Ron Paul's xenophobic "anti-war" ad
It continues to amaze and demoralize us how many so-called "progressives" are gushing over Ron Paul because he talks a good anti-war game. A case in point is Philip Weiss of the popular anti-Zionist blog Mondoweiss. Weiss starts out by acknowledging the loads of ugly racist garbage that Paul printed in his newsletter over the years—usually under his own by-line. But he still writes:
Readers know that I've promoted Paul a lot on this site. And I will continue to do so because of his incredibly pointed and intelligent foreign policy positions; I believe he is the best means of politicizing American militarism in the Middle East so that our people can actually form the right opinion of the neocons and of the rationalization of military occupation. He's an antiwar candidate... But that doesn't mean I'd vote for Paul. I might—but he's got to do a much better job of apologizing for that racism and putting it behind him.
Meanwhile, new revelations of racist ugliness appear on Gawker and Reuters, which reprint portions of a 1993 Ron Paul direct-mail fund appeal in which this "anti-war" hero urged his readers to prepare for a "coming race war in our big cities." There is also fear-mongering about the supposed multi-colored hologram-embedded "totalitarian" new currency which has amazingly still failed to arrive nearly 20 years later, and about the "federal-homosexual coverup on AIDS." The accounts also, of course, contain the requisite quotes from Paul campaign spokesmen saying that Paul "disavows" such content, and that he didn't write it—despite the fact that the letter bore his signature.
Paul boosters invariably point to such weak disavowals, and his empty prattle about individual rights and opposition to the "war on drugs," which is supposed to somehow prove he isn't a racist. If Paul really cared about racism, he would man up and take responsibility for the ugliness that appeared under his name and in the pages of the modestly entitled "Ron Paul Political Report"—repeatedly over a period of several years. He would take full responsibility instead of shilling the blame off to ghost writers, and say, "I was wrong." He would also resign from politics, or at least become aggressively anti-racist to atone for his past indiscretions—instead of clinging to such reactionary positions as opposition to affirmative action and even to the Civil Rights Act!
Weiss, to his credit, is not bought off so cheap, and is holding out for a more forthright repudiation of Paul's past (?) racism. But the fact that Weiss would even consider voting for Paul indicates that he just doesn't get it. Who are you willing to throw overboard to advance a candidate who spouts facile anti-war populism, Weiss? Women? (Ron Paul's website says he supports "repeal" [sic] of Roe v. Wade.) Immigrants? (Ron Paul's website says he wants to abolish birthright citizenship.) The planetary biosphere? (Ron Paul calls climate change a "hoax," and wants to abolish the EPA, privatize public lands to the resource industries, and open up virtually all offshore waters to oil drilling.)
That any "progressive" would consider a vote for this monstrosity of far-right yahooism is indicative of an abject failure to grasp the truly fascistic nature of the increasingly nativist cast of GOP politics. Ironically, this fascistic strain is even evidenced in the Ron Paul campaign ad that got Weiss so enthused. Entitled "If China Attacks America (JUST IMAGINE)," it is skillfully designed to play to both sides—a big dose of xenophobia (and specifically Sinophobia) for the heartland Republicans, and a shrill anti-war message for deluded "progressives" in those once-demonized "big cities." The video (which Weiss hails as "genius"!) starts out like a standard Militia Movement potboiler about a UN-backed foreign (in this case, Chinese) military occupation of the US (specially, Texas)—only to lead to the obvious punch-line of an analogy for the US occupation of Iraq. From the voice-over: "Imagine if the occupiers' attitude was that if they killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop but instead for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed..." (Note the implicit cheering of the Iraqi "insurgents" as legitimate "resistance," ignoring the overwhelming reality of sectarian war in Iraq; the better analogy would be a Chinese occupation of Texas leading to a mutual bloodbath between Baptists and Methodists.)
This is what comes of single-issue thinking—and in Weiss' case, the obsession with the (mistaken) notion that the Iraq adventure was a "war for Israel." Oblivious to the military adventure's roots in the global struggle for control of oil, Weiss and his ilk cheer on a man who would give the oil industry everything it wants in terms of access to public lands and waters at home, and eliminating public oversight. And they don't even grasp their own irony.
See our last post on Ron Paul.
World War 4 Report exercises private property prerogative
The last time we dissed Ron Paul, scores of his supporters came out of the woodwork to annoy us with demoralizingly stupid and reactionary comments. Well guys, this time it's gonna cost you. Since you're all such avid supporters of the free market, we're sure you'll understand that we are asking for money to approve your comments—a bargain price of just $1 per comment! You may use our PayPal button below. Please use the same name on the comment as on your PayPal purchase, so we know which comments to approve. And of course, please read our Posting Policy, because our editorial standards still apply. OK? A buck a shot. Talk doesn't get any cheaper than this! Fire at will.
