Why Jew-haters love Ron Paul
- Posted by Beth on October 29th, 2007 filed in 2008 election, Candidates, General, Israel, Moonbats, Paultards, Politics
There are plenty more reasons why anti-Jewish thugs love Ron Paul, but this is just a start. From the 110th Congress:
H CON RES 21
BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel
Final Vote: 411 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 11 “PRESENT,” 8 NV.
Who are those two “nays?” None other than Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
H RES 548
BILL TITLE: Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon’s democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon.
Final Vote: 415 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 15 NV.
Who are those two “nays?” Again, Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
H RES 557
BILL TITLE: Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council’s agenda
Final Vote: 416 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 14 NV.
Who are those two “nays?” You guessed it–Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Hey, if you hate the Jews, what’s not to love?
Citizens Against Hate has a piece on Ron Paul’s ties to extremism (read it!), and from what I’ve seen on the internet in the last few weeks, they’ve got a good bead on Ron Paul’s supporters. It’s no accident that hate groups (Stormfront, Council of Conservative Citizens, David Duke, the American Nationalist Union, etc.) have latched on to the Ron Paul candidacy.
David Neiwert has more damning words:
It’s important to understand that the conspiracy theories to which Paul subscribes serve very specific purposes for the extremist right. For instance: They believe the IRS should be abolished because the 16th Amendment permitting federal income taxes, like all amendments after the Bill of Rights, was not legitimately passed; real “Patriots” believe only in the “organic” Constitution, after all, which allows them to ignore such annoyances as the 13th and 14th amendments or women’s suffrage.
Or then there’s the “New World Order,” which for the racist and radical represents means the latest permutation in the classic Protocols of the Elders of Zion theory. Abolish the Federal Reserve? That’s another blow against the “Jewish bankers” [link added--Ed.] who secretly control America.
Paul himself doesn’t necessarily believe these things — but the theories themselves are so thoroughly rooted in racial and anti-Semitic animus, often playing the role of providing a thoughtful “academic” face to smooth-talking racists like David Duke, that it’s hard not to hear Ron Paul holding forth on them now and understand perfectly well where those ideas are coming from, even if it’s never acknowledged. Though having seen Paul work the militia circuit in the 1990s certainly gave me a good idea.
And there’s much more there, as Neiwert (who knows those far-right militia groups well) has had his eye on Ron Paul for quite some time.
Here’s another choice quote, this time from the comments at The Liberty Papers.
I see no problem that Don Black donated to Ron Paul’s campaign. In fact I applaud his efforts.
What I do see a problem with are the neo-Zionists supporting Clinton, Giulani, Obama and the other presidential candidates. This support is a danger not only to Americans but to all freedom loving people of the world!
Comment by John Ubele — October 27, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Just in the time I’ve spent investigating the worst cesspools (even literally) of the internet, I can see exactly why they love Ron Paul. His views enable the racists and anti-Jewish extremists, and often mirror their political views. The irrational fear of the Federal Reserve, the view that the US is a puppet of Israel, the nonsense about a “New World Order,” the extreme paranoia about the Patriot Act and “Big Brother”–these are all things espoused by Ron Paul as well as the extremist far-right, and I’ll detail these completely in further posts.
So is Ron Paul anti-Semitic? Racist? Maybe, maybe not. He sure votes like someone who is, but that may be purely coincidental. Of course, as David Niewert implied, you have to wonder what drives his views. I’m not going to say he is a bigot, though. He just has a hell of a lot of nasty racist supporters.
A final note: I am not doing this because I’m “afraid of Ron Paul.” (Forget that bit of wishful thinking, Paulbots.) That’s not even close. I am disgusted by Ron Paul’s candidacy because he gives a voice to some of the worst elements of society, and he’s doing it under the banner of the Republican Party. This “big tent” of ours isn’t big enough for the sort of filth that follows Ron Paul. Most wouldn’t even consider voting for any Republican candidate otherwise–do you seriously think 9/11 troofers/conspiracy theorists or white supremacists would be voting for a mainstream Republican candidate? I’m sure there are some reasonable people who support Ron Paul right now, but I’ll bet the more they come to know what he’s about beyond the sound bites, the less they’ll support him. In a civilized society, racist scum doesn’t get mainstream representation, especially in a race for the Presidency.
