RoR: Forum

Given the title of this thread, I should think the salient issue would be the Ron Paul newsletters. If it were titled "What Ron Paul fans are most comfortable talking about to Objectivist readers," the salient issue might indeed be his Rand-like pronouncements on racism.

Post 21

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 10:44pm

And continuing with Peter's post, what concrete actions does Ron Paul, who attacked racism with Rand-like eloquence, propose?

As Teresa pointed out, changing the constitution so that children of illegal aliens born on American soil would not become automatic citizens, and wants to build a border fence with Mexico. Why? What's this business he's for free trade but not for the very freedom that requires free trade: Freedom of Movement. On that note he sounds more like Pat Buchanan than a defender of liberty to me. Nor is restricting the freedom of movement, particularly with Mexicans but not of course Canadians, a concrete step towards ending racism. I suppose it could if you want to wall yourself off from other races.

Post 22

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 12:03pm

Not according to a recent expose in Reason magazine that outed Ron Paul's ghostwriter to be Lew Rockwell whom he has been on Ron Paul's recent campaign trail and still has regular contact with.

If you've spent any time at H&R at Reason, it should be apparent that Reason staffers treated Ron Paul like some demi-god while swiping away unmercifully at the other candidates (oftentimes justified, but some real cheap shots in there, too). The newsletter quotes, taken out of context to appear more inflammatory than they were, show up in TNR, and suddenly the Reason staffers are beating their chests and piling on -- without going through the quotes in context and showing whether the TNR piece was actual journalism or a hit piece on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary.

If you look at the quotes with the stuff TNR clipped out before or after the quote, a lot of those quotes are clearly being taken out of context and being made to seem to be other than what they were, willfully politically incorrect statements meant to grab attention, with oftentimes a valid point behind them. A couple of commenters at H&R posted the unedited versions of the quotes, if all this matters enough to you to wade through all those many, many threads. That being said, a few of the quotes appear unexcuseably racist to me, even in context. I think the reality is that Ron Paul, despite his soaring anti-racist rhetoric and certain anti-racist policies, has some cultural baggage to deal with that is reflected in his anti-liberty immigration policies. And yes, he is a politician who needed money to get reelected, and appears to have allowed someone to engage in despicable racist pandering to raise money while doing a poor job of preserving plausible deniability.

I'm still supporting the guy, damaged goods and all, because about 85% of what he stands for is pro-freedom, and the rest of the choices are much, much worse overall.

I can see someone who is pro-liberty not voting for Ron Paul. That is understandable and reasonable. But, so is voting for him. It just depends on how much libertarian purity you demand of politicians, and whether or not you think Paul being in the race will convert some people into more freedom-loving views.

Post 23

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 2:07pm

Jim I sanctioned your post. While I don't agree you made the right choice of voting for Ron Paul over other candidates you were at least honest in your rationale.

Post 24

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 9:36am

After making the point that racism, on the whole, was dead 40 years ago -- Jeff asked:

... is Paul's efforts here something we need to give him credit for?

Of course not, Jeff. You know why, I know why, everybody reading this thread knows why. There is no good reason to ask the question in the first place. It doesn't increase understanding, it has absolutely no usefulness for evaluating Paul's merits. It's like saying:

"Sure, automobiles help people get around -- but the transportation problem was already solved with the horse & buggy. Henry Ford shouldn't get any credit."

There's something about a diverted focus to the merits of horses & buggies, when cars are the official subject, that is evil.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/09, 9:39am)

Post 25

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 9:48am

You don't have to argue about Ron Paul being "taken out of context."

Here is a PDF photocopy of a Ron Paul newsletter solicitation. I invite you to read it all. If you're lazy, just read page 6; it's quite enough.

There are only a few either/or alternatives here:

1. Ron Paul wrote this garbage himself and believed every word of it.

2. Somebody else wrote and put out this solicitation under Ron Paul's name, but he read it and approved it because he agrees with its content.

3. Ron Paul wrote it himself, but doesn't believe this nutcase conspiracy theorizing and fearmongering; yet he issued it anyway, cynically and manipulatively, in order to make a lot of money from conspiracy nuts and bigots.

4. Somebody else wrote and put out this solicitation under Ron Paul's name, but -- cynical and solely interested in making money -- he did not even bother to read it.

5. Somebody else wrote and put out this solicitation under Ron Paul's name, but -- cynical and solely interested in making money -- he read it and approved it, regardless of whether he believed any of it.

