PDA

View Full Version : So what's the story on Ron Paul's "racist newsletters"




TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 02:41 PM
Im pretty new to these forums although I've been lurking for a while now. I am an black liberty lover like the rest of you guys. I supported Ron Paul and still do, and am I am big fan of Peter, Lew, Rand, and the Austrian school of economics.

I am a member of other forums, mostly hip hop oriented websites you obviously the membership is majority black. There are a lot of black people who gravitate to the message of liberty and individual empowerment, economic freedom and limited government once it is explained to them. But I also get a lot of people that throw the "Ron Paul is a racist, didn't you see his newsletters" response at me and I don't really know how to comeback at that. I know a lot of people say they have been debunked and he has personally disavowed any knowledge of those writing. I read a few and the writing style doesn't even sound like him, although he is listed as editor and publisher.

My question is, what is the story behind it. I searched through google, but all I find is the usually liberal biased blogs ranting about how "that right wing nut job Paul is a racists" I looking for some truth on the matter because Ron Paul never seemed like the guy who thinks on those lines. I know he was opposed to the Civil Rights Act but I also understand his reasons are not race based.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Basically, he didnt write his own news letters. He had staff write them, and signed off on them.

I believe as far as anyone has been able to figure out, those racist comments were written by Lew Rockwell.

bobbyw24
11-25-2009, 02:44 PM
You will find your answer here:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/

Dionysus
11-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Well, someone else can giver a better rundown on the newsletter saga, but you're certainly welcome on these boards no matter what individual genetic makeup you possess. So welcome! :D

bobbyw24
11-25-2009, 02:48 PM
What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

December 24, 2002

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

torchbearer
11-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Are you kin to TheWhitePeterSchiff?

RM918
11-25-2009, 02:49 PM
It's essentially the ONLY dirt they have on Ron Paul, and it's not even very high quality.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 02:51 PM
You will find your answer here:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/

Thanks, very interesting article. Reason always did smell fishy to me for some reason.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 02:51 PM
Well, someone else can giver a better rundown on the newsletter saga, but you're certainly welcome on these boards no matter what individual genetic makeup you possess. So welcome! :D


Thanx:D

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Are you kin to TheWhitePeterSchiff?


LOL, are u joking?

torchbearer
11-25-2009, 02:54 PM
LOL, are u joking?

only partially.
Though I don't think he calls himself TheWhitePeterSchiff. ;)

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 02:55 PM
^^^hahaha


The would be kind of redundant wouldn't it?

constituent
11-25-2009, 02:58 PM
I am an black liberty lover like the rest of you guys.

phew, I was starting to think that I was the only one!

torchbearer
11-25-2009, 03:01 PM
^^^hahaha


The would be kind of redundant wouldn't it?

Interesting question.
If your skin is dark, would it be redundant to call yourself black?

As an aside- I had the honor of living in Jamaica for 5 months. I was the lone pale skin person on my piece of paradise.
While talking with some of my local friends there- I was pointing out a light brown skin gentleman referring to him as "that black guy over there"
In a very serious way- my friends looked confused. They asked, "you talking about that brown guy over there?"
I lived in a place that saw people for every shade of tan they were. Everyone was just some shade of brown- even me. From very pale brown to midnight black- we were all one people. That was nice.

Elwar
11-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Ron Paul is an individualist. Individualists cannot be racist.

Racism = collectivism.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism.

Dieseler
11-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Is outwardly labeling oneself considered collectivist?

Catatonic
11-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Ron Paul is an individualist. Individualists cannot be racist.

Racism = collectivism.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. If he was a racist then he couldn't be an individualist. Individualism is kind of all or nothing.

You'll also notice that he's never said anything racist or even anything nice about racists. People point out those articles because that was part of a media smear attempt that never really worked very well, mostly because its BS. I'm surprised they didn't point out that he took campaign donations from racists as well.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-25-2009, 03:16 PM
Interesting question.
If your skin is dark, would it be redundant to call yourself black?

As an aside- I had the honor of living in Jamaica for 5 months. I was the lone pale skin person on my piece of paradise.
While talking with some of my local friends there- I was pointing out a light brown skin gentleman referring to him as "that black guy over there"
In a very serious way- my friends looked confused. They asked, "you talking about that brown guy over there?"
I lived in a place that saw people for every shade of tan they were. Everyone was just some shade of brown- even me. From very pale brown to midnight black- we were all one people. That was nice.


