Ron Paul's racist support base finally exposed by the media

It's doubtful that this will be of decisive importance in the Republican primaries. However, this sort of coverage will likely go a long way in alienating many of Paul's [misguided] liberal/centrist supporters, should he decide to run on a third party ticket in 2012.

every libertarian of the american type is an eugenicist on the closet...

I know because i used to be one of them.

LOL You don't speak for me when you say white people Mr Black!

Anyone else think he looks kinda like a dangerous pedophile?

Pantheon Rising wrote:Anyone else think he looks kinda like a dangerous pedophile?

He and his son look like pedophiles. (So does Ron Paul, for that matter.)

Manche wrote:every libertarian of the american type is an eugenicist on the closet...

They're eugenicists only insofar as ridiculous concepts like euthanizing the unemployed is concerned; they don't actually care about improving the genetic endowment of populations. Little do they realize how problematic any eugenic program would be for the functioning of capitalism.

Celtiberian wrote:He and his son look like pedophiles. (So does Ron Paul, for that matter.)

HAHA His son and that goofy hat he is always wearing never fails to make me laugh. I'm amazed at the type of people that claim to support "white people".

I think what gets me laughing even more though his David Duke and Don Black and their little wife swap ordeal!

Celtiberian wrote:They're eugenicists only insofar as ridiculous concepts like euthanizing the unemployed is concerned; they don't actually care about improving the genetic endowment of populations. Little do they realize how problematic any eugenic program would be for the functioning of capitalism.

I mean blaming someone's failure because of a wrong set of genes.... and to give their racism some sort of scientific validity.

AND THEY ARE ALL SOCIALLY DARWINIAN TO THE CORE

Pantheon Rising wrote:I think what gets me laughing even more though his David Duke and Don Black and their little wife swap ordeal!

Celtiberian wrote:He and his son look like pedophiles. (So does Ron Paul, for that matter.)

Jesus dude you're right. Just give them some trenchcoats and a white windowless van, that is, assuming they don't already have those.

Ron Paul supporters are so delusional that no matter what he does they'll still think that the sun shines out of his ass.

I have unfortunately had to debate with a Ron Paul supporter who was under the impression that people who were gifted with superior intelligence (I assume from this he believes in superior genetics in general) are the only ones worthy of receiving a decent paycheck. Also that the poor are responsible for their own situation, no exceptions. Never mind that perhaps they were born with a disability...it doesn't matter. They deserve to rot! Because that's just how it is, buddy!

Let's just fix what will help US! Not EVERYONE! Let's not ask ourselves what we could do to help others, or seek out what is REALLY wrong, but instead aid ourselves and just turn a blind eye to the rest! After all, why do they matter? They aren't as smart as we are! They aren't x, y, or z!

Is there anyone else here that thinks Ron Paul would actually be the best candidate? Yes, he is a ultra-capitalist BUT he wants to get rid of the federal reserve and is apposed to American imperialism. At least he is not a crony capitalist liberal or "Christian" Zionist imperialist.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Is there anyone else here that thinks Ron Paul would actually be the best candidate? Yes, he is a ultra-capitalist BUT he wants to get rid of the federal reserve and is apposed to American imperialism. At least he is not a crony capitalist liberal or "Christian" Zionist imperialist.

He may not be an imperialist, but his opposition to the American military presence around the world is completely economic in nature—he contends that our nation is "bankrupt" and therefore cannot currently afford to engage in military ventures abroad. His sole ethical objection to imperialism stems from his general opposition to federal income taxes, which he considers to be "unconstitutional," morally unjust, and economically harmful (all of which is inaccurate, incidentally).

He wants to replace the Federal Reserve with an entirely private (i.e., unregulated) banking industry, and tie our currency to the gold standard. As much as I despise the Federal Reserve system, I detest Paul's alternative far more. As for crony capitalism, he does oppose corporate welfare, but he opposes basically every regulation labor has struggled for to make economic life somewhat more bearable under capitalism (e.g., unemployment insurance, Social Security, trade unions, food stamps, and so forth) just as forcefully. In short, his economic proposals would destroy the economy and cause countless people to suffer in the process.

I have also wondered about this Paul character's anti-imperialist stance. With the donations he takes from corporations (I believe Apple and Nike were among them) is he really going to remove foreign military presence anywhere when he is expected to protect these company's capital abroad?

Godfaesten wrote:Jesus dude you're right. Just give them some trenchcoats and a white windowless van, that is, assuming they don't already have those.

What's with lil' Derek and the preacher-man hat? Somebody doing a Children of the Corn remake?

Anyway, I personally believe Paul to be a reactionary bigot, but, for the sake of argument, let's say the racist writings with his name attached to them where done without his knowledge or consent. How can a man that can't even control his own publications be fit to serve as a head of state?

