November
14th 2007
Posted under Election 2008 & NeoCons & Political Correctness & Ron Paul
The neocons at the American (Group)Thinker must have gotten the memo. The ugliness has just begun. You know they are running scared. They have resorted to their trump card, and it is only November.
Notice that Ron Paul is supposedly tainted because a) he is is supported by groups who hold politically incorrect beliefs and b) because he refuses to denounce Muslims in hateful enough language. We truly do live in a world turned upside down.
St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:05 pm #
It’s such a shame. American Stinker used to have some good and incise articles. But with these neo-con smears of Ron Paul, I have taken the occasion to remove such outfits like American Stinker, Crud State, Blight Wing Snooze, and others, from my personal blog’s roll.
Full disclosure: I’m for Duncan Hunter.
Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate » Blog Archive » The American (Group)Thinker Smears Ron Paul on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:10 pm #
[...] Unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt The neocons at the American (Group)Thinker must have gotten the memo. The ugliness has just begun. You know they are running scared. They have resorted to their trump card, and it is only November. Notice that Ron Paul is supposedly tainted because a) he is is supported by groups who hold politically incorrect beliefs and b) [...]
Andrew T. on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:31 pm #
You’re for Duncan Hunter?
Well, heavens knows that the “Islamofascists” will inevitably cover our children with burqas, and that we need to further wreck federalism by adding yet another agenda to the national government (thru a Constitutional amendment).
*sarcasm*
Andrew T. on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:49 pm #
On a different note, I don’t see what it is that the goose steppers and neo-Nazis find so attractive about Ron Paul’s campaign. I really don’t.
Does anyone else? Ron Paul = freedom. Neo-nazis = hate-mongering national socialism. What could possibly possess the most maniacal and anti-freedom elements in our society to support Dr. Paul is beyond me.
To be frank, Filmer, I think that article is actually kind of fair (by beltway standards). It cites hard facts and points out a problem that the Paul campaign must deal with; the repercussions would be worse than any swiftboating story. It’s about a valid concern, no smear. The only part I could find disagreeable was their ostracism of good old Pat Buchanan, who has never said an explicitly anti-semitic or seriously crude thing in his professional life (that I know of).
And why, for the love of all that is sane, does LewRockwell.com voice the writings of the far-leftist Cindy Sheehan? Again I have no idea.
Andrew T. on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:50 pm #
On a different note, I don’t see what it is that the goose steppers and neo-Nazis find so attractive about Ron Paul’s campaign. I really don’t.
Does anyone else? Ron Paul = freedom. Neo-nazis = hate-mongering national socailism. What could possibly possess the most maniacal and anti-freedom elements in our society to support Dr. Paul is beyond me.
To be frank, Filmer, I think that article is actually kind of fair (by beltway standards). It cites hard facts and points out a problem that the Paul campaign must deal with; the repercussions would be worse than any swiftboating story. It’s about a valid concern, no smear. The only part I could find disagreeable was their ostracism of good old Pat Buchanan, who has never said an explicitly anti-semitic or seriously crude thing in his professional life (that I know of).
And why, for the love of all that is sane, does LewRockwell.com voice the writings of the far-leftist Cindy Sheehan? Again I have no idea.
Americaneocon on 14 Nov 2007 at 10:51 pm #
I blogged about the Thinker piece as well.
They really nailed it! Man that Paul is whacked out! That’s saying nothing about his storm troop supporters!
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-storm-troopers.html
BTW, tell that Mike Tuggle to stay over at that Rebellion.net corn crib of his, will ya? The guy’s bothering me again!
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2007/05/league-of-south.html
Andrew T. on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:04 pm #
Americanneocon,
You’re pathetic, again. This article does NOT mean that Ron Paul or his campaign are in a poor state, and it does NOT mean that Ron Paul associates with anti-Semites. At the very worst, he has not explicitly rejected the small fringe of “white nationalist” supporters (and one can even say that by doing so at this stage in the campaign, he is playing good ball, because overtly rejecting such supporters will only draw media attention to the fact that the supporters have ever been there).
Weaver on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:07 pm #
Americaneocon,
you realise Paul’s probably the only one who wouldn’t likely grant amnesty?