Sounds nice. The whole notion of race is pretty much b.s. Genetically race doesn't exist. Sure we all look different due to different climates, but we are all human beings. Hopefully one day we can get over that whole race thing.

lester1/2jr
11-25-2009, 03:17 PM
black peter schiff = in my opinon, the newsletters were written by ron pauls good friend the brilliant economist Murray rothbard. the crew at that point was ron, lew rockwell , and murray. anyone who reads lewrockwell.com regularly can probably detect the styles of those writers and rothbards is the one that fits the best. at that time in america, that was what right wing sort of people were into and ron and co made a ton of money off those newsletters.

I think, if you had a guy like Rothbard writing for you, you wouldn't tell what to write or not write. Lew and Ron are both geniuses but Rothbard was on a higher plane academicly speaking.

Jamsie 567
11-25-2009, 03:19 PM
xx

Dieseler
11-25-2009, 03:20 PM
So far three different theories on the newsletters have emerged in this thread.
Maybe more, I'm not certain.

Elwar
11-25-2009, 03:24 PM
Is outwardly labeling oneself considered collectivist?

Defining yourself not as an individual with individual thoughts and opinions but as part of some group is the essence of collectivism.

If I look at myself and say I'm "white" as though by that definition I am now supposed to follow some charted "white" lifestyle and think about "white" things, then I'm being collectivist. If I look at myself and note...my skin color is white among many other physical features that differentiate me from everyone else in the world, then that's individualist.

tremendoustie
11-25-2009, 03:52 PM
Sounds nice. The whole notion of race is pretty much b.s. Genetically race doesn't exist. Sure we all look different due to different climates, but we are all human beings. Hopefully one day we can get over that whole race thing.

Amen to that, and welcome :)!

torchbearer
11-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Defining yourself not as an individual with individual thoughts and opinions but as part of some group is the essence of collectivism.

If I look at myself and say I'm "white" as though by that definition I am now supposed to follow some charted "white" lifestyle and think about "white" things, then I'm being collectivist. If I look at myself and note...my skin color is white among many other physical features that differentiate me from everyone else in the world, then that's individualist.

ever read about label theory?

haaaylee
11-25-2009, 04:05 PM
didn't lew ghost write "the revolution a manifesto" ? i would assume paul wouldn't make the same mistake twice and therefore it wasn't him.


& wasn't there a rumor it was eric dondero?

lester1/2jr
11-25-2009, 04:18 PM
^I think it was thomas woods. and no eric dondero is not talented enough to have written the newsletters

Epic
11-25-2009, 04:21 PM
guys, it was a concerted effort to reach out to the "racist" paleos.

whoever wrote it probably didn't believe some of it, it was just part of the strategy to form an alliance with the paleos.

so it was just strategery, not written with conviction.

Epic
11-25-2009, 04:23 PM
^I think it was thomas woods. and no eric dondero is not talented enough to have written the newsletters

so he wrote them in college? nope..

Trigonx
11-25-2009, 04:42 PM
Martin Luther King jr is one of Ron Pauls mentors and heros and we even held a fundraiser on Martin Luther King jr bithday in 07 for Paul. The letter was made by a disgruntled staff member who had a falling out with Paul years back.

small correction, it would have been MLK Day in 2008, not 2007.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-25-2009, 04:43 PM
eric dondero is not talented enough to have written the newsletters

lol

BlackTerrel
11-25-2009, 04:44 PM
The truth is with Ron Paul or anyone else you have to look at the body of work. The guy is 74 years old and spoken against racism whenever it came up. His policies are anti-racist and he has called Martin Luther King his hero.

It is admittedly foolish to have someone else write "The Ron Paul Newsletter" and not read over it before you approve. That said he has apologized and everyone makes mistakes.

Even the majority of his worst enemies have conceded that the newsletters do not sound like his beliefs or writing style.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
11-25-2009, 04:45 PM
I didnt follow this story too closely. So far the suspects named in this thread:

Lew Rockwell
Murray Rothbard
Tom Woods
Eric Dumb-dero

Anyone know who it actually was?

Dieseler
11-25-2009, 04:52 PM
I didnt follow this story too closely. So far the suspects named in this thread:

Lew Rockwell
Murray Rothbard
Tom Woods
Eric Dumb-dero

Anyone know who it actually was?

You left out the "collaboration of all of the above wrote them together theory" theory, which would bring the total to five separate theories in one thread.
I think.

jack555
11-25-2009, 05:00 PM
A lot of people are saying that you can not be racist and still be an individualist. I disagree.

