http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQxB5VKWlfg

Once people figure out whats going on, currency, freedom liberty and peace have a chance.

It hasn’t stopped Ron Paul in the past because the people of Texas apparently had no problem with electing a racist. Ron Paul returned to office in 1996, the same year that the newsletter first became public. The newspapers asked him for comment, and Ron Paul defended the text and insisted he had been quoted out of context. He didn’t invent the ghostwriting story until 2001. Yet for some reason, the people of Texas still elected him, 5 years before he was willing to deny the story.

Anyway, I get tired of dealing with the same talking points, so I created an in-depth FAQ

thxs for yr example of why very different people can end up embracing the same policies.

As to the white racism issue. I have been studying it of late and find some of the arguments valid and compelling even though I am personally convinced that race is not the best basis for communal identity and culture. The issue that comes before whether or not one concludes that race is the basis, or blood-ties, or religion, or ideology, or location etc. etc. etc. has to do with creating strong community, nation or culture, or rather than strong we could say homogenous, or with clear identity and character. It fits together.

Now this is an interesting topic and one far too often not discussed even though it is beneath many major issues and dynamics. The so-called ‘liberal’ modern ‘multicultural’ model has real problems – in my view – some of them so basic and deep as to make the entire movement, or cultural fashion really, essentially harmful.

In any case, one of the main arguments of the white racists, I think goes like this: the white race has created, for thousands of years, the most advanced civilisations in the world, or leadership for them (the white, red-headed line of Egyptian Pharoahs for example). This race has a basic underlying culture and gene pool worth protecting. Multiculturalism will basically dissolve this culture and gene pool thereby eradicating the race.

There is nothing unreasonable or extreme about this line of thinking, indeed there is probably hardly a Jewish person in the world who doesn’t either think along those lines or at least contemplate them frequently. How do you retain the Jewish culture and race/bloodline over time? How to protect and maintain it? You have to have clear identity, generally marry within the clan, protect this identity and so forth.

Finally, the white racists are into Paul (and I suspect he is one as well) simply because they are pro freedom, anti central government, anti corporate control and so forth. They would like to be free to create their own communities and states without the tyranny of liberal multiculturalism imposed from on high by laws which, when all is said and done, undermine their culture and identity.

Something like that.

| Posted by Francis from Stripes
394 of 1275 | warn tnr | respond
I bet Kirchick wrote the entire article with one hand and used the other to keep jamming a broomstick up his ass. After he finished writing, he probably took a month off to go vacation in San Francisco…queer capital of the world. “Any of you homos touch me, I’ll kill ya.”

Published: December 27, 2007 9:00 AM ET

NEW YORK The New York Times on its Web site posted a lengthy Editors’ Note last night concerning a blog posting this week by reporter Virginia Heffernan. That post had opened, “Ron Paul, our Internet president, seems to have Nazi troubles, as in they’re saying he’s one of them.”

The Editors’ Note reads:

“A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a ‘white nationalist’ Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul.

“The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly ‘with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others’ at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.”
*
To comment or read more, go to Paul.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124286.html

Those Newsletters

Jesse Walker | January 8, 2008, 5:02pm
For what it’s worth, I believe Ron Paul when he says he didn’t write those newsletters. I’ve been active in libertarian circles for many years now, and I can remember hearing occasionally that someone or another had a gig ghostwriting for Ron Paul. This was after the newsletters in question had appeared, but I assume the congressman had made such arrangements in the past as well. The race- and gay-baiting quotes in the New Republic piece — and, even more so, the documents’ general gestalt of an impending apocalypse — sound like the sort of material that often appeared in far-right direct-mail packages in that era. My suspicion is that someone who wrote such packages also picked up a job writing the Ron Paul Survival Report.

I’m glad that Paul has repudiated the racist and anti-gay comments that appeared in the Report. But the issue he still has to address, and which his official response only dances around, is what exactly his relationship to that publication was. If Paul didn’t write those articles, who did? If he didn’t know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash).

The story isn’t going to go away on its own. By releasing its article the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic pretty much guaranteed that if Paul does well at the polls today any reports about his success will include this much-less-flattering information as well. Transparency, please.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124282.html

Thoughts on Ron Paul

Nick Gillespie | January 8, 2008, 3:48pm

As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I’ve got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.

I don’t think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn’t matter–the newsletters carried his name after all–and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

Various staffers will be weighing in on this through the day.

The New Republic has posted newsletters here.