If (1) or (2), Ron Paul is a conspiracy whack-job and bigot.

If (3), (4), or (5), Ron Paul is a phony, just as shamefully unprincipled as any of the politicians that he accuses of being unprincipled.

Remember: Many newsletters carrying statements of this same sort were issued under his name, over a period of decades. It is absolutely impossible for me to believe that Paul never read them and was completely unaware of their contents. Thus, the preceding five alternatives also apply to these newsletters, also.

Ron Paul is either a nut or a cynical manipulator, or quite possibly both. But regardless -- as our January-February cover feature in The New Individualist argued -- he is a lousy representative for the cause of liberty, and he only discredits our political philosophy in the minds of reasonable people.

And quite aside from these matters of his personal credibility, his Rockwellian, Blame America First/Last/Always view of foreign policy should disqualify him from any national office, let alone the presidency.

Post 26

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 11:09am

I will eventually continue answering the points of people here, but I'd just like to take a breather and to make special note how ...

it is the people who most-staunchly defended Bush's operationally-unlikely ignorance (of the coming 9/11 attacks) -- who are getting the mileage out of the Ron Paul's operationally-unlikely ignorance (of what ghostwriters wrote).

[self-quote]

Though it's true that -- all things being equal -- it's more likely that Paul "knew" than that he didn't; this argument also indicts Bush, and leads to the conclusion (if we're going to "conclude" off of "likelihood" alone) that Bush "knew."

What can make a difference -- beyond what's "routinely" expected of congressmen; or of commanders in chief of the greatest defense agency that the world has ever known -- is to bring in personal data. Most times this is done by acquiring a character witness. It's when you admit to yourself ...

yeah, sure, it's more likely that a guy -- in the position he was in -- knew about something being done that was dastardly, than that he didn't know about something being done that was dastardly; but THIS GUY wouldn't do it

[self-quote]

This kind of a thing has been done with Ron Paul, where folks -- like the top-dog for the NAACP in Austin, Texas -- went on record saying that Ron Paul is being mistakenly smeared (because Ron Paul is not a bigot, not in real life).

I haven't heard a good character witness for GW Bush -- not as good of character witnesses as there are for Ron Paul, at least -- so I'm not concluding anything about what it is that he knew, yet. I just know that Ron Paul's character has been defended by many folks who have dealt with him -- and that that should count for something.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/09, 11:42am)

Post 27

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 12:29pm

Robert, i sanctioned your post because you made some good arguments, and linked to an actual newsletter that contained some really ugly, indefensible statements. Though, you're kind of a killjoy, spoiling a perfectly good argument by injecting facts into the mix. ;)

Re: this statement, though:

"4. Somebody else wrote and put out this solicitation under Ron Paul's name, but -- cynical and solely interested in making money -- he did not even bother to read it."

Umm, got something against capitalism? This is a really ugly newsletter pandering to some of the more twisted folks out there in an attempt to get their money. But, seriously, "just as shamefully unprincipled as any of the politicians that he accuses of being unprincipled"? Moral equivalency applies here? If Ron Paul does one thing I don't like, and the rest of the time does things I heartily approve of, I should regard him as being as equally bad as a politician who is willfully evil virtually all the time? Even if that badness on Ron Paul's part is precisely example #4 you raised -- cashing the checks and for whatever reason (too busy, not curious enough about tasks you've delegated, etc.) not bothering to read the newsletters?

To clarify -- do you really believe that if we take the most favorable possible interpretation -- Ron Paul told somebody, look, I need some money to get back in Congress, go for it, I don't care about the details, I trust you won't do anything too bad, just send me the checks -- he is just as bad as a statist politician who wants to massively expand our federal government, who knowingly sends out hit pieces willfully smearing their opponents with things they know are false, and who deliberately will use any tactic whatsoever that will get votes, no matter how despicable and underhanded?

Politicians tend to be scum, but some are small ponds of scum, others are oceans of it. It's one thing to say you aren't going to vote for someone if they don't meet your personal standards for purity -- that's fine and laudable -- but to not distinguish between the levels of sleaze?

Post 28

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 12:41pm

"4. Somebody else wrote and put out this solicitation under Ron Paul's name, but -- cynical and solely interested in making money -- he did not even bother to read it."

Bob H. wondered:

"Umm, got something against capitalism?"

Not everything that manages to generate a buck falls under the auspice of "Capitalism."
Like fraud, for example.

