It seems to me that the “mainstream media” hates Ron Paul mainly because it is simply an organ of the entrenched establishment and status quo. We live in a big-government, anti-freedom, anti-white, sports-oriented world – and the powers that be want to keep it that way. Does this make them “conservative”?
While Barack Obama used the slogan “hope and change”, he clearly gets his directives from the same people who controlled Bush and just about every other president in living memory. Ron Paul, while not perfect, at least calls for meaningful change. He calls for more freedom and less government.
It just so happens that some people at Stormfront also want more freedom and less government. The folks at the New York Times did enough research to build a circumstantial case that Paul might have pro-white sympathies. Gasp! It seems he has associated with people who are not filled with hatred toward their own kind. The horror! Not only that, but he has stated he would have rejected the 1964 Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. The nerve! How dare he support property rights and freedom of association; those concepts are alien to all that is good and wholesome – at least according to the New York Times:
But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.
In May, Mr. Paul reiterated in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing segregation. He said that he supported its intent, but that parts of it violated his longstanding belief that government should not dictate how property owners behave. He has been featured in videos of the John Birch Society, which campaigned against the Civil Rights Act, warning, for instance, that the United Nations threatens American sovereignty.
Would the New York Times ever objectively examine the pros and cons of the Civil Rights Act? About as much as the Vatican would objectively examine the pros and cons of the Virgin Mary. To question the Civil Rights Act is tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes. Property rights? Way over-rated. “American sovereignty”? Since when was the Times concerned about that? In their eyes, America is just a random place on a map. A crime scene where “racist whites” have yet to make amends for their past sins.
The Times attacks Paul for noticing that whites are disproportionately victims of violence at the hands of blacks – a fact the Times has been trying to hide for decades:
An earlier edition of another newsletter he produced, The Ron Paul Political Report, concluded that the need for citizens to arm themselves was only natural, given carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” The report, with no byline but written in the first person, said: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.”
The only way a person could notice the black crime wave against whites is if he possessed independent thought. “We can’t tolerate that!” says the Times.
Of course it is also verboten to lament the loss of a white majority in a nation that whites founded:
Those newsletters have drawn new scrutiny through Mr. Paul’s two recent presidential campaigns. The New Republic posted several of them online in 2008 and again recently, including a lament about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The conservative Weekly Standard ran an article highlighting the newsletters last week.
This is a privilege reserved only for non-whites. Native Americans can mourn the loss of their nations, blacks can complain about the loss of their “communities” and so can Jews. But it is “hate” for gentile whites to express the same concern about their communities and nations.
According to the Times, it is “gay-baiting” to entertain the notion that some homosexuals might be malicious:
During that nominating battle, a flier produced by Mr. Paul’s opponents accused him of gay-baiting by reporting in one of his newsletters that the government was “lying” about the threat of AIDS and that the virus could be transmitted through “saliva, tears, sweat.” It said that some “AIDS carriers — perhaps out of a pathological hatred — continue to give blood.”
Obviously, the New York Times considers itself among Paul’s opponents. It attacks him for being concerned about the safety of children in schools:
Still, that same year he was quoted in The Houston Post as saying that schools should be free to bar children with AIDS and that the government should stop financing AIDS research and education.
I wonder if the authors of this Times abomination, Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski, would allow their own children to share spit with HIV positive people. Also, for all their whining about anti-semitism, I wonder if those authors (whose names give the impression of being Jewish) even realize that their grossly biased article gives credibility to anti-semitism.
While it is true that Paul has denied holding some of the above positions, he probably had little choice but to do so. Each of us must pick his battles. Paul’s battle is against big government. To acknowledge any sort of pro-white stance would jeopardize this. When big government comes crashing down some day, and our basic freedoms are restored, whites can once again have self-determination and pride in their own heritage.
In contrast to the article itself, we find a lot of truth among the comments. For example:
I care about Paul’s voting record. I care about Paul’s adherence to the Constitution. I care about Paul’s economic and foreign policy plans.
I could not possibly care less about whether anyone thinks he might or might not be a racist.
“Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support” Correct, just as Obama did with money from Hamas and Fatah. Ron Paul, like every other American politician does not have a black list for donations.I didn’t read past the silly headline, was there anything below it that was at all useful?Moving on…
I don’t usually comment on articles, but I thought I’d give the perspective of someone who’s still undecided.I voted for Obama in 2008, and still lean toward Obama. However, I’ve started to do some research on others to see what their policies and plans are. As I’ve been doing my research, I’ve found that it’s pretty easy to find fairly objective articles about Mitt Romney, and even a few about guys like Huntsman. However, I can hardly find any truly objective articles on Ron Paul. The only places that lay out Paul’s policies without prejudice are pro Ron Paul sites, and they are obviously biased the other way. All I want is objectivity on his positions and I can’t find it. Why is this? As a liberal-leaning moderate, I feel all the media should do is lay out each candidate’s policies without pretense. If they did so with Paul, I probably wouldn’t vote for him. I agree with him on pulling back on war, and like the idea of opening up avenues for research on medical marijuana, but the rest is a bit out there. Yet, when I search for Ron Paul on Google News, all I see are article after article from outlets on BOTH sides (liberal and conservative) just trying to tear him down. Do you know what this looks like to a 3rd party observer? It looks really bad. Almost like the media is trying to tell us who to vote for. I would have probably written off Paul based on his views alone, but now I’m interested in what he has to say because the media en toto seems so scared of him.
Yes, now that Paul is gaining traction, and the media has been called out on their obvious bias, they are scared. In the above article, nothing can be taken seriously – except for the fear that oozes from between its lines.
JAY,
I have found that the real energy for the vitriol and eliminationist hatemongering against Ron Paul isn’t coming from the usual liberal media (though, as you said above, they’re doing their share), but from lamestream conservatives and neo-conservatives. My Anti-RP Hall of Shame members thus far:
Pat Dollard
Yid With Lid
David Horowitz
Red State blog
I Own the World blog
Mark Levin
It’s not that they’re the only bad ones, but they’re the elite worst of the worst.
I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but I supported Ron Paul in 2008. . If he pitched his libertarianism, as he did to some extent in the past, as a return to more traditional American values, which included limited government, I think he would gain much more support than he would lose. And since, with the exception perhaps of social security and Medicare (whose payers and beneficiaries are both mostly white), the US government has become an engine for redistributing wealth from whites to nonwhites, his libertarianism could have an implicit appeal to white interests. I think that he could even turn the newsletters into a political asset, if he made a principled defense of what was said.
But he has largely abandoned this possibility, by coming out against a border fence, repudiating the newsletters, and complaining about the “racist” justice system that supposedly puts too many black men in prison. He seems to be more interested in promoting sterile libertarianism, and basically seems to adhere to the liberal idea that the US should be a proposition nation, just with different propositions than those promoted by the left or the mainstream right. Ultimately, I’ll probably just have to hold my nose and vote for Romney, who has at least said encouraging things about curbing illegal immigration, and hope for the best.
Here is a thread I started at Straight Dope. I created a hypothetical candidate who a modern center-leftist in most ways except being against foreign aid and affirmative action, and favoring reductions in immigration. The response from the left was pretty interesting. There was the usual hysteria that someone would suggest immigration reduction (not a moratorium) coming from a (hypothetical) candidate (who was otherwise “liberal”).
What was really funny was that some of them thought I was talking about Ron Paul. One guy, IIRC, convinced another one of that. I guess Paul is against AA, but I doubt that’s what made them so mad. Probably it was just that the one sentence brief enough for a leftist Doper to really digest before their attention span gave out was the one on foreign aid. That’s come up way more in the campaign than AA, and Paul’s stance on immigration is debatable, so I think that is what did it.
The mere thought that someone could be against foreign aid makes the whiter-than-thou crowd livid. (Note that livid is not a shade of white but a shade of RED. Oh, bad pun, sorry.)
I read the thread. While I’ve come to expect idiocy and lies from the left, some of it was so insane I just had to stop and do a double-take, such as with this gem, “Our economy depends on it (illegal immigration)”. Or the fact that opposing affirmative action is apparently “racist”. But it does show one important thing: For the left, all of their other pet issues (environmental protection, socialized medicine, a living wage for workers, etc.) are secondary to their goal of dispossessing white people.