Years from now you’ll realise the war, however much fun it is to cheer at, is accomplishing nothing. The true invasion is happening on our southern border right now.
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the “extreme right” has opposed the war since its beginning? Could the war then possibly be opposed to right wing interests? Doesn’t that bother you that it isn’t as simple as a right / left divide?
Weaver on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:20 pm #
Yea, he’d not only alienate that segment of support but would, as you say, draw attention to the fact.
It’s interesting that you, Andrew, had brought this up before: Paul’s popularity among the unpopular far right would come back to haunt him. When I read the Medved piece I was thinking, yep Andrew was right.
If you can’t defeat a right wing opponent fairly on the issues, call him racist or antisemitic (or imply that he’s such). The tried and true left wing smear. It works right up until the Last Chance Armada unloads its cargo and drives the Frenchmen out of their homes.
Americaneocon on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:25 pm #
Are you kidding me? Paul’s campaign is a disaster:
http://www.memeorandum.com/071114/p62#a071114p62
Andrew T. on 14 Nov 2007 at 11:39 pm #
Neojacobins…terrorists of tradition…closet Marxists (or former Marxists, or both)…chicken hawks…Straussians…yep.
Disastrous.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:24 am #
Americaneocon,
I beg to differ. Paul has finally made the national polls. His campaign is rocketing up.
roho on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:30 am #
Americoneocon…………………….First, let me say welcome to an overwhelming paleoconservative/libertarian site!…………Now, do you believe “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?”, is a concept limited to the Muslim world?…………If an idiot sits at my table, unable to even boil water, yet finds total agreement that my food has been cooked to his satisfaction, do I chastize him for recognizing the truth in my cooking skills, or do I simply say “Thank You”?………His “stupidity” while in the kitchen, does not disqualify him from the joys that his taste buds experienced. As an absolute failure as a profesional musician myself, it does not deter me from still enjoying the great gift of music granted to someone that achieves in a genre that is not absolutely my favorite.(i/e I care little for blue grass, yet love the voice of Allison Krause.)………….Many will follow Ron Paul’s message of restoring the constitution to it’s position of “Supreme Law”, whether one agrees with their agenda for motivation. Yet, all will agree that “Returning To The Constitution”, can only be a postive unless one worships the “Abominal Abraham LIncoln” and the counterfiet creationm of the ” Uniform Commercial Code”, which merged Admiralty Law and Equity Law as an instriment for the purpose of illegally taxing the “Continental U.S. Citizenry”!………………………So, I welcome the support and vote of ALL that feel the U.S. Government has overstepped it’s role, be they “wacko liberals” or “Klansmen” looking for hope!……………I trust DR. Paul to sort it all out after his acceptance speech!
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:39 am #
The big question for Paul is: will he shoot up quickly enough? We’re mid November, and I’m hoping a lot will happen by mid-December. Once the press acknowledges him as “mainstream” and people begin to take notice of the issues, I think he’ll shoot way up in the polls. Now that Paul has money, expect him to continue rising.
Paul has one or two stances that would be hard to defend, but overall he’s a solid candidate and up against clowns who, if bullet proof are only so because of flip-flopping and vagueness. Paul has a lot of potential to rip these guys at the end as they fight over the same voters and as he forces them to take real stances. “Paul is a nut, well what is your stance? Sir, that’s not an answer – we can’t print that. Sir! This has nothing to do with 9/11.”
Political scientists have been ignoring the type who support Paul for so long that I don’t think they even know how to counter a Dr. Paul surge. Do they even know what segment to target? To win, all Paul really needs is about 40% of the vote. The rest will be split.
This is going to be a close battle between Paul and the neocons. As with numerous right wing battles of the past, every bit of effort will count.
roho on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:44 am #
As for Mike Tuggle……………………….His piece on “Rebelion” regarding the hijacking of conservatism by neocons was not only awesome!; but his reference to George Washington’s letter to a minister and friend, confirmed that at no time Washington saw the “Jacobians” as a group of idealists that should be duplicated in the infancy of our great nation……..As the great-great-grandson of a man that surrendered with Lee at Apamatox, and lived my entire life in Dixie, I can confirm through my visits to New Orleans, that there is NOTHING of the FRENCH that should be duplicated myself!!………..Small Government is better than no Government, and LESS Government is better than MORE Government……..I bid you well from the Cotton State!