I thought you were the smart guy around here.

(Got Bob's last name initial wrong. Sorry. Fixed now.)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 2/09, 2:22pm)

Post 29

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 1:43pm

Bob K wondered:

"Umm, got something against capitalism?"

Not everything that manages to generate a buck falls under the auspice of "Capitalism."
Like fraud, for example.

I thought you were the smart guy around here.

That was me, Teresa, not Bob K. Haven't made any claims to be the smart guy here -- in fact, I've repeatedly emphasized I'm a newbie who is unfamiliar with Objectivist principles.

But, how exactly is it "fraud" if the person who wrote the newsletter Robert B. linked to was deranged enough to actually believe all that awful stuff they spouted, and that person was authorized to fundraise for Ron Paul, and then shipped the proceeds of the fundraising off to a busy physician who was not checking up on words he does not believe in that were going out under a newsletter bearing his name, words that would come back to bite him in the okole? Words that were never explicitly said to have been written by that physician, even if some people leaped to that conclusion?

Not saying that is necessarily what happened -- other possibilites were laid out in Robert B's post that also fit the observed facts -- but if that was the actual scenario, where's the fraud?

Not claiming capitalism is always rainbows and hugging puppies cute overload kine deal, but the alternatives are all much worse.

Post 30

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 2:35pm

Like Bidinotto said, how is it possible Paul didn't know what was written? How? Was Paul so severely isolated that this shit couldn't have gotten back to him within days, if not hours of distribution? Not. But he kept the loot anyway. That's fraud.

Next....

Post 31

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 4:32pm

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 6:37pm

Teresa -- so you disagree with Robert B. that option #4 in his post is possible at all? Even if the mailing list was sent out to carefully selected people who actually thought this kind of rubbish was reasonable, and thus didn't contact Paul and ask him WTF he was thinking?

I never said #4 wasn't possible. What I'm saying is that it would be practically impossible to keep that crap a secret from Paul. Impossible because I don't think the distributors of the solicitation were all that careful about their list of names.

1) Zealot retards love to praise their heroes. They'd be writing letters and calling, offering encouragement to the guy, not to ask "WTF??" Surely this would be a huge clue to Paul. Duh.
2) Ron Paul had competition for his seat, and I have very little doubt this dirt was dug up by one of them a very long time ago (I remember hearing about this in the early 90's). You can't keep a secret like that in Washington. Not for 20 years, anyway.
3) Bigots can't keep their mouth shut. I have zero doubt those letters were passed around the dinner table, church, work, bars, etc. It was hardly a secret society thing going on.

There are a thousand different ways Paul could have been informed. Hell, the press sure didn't have any problem.

Post 33

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 7:40pm

Teresa,

I'm not an expert about how racist nutjobs like that behave. I diligently try to avoid the company of such people. Let's say, for the sake of exploring this argument, that somehow you've acquired specialized knowledge about what makes such nutcases tick, that you understand what motivates them and how they're likely to react to such provocative newsletters.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of advancing this discussion, that you're right about this stuff almost certainly getting back to Paul (something I'm not convinced about, but we'll let that slide for the time being), and about him not being ignorant about what was going out under his name shortly after the first such newsletter was mailed. So which of the four other alternatives that Robert outlined in his post do you think is the most likely, and why would that best conform to the available facts? Or do you think he missed an option?

Post 34

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 9:03pm

Allow me to alter and prostitute Teresa's post 32 for personal gain here:

=============
I never said [#4***] wasn't possible. What I'm saying is that it would be practically impossible to keep that crap a secret from [Bush]. Impossible because I don't think the [interceptors] of the [intelligence] were all that careful about their list of names.

1) Zealot retards love to praise their heroes. They'd be writing letters and calling, offering encouragement to the guy, not to ask ["WTC??"] Surely this would be a huge clue to [Bush.] Duh.
2) [George Bush] had competition for [ unilateral invasion of Iraq ], and I have very little doubt this dirt was dug up by one of them a very long time ago (I remember hearing about this in the [late] 90's). You can't keep a secret like that in Washington. Not for [5] years, anyway.
3) Bigots can't keep their mouth shut. I have zero doubt those letters were passed around the dinner table, church, work, bars, etc. It was hardly a secret society thing going on.