For example lets say I hate black people and think they are scum but respect their sovereign rights. I would therefore be racist and still be an individualist.






ps. i dont have a racist bone in my body.

catdd
11-25-2009, 05:10 PM
I've read some people calling him a racist because he voted "no" for MLK national holiday or some such. But the same people ignore the fact that he voted "no" to give Arnold Palmer a Congressional Gold Medal.
He doesn't go along with the crowd and he's not one to pander. He never panders and that pisses people off.

LibertyEagle
11-25-2009, 05:22 PM
Actually, most articles written for newsletters are done by freelancers. The Editor puts out a call for articles on certain topics and the freelance writers submit the articles. It is up to the editor to cull the bad ones.

I also recall that someone was fired when it was realized what had happened.

Anyone that has been following Dr. Paul for very long has to realize that there is no way he could have authored anything promoting racism. He believes everyone is an individual and owns their own rights. That being the case, he is against any form of special or group rights.

jmdrake
11-25-2009, 05:38 PM
The truth is with Ron Paul or anyone else you have to look at the body of work. The guy is 74 years old and spoken against racism whenever it came up. His policies are anti-racist and he has called Martin Luther King his hero.

It is admittedly foolish to have someone else write "The Ron Paul Newsletter" and not read over it before you approve. That said he has apologized and everyone makes mistakes.

Even the majority of his worst enemies have conceded that the newsletters do not sound like his beliefs or writing style.

Good points. The way I countered this was to bring up the positive. For instance during the Tavis Smiley "All America forum" debate Ron Paul repeatedly pointed out how drug laws disproportionately affected African Americans.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/transcript.html
Paul: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.

For instance, Blacks make up 14 percent of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63 percent of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.

We don't have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn't working.

We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition on drugs doesn't work. So we need to come to our senses.

And, absolutely, it's a disease. We don't treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

There's no way a white supremacist would say that.

Also here are some helpful YouTubes of the head of the Austin NAACP coming to Dr. Paul's defense.

YouTube - NAACP Director Comes To Ron Paul's Defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA)

YouTube - NAACP Austin branch pres talks about Ron Paul. info in about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvAuSXq5etA)

BlackTerrel
11-25-2009, 10:27 PM
I've read some people calling him a racist because he voted "no" for MLK national holiday or some such. But the same people ignore the fact that he voted "no" to give Arnold Palmer a Congressional Gold Medal.
He doesn't go along with the crowd and he's not one to pander. He never panders and that pisses people off.

This is absolutely true. As I said - you can't judge these things in a vacuum. You have to look at his whole body of work. It's clear that he didn't write those newsletters.

Andrew-Austin
11-25-2009, 10:57 PM
A lot of people are saying that you can not be racist and still be an individualist. I disagree.

For example lets say I hate black people and think they are scum but respect their sovereign rights. I would therefore be racist and still be an individualist.






ps. i dont have a racist bone in my body.

In that case you would only be an individualist politically speaking, yet still suffer from a sort of collectivist mentality.

You put people in this abstract group based on only one characteristic (skin color), and then proceed to judge all people of that skin color negatively without considering the attributes of specific individuals. You put the group above the individual, nothing could change your perception of any individual black person (who might happen to be intelligent and moral) so long as you hold this mentality.

The individualist realizes this is a fallacious/ignorant way of thinking. You could meet a couple dumb red heads, but it would be silly to come to the conclusion that all red heads are dumb. The abstract group "red heads" tells you no more about an individual other than that they have red hair.

tonesforjonesbones
11-25-2009, 11:00 PM
Those newsletters are going to haunt him forever. SO...the only one who knows who wrote em is Dr. Paul and he ain't tellin. tones

Bman
11-25-2009, 11:20 PM
Those newsletters are going to haunt him forever. SO...the only one who knows who wrote em is Dr. Paul and he ain't tellin. tones

How do you know he knows?

Indy Vidual
11-26-2009, 12:16 AM
It is admittedly foolish to have someone else write "The Ron Paul Newsletter" and not read over it before you approve....

IMO, Ron has not dealt with the ugly newsletter issue in a satisfactory manner.


Ron Paul has a large family and a lot of friends. How is it possible no one pointed out "the bad parts" to him, during a period of several years?


Conclusion: Ron is (usually) an inspiring leader, but maybe he is racist, and his family accepted him that way. Can anyone offer an explanation which fully answers this statement?:


Ron Paul has a large family and a lot of friends. How is it possible no one pointed out "the bad parts" to him, during a period of several years?