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 12:47 am #
Heh, regarding South Carolina polls: they don’t call me because I’m either registered Independent or as an America Firster. However, folks like me vote Constitution Party, and our votes add up to a few % pts.
However, South Carolina allows me to vote in one party’s primary, and you can bet I and the rest of the thinking right as well as the fuzzy thinking left (the best it has to offer) will be voting Paul.
Filmer on 15 Nov 2007 at 1:00 am #
Andrew, read Harrison’s article below. If this is a battle between who can grovel the most to appease the liberal PC thought police, then we are clearly going to loose. The neocons have been embracing and groveling before the altar of PC from the beginning. They are experts at it. Trying to out PC the neocons would be like trying to settle a score with Bobby Fisher by playing chess.
First of all, asking a candidate to “repudiate” a supporter or a donor is rank demagoguery with a sorry track record. I have never agreed with it when conservatives have wanted some Democrat to “repudiate” some Commie or radical homosexual or whatever. And I don’t agree with it when the left does it. In a democracy you want every vote you can get. People who claim they don’t want someone’s support or money are generally just grandstanding. They would gladly take the money if no one pointed it out.
Paul clearly does not share their beliefs on many things. That is all that should matter. He is not a nationalist. He is a decentralist. In fact, neocons are nationalist just like the self proclaimed white nationalists. As a libertarian, he has explicitly rejected group identity in one of his articles that is pointed out in the Group Thinker article. Personally, I found that article unnecessarily PC, but it is entirely consistent with Paul’s libertarian underpinnings.
Some amount of group identity is entirely normal and natural, and it is only hysterical anti-racism political correctness that suggests it is out of bounds. In fact, no one denies the appropriateness of Black group identity or Native American group identity or Hispanic group identity. But if a White person claims it it supposedly automatically makes him a Nazi. Of course this is absurd.
Because of the hysterical anti-racism pc enforcement climate, the only ones who vocally take a very natural position are the outliers. If the political climate was healthy and not hysterically PC, then a natural form of group identity would flourish and the outliers (true haters) would be just that, outliers. They would not define the movement.
The reason some white nationalists and overt anti-Semites support Ron Paul is because they are equally distant from the current political center. Mainstream “conservatives” like the American Group Thinker, Dr. Douglas, and AEI don’t think things are grossly amiss. They think things are pretty much peachy keen and just in need of a little tweaking – a cut in the marginal rate here, a school voucher there and all will be well.
Ron Paul recognizes, correctly of course, that all is not well. The Constitution is being trampled; the Fed is counterfeiting, etc. White nationalist, overt anti-Semites, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, etc. also agree that things are grossly amiss. The Establishment is not in need of a little tweaking. It is out of control. Hence they support Paul who shares that view, even though he does not share all their views.
Also, “racism” and “anti-Semitism” have become meaningless. We should not use them ourselves because it emboldens the enemy. Hence my use of overt above. If those words actually meant anything other than not towing the PC party line, they should mean overt hate or ill will. I do not doubt that some at Stormfront are guilty of overt hate or ill will. But it is not necessarily anti-Semitic to discuss the influence of AIPAC for example. Instead of running in fear when those charges are leveled, we should call them on their use of blatant left-wing PC demagoguery.
ERIC on 15 Nov 2007 at 1:18 am #
Filmer
“In fact, neocons are nationalist just like the self proclaimed white nationalists.”
Whoa hold up here.
Neocons are not nationalists, they are globalists.
No way a person can compare neocons with white nationalists.
The thing that attracts white nationalists to Ron Paul is that certain things have been forced on white nationalists by our government and those things are uncontitutional, Therefore Ron Paul being a strict constitutionalist is attractive to white nationalists.
Where I stray from Ron Paul is the bible believing part of bible believing white nationalist (which I am), because socially this country has become anarchist (abortion on demand, gay marriage on demand, prostitution on demand, drugs on demand, judges and other forces trying to take God out of every part of society, ect.).