There are a thousand different ways [Bush] could have been informed. Hell, the press sure didn't have any problem.
=============
Key:
=============
[#4***]
(1) having someone in US intelligence know of a Pakistan-directed, $100,000 money transfer to M. Atta (the lead hijacker)
(2) getting imminent-threat warnings from at least 12 countries; but choosing to go ahead with a month-long, president's vacation
(3) saying "who would've thought they'd do that?" -- when ...
a) the 1997 FEMA Response Manual pictures the WTC in a sniper target; and ...
b) Operation "Mascal"[?] of Oct. 2000 was a simulation of flying a plane into the Pentagon; and ...
c) there just happened to be 18 "Live-Fly Hijack" War Game drills ("Vigilant Warrior") going on during the real hijacking -- and fighters couldn't tell "real" from "exercise" (so they couldn't effectively scramble for 80 minutes; the time it took for intercept to be too late)
(4) having someone in US Intelligence know that Arabs were learning how to fly commercial jets without landing them
(5) no Arab names on any of the flight manifests
(6) 6 of the 19 hijackers found alive
(7) 12 tons of steel and titanium vaporized; but still some usable biomarker identification of those who died in that Pentagon plane?
(8) 80 camera recordings of the Pentagon tragedy which, to this day, have not been released
(9) no evidence of plane nor person at Shanksville (not even a drop of blood)
(10) 2000 degrees of heat (500 hotter than jet fuel can get) measured at ground zero -- up to 6 weeks after the tragedy
(11) molten steel found -- even in bldg 7, which came down though it wasn't even hit -- up to 5 weeks after the tragedy
(12) no steel building ever brought down by fire (the official explanation), ever before or since (or ever will ever again)
(13) finding thermite and thermate (used for the demolition of steel buildings) at ground zero

Caveat:
All of the above is subject to further investigation -- if any further investigation becomes of value.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/09, 11:10pm)

Post 35

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 10:10pm

You are a very bad man, Ed Thompson.

Jim,

So which of the four other alternatives that Robert outlined in his post do you think is the most likely, and why would that best conform to the available facts? Or do you think he missed an option?

I think he missed a few options, but I never expected him to outline every possible scenario. Those Robert gave make the point well enough.

I'm not an expert about how racist nutjobs like that behave. I diligently try to avoid the company of such people.

I don't have the option or luxury of avoiding them. It's part of my job. All I can do is attempt to thwart the damage they cause. Which is a far cry more than Ron Paul did. He just took the money and ran.

Let's say, for the sake of exploring this argument, that somehow you've acquired specialized knowledge about what makes such nutcases tick, that you understand what motivates them and how they're likely to react to such provocative newsletters.

I'm not claiming any specialized knowledge. You're doing that, Jim, by claiming that after these folks read those letters, they'd just nod, write a check, and be on their way. Yeah, sure. You don't share the things you're interested in with your friends and family? And the way those letters were written, it's clear that they were intending to promote some passionate, even frenzied outcomes. I'm sure they succeeded in more than a few cases.

Post 36

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 11:15pm

"I'm not claiming any specialized knowledge. You're doing that, Jim, by claiming that after these folks read those letters, they'd just nod, write a check, and be on their way. Yeah, sure. You don't share the things you're interested in with your friends and family?"

Dunno, Teresa. I get mail from politicians, it goes right into the trash, unless they make some claims about being extremely pro-liberty -- which has yet to happen. So I don't claim to know how other people handle mail from politicians, because I have a hard time understanding how anyone would want to encourage those buggers.

As for sharing the things I'm interested in with family and friends -- I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that you're one of those people who emotes real well, and chats up a storm with casual acquaintances or even random strangers -- and that you're projecting that behavior on the recipients of those newsletters. Not everyone is like that -- I'm pretty much the opposite. And, for all I know, nutjob racists keep their thoughts to themselves unless they're in the company of like-minded people, because they find it provokes hostile reactions and people telling them to STFU. Perhaps overt racists go around proclaiming their beliefs like you imagine -- I have no idea. I don't know what these folks are like. But I think it is a bit of a conceptual leap to think that these folks are necessarily chatty, outgoing people who readily share their beliefs with nonbelievers. I'm an ex-Mormon, and there's quite a few aspects of the LDS belief system that members simply don't share with outsiders.

Post 37

Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 6:16am

Allow me to alter and prostitute Teresa's post 32 for personal gain here... (Ed Thompson)

Uh, why, Ed? The subject here is Ron Paul.
How did Bush even get in here? (Along with the Monart Pon-inspired "9/11 conspiracy" grocery list?) What's the purpose of that, for this discussion?