The ad you refer to is not official
The ad you refer to is not an official Ron Paul campaign ad, despite it's unauthorized use of the Ron Paul logo at the end. Ron Paul's foreign policy is based on the simple notion of what the CIA calls "blowback". This is when US the US military occupies or intervenes in foreign lands that more terrorism against the US is the result. The US has a presence in 130 nations with around 900 bases, (albeit some very small). Ron Paul points out this is in fact a subsidy to the national defense of wealthy countries such as Japan, Germany and South Korea. We cannot afford it. His foreign policy would be a huge boost to the US economy as all of those funds would be returned to US, just as the Great Depression in the US really ended in 1945 when our troops came home and increased consumer spending and confidence. All of the US personnel stationed overseas spend huge amounts that could be spent at home if they we re-stationed on US soil.
He proposes to reduce all foreign expenditures and place one half of the savings into Medicare and the Social Security trust fund. He points out these funds have been depleted by the Government that would be considered criminal if an insurance company managed its funds in a similar fashion.
As to the racism comments in his newsletters Jesse Benton, a spokesman for his campaign has released the following statement:
"Dr. Paul did not write that solicitation. It does not reflect his thoughts and is out of step with the message he has espoused for 40 years... There were multiple ghost writers involved and he does not know who penned the particular offensive sections. Ultimately, because the writing appeared under his name and he should have better policed it, Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight, and disavowed the offensive material."
Yes, we know
Once again, it figures the one person who is willing to pay for the privilege of using our website actually has something reasonably intelligent and respectful to say, rather than just wanting to spew vitriol. Literally scores of hate-spewing skinflints left comments here, many of them quite vulgar and filled with violent imagery (way to go with the "love" there, guys); they were all deleted. The one guy who is willing to shell out a buck actually has some information to offer, and writes respectfully. Thank you.
Yes, we were just made aware that the video was put out by Paul-suckers, not Paul himself. (A point which also seems to have got past Weiss, our source.) The text in the ad does appear to come from a speech Paul made in 2009.
However, we question some of your contentions. Paul has repeatedly said that Medicare is unconstitutional (most recently in the Dec. 14 Washington Post). So I'm skeptical about this peace dividend proposal, and if he ever did make it, he's flip-flopping.
Yes, we read the Benton comment. That's exactly what we mean by a weak disavowal. Paul should speak to the issue himself, not through an underling. And the "out of step with the message he has espoused for 40 years" line is disingenuous bunk, given the repeated racist outbursts in Ron Paul Political Report over the years.
No one who wants [to be president] is to be trusted
i'll pay for my comment Bill, but it's not because i give a crap about the "free market"
i'd like to leave a quote from a graphic novel that interested me a while ago, written by Warren Ellis.
------
"Follow me all the way down to hell, you fucks. come on...
Follow anyone with the right smile, the right coverage, the right image...
Follow anyone who says 'I'll look after you, i'll take the big decisions out of your hands so you can go back to shitting in each others lives and fucking yourselves in complete ignorance...
**The Oval Office carpet is thick with Presidential semen. They look out of the window, think 'I own you all' and jack off like ugly apes in humping season. It's what they live for. No one who wants that is to be trusted. Why can't you all see that?**"
------
to give some context, the comic is ostensibly about a presidential season in the far future where a journalist talks shit about, and helps bring an end to, the presidency of an obvious totalitarian piece of shit whom everyone knows is a crook, only to immediately find that the happy/shiny image president who wants to follow him is even more of a sick fascist prick than his predecessor.
it was a long term story written throughout the early to mid bush jr. years, with kerry being the prick no-one grasps yet.
but the story fits every election cycle i've consciously witnessed, from clinton to bush to obama... and now that people know obama for the politician at heart that he is, they search for the new devil they don't know yet, found in ron paul.
whether the author intended it or not, it is a commentary on contemporary electoral politics, the watered down centrist thought it engenders in the passive voters consciousnesses, and the inherent corruptibility of ANY official, elected or not, especially one in charge of the most powerful and destructive security apparati in the world.
ron paul claims to want to set people "free". but he still wants to "take the big decisions out of your hands". he just wants to submit people even further to puritanical visions of all the "big decisions" (and little ones, too) being handed over to market functions, which is only slavery to the inhuman and unfeeling social construct we call "capital". that is not freedom, it is a form of slavery.
and so i ask, in all honesty...
absolutely no one who wants to be president of any institution, let alone the most powerful state in the contemporary world, is to be trusted... why can't you all see that?