UPDATE: Michael Medved asks pointedly,
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome - or repudiate – the support of such factions?
We’ll see if Ron Paul answers. I’m betting he won’t.
[See also; especially the comments--several prove my point.]
PA Pundits . . . "the relentless pursuit of common sense" says:
More Reasons To Not Vote For Ron Paul…
From My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
There are plenty more reasons why anti-Jewish thugs love Ron Paul, but this is just a start. From the 110th Congress:
H CON RES 21BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian Presiden…
"7.62mm Justice" ™ says:
More Reasons To Not Vote For Ron Paul…
From My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
There are plenty more reasons why anti-Jewish thugs love Ron Paul, but this is just a start. From the 110th Congress:
H CON RES 21BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President…
Beth says:
FYI, especially to first-time commenters: *Some* comments get auto-moderated, and I may not get to them right away this morning. If your comment doesn’t show up right away, don’t get pissed–I’ll get to it. I don’t delete comments except in rare cases.
Curtis says:
Wow, thanks for that vote info for RP and Kucinich. None of those bills should’ve even been on the House floor. I’m glad they voted nay. Those are United Nations and Middle Eastern problems, not U.S.
JL says:
The worlds bloodiest years have resulted from the conception of the UN. not only are bills pertaining to the UN unconstitutional and irrelevant, we should not even be involved in the corrupt UN. good for Ron Paul and Kucinich.
I’m not sure why you would construe Ron Paul as being anti-jew simply because he doesn’t believe we have an obligation to support and subsidize Israel militarily and financially? that’s like saying republicans are anti-blacks because they generally don’t support affirmative action and reparations.
absurd!
"Jew Hater" says:
Just because someone doesn’t blindly support Israel doesn’t make them anti-semitic or a Jew hater. Frankly, I believe that the US should completely dissolve it’s allegiance Israel, and take a neutral stance in the Middle East. It would solve so many problems for us, but the pro-Israel lobby (which is one of the most powerful ones in DC) simply has too much power over politicians for this to happen. Does this make me a Jew hater?
Just continue believing the garbage you hear from Giuliani, Bush, and every other mainstream politician, that the terrorists and Middle Eastern countries “hate us because we are free.” Write it on the blackboard 500 times so that you never forget it. The logic and presumptions of this article are disgusting.
Amir says:
I’m an Israeli American, grandson of Holocaust survivors and relative of victims of Gaza rocket attacks. As the only candidate with a real understanding of the affront to World Peace posed by this country, I support Ron Paul. I find your attempts to invoke racism to debunk Ron Paul extremely juvenile. Learn to debate facts. All of the bills you cite represent a critical problem that the American government likes to get involved in the rest of the World’s business. There are differing opinions as to whether or not we *should* be involved in OPP, but to invoke racism as a motive of someone who votes against “taking sides” is just low.
Talmadge East says:
You do realize WHY he made those votes don’t you? It is a matter of not getting involved with other nations’ affairs. Now you may view his ideology as wrong headed or naive, but to try and use those votes to smear Dr. Paul as a racist is going a little far. Also it is not Dr. Paul’s fault if nut jobs like him because of these votes. In case you haven’t noticed, Democrats have the commie loonies and Depublicans have the racist ones. Most of the same people that are supporting Rep. Paul will vote for whomever the GOP nominee is in November. You might like to think otherwise, but it’s true.
Why-Why Wicki says:
Someone has to turn the other cheek.
Besides, we have our own domestic chaos to keep us in big trouble.
Partition?
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5729868
Beth says:
READ THE POST AGAIN. Gawd. It’s like you people see “anti-Saint Ron Paul post!” and lose all critical thinking ability. I specifically said, I am NOT calling him a bigot. For those who still don’t understand, too bad. It’s sad if you can’t see that this post is about how RP’s ideology is well-suited to racists, even if he is not a racist himself. You obviously are unable to read the post without letting your emotions cloud your ability to see the point.
Apparently you can only believe that I, an RP “infidel, am either 1) a paid shill, 2) irrational (anyone who doesn’t believe is irrational, of course), and/or 3) blind/brainwashed, while you of course are not. Never does it occur to you that people have honest, profound disagreements with Ron Paul’s prescription for this country; those disagreements are no less than treason in your Kool-Aid-drenched minds. You remind me of Scientologists.