… But on the whole, you’re exactly right. It’s Ron Paul’s implicit support of white people to keep their communities, the money they earn, and the safety they have felt entitled to (mainly since it is the creation of both the military prowess and the social relationships pioneered by northern Europeans) that makes the MSM want to cut his throat.
He’s also been way more gaffe-free than most politicians, so they have little to laugh at him about. Some of his newsletters said those things that he is supposed to be embarrassed about (one of them “claimed” that young blacks can be fleet-footed, IIRC–very horrible to the left since the left knows that young blacks can’t be fleet-footed?) Journalists expect Republicans to behave like rural proletariat “should” (i.e. to behave like nobody should); by now he should have had at least one of his kids be gay or pregnant or born with some defect that they could mock him for.
What will happen when Paul brings a very large constituency to the GOP convention and offers to support Romney (let’s face it, like McCain he was pre-chosen) as long as the Party incorporates some of his ideas in their platform? WIll the GOP actually adopt pro-Constitution values such as limited government and a government that does not bankrupt the nation? Or will the GOP refuse his ideas and thereby toss the election? Again, sort of like McCain.
The election isn’t about winning. It’s about getting the spoils. If they have to forego the spoils by adopting limited government principles then there really isn’t much point in them winning is there?
Ron Paul, while not perfect, at least calls for meaningful change. He calls for more freedom and less government.
Exactly.
And therein lies the reason why Ron Paul — or anyone like him — will be given short shrift by the establishment. He actually does want to change the system. And it is a system which is well entrenched, and which extends throughout the government, the corporate world, the universities (natch!), the NGOs, and the media – the media being the agitprop arm. It’s an entire spectrum of people who gain their power and privilege from a centralized system, and which uses the underclass as muscle against the middle. Call it the “new class” or Orwell’s “The Party” or James Burnham “managerial revolutionaries.”
Ron Paul is like the old Roman who stands up as Caesar takes the purple, and tells us that there is still time to restore the Republic. Needless to say, the media responds by first ignoring him, then attacking him. Regardless of Paul’s position on any individual political position, he is still a rallying point for those who are outside the system.
Something to think about as America goes marching into the 21st century…
The problem with Ron Paul is that he gives off the APPEARANCE of being nutty. His ill-fitting suits and his fake eyebrows add to the appearance of him being a weirdo. If he’s going to run for president, can’t he afford a cosmetician and a tailor?
And some of his ideas like returning to a gold standard really are nutty. And his belief in conspiracy theories involving the Fed which sound like they came right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And his support for Iran and Muslims in general.
While I like the idea of small government and less welfare state, Ron Paul is a really bad spokesman for the idea.
Oh, God, yes, it’s so nutty to have a medium of exchange that actually means something, whose value is consistent over a long relevant range, so that backward financial comparison and forward financial planning are a lot easier. And it’s also kooky to preserve the wealth of people who save and invest through not inflating a malleable medium of exchange.
BTW, I read part the Protocols. Other than it being a mawkish parody, I don’t remember reading anything about the Federal Reserve, or really much about central banking in general.
The MSM only understand politics on a one-dimensional spectrum from Jesse Jackson to Jesse Helms.
Anyone who isn’t somewhere along it, is from another universe to them.
Ron Paul is the last hope for America, the demographics will soon not favor Whites.
Ron Paul is not a nationalist, not a racialist, Ron Paul is a libertarian and I don’t care for that. That said his belief in liberty will lead to something something I agree with and thats dismantling the current status quo.
This is why the mainstream media hates him, because he is offers choice and the possibility of something new.
As a side note I find it very telling of current society that the thing which is considerd to slander him the most is his views on property rights, as clearly one should not vote for someone because of this single issue.
It shows how obssesed the mainstream is with racial “equality”, that apperently trumps all according to them.
But it is “hate” for gentile whites to express the same concern about their communities and nations.
Jewish whites don’t get to have their own nations either; neither do the Jewish non-whites, for that matter.