I was more worried about "watered-down centrist thought"...
...before far-right yahoos got mainstreamed. With Newt and Paul and Perry and Bachmann waiting in the wings, watered-down centrism is looking better every day, thanks. You articulate the basic anarchist critique, which we share. But kneejerk they're-all-the-same-ism is as much a trap as kneejerk lesser-evilism. The key words in your (accurate) analysis of Paul are "even further." Yup.
As for the "free market"—yes, it is an abomination that places the "freedom" of a social construct (capital) above the freedom of human beings. We despise it. The pay-to-play policy on posts about Ron Paul is merely a means of calling out the Paulists on their hypocrisy and weeding out the trolls and yahoos.
Thank you for your contribution, and your donation.
you oversimplify
I am a liberal well to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party. I do not like Ron Paul. I strenuously dislike the Objectivism-related strain of libertarianism. I do not like Paul's positions on economics, race, gender, abortion, or the environment.
However, I do like some of Rep. Paul's positions.
I like that he would cease federal prosecution of the war on drugs (even though I do not like how he would leave states free to pursue it).
I like that he would cease using the American military to secure financial or other advantages for our country by invading or threatening sovereign nations (even though I do not like how he would also not intervene in humanitarian crises).
I like that he would not claim the authority to murder American citizens without due process.
I like how the ad you disparage invites people to put themselves in the place of others (ironic considering his economic philosophy) and imagine how it would feel for someone else to invade us, because I think many people who support our wars don't really consider what it would be like to be on the receiving end. You may be right that they used China as a dog-whistle, but I thought it was just because they're the only country that might reasonably try to invade us.
I would not vote for Ron Paul. There is no way that, if nominated for the GOP top spot on the ticket, Ron Paul would beat President Obama. But having him in the race might lead to discussions about issues I think are important, and without him there is no way these issues will be discussed because the President and the other GOP candidates all agree about them, ergo no discussion.
But perhaps you find it more profitable to accuse fellow leftists of misunderstanding fascism...
Yes, you do misunderstand fascism!
The fact that Ron Paul has some "good" positions makes him more dangerous, not less—because the likes of you get taken in.
"Without him there is no way these issues will be discussed"? What if we got out in the streets and followed the candidates around and pressed our issues at every campaign stop?
Silly me, how old-fashioned. So much easier and more contemporary to rally around a fascistic demagogue.
"profitable," very funny
Yeah, on days when we blog about Ron Paul and all you fanatics do your pile-on routine, our hits jump from an average 1,000 to around 3,000, and our earnings from an average one buck to around $3. I know, what cynical scheming capitalists we are! Such filthy lucre!
Come to think of it...
You owe us a dollar for that comment. This is a pay-to-play item. You may use our Paypal button:
Thank you.
"leave states free to pursue it"
When is the gullible left going to understand that "states rights" is the whole charade? Of course they want a smaller Federal government so the big business and racist gangs of thugs can, for instance, roll back - read: eliminate - voting rights and environmental protections. None of the Paul apologists ever have answers for any of this or the wacky economics babble that comes along with his rhetoric.
And ... most of you having been disappointed that Obama wasn't who you thought he was - in Obama's defense in many cases he was entirely ambiguous - why do you think that Ron Paul would keep his white supremacist hands off the mechanism of the Federal police surveillance apparatus once he was in control? Because he says so?
What should be interesting is that his non psycho foreign policy stance hasn't turned off the 15% or whatever of the registered Republicans. I understand that with some of that fringe civil rights is a deal breaker but some may actually be tired of the military industrial complex and imperial wars. The centrist Democrats don't actually stand for anything but reelection but maybe these people can be reached on a local level.
(as for the $1 ... I'll have to run a tab ...)
Reminder: all Ron Paul items are pay-to-play
One Mark Watson has left a lengthy and depressingly stupid comment here, without first paying his way. Nobody rides for free in Ron Paul items on this website, and in light of the continuing abysmal intellectual level of the comments our price has just gone up to $10. Mr. Watson has until midnight tonight to pay up, or his comment will be deleted. For $10, he will have the privilege of his comment being published and facilely demolished by our response. It will then cost him another $10 to respond. Sorry Mark, that's how we roll at World War 4 Report, a wholly owned private enterprise of the World War 4 Report Family of Websites.
Your move.
Comment deleted
Figures you "free marketeers" can never put your money where your mouth is. Always looking for a free ride. Must the be the "gimme mentality" of the welfare state.