BlackTerrel
11-26-2009, 12:40 AM
IMO, Ron has not dealt with the ugly newsletter issue in a satisfactory manner.

He said he didn't write them. I believe him. What would you have him do to deal with this satisfactorily?

Indy Vidual
11-26-2009, 01:13 AM
He said he didn't write them. I believe him. What would you have him do to deal with this satisfactorily?


1) Ron Paul has a large family and a lot of friends. How is it possible no one pointed out "the bad parts" to him, during a period of several years?


Please, either fully explain point #1, conclude Ron actually is racist, or come up with a sensible alternative.

Bman
11-26-2009, 01:37 AM
1) Ron Paul has a large family and a lot of friends. How is it possible no one pointed out "the bad parts" to him, during a period of several years?


Please, either fully explain point #1, conclude Ron actually is racist, or come up with a sensible alternative.

How many articles did these comments occur in? Not many. This wasn't daily behaviour. Things that happen on a small scale can go on for quite sometime before they are detected. It's clear that the objectional material also appeared only between 1989-94. Ron had been publishing since the 70's. Why did it take him over decade to turn to such rhetoric, why did it suddenly cease by 1994? I think if you take a look at history you will notice that this stuff occured when Ron was working I believe as an OBGYN. I don't know if you've ever had a kid, but if you have you know that OBGYN's are busy as hell. Strangly the articles ceased about the same ime Ron would have decided to get back in to polotics. It is quite obvious someone highjacked Pauls newsletters through those years. If Ron Paul is at fault for anything IMO with those letters, it is that he didn't throw the person responsible under the bus.

Indy Vidual
11-26-2009, 01:40 AM
Thank you for trying, Bman...

So for a five year period not a single friend or family member noticed that his newsletters (with Ron's name at the top) said "The ANIMALS are coming from the cities?" :confused:
(or any of the other racist quotes)

Bman
11-26-2009, 01:57 AM
Thank you for trying, Bman...

So for a five year period not a single friend or family member noticed that his newsletters (with Ron's name at the top) said "The ANIMALS are coming from the cities?" :confused:
(or any of the other racist quotes)

Maybe some of his family members did read the stuff. Maybe they didn't. You have a valid question and I'm not sure when or how Ron became aware of the articles. What's quite obvious to me is that Ron is protecting someone because lets face it they may not be able to weather the storm Ron could. Why? Becasue anyone who has listened to Ron speak. You know the stuff that is 100% objective that it comes out of Ron's mouth has never sounded like anything in those newsletters. My question to you is why would Ron have departed from his normal language for those years?

Of course if you can get by that the next part has to be when did Ron know, and a whole other slew of questions. Again, lets face it, the only reason to try and get this information is to find out who actually did it. For good or bad Ron's not opening his lips on this topic as far as I know. Or maybe all this information has been published or explained and neither you or I have found the information. Figuring we both only heard about it 14 years after it happened maybe Ron's just tired of explaining what happened at that point in time. You have to be critical, and one thing I've noticed is anyone who actually knows Ron Paul has ever accused him of being racist.

Epic
11-26-2009, 02:01 AM
guys, it was a STRATEGY to appeal to paleos...

just like Rothbard tried to be friendly with the "New Left" way back win...

it was a marriage borne out of political strategy went awry

anaconda
11-26-2009, 04:15 AM
Basically, he didnt write his own news letters. He had staff write them, and signed off on them.

I believe as far as anyone has been able to figure out, those racist comments were written by Lew Rockwell.

I have wondered why RP didn't locate the people who wrote the articles and add a little more clarity to that situation. Or, why the author(s) didn't come clean so as to clear Ron Paul of the mini scandal. There is something that remains unexplained and I have wondered about it. Somebody is getting protected for some reason and it has always felt a bit fishy. How hard can it be to find out who wrote a particular article for his own newsletter?

RM918
11-26-2009, 05:03 AM
1) Ron Paul has a large family and a lot of friends. How is it possible no one pointed out "the bad parts" to him, during a period of several years?


Please, either fully explain point #1, conclude Ron actually is racist, or come up with a sensible alternative.

It could be he generally didn't pay attention to them enough to notice a few choice phrases? No-one cared about them enough? I don't see these comments as so glaringly bold as to be as obvious as you claim, and don't buy your conclusion, 'Well, he must be racist!' because you somehow find this out of all the possibilities the most plausible even though there's next to no proof to it.

