by the way

[lapsedmodernist]

Ron Paul, on the 1992 L.A. riots:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from
thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and
everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who
earn it, and Christian morality...

...Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

Comments

[bromius.livejournal.com]

No, no, you don't understand! He cares about civil liberties! And would take out of Iraq right away! And would preserve our purity of essence!

[dabroots.livejournal.com]

I don't particularly doubt the authenticity of this account of Ron Paul's statements in 1992, and I'm finding several other links to it, but I'd really like to see a bit more verification that it's genuine.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

well, it was published in his own publication, and he acknowledged it, but said it was written by a ghostwriter and didn't represent his views. like, what else is he gonna say?

[dabroots.livejournal.com]

It was allegedly transcribed from a print publication of sixteen years ago. I'd like to see something like photocopies, turned into PDFs, of the actual newsletter.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I feel like since he acknowledged it and is making excuses for it, it's a genuine article (no pun intended). If it was a fake, I am guessing he'd be all over that.

[dabroots.livejournal.com]

You're probably right, and the cited materials are probably genuine. It's just that it's too easy on the Internet to create allegedly genuine documents out of thin air.

I'm keeping in mind, too, that :Paul's campaign truly did choose to not refuse, or send back a contribution from a white supremacist organization in recent months.

[theophile.livejournal.com]

it's not the same issue, but here is a scan of a 1990 edition of the newsletter which refers to Martin Luther King, Jr. as a child molester, which hopefully at least establishes that there was a newsletter, written-by or at least published-under-the-name-of Ron Paul which showcased some pretty abhorrent ideology.

[theophile.livejournal.com]

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.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

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.

this is a rather different stance than "it was written by a ghostwriter."

[nightspore.livejournal.com]

Helpful.

[brooklyn-jak.livejournal.com]

wow. what an asshole.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

but dr. ron paul delivered a billion babies and understands health care!

[congogirl.livejournal.com]

How are those two statements related?

[smschrader.livejournal.com]

Stole it to post in my own journal. I find him to be a rather large douche bag.

[bricology.livejournal.com]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but apparently Paul didn't write that, a former staffer did, back in 1992. Paul says had no knowledge of it until recently, when it was pointed out. Frankly, it doesn't sound like his sort of rhetoric to me, and I've never seen any evidence of racism from him.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

yep, RP says it was ghostwritten...aside from the fact that OF COURSE he is going to say that, some cursory googling reveals that he keeps interesting company (like David Duke), writes for a neo-nazi publication The National Times, is loved over at Stormfront, and takes contributions from white supremacist groups.

[bricology.livejournal.com]

Well, how can anyone possibly argue with that?! He must be guilty because he would say that he's innocent. Proof positive.

Does Paul actually "keep company" with David Duke, or is it just that David Duke happens to voice support for Paul? I've never seen any evidence of the former. And as for "writes for...the National Times" -- I think a little cursory Googling will show that the piece was reprinted from a previously published essay, without Paul's permission or knowledge. Takes contributions from white supremacist groups? Show me any politician who won't take contributions from anyone! (Cash from Tamil militants? Mrs. Clinton says "Thanks!") Practically all of Paul's contributions have come from individuals, as opposed to almost every other candidate, who are happy to accept them from Monsanto, Exxon/Mobil, et al. Did one or more white supremacist groups donate $53.17 to Paul's campaign? Who knows? But I doubt that has as much of a corruptive effect as the PACs and multinationals that are pouring tens of millions into the top candidates.

Honestly -- I'm not a Paul supporter, and I'm not interested in getting in a debate over this, but most of these sorts of aspersions can be chalked up to partisan conspiracy-mongering. If it had any basis in fact, it would be run in the real media, and there would be evidence.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

your catch-22-esque rephrasing works in the abstract, but not in a culture where electability pivots on "cleaning up well."

I am not talking about Hillary Clinton, I am talking about Ron Paul. your Hillary Clinton example is a logical fallacy. I don't give a fuck who she takes money from. I will not vote for her, but I have a pretty good idea about who will, and it's predictable. She is not doing some jedi mind tricks outside of her very predictable target demographic, whereas Ron Paul is mounting a juggernaut camapaign all built around being a crossover miracle. A dude who is regularly featured on davidduke.com, has long-standing ties with sketchy racist groups (the kinds of groups that Trent Lott associates with), has that masterpiece published in his own publication, and takes campaign contributions from white supremacists has accumulated enough circumstantial evidence of having a side that he certainly doesn't own in his "Dr Ron Paul has solutions!" ads.

also--right, the real media. what would that be? I suppose that would be the media that actually covered the electoral fraud in 2004. Oh wait, no, pretty much only Greg Palast did that.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

a juggernaut camapaign

a small, surprisingly wealthy, but not particularly effective juggernaut. It's not like he's actually going to win anything.

I think what he represents - the way he's somehow become a focus for all this inchoate rage against the system - is a lot more interesting than he is.

One day, you'll get a genuine anti-establishment candidate who isn't a total whackjob, and ... well, they too will lose. But they might provoke a certain amount of healthy collective soul-searching.

[contrasoma.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm sick to death of having to point out just how much of a whack-job Paul is to otherwise halfway intelligent leftists who are jumping on the bandwagon (even up here in Canada) due to some BS perception of him being the antithesis of "establishment Washington". So were Buchanan and Duke, kiddies.

man!!

[msmsgirl.livejournal.com]

libertarian my ASS! omg that is wild. am forwarding to my slightly-susceptible pothead little brothers right now. I was trying to explain to them the other day that RP is trying to play young white men who identify with alternative culture like them to get their votes without their realizing what he is. thanks!

[yanatonage.livejournal.com]

God bless libertarians.

also see; all hail anarcho-capitalism.

[cascadianista.livejournal.com]

I'd digg this, but I think you're a nice person and I wouldn't want to do that to you. :P

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

?

[cascadianista.livejournal.com]

Trust me, you don't want the average digg luser commenting on your blog. I did post it to damnportlanders though.

[spatch]

Ron Paul is like Lyndon LaRouche for people who can't sing Wagnerian hymns.

[the-macnab.livejournal.com]

In 1998 I found myself in an audience in the well of the House, asking questions to half a dozen congressmen--three Republicans (Ron Paul, Lindsey Graham and Dick Armey) and three Democrats (Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barney Frank and a guy from Dallas who was so bland I forgot his name). In that little chat, Ron Paul gave us detailed and nuanced (but silly) reasons why, as a libertarian, he opposes abortion and supports the drug war. Norton nailed him to the wall: "I'm glad to hear you all asking these questions. Because Ron loves to talk about how he's a libertarian, but he's a strange sort of libertarian who happens to vote Republican on virtually every issue on which libertarians distinguish themselves from Republicans." Enough said, really.

[cascadianista.livejournal.com]

I remember reading this post back in the day.

Now, in 2011, the situation has decayed so far that I posted recently that I'm going to stop writing off Ron Paul out of hand and do my own research to decide whether or not to support him. I got roundly flamed for it. Anyway, I'll be keeping this in mind when I get around to doing that... it's just disturbing that in the years since you posted this, the situation has decayed to the point where I'm even considering him despite the various Issues(tm).