In the time period we are talking about, a lot less was known about AIDS. But is it not true that the AIDS virus is sometimes present in saliva? And in that case, isn’t it possible that it could be transmitted by saliva? I’m asking. It’s possible we are not even dealing with inaccurate information here, let alone a deliberate lie.
I’m not sure what you mean about kooky paranoia about new money. The Fed exists for the purpose of manipulating and controlling the monetary supply for the benefit of the banksters. Thanks largely to Ron Paul, the majority of people have come to realize this. I think it’s kookier to deny it.
Julian on 27 Dec 2011 at 10:13 pm #
“Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is “Eurocentric.” They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it.”
That (!!!) is what you call ‘inciting hatred’ of blacks?
I realize CHT is not AltRight or one of the Occidental sites, but it isn’t HuffPo either. That the above quote equals ‘inciting hatred’ is ridiculous…even coming from Aaron.
Aaron on 28 Dec 2011 at 5:54 am #
Hey, Savrola, my name is “Aaron.” If you can’t call me by my name, you can suck my circumcised dick.
Aaron on 28 Dec 2011 at 6:02 am #
The “New Money” was the new bills, the ones with the colors and the evil diffraction gratings.
Calling a whole ethnic group “thoroughly racist” is going way beyond generalizations. Blacks are more criminal in general than whites, but that’s different than saying that blacks are thoroughly criminal.
The articles and letters are meant to incite racial antagonism, if “racial hatred” is too strong a word. (I don’t think it is, given the overall tone, because the lines between the black rioters and blacks as a whole are being blurred in the article.) Or call it bigotry, if you like.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Dec 2011 at 6:41 am #
Aaron, let’s have a little context for “thoroughly racist black community”. That is not even a complete sentence. Is a specific community being referred to or blacks as a whole or the black establishment as representing the community? Certainly the word racist has been overused to the point where it was meaningless even back when the newsletters were written. But if calling someone a racist is inciting hatred or antagonism or bigotry against them, then everyone using those terms against Paul and his supporters is guilty of such incitement. Using terms like racist and anti-semite is simply juvenile name calling.
I’d certainly say that you cannot simply start any kind of publication and then leave it in someone else’s hands and ignore it with no risk of anything coming back to bite you. I know of instances of such back bite happening to people other than Ron Paul. I’m sure if he starts another newsletter, he’ll exercise more control as far as staying on his message is concerned. That is shown by the way he has conducted both the ’08 campaign and his present campaign.
Aaron on 28 Dec 2011 at 2:13 pm #
Kirt, here’s the context. And here’s the context for the “New Money” citation, with the “totalitarian bills.” Before dismissing the “New Money” scam as being all in good fun in the tradition of PT Barnum, consider that the author (it’s “signed” by Ron Paul) is taking advantage of paranoid readers, scaring them into sending their money to Ron Paul Associates. Libertarians might approve of this kind of entrepreneurship (it’s not technically fraud), but how is it any better than the fundraising at crooked outfits like the SPLC?
I agree that calling Paul a racist or anti-Semite is wrong. I’ve said so before. Nobody’s disagreeing with you on that. In today’s politically correct climate, calling him that is worse than juvenile name-calling.
Aaron on 28 Dec 2011 at 2:18 pm #
For the letter about the “New Money” and other stuff, you have to click on the link to the PDF file at the URL I gave above.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Dec 2011 at 4:17 pm #
Aaron, thanks for the context. In the essay on the Rodney King riots and their implications, there is little I would disagree with. It certainly is not racist and it’s mostly accurate if a bit exaggerated and overwrought. Happily the RK riots have proven to be a spectacular one-off. This was not obvious at the time to those of us who lived through them. (I was living in LA during the riots.) The essay is correct in emphasizing the racial indoctrination of the black population in hatred of whites. This has no parallel in other groups. Fortunately, a race riot every generation or so, while nasty, does not mean the end of civilization. Day to day, people follow RK’s homey advice and “just get along”.
The rhetoric of the fund raising letter is over-the-top but typical of the kind of fund raising letters I get several times a month from various political groups – mostly establishment republicans. I’m sorry because of the tone that Ron Paul allowed it to go out over his name, but I don’t think it is possible to be paranoid enough either about the IRS or about Fed/bankster money manipulation. Some of the things predicted in the letter have not come to pass (yet) but others have. Who is unaware of various accounts of people being arrested as possible drug dealers or terrorists simply because they were carrying what the Feds say is too much cash or paid for a large item in cash?
Bottom line for me is what I said to begin with – this was a tempest in a teapot in ’08 and the same is true now. But it is nice to hear political thugs like Dick Morris described RP as terrifying. If there is one fleeting pleasure this campaign provides it’s the chance to see politcal bullies suddenly become very afraid.