Seanmc30
11-26-2009, 10:29 AM
The 'racist' newsletters seem to be the more petty of the objections I've heard to RP. The one I would really like to understand and defend with more accuracy is his take on the 14th amendment. If I am not mistaken he believes it needs to be repealed. This makes a lot of people really really not like him. I'm sure there is a good reason RP wants it repealed but I don't really understand the argument well enough to defend him.

gilliganscorner
11-26-2009, 10:50 AM
Ron Paul is an individualist. Individualists cannot be racist.

Racism = collectivism.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. We don't protect the individual, we don't protect minorities, we don't protect any of us.

Secondly, I wonder why there was no usage of the newsletters years ago when RP was running for or in Congress. You would think the press/opponents would have used them to try and gain advantage to an electoral race.

Thirdly, Eric Dondero postured/threatened me on my blog waaayyy back. You can read it here (http://gilliganscorner.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/mainstream-medias-governance-policy-with-regard-to-ron-paul/), then my response here (http://gilliganscorner.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/mainstream-medias-governance-policy-with-regard-to-ron-paul-wow/).

jmdrake
11-26-2009, 12:52 PM
The 'racist' newsletters seem to be the more petty of the objections I've heard to RP. The one I would really like to understand and defend with more accuracy is his take on the 14th amendment. If I am not mistaken he believes it needs to be repealed. This makes a lot of people really really not like him. I'm sure there is a good reason RP wants it repealed but I don't really understand the argument well enough to defend him.

I've never heard him support repeal of the 14th amendment in general, only the birthright citizenship part. And actually illegal alien birthright citizenship for years was not assumed. So he basically wants to overturn a supreme court precedence. There are those who wish to see the entire 14th amendment abolished based on a states rights theory.

NightOwl
11-27-2009, 06:39 PM
The 'racist' newsletters seem to be the more petty of the objections I've heard to RP. The one I would really like to understand and defend with more accuracy is his take on the 14th amendment. If I am not mistaken he believes it needs to be repealed. This makes a lot of people really really not like him. I'm sure there is a good reason RP wants it repealed but I don't really understand the argument well enough to defend him.

The argument is that the 14th Amendment has become the crowbar by which the federal government forces its way into every local issue under the sun. You can find legislators at the time warning that the loose language of the Amendment was bound to be used by ambitious politicians for all sorts of purposes no one could even guess at. Even Kirkpatrick Sale, the New Leftist (and obviously no racist) opposes the 14th Amendment because he has enough acumen to see where, in the hands of ruthless politicians, it is bound to lead. It upends the federal structure entirely.

NightOwl
11-27-2009, 06:45 PM
I didnt follow this story too closely. So far the suspects named in this thread:

Lew Rockwell
Murray Rothbard
Tom Woods
Eric Dumb-dero

Anyone know who it actually was?

I don't think it is any of these people, actually. No one on this thread said it was Woods; that person was correcting someone regarding the alleged authorship of the Manifesto, not saying Woods wrote the newsletters. Lew Rockwell absolutely insists he did not write them. I have a suspicion as to who it is. But remember: at the time, the L.A. riots had just occurred, and yes, there was plenty of savagery on display there. Even the Tonight Show did a skit with Robin Williams that today we'd condemn as "racist," etc., but which at the time no one batted an eye at. Our youngsters today are so used to p.c. world that they have no idea what America was like as recently as 1991.

RM918
11-28-2009, 05:22 AM
I don't think it is any of these people, actually. No one on this thread said it was Woods; that person was correcting someone regarding the alleged authorship of the Manifesto, not saying Woods wrote the newsletters. Lew Rockwell absolutely insists he did not write them. I have a suspicion as to who it is. But remember: at the time, the L.A. riots had just occurred, and yes, there was plenty of savagery on display there. Even the Tonight Show did a skit with Robin Williams that today we'd condemn as "racist," etc., but which at the time no one batted an eye at. Our youngsters today are so used to p.c. world that they have no idea what America was like as recently as 1991.

It's pretty obvious charges of racism these days pretty much devolve into salivating witch-trials, despite their supposed moral high ground. I've heard some pretty vociferous hate directed toward whites, not even in the region of those lowbrow potshots thrown off in the newsletters, and no-one questions it. People take themselves and their supposed moral pedestals far too seriously to reasonably discuss race, and until that ends I don't think there'll ever be any progress.