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Is there anyone else here that thinks Ron Paul would actually be the best candidate? Yes, he is a ultra-capitalist BUT he wants to get rid of the federal reserve and is apposed to American imperialism. At least he is not a crony capitalist liberal or "Christian" Zionist imperialist.

I think he's better than any of the other major candidates, but nowhere near ideal.

Godfaesten wrote:I think he's better than any of the other major candidates, but nowhere near ideal.

I think that he is worst in almost every respect of the candidates. Ron Paul is such a reactionary that Newt Gingrich nearly adopts the form of a progressive by comparison. The only positive aspect of Paul's presidency in relation to that of the other contenders is that it would expedite America's demise somewhat.

Celtiberian wrote:He wants to replace the Federal Reserve with an entirely private (i.e., unregulated) banking industry, and tie our currency to the gold standard. As much as I despise the Federal Reserve system, I detest Paul's alternative far more.

The Federal Reserve despite its name is a private and not a government bank.

Paul is overrated, he is viewed as a messiah by some. He is merely a candidate that is much better then the others. Paul is a libertarian capitalist, that really shows how bad all the other candidates are.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:The Federal Reserve despite its name is a private and not a government bank.

It's a quasi-public institution, even though it exercises a high degree of autonomy. As objectionable as the Federal Reserve is, it's much more stable than Paul's proposal of competing currencies would be.

Celtiberian wrote:It's a quasi-public institution, even though it exercises a high degree of autonomy. As objectionable as the Federal Reserve is, it's much more stable than Paul's proposal of competing currencies would be.

The emphasis should be on much. I shudder to think of the devastating monetary crises we would face should Paul's asinine plan come to fruition (which, fortunately, will never occur).

Rev Scare wrote:The emphasis should be on much. I shudder to think of the devastating monetary crises we would face should Paul's asinine plan come to fruition (which, fortunately, will never occur).

Could it not be argued that his plan's failure could cause enough unrest that revolutionary change could be possible?

Balkan Beast wrote:Could it not be argued that his plan's failure could cause enough unrest that revolutionary change could be possible?

I believe it was Georges Sorel who argued that socialists should support the establishment of laissez-faire conditions because it would hasten the overthrow of capitalism. However, I feel that it's more likely that Paul's competing currency policy will never be allowed to come to fruition for precisely that reason. Or, if it was somehow allowed to do so, that the state would quickly return to the Federal Reserve system upon the policy's inevitable failure.

Capitalism requires an intervening state in order to remain functional, and the bourgeoisie and political establishment are under no illusions to the contrary. All of the anti-government rhetoric employed by the Republicans is merely to secure votes from the petite bourgeoisie. (The only government programs the Republicans are genuinely interested in ending are those providing social welfare to the masses.) Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a highly ideological anomaly in the party, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his ridiculous propertarian beliefs. The establishment doesn't support him because they understand his programs would lead to political instability and economic failure. In other words, the system is fragile enough as it is and they can't risk allowing his irresponsible policy proposals to be experimented with.

White nationalists are at heart nothing more than libertarians who happen to be racist, Don Black and Ron Paul are natural allies. Paul is a reactionary bourgeois bigot who doesn't care who supports him so long as he gets the precious dough to help him reach the White House.

That said, if he does get into power he might completely destroy the US economy, so ultimately it may have positive results for us.

Celtiberian wrote:I believe it was Georges Sorel who argued that socialists should support the establishment of laissez-faire conditions because it would hasten the overthrow of capitalism. However, I feel that it's more likely that Paul's competing currency policy will never be allowed to come to fruition for precisely that reason. Or, if it was somehow allowed to do so, that the state would quickly return to the Federal Reserve system upon the policy's inevitable failure.

Capitalism requires an intervening state in order to remain functional, and the bourgeoisie and political establishment are under no illusions to the contrary. All of the anti-government rhetoric employed by the Republicans is merely to secure votes from the petite bourgeoisie. (The only government programs the Republicans are genuinely interested in ending are those providing social welfare to the masses.) Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a highly ideological anomaly in the party, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his ridiculous propertarian beliefs. The establishment doesn't support him because they understand his programs would lead to political instability and economic failure. In other words, the system is fragile enough as it is and they can't risk allowing his irresponsible policy proposals to be experimented with.

In addition, Ron Paul's policies would undermine, at least in the short term, the monopoly capital that the system upholds. In either case, even if Paul were elected, which should be regarded as nigh impossible, he would accomplish little. The office of the president is vested with modest formal powers. The president's authority stems in large part from his enormous influence as the leading national figurehead. Ultimately, presidential discretion is greatly restricted by Congress. Paul simply lacks the political support structure that would enable him to enact his policies in the first place, and that would, of course, presuppose his political suitability.