Ron Paul... the fascist's best friend.
Dec. 26th, 2011 08:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinYes, I typed that.
To begin my explanation, begin with this excellent essay, particularly the following two paragraphs:
(my emphasis added)
Now, this is the key point that always made me uncomfortable with the libertarian dogma, even when (as a representative of the party) I made it my duty to repeat the same talking points in "educating the voters." I knew that, contrary to Libertarian myth, the rich and powerful routinely violated the rights of the poor until government took power to protect those rights. When I brought up this point to Libertarians, I was reminded of the many times government violated rights, and thus that government could never, ever be trusted to protect anyone's rights. Once government wasabolished brought within its proper bounds, all violations of liberty would magically cease- this was, and remains, the belief.
It is a belief without merit. Even Thomas Jefferson, the quote-worthy of all too many Libertarians (who ignore his conduct as President), knew this and said it point-blank in the Declaration of Independence:
There you have it, from America's greatest disciple of natural rights; rights cannot be secured except by government.
What does this have to do with anything, you ask? For that let us turn back to history to the Citizens Councils of America... better known, to those who study recent history or who are old enough to remember, as the White Citizens Councils.
The White Citizens Councils were the friendlier, law-abiding face of the Ku Klux Klan. Rather than (openly) call for violence and lynchings against "uppity" blacks and any whites who upset the Jim Crow system, they used their wealth as a weapon. Blacks were fired from employment and denied new jobs. Mortgages were called in early. Leases were revoked. Credit was shut off. The White Citizens Councils didn't have to lynch anyone; they could simply make it impossible for a person to live. And they did.
Libertarians- especially the ones I worked with, here in Texas- deny that such things are even possible. They have deliberately chosen not to know, to ignore their own heritage and history.
The White Citizens Councils dissolved and reorganized in the 1980s under a new name: the Council of Conservative Citizens. And the new organization, while no longer openly segregationist, still calls for the defense of "white civil rights", opposes all non-European immigration, and works for the repeal of all federal anti-discrimination laws and court rulings.
And they routinely reprint the writings and speeches of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. In fact, one affiliated radio show, The Political Cesspool, which broadcasts Holocaust denials and other white supremacist garbage, had Ron Paul on as a guest.
In 2006.
But let's backtrack a bit.
Beginning in 1987, as he was gearing up to run for President on the Libertarian ticket after about a decade in the House of Representatives as a Republican, Ron Paul began publishing a variety of newsletters- on politics, on investment, on culture. No bylines were given for most of the material in the newsletters, but it's currently presumed that most of the material was written by Lew Rockwell, who also wrote a great deal of material for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and other far-right groups... much of it racist.
As was quite a lot of what went into those newsletters, as came out in 2007-8 and is coming out again now that Ron Paul threatens to win the Iowa caucuses.
Ron Paul insists today that (a) he had no idea what was in the newsletters, (b) the newsletters do not represent what he believed then or now, and (c) he can't remember who the author was.
This is not what he said fifteen years ago, however.
Out of context. The favorite you-caught-me excuse of conservatives for decades now.
Those newsletters and their content were, in no small part, a deliberate outreach to the racist right by libertarians. In the case of Ron Paul, it succeeded- see the 2006 white-supremacist radio show appearance mentioned above. In 2007 Ron Paul actively courted the white-power vote, most notably Stormfront founder Don Black, and then claimed to disavow their goals while cashing their checks. Nothing has changed on this front.
Nothing to do with endorsing what they say, hm?
Ron Paul believes all anti-discrimination legislation is unconstitutional. He denies that coercion by economic means can ever happen- ignoring or covering up the example of the White Citizens Councils, which he must have encountered as a younger man in Victoria, Texas. He has called for the repeal of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws- that is, he wants it to be illegal again for people to be gay. He stands alongside white supremacists like Rockwell and Black, Christian "reconstuctionist" theocrats like former aide Gary North, and the most hateful and discriminatory among fundamentalist Christian leaders.
And he just signed the Personhood Pledge, basically stating not only that life begins at conception but that most forms of birth control should be illegal and that the mother should be forced to jeopardize her own life and health to bring a fetus, even a non-viable fetus, to full term.
When Ron Paul talks about freedom, it's only the freedom to persecute those who are different from him, without restraint from the federal government. In his ideal world the federal government is powerless to protect your rights... but state and local governments, in cooperation with the wealthy white pillars of the community, have all the power necessary to take those rights away, or make you sign them away as a condition of business.
And a system where the minority have no rights and where government is run by the wealthy for the benefit of a few? All you need is some flag-waving and you have fascism.
Ron Paul for Fuhrer.
To begin my explanation, begin with this excellent essay, particularly the following two paragraphs:
The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government (the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.
In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want (or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city. In a libertarian world, a corporate boss can use the threat of unemployment to force you into accepting unsafe working conditions. In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion.
(my emphasis added)
Now, this is the key point that always made me uncomfortable with the libertarian dogma, even when (as a representative of the party) I made it my duty to repeat the same talking points in "educating the voters." I knew that, contrary to Libertarian myth, the rich and powerful routinely violated the rights of the poor until government took power to protect those rights. When I brought up this point to Libertarians, I was reminded of the many times government violated rights, and thus that government could never, ever be trusted to protect anyone's rights. Once government was
It is a belief without merit. Even Thomas Jefferson, the quote-worthy of all too many Libertarians (who ignore his conduct as President), knew this and said it point-blank in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
There you have it, from America's greatest disciple of natural rights; rights cannot be secured except by government.
What does this have to do with anything, you ask? For that let us turn back to history to the Citizens Councils of America... better known, to those who study recent history or who are old enough to remember, as the White Citizens Councils.