Update: Ron Paul’s official comment is here:

http://reason.com/blog/show/124288.html
Paul’s Blowback

Matt Welch | January 8, 2008, 5:24pm

A quick round-up of reaction to the New Republic’s cache of Ron Paul’s awful and embarrassing “Ron Paul” newsletters (which Nick Gillespie commented on here, and Dave Weigel hustled a terse Paul response to here).

Lew Rockwell:

TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

David Harsanyi:

The end of Ron Paul? For me, it is. Not the principles, but the man. Sure, Paul has experienced tremendous grassroots support and I’ve been very sympathetic to a lot of his strong Constitution-based rhetoric. But if even a slither of the quotes in this New Republic article by James Kirchick are accurate, I’m not sure how mainstream libertarians can absolve him.

David Bernstein:

I give Paul the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume that some right-wing cranks paid him to use him name on their newsletters, and he didn’t actually read the newsletters carefully if at all, much less write them. That shows very poor judgment, but is a lot less damning than if he did read, write, or edit these newsletters.

[A]s Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don’t want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

But now that he wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, he can’t get away with it anymore.

Ryan Sager:

I truly don’t understand the Paulites defense that Ron Paul bears no responsibility for any of this … just because. (Read the comments to the article — as usual for the Paul brigades, they’re unhinged.)

At least Andrew Sullivan may be waking up to the fact that the Ron Paul “revolution” is a front for something much uglier than opposition to the Iraq war and defense of the Constitution.

Chuck Demastus William Flax:

The fact that our Neo-Cons have an army of would-be Sancho Panzas in the media, propagandizing America with slogans and half-truths, does not make their absurdity more valid. Nor should it make it more palatable.

But, oh how they vent their hatred on Dr. Paul.

Ann Althouse :

Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism was a cover for racism.

Orinn Judd:

A philosophy that is so entirely dependent on love of the self can’t help but be plagued by hatred of the other.

Andrew Sullivan:

They are a repellent series of tracts, full of truly appalling bigotry. They certainly seem to have no echoes in his current campaign, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taken seriously [...]

I don’t know enough about the arrangements behind these pamphlets to tell if this is a plausible defense or not. But there is a simple way to address this: Paul needs to say not only that he did not pen these excrescences, he needs to explain how his name was on them and disown them completely. [...] If there is some other agenda lurking beneath all this, we deserve to know. It’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.

Andrew Sullivan again, after the Paul response:

I’m very glad to hear it. Taking moral responsibility is the right thing to do. But I should say I think less of Ron Paul after reading this article than I did before. Much less.

Ken Layne:

The anti-war/hippie embrace of Dr. Congressman Ron Paul is one of the absolute strangest things to ever happen in politics.

Rand Simberg:

I’m willing to believe that he wasn’t the author, and even that he didn’t endorse the newsletter, but I find it troubling that he let this stuff go out under his own name for so long. The fact that he now takes “moral responsibility” for it now is nice, I guess, but it really makes one question his judgment. And his campaign continues to attract many unsavory elements of American politics, including 911 “Truthers,” who he seems to unwilling to denounce.

Michael Goldfarb:

Dr. Paul isn’t just kooky, he’s deranged. [...] [T]here is no plausible explanation that might insulate Paul from the fallout.

Matthew Yglesias:

I think Ron Paul’s responses as given to Dave Weigel and now issued in a press release are reasonably reasonable. If you’re a pro-life, anti-war, anti-immigration, libertarian I don’t really see anything here that would make you suddenly embrace John McCain as a preferable presidential candidate. Meanwhile, it shouldn’t really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater’s message was white supremacists, after all.

Arnold Kling:

I think this is a very important moment for libertarians.

Me? I’m tempted to agree with the latter, but I’m not so sure, at least not in the same way in which I’ve heard pre-emptive anxiety for months from libertarians, who all seemed to be holding their breath waiting for this day to come. My personal preference for limited government (and limited thinking about government) really has never had anything to do with revisiting Civil War history, hatin’ on uppity urban blacks and going all purple-faced about political correctness, real or imagined. And I can guar-an-tee that the general (and significant) trend toward political independence, don’t-tread-on-meism, and especially a full-throated embrace of live-and-let live freedom, tolerance, and choice-driven exploration among people younger than me has bugger-all to do with Fear of a Black Planet. The source for freedom’s popularity is not, and probably never will be, located in the mouth or heart or rancid old newsletters of any politician.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124284.html
Ron Paul

Radley Balko | January 8, 2008, 6:20pm

I’m disappointed in Paul and in his campaign.