Amir says:
No Beth, we aren’t losing our cirtical thinking abilities. We know you aren’t calling him a bigot, as I said in my comments, you are “invoking racism to debunk Ron Paul.” you are trying to “construe [him] as being anti-jew.” As a Jew I can’t let you get away with that (all jews thing they are the authority on all things jewish after all–ten jews in a room = 11 opinions). There are valid reasons to disagree with Paul: non-interventionism is one (pro-war republicans), a desire for increased social welfare programs is two (democrats). However, people are mean to you in their criticisms because you are mean-spirited in nearly everything you write. Have you lost all your self-consciousness? You have not exhibited any semblance of critical thinking in your blog, nor have you discussed any issues with an eye toward pragmatism. Instead methinks you pose flame-bait to satisfy your boredom and love for ad-hominem fighting
Just so that you are perfectly aware of this, you are like the kid in class who smells bad, doesn’t know it, and doesn’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to play with them.
jp says:
Ron Paul is on record, in the wild conspiracy that AIPAC controls US foreign policy. Which is an anti-semite rooted conpsiracy. He has said that the “Israeli lobby is among the worst…” in Washington….
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Beth says:
No critical thinking? That’s easy to say to anyone with whom you disagree, and that’s your best argument, I guess. Not my problem.
An eye toward pragmatism is certainly *not* something I’d ascribe to “non-interventionism” (a nice Orwellian description for isolationism, regardless of the talking points). Furthermore, “pro-war Republican” is a meaningless slur. If you honestly believe that those who are not isolationists (”non-interventionists,” whatever) are by definition “pro-war,” then I’d say it is you who is lacking critical thinking. It’s not an either-or option. Saying someone is “pro-war” is like saying someone who is pro-life is “anti-choice,” or someone who is not pro-life is “pro-death.” Again, nothing but a slur.
Love for ad-hominem fighting, you say? Flame-bait? Look, I don’t care if “people are mean” to me in blog comments; I’m not the least bit threatened or challenged by it. All I’m saying is I find it interesting that so many refuse to see my points, instead choosing to say I’m calling Ron Paul (and all supporters) racist. For the last time: His ideology appeals to racists and conspiracy theorists, not because his ideology is necessarily racist or driven by conspiracy theory at face value, but it DOES appeal to them.
And sorry, I think RP’s absurd no-votes on things like no-cost resolutions in support of allies is far from “pragmatic.” I wonder why he (and Kucinich, although DK isn’t even worth discussing) are consistently the ONLY ones to oppose such things. I know RP thinks the “Israel lobby” owns Washington, though, and that disgusts me. THAT is precisely one of the big reasons the conspiracy theorists and anti-semites/white supremacists love him–because he’s not a “tool of AIPAC.” I am surprised that you can’t see the obvious anti-Semitism in such rhetoric.
And NO, I am not saying differences with Israeli policy means a person is by default anti-Semitic (although I do believe it is the case more often than people would ever admit). If that were the case, I’d say that nearly the entire Israeli Labor party was anti-Semitic; they’re just WRONG, in my opinion.
I realize at this point I am discussing things that you probably don’t see as ours (as Americans) to discuss. Fine. I do think foreign policy matters, and I do think that in today’s world, we have to remain engaged. RP’s “non-intervention” ideology shows a dangerous lack of understanding of the world today and a stunning naivete.
Amir says:
OK Beth, since you’ve agreed to play nicely (and I’m glad, because this is a very important topic), I’ll participate in a debate with you about non-interventionism. I recognize pro-war republican is a bit of a jab, but I’ll have you know, I call myself pro-death on my blog to highlight the irrelevance of any debate geared towards rhetoric instead of pragmatism. I am opposed to many of the pro-Israel lobbyist since they are primarily Democratic and they act against my financial interest of lowering taxes. Call me selfish but that would be short sighted. It seems quite clear to me that the influence of my fellow Jews in politics is indeed extremely out-of-proportion–primarily because we are raised with a sense of civic duty to Tikun Olam. I am a very staunch pro-Israel activist because the majority of my family lives literally under fire from rockets from Gaza. My stunning naivete can only be countered with the fact that I am almost definitely more personally invested in the matter than you. Hence the problem with interventionism: you really only think you know whats best for the rest of the world.