The White Citizens Councils were the friendlier, law-abiding face of the Ku Klux Klan. Rather than (openly) call for violence and lynchings against "uppity" blacks and any whites who upset the Jim Crow system, they used their wealth as a weapon. Blacks were fired from employment and denied new jobs. Mortgages were called in early. Leases were revoked. Credit was shut off. The White Citizens Councils didn't have to lynch anyone; they could simply make it impossible for a person to live. And they did.
Libertarians- especially the ones I worked with, here in Texas- deny that such things are even possible. They have deliberately chosen not to know, to ignore their own heritage and history.
The White Citizens Councils dissolved and reorganized in the 1980s under a new name: the Council of Conservative Citizens. And the new organization, while no longer openly segregationist, still calls for the defense of "white civil rights", opposes all non-European immigration, and works for the repeal of all federal anti-discrimination laws and court rulings.
And they routinely reprint the writings and speeches of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. In fact, one affiliated radio show, The Political Cesspool, which broadcasts Holocaust denials and other white supremacist garbage, had Ron Paul on as a guest.
In 2006.
But let's backtrack a bit.
Beginning in 1987, as he was gearing up to run for President on the Libertarian ticket after about a decade in the House of Representatives as a Republican, Ron Paul began publishing a variety of newsletters- on politics, on investment, on culture. No bylines were given for most of the material in the newsletters, but it's currently presumed that most of the material was written by Lew Rockwell, who also wrote a great deal of material for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and other far-right groups... much of it racist.
As was quite a lot of what went into those newsletters, as came out in 2007-8 and is coming out again now that Ron Paul threatens to win the Iowa caucuses.
Ron Paul insists today that (a) he had no idea what was in the newsletters, (b) the newsletters do not represent what he believed then or now, and (c) he can't remember who the author was.
This is not what he said fifteen years ago, however.
But since Paul spoke to CNN, a number of old videos have surfaced showing him touting the newsletters that were being put out under his name. Paul's defenders have noted that even in those video clips, he does not claim authorship, which is true. Back when the issue first arose, however, he was willing to acknowledge that the words were his -- the only complaints he made were about context.
Out of context. The favorite you-caught-me excuse of conservatives for decades now.
Those newsletters and their content were, in no small part, a deliberate outreach to the racist right by libertarians. In the case of Ron Paul, it succeeded- see the 2006 white-supremacist radio show appearance mentioned above. In 2007 Ron Paul actively courted the white-power vote, most notably Stormfront founder Don Black, and then claimed to disavow their goals while cashing their checks. Nothing has changed on this front.
The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.
But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
Nothing to do with endorsing what they say, hm?
Ron Paul believes all anti-discrimination legislation is unconstitutional. He denies that coercion by economic means can ever happen- ignoring or covering up the example of the White Citizens Councils, which he must have encountered as a younger man in Victoria, Texas. He has called for the repeal of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws- that is, he wants it to be illegal again for people to be gay. He stands alongside white supremacists like Rockwell and Black, Christian "reconstuctionist" theocrats like former aide Gary North, and the most hateful and discriminatory among fundamentalist Christian leaders.
And he just signed the Personhood Pledge, basically stating not only that life begins at conception but that most forms of birth control should be illegal and that the mother should be forced to jeopardize her own life and health to bring a fetus, even a non-viable fetus, to full term.
When Ron Paul talks about freedom, it's only the freedom to persecute those who are different from him, without restraint from the federal government. In his ideal world the federal government is powerless to protect your rights... but state and local governments, in cooperation with the wealthy white pillars of the community, have all the power necessary to take those rights away, or make you sign them away as a condition of business.
And a system where the minority have no rights and where government is run by the wealthy for the benefit of a few? All you need is some flag-waving and you have fascism.
Ron Paul for Fuhrer.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 06:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 03:23 pm (UTC)Such people think that, by outlawing government, they outlaw any group effort which might cause them harm- ignoring the fact that, in a Libertarian system, the Kochs (for example) could fund out of their own pockets a mercenary army including an armored brigade and maybe a couple air squadrons and essentially crush any and all armed resistance. And the prospective billionaire conquerors would have plenty of willing foot soldiers, because there are a LOT of people with no moral qualms with breaking heads if it means a nice fat paycheck every other week, with looting for bonus pay.
Ron Paul is even more odious because he plays footsie with the kind of people who, given half a chance, would break heads for free to advance a racial or religious agenda.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 05:13 pm (UTC)When I read the article about Libertarians, the first thing that popped into my head was Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan". He argues that unless there is some kind of authority to keep people in line, then life would be "nasty, brutish, and short"--kinda like some voicemails I get!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 05:26 pm (UTC)Even Somalia has government- government by the gun and the bomb. The strong make the rules, the weak die. Libertarians hate it when people bring up the subject of Somalia. They insist that it couldn't possibly happen to them, because they'd be the ones holding the guns. Now doesn't THAT make you feel better?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 02:04 pm (UTC)When Ron Paul talks about freedom, it's only the freedom to persecute those who are different from him, without restraint from the federal government. In his ideal world the federal government is powerless to protect your rights... but state and local governments, in cooperation with the wealthy white pillars of the community, have all the power necessary to take those rights away, or make you sign them away as a condition of business.
Not exactly true, considering that he's been consistently anti-war and opposed to the war on drugs.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 03:33 pm (UTC)There is a much much MUCH more recent example of Ron Paul's paranoia about government power here.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 03:48 pm (UTC)In any case, the police are a serious problem-- I recommend reading The Agitator for a while. If you've got a different source for tracking police and justice system outrages, let me know.
I'm not going to fault Paul for fearing them.
Unfortunately, there are no national candidates who are running on a plank of cleaning up the justice system. Actually, Obama said and did a few things in that direction when he was a senator, but he seems to have lost interest, and I'm not expecting any gestures in that direction in 2012.