The New Republic has laid out the case against Ron Paul in excruciating detail. This is old news to those of us who’ve paid attention but it’s great to see this material finally getting the visibility it deserves.
After the Bhutto assassination I wrote:
“I won’t be surprised when I receive email from Ron Paul supporters claiming that she was actually assassinated by a zombie sasquatch assassin sent by a secret CIA mind control program operating out of a subterranean base which was joint financed by the Zionist-controlled Federal Reserve and space aliens.”
While I was joking, sort of, you’ll be surprised to learn just how close to that line of thinking Paul actually comes.
“He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones–whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos”–estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.”
Daniel Koffer writes that if a conspiracy theory, or form of bigotry, exists you’ll probably find it mentioned in one of Ron Paul’s newsletters:
As Kirchick reports—whether describing post-apartheid South Africa as a “destruction of civilization,” alleging that Martin Luther King “seduced underage girls and boys,” warning of “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise,” or urging white readers to arm themselves after “the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,”—virtually every historic trope of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gay bigotry, or conspiracy theorizing featured in the “Ron Paul Political Report” in one way or another.
Koffer goes on to list one damning quote after another. Here’s a taste:
“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
This revelation won’t marginalize Ron Paul. He’s already there. What it will do, I hope, is strip him of the recent support he’s received from decent, yet naive, Americans. Those who continue to support him after this revelation, and there will be many, will lose their claim to both of those traits.
I won’t reproduce the quotes here, but there is no plausible explanation that might insulate Paul from the fallout. Kirchick and others attacked Paul a few months back over his failure to return a $500 check from a prominent white supremacist. At the time, Paul had explained that he couldn’t possibly screen ever donor. Of course he couldn’t, but the media had screened this one for him, and he refused to give back the money anyway. Now we know why. He’s been speaking in code to the dregs of American society this whole time. And he had no intention of alienating his base of support.
Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism were a cover for racism. Listen beginning at 8:07: “I feel like the people who are so enamored with those states’ rights positions and that libertarian position… Coming from the South… and older person… who grew up in the segregated South… How do I know he’s not a racist? … I find it offensive, the positions he’s taking, but maybe it’s the pretty face that you put on the position that is, if not really racist, just insensitive about race?”
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.
I voted for Paul for President in 1988, primarily because I tended to vote Libertarian in the eighties. If these existed at the time, and I’d read some of them, I might not have. Of course, I’ve never been a big fan of the Von Mises Institute, either. [Update a few minutes later] Having read in more detail, let me amend the above from “might not have” to “certainly would not have.”
Lots of anti-black, anti-Israel, pro-militia nuttiness at the link. This guy’s been in Congress for 31 years. No one in his district was able to beat him with this on his record?