First, a few caveats. I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don’t think he’s a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don’t think that’s the case now. Paul’s temperament and demeanor in public does not suggest he’s the kind of person capable of writing the bile Kirchick quotes in his article. Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don’t indicate a candidate who fears “animal” blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.

I also think the Paul phenomenon ought to be separated from any personal baggage Paul may have. Yes, there are some losers who support Paul’s candidacy. Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos. But there’s nothing bigoted about the thousands of college kids, mainstream libertarians, war opponents, drug war opponents, and hundreds-long threads on sites like Digg and Reddit where enthusiasm for Paul’s candidacy is strong. This movement is about ideas. There’s a vocal, enthusiastic minority of people out there, skewing young, that is excited about “the Constitution,” limited government, and personal freedom. That’s significant and heartening, and shouldn’t be tainted by the fallout from Kirchick’s article (though I fear it will—more on that in a bit).

I’d also point out that if we’re going to clean house, here, we should go ahead and give it a thorough cleaning. When it comes to alleged sordid associations with neo-confederate organizations, Paul’s in good company in the Republican Party (see Haley Barbour and John Ashcroft, among others). When it comes to anti-Semitism, one needn’t look any farther than Al Sharpton, who still commands inexplicable respect from the Democratic establishment. None of this excuses what’s in those newsletters, nor does it excuse Paul’s association with them. It just means he has company, and I suspect the outrage we’ll see in the coming days will be rather selective.

All of that said, let me get to the scolding. Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn’t write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors’ identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he’s going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn’t have, and with whom he didn’t at the time or doesn’t now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

The 1990s is not “ancient history.” We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The “I’ve answered that in the past” reply isn’t sufficient. You’re running for president, now. You have a national platform. You’ve been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you’ve provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn’t cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

That Paul and his campaign don’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction I’m afraid makes it all the more difficult to buy into the least damning spin on the story (and even that is still pretty damning). It suggests at the very least a certain obliviousness to the resonance and impact of racism and bigotry.

Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul’s campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come. You needn’t be a gold bug or buy into conspiracies about Jewish bankers, for example, to see the merit in allowing for private, competing currencies (what PayPal once aspired to become). You needn’t believe blacks are animals or savages or genetically inferior to believe that the welfare state’s perverse incentives have done immeasurable damage to black families. You needn’t be a confederate sympathizer to appreciate the wisdom of federalism. You needn’t be an anti-Semite to wonder about the implications of the U.S.’s broad support for Israel.

Some of these ideas have always faced a certain hurdle in the national debate. To argue against welfare, hate crimes laws, and affirmative action, libertarians (and conservatives) always have to clear the racism card first. To argue for ending the drug war or knocking out huge federal agencies, we always have to clear the “‘I’m not a kook” card. Today’s news, combined with Paul’s high profile, I think carries the potential to make all of that a little more difficult.

I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.

Paul’s candidacy attracted broad support because he unabashedly embraced what the GOP claims to be on fiscal issues—low tax, limited government, pro-federalist—and what the Democrats claim to be on social issues—pro individual freedom and pro-privacy. Paul’s campaign has essentially called both parties on their bullshit, and made them explain the gap between their stated principles and the way they’ve governed. Both sides I think were surprised at how strong he came on. So both sides dismissed him as a nut, and cited the kookiest fringes of libertarianism and dug up the most whacked-out Paul supporters to prove their point. Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.

There have always been issues where I disagree pretty profoundly with Paul—immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment, to name two. Still, I’ve been encouraged by his campaign because it’s been heartening to not only watch a candidate talk about limited government, humble foreign policy, and individual liberty over the last several months, but to see his support actually grow as he does.
Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I’m not so sure. If this new audience’s first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul’s campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

for fu#$s sake, joshua frank and all the other ron paul “left wing” apologists, go and re read your marx (or ‘read’ as the case may be), that’s about the most useful thing you can do with yourselves. stop pretending to be “radical”.

But everything in Paul’s present-day persona elides the guy who wrote the newsletters. He goes out of his way to look moderate and reasonable, and put things in such a sensible way that I find myself nodding and agreeing with about 85% of what he says. It does, absolutely, sound like everything I ever wanted a politician to say. And I’m far from the only liberal who feels that way.

But liberals who’ve never been around Birchers or Spotlight readers don’t have their ears tuned to hear all the ways in which Paul’s whole message is shot through with hoary old Bircher and white supremacy stuff. The racists in our midst hear the same words, but get something entirely different out of them. He says he wants the same things we do — but for completely different reasons. That’s the dog-whistle effect.