Now Ron Paul has addressed some of those issues and is right on some, but he has also not addressed some of those issues and he is flat wrong on gay marriage.
But anyways, please don’t use neocons and white nationalists in the same breath.
Andrew T. on 15 Nov 2007 at 1:22 am #
I am for individualism. I am for strong group identity. Two worlds; two Rights. Enough to make your head swell.
I don’t think that words like “racism” have lost every sense of their proper meanings, similar to how the Constitution has not lost all of its meaning; they are still applicable to mean hatred or ill will if they are applied carefully, non-libelously. The most intelligent course might be to take the words back from the abusers, through proper and corrective usage.
Andrew T. on 15 Nov 2007 at 1:27 am #
You might find this enlightening, ERIC: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance127.html
Flat federalist on gay marriage. Do you believe marriage is a private religious institution, ERIC?
RonL on 15 Nov 2007 at 2:42 am #
Weaver,
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He does not fundamentally oppose immigration. Compare that to Hunter and Tancredo.
Filmer,
I wonder, would ever denounce any racism or racist as harmful to your cause?
Eric,
White nationalists are generally not nationalists to any existing country. They worship a greater volk, that is a social construct.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 3:48 am #
Ethnic nationalism and legalist nationalism are both accepted forms.
—
Paul is opposed to illegal immigration, he’s proven that he doesn’t sell out to the highest bidders unlike the other mainstream candidates, and Tancredo and Hunter haven’t a snowball’s chance. Paul has a chance, and he’s the only tolerable mainstream candidate.
Paul also believes the welfare / warfare state must be deconstructed first before more immigrants can be let in. That won’t happen to the extent he wishes in merely 8 years. Also, states would have the right to deny entry.
Furthermore, Paul wishes to undo the trade deals, which will also put a wrench in global trade. He might aim for free trade, but he’d undermine the current America-last and big business first trade and subsidy policies, making way for an America first movement.
All of Paul’s actions will undo the globalism that is the great threat to American sovereignty and culture.
Hilary would be preferred to any of the other mainstream GOP candidates because the GOP lemmings won’t fall in line behind a liberal with a D by her name. They’ll follow the leader like zombies if an R is by the liberal’s name however, as they’ve proven with El Presidente Bush at the helm.
Andrew T. on 15 Nov 2007 at 3:54 am #
RonL,
You seriously need to reorient yourself on libertarianism, particularly paleo-libertarianism.
Ron Paul’s positions and Congressional record on illegal immigration is solidly, totally anti-illegal immigration. He wants the borders totally locked and secured from all unwarrented invasions, and favors the phasing-out of birthright citizenship.
Unlike Hunter or Tancredo, Dr. Paul would also work to phase out all the free incentives for illegal immigrants to cross into the country in the first place.
Opposing illegal immigration is fundamentally libertarian; illegal immigrants are unwarrented invaders against land property. The beltway libertarians that muddle themselves on this issue are LIBERTINES. This is, in fact, the position of the Austrian-school scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is actually an anarcho-capitalist (giving me plenty there to disagree with).
Americaneocon on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:15 am #
“Opposing illegal immigration is fundamentally libertarian”?
No wonder I can’t stand that ideology! What do you guys actually support? Sheesh!
Andrew T. on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:21 am #
Russel Kirk was the man who argued against the very word “ideology”.
Oh wait, you’re a neocon, so you hate him too, don’t you? He must have been sooooo in bed with the “Islamofascists”.
Filmer on 15 Nov 2007 at 5:00 am #
“I wonder, would ever denounce any racism or racist as harmful to your cause?”
Ron, a great deal of it is harmful to the cause. I wish some of these guys would shut up. When I first heard about Guy Fawkes Day I thought that might end up biting us in the rear. But donning the mantle of political correctness would do even greater harm, IMO. For Ron Paul there is no need to denounce what he has NEVER stood for. This idea that you have to inoculate yourself from PC charges by slavishly endorsing PC is one of the things I strenuously object to.
I have no problem condemning real hate, but how much real hate is out there? In fact, I think the rather simpleminded and hateful characterizations of Muslims that are frequently spewed on conservative websites are a much more pressing hate issue at the moment than is the menace of hateful racists or anti-Semites. Where are all these looming racists?