In practice, foreign intervention turns into a choosing an “Us” in an “Us vs Them” battle. By choosing an “Us” you acknowledge “Them” and you make “Them” stronger by defining “Them.” We are setting ourselves up for attack simply by being involved in the fight. “Us” is always the righteous/just side; “Them” is always the violent/oppressive side. These wars are always fought by righteous young boys at the whims of arrogant old men who can make a convincing argument that they are the “Us” side. To think a government can intervene by providing military or economic aid on behalf of the greater good is arrogant at best and self-serving if you check with the skeptics/conspiracy-theorists guide to politics.
The fact is, in reality, there is only “US,” there is no “THEM” and to favor anyone is to not aim for peace, but rather to pick more scabs. Whenever I hear someone invoke the phrase “in today’s world,” I like to remind them that we are so technological enabled and yet so little international policy is handled in an open forum between leaders–rather ideas fester in our minds until we are so completely twisted that we think that people will attack us if we don’t engage them over there wherever there may be. The reality of today’s world, is that defense is a ridiculous impetus for foreign military presence and can only be sustained by a government that has it’s populace convinced of the need for security from “THEM.” We have the ability to communicate with anyone, anywhere and yet we seem so willing to just bomb or invade them instead. We should require our leaders to engage foreign leaders openly and online, lest we get trapped in US versus THEM forever.
Individualism, the central principle of the Libertarian philosophy and instigating philosophy of the American Revolution, requires of the individual a certain respect that other people know what’s best for themselves. Call me idealistic, but I think all of animus parties of the world should get computers, become MySpace friends already and forget about justice/righteousness for a generation.
If you haven’t watched Eisenhower’s final address to the nation, I strongly suggest you do. Do you understand how a monopolized and gigantic military industrial complex can transform the interest of the greater good into an even greater evil, even when all people in the system act of their own righteousness?
Amir says:
Beth, Thanks for dropping the meanness. I had written a better reply to start debating the matter further, but I don’t believe it made it through. ‘pro-war republican’ was a bit of a jab, though i call myself a pro-deather on my own blog just to highlight the irrelevance of rhetoric. My point was this: intervention practically must come down to picking a side which only perpetuates an “Us versus Them” mentality. Arguments that contain “in today’s world” always remind me that we should definitely require our leaders to keep blogs and address foreign leaders in open online forums. It is ludicrous that foreign intervention is a requisite for national defense “in today’s world,” where I can talk to anyone right now and be literally anywhere tomorrow. My stunning naivety can only be countered with the fact that I am almost definitely more personally invested and aware of what’s happening in Israel than you are, and hence the ultimate argument for non-interventionism: you only think you know what’s best for everyone.
The pro-Israel lobby probably does have a lot of control in Washington considering I don’t hold it past my people to want to run the world their own way. Tikun Olam is infused in our brains from a very early age, but that means different things to different people. I would say that any group that uses money to influence politicians are de-facto corruption, and that Tikun Olam is meant to be a much more local form of Mitzvah. There was something in there about military industrialism and Eisenhower’s warning and how easy it is to manipulate people to believe that they are the “us” in the “us versus them.”
I am reacting to your blog because this sort of guilt by association marginalizes the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters who are people like me, trying to preach that peace means universally not intervening with the battle. Without compromise regardless of how right you think you are, intervention is almost always a violent trap.
Something... and Half of Something says:
Why Jew-haters love Ron Paul…
When you want an answer to a question like that… well, you can only get an answer from the 110th Congress: H CON RES 21 BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad……
Adam Holland says:
There’s some material on Ron Paul on my blog, for those interested in the the Silly Party candidate running in the Sensible Party primaries. (Remember the Monty Python sketch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU)
Here are some of my takes on Paul. The first concerns an official of the National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi group in the U.S., using the Paul campaign to recruit new neo-Nazis. http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/neo-nazi-support-for-ron-paul.html
The rest, including Paul’s conspiracy nuttiness and opposition to civil rights laws, can be seen here:
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/search/label/Ron%20Paul
Bottom line: Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even if he doesn’t get votes, he gets attention for, and tends to legitimize, hateful, racist, paranoid ideas. As comical as he may be, he does present a threat. His ideas need to be debunked and countered.
Adam Holland says:
Sorry…that link should be:
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/neo-nazi-support-for-ron-paul.html