Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's insane to me that people would rather vote for someone they don't really like, over someone they LOVE, just because they think the one they love isn't electable. They're considered potentially unelectable BECAUSE people don't want to vote for them.
What I'm wondering is, why specifically do YOU, being a white nationalist, support Ron Paul?
One, he's against the war. White advocates for the most part see the war in Iraq as part of the plan for Israel's security, an unstated goal that has cost thousands of American lives and billions of tax dollars. There are any number of references on this, but probably the most 'respectable' is Walt and Mearsheimer's article/book. White advocates CRINGE at the possibility of a Giuliani win, as he is Israel's "dream candidate."
I personally have no problem with Israel and/or the Jewish people wanting a homeland. My problem comes when I'm enlisted to support it, with my money and blood, under false pretenses, while at the same time, the same 'neocons' who support Israel denounce 'white racism' at top volume (examples are Chuck Schumer and Joe Lieberman denouncing a border fence for the U.S. but seeking one for Israel).
Two, he's OK on immigration, not as strong as Tancredo was before dropping out, but better than McCain (clearly) and others.
Three, the basic goal of freedom is seen as a good one by white advocates, who basically want to be left alone to associate with each other.
As for the Federal Reserve, I know almost nothing about that issue, despite being surrounded by folks who love to chatter about it!
As I noted elsewhere, our people are split on this, with some saying "don't be ridiculous, Ron Paul is not an advocate for whites" and others saying "well, he's the best option." Me, I can't stand sitting on the sidelines. If someone wants the U.S. out of the war for liberal as opposed to far-right reasons, who am I to care? I'll stand by them to support RP.
Here are some 'hardcore' white activists saying Ron Paul is just another Pat Buchanan, i.e., someone who isn't really for us (probably not a work-safe link):
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=65183
The problem is, the whole guilt by association thing has gotten in the way. I thought people were a little smarter than that in this country, but apparently people aren't. They'd rather believe what the TV tells them.
Yes, I must say I'm a TAD disappointed in the usually-wise Kathianne who seems to be buying this line on Paul: The Stormfronters like him, so I won't. Eh. "Racist" is the new McCarthyism: tag someone with it, and it's like kryptonite. I'm actually kind of fascinated by that, my convictions aside. There are a few conservatives who grouse that "liberals call everyone a racist," but there is residual interest in "real racists," i.e., Don Black, David Duke, etc. I figure there has to be a breaking point on this. The issues raised by whites aren't illegitimate. Wanting to survive as a people isn't necessarily the same thing as wanting to kill everyone else. Nobody EVER says to a Zionist Jew or a Hispanic nationalist: So, do you want to kill anyone who doesn't look like you? Yet white advocates are hit with that quesion every day.
I also liked Paul way back when. I was at a Federalist Society confab at Yale where some guy was going on about "the only decent member of Congress," and I listened in. I checked him out, and sure enough. Back then I was really into Constitutional loyalty, and I still am, though I see that issue as water under the bridge, sadly. We'll never get back to a time when the federal government is actually limited. The United States of America will cease to be a functioning entity before that happens.
I don't claim to be 'wise' but am practical and I hope informed. You might think twice before dismissing WJ, just as I do you. Pauli is in this for the spin zone.
Don't fucking tell me what I'm "in this" for, Kathianne. You don't fucking know me. I'm "in this" because this man is the only one who is standing up for AMERICA. You know, the country you live in? Or don't you live here?
Don't fucking tell me what I'm "in this" for, Kathianne. You don't fucking know me. I'm "in this" because this man is the only one who is standing up for AMERICA. You know, the country you live in? Or don't you live here?
Dude, relax. You are starting to sound like some of the nutjobs that were chasing Hannity around NH.
I sound like a "nutjob" because she made a false insinuation about my support for my candidate, and I stood up for myself?
I take it personally when people do that. Especially the way she did it. She doesn't know me, and neither do you.
And I happened to think it was pretty funny watching Hannity run away like a little girl. Like they were actually going to do anything to him.