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 7:46 am #
Americaneocon,
there seems to be a bit of diversity of thought among libertarians, but Paul’s stances at least are clear. Bede posted a VDare interview a while back that shed light on Paul’s true stances. I’ll see if I can find it.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 7:50 am #
VDare interviews Ron Paul.
Paul wishes to defend US sovereignty and to handle immigration legally.
Above I was defending Paul from my view point: (I’m protectionist, mostly foreign policy isolationist, decentralist, immigration restrictionist, traditional values, pro-life, anti-federal reserve bank.) Though Paul and I don’t agree on several things, he offers me a great deal that I want, especially relative to the alternatives. Politics is about forming alliances and coalitions, and I’m happy to get behind Paul.
John Savage on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:25 pm #
RonL wrote:
“White nationalists are generally not nationalists to any existing country. They worship a greater volk, that is a social construct.”
Which white nationalists are you talking about? Quotes, please.
You just sound like you want to make all white nationalists into neo-Nazis. Your talk of “worship” of a “volk” makes you sound like you are just repeating some smear you heard from some ignorant leftist or neocon. And yet you feel entitled to lecture Eric about what a white nationalist is.
ERIC on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:28 pm #
John Savage
Amen Brother.
Weaver on 15 Nov 2007 at 4:57 pm #
‘Volk’ is used by some paleos, e.g. Dr. Fleming of Chronicles who is not a white nationalist. It’s a useful word that means, ah, ‘kin’ I believe.
The term “white nationalist” seems to mean many things to many different people… Could a white nationalist adhere to the principle of subsidiarity and could one be Christian? Ron seems to be saying he could not be a Christian though Eric is a Christian.
John Savage on 15 Nov 2007 at 9:41 pm #
“Could a white nationalist adhere to the principle of subsidiarity and could one be Christian?”
Why not? A white nationalist doesn’t have to believe that all whites constitute just one nation, just that the U.S. ought to be defined as a predominantly white nation with a white culture rather than a multicultural nation.
I know lots of Christians who I don’t think would mind identifying themselves as “white nationalists”. Sam Francis was a Christian and a white nationalist. I think Lawrence Auster considers himself a white nationalist, and he’s Christian. American Renaissance identifies itself as white nationalist, and I think much of its membership (though certainly not all) is Christian.
As for “volk”, I suppose if one wants to emphasize one’s defiance of PC, one might use it even though it sounds like it implies an association with the Third Reich. You’d have to be a really confrontational sort, though. Why bother implying you have a connection to the Nazis when you don’t?
Weaver on 16 Nov 2007 at 1:30 am #
That’s what I thought. It’s just another example of fuzzy thinking. The moment someone hears ‘white nationalist,’ centralised nazism is what immediately comes to mind as if there is no in between.
Nationalism of course in the paleo world tends to be associated with union out of opposition to something else. That is that a nation is defined by what it is not, and not what it is and loves. However, can a community and civilisation not both be loved in their proper places? And what of the people that make up the civilisation?
I just wonder sometimes what some paleos really believe on the issue, especially as immigration increases. When Western Civilisation is defended, we are meaning that version of Christian Civilisation that evolved in a part of Europe. In some cases, they are implicitly white. Where do they stand, and why not be clear about it?! That said, it is true that the most popular leaders seem to be those who take no stands, sigh.
And your point about volk is good. I guess that’s why the kinist guys went with ‘kinist’ instead of ‘volkist.’
Andrew T. on 16 Nov 2007 at 3:34 am #
That one “kinism” website takes it to some unapologetically idiosyncratic, even scary extents, though.
Weaver on 16 Nov 2007 at 4:11 am #
The Seabrook Kinist speech is where it all began I think.
RonL on 19 Nov 2007 at 6:34 am #
Firstly, I used “volk” in the sense a people. I did not use the Greek term “ethnos” because infers a pre-existing nationalism.
I also did use the German word in refference to the anti-nationalism of the Nazis. That said, most white are not Germanic.
In so far as there are apologists for Nazis, there are some very screwed up “white nationalists”.