Dave and I have been writing on this since June, and have gotten no end of flak from not only Paulbots, but also progressives (including, very publicly, Glenn Greenwald) who just didn’t understand how we could be hearing racism in what he was saying. The more we tried to explain it to them, the more they thought we were just a bit cranky on this issue.

These newsletters are ample confirmation that we got that story right from the get — though I doubt Greenwald will ever give us our due on that.
Mrs Robinson | Homepage | 01.09.08 – 12:19 pm | #

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-pauls-far-right-foundations.html

I’m having trouble corroborating the Paul campaign’s claim that he “dealt with all of this already long ago.” Would those of you who are more familiar with him and his campaign provide some evidence of this?

This, to me, is a really sad sign of a Left that’s lost its way.

Let’s just put aside the history of all that ugly racist smack imminating from his newsletters (and NO, the fact that he denies writing any of that crap personally doesn’t absove him of anything, since it appeared ultimately under his name, and he did nothing to alter them).

The real issue is this: How in the HELL do you expect the Left to gain any ground without substantial support from Black and Brown people, from women, or from sexual dissident people…the very ones who Paul would be the first to liquidate if he actually managed to become President??? Would ending the war be worth that risk???

Ron Paul will remain a racist and a reactionary long after the war ends. We can do much, much better.

Anthony

By STEVEN ARGUE

For the most part the Iowa caucuses were business as usual for the Democrat and Republican Parties. Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti–single payer health care, Barrack Obama. Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

Seeing the failure of the Democrats to deliver a candidate worth supporting; some left leaning individuals have been suggesting support to Ron Paul. One is anti-war Vietnam veteran Stan Goff, who suggested in his January 4, 2008 article ”Monkey Wrenching the System, Ron Paul’s Revolution” that people vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, switching party registration right away if they live in a state where such a move is necessary to vote in the Republican primaries.

At the root of the Ron Paul “revolution” is the dismantling of Social Security and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs, and the elimination of worker and environmental protections. Advances like single payer health care? No way. Ron Paul’s message is that you need to take care of yourself, and that there shouldn’t be such government programs, nor such interference with private profit. While he puts forward reasons for not supporting going to war abroad, his domestic policies would ignite civil war at home.

In addition to pretending he’s against all government, he’s for the continued ban on same-sex marriage. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the “Marriage Protection Act”.

On abortion, Ron Paul is against it and puts forward a “state rights” argument. It took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions.

In addition to his opposition to a woman’s right to choose, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

He’s also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

On race, Ron Paul was one of 33 Congress members to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, an act that was first passed to give Blacks in the south the right to vote. On a similar note, he says the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution and impedes on individual liberties as well as states rights. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions. Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, “95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”.

Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

No wonder the American Nazi Party has close relations with him (see letter from Nazi Commander Bill White below). In addition, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black.

Hell would freeze over before I’d support Ron Paul. And being an atheist; that will be a long time.

There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?

I discuss some of the campaigns that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

Or here is a different version of the same article:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/93820.html

*****************
American Nazi Party Chief says Ron Paul is one of us

Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party, aka The American Nazi Party, wrote the following on the Nazi Vanguard News Network:

Comrades:

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

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

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

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

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

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

*********
Poor Bill White. He’s having trouble with his brand of racism, anti-Semitism, mass extermination, and genocide not being “in fashion”. But hey, you’ve got to thank the knuckleheaded Nazi for confirming our suspicions on Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan! -Steven Argue

This has been a public service warning of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Also see, the Ron Paul Time Machine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY

Why Ron Paul’s left-wing champions are wrong

January 11, 2008 | Page 7

not that the ISO isn’t as stupid as the Paulites but…

“Recently he has been charged with being a hardcore racist based on excerpts from a small newsletter he published in the 90s called The Ron Paul Survival Report. This was the heyday of Pat Buchanan, the right-wing anti-government militia movement, and the white supremacist terrorist-bomber Timothy McVeigh.

“Today Paul claims the incriminating articles were written by a ghostwriter and that he had no knowledge of their contents, but that’s not very convincing given that the newsletter was only eight pages long and had only 7,000 subscribers. (He has refused to allow the media access to the complete collection of old issues.) He later took ‘moral responsibility’ for the comments, but the fact that such racist filth could come out under his name says a lot about him and who he makes alliances with.”