... Pauli is in this for the spin zone.
Don't fucking tell me what I'm "in this" for, Kathianne. You don't fucking know me. I'm "in this" because this man is the only one who is standing up for AMERICA. You know, the country you live in? Or don't you live here?
I sound like a "nutjob" because she made a false insinuation about my support for my candidate, and I stood up for myself? See the above direct quotes. Yeah, IMO you came off a bit shrill.
I take it personally when people do that. Especially the way she did it. She doesn't know me, and neither do you. I don't need to know you. I know what she wrote and what you wrote and am perfectly capable of forming an opinion based on that observation.
And I happened to think it was pretty funny watching Hannity run away like a little girl. Like they were actually going to do anything to him.
I'm glad you enjoyed the spectacle. But, as I have noted in other threads, the reality is that he (RP) will be judged for the actions of his supporters. Fair? No. Cost him a shot in the election? Very Very possible.
When you are suspended on a tightrope, the last thing you need is blow hards, well, blowing hard.
"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?
Matt Welch | January 11, 2008, 2:40am
In Ron Paul's statement responding to The New Republic's story about his old newsletters, he said the following:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. [...]
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.
The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. Here is the relevant excerpt, which references a Ron Paul newsletter that referred to then-Rep. Barbara Jordan as "Barbara Morondon," and called her the "archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism":
What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments. For a chronological Nexis tour of Paul's 1996 responses, please read on.
The first time I can find reporting on the controversy is in the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report....
VDare on the Paul-As-Racist Business:
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008...-elites-decode-maverick-populist-libertarian/
...The TNR posting, perhaps fact-checked by Stephen Glass, required no fewer than four corrections.
What does this tell us about the Fourth Estate? Basically, any candidate who seeks public office must get the seal of approval of the media elite. And in their estimation, scratch the surface of a genuine maverick and youll discover a racist, homophobic, anti-Semite.
Predictably, in the past few days, several news organizations have focused on TNRs reportage. CNN, National Public Radio, UPI, and the Washington Post, have weighed in. The media elites threshold of acceptability: not doubting that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an upstanding public figure, or questioning racial egalitarianism, or remaining skeptical about Lincolns greatness, or failing to embrace homosexuality, or insufficiently denouncing The Bell Curve.
When Pat Buchanan was running as a presidential candidate, I recall a similar scorched-earth treatment at Newsweek , where I then worked. The director of Library Services in New York , Madeline Cohen, put together an extensive dossier (2 or 3 large three-ring binders) of Buchanans writings and public commentary for Newsweeks Washington Bureau research staff. If Buchanan ever broke wind in public, she documented it. I remember my boss William Rafferty, who once was Ted Koppels principal researcher, talking about how Cohen went into overdrive compiling every little anecdote about Buchanan from trolling Nexis....
Kathianne, everyone here knows your position on this issue. All the links, and arguments in the world aren't going to change that fact.
It would just be nice for you to admit that it's only your perception based on what you've been reading about. There are way more people out there who disagree, than who agree. All the minorities that you probably feel Ron Paul has a secred hatred for, have individuals or groups representing what they collectively feel is unfair and/or untrue about these allegations. I posted links to many of those.
All I really see are pundits and journalists, who have a specific agenda, making these insinuations. That's all you give. Links to op-ed's. I can give just as many links to op-ed's that refute this. What's the difference, ultimately?
I've said things in my lifetime that were definitely not racially appropriate. I don't even think I would believe you if you said you HAVEN'T. I'm not a racist, though. I only discriminate based on how I am personally treated by a specific individual. I've been treated bad in the past by white people, and I've been treated bad in the past by black people. I only had animosity towards those specific individuals.
But that's all beside the point. Making statements that can be construed as racially inappropriate does not make you a racist.
My biggest beef as far as this thread goes is your unfair assessment of what I'm, as you said, "in this" for. I would think that my time spent on this board should have already adequately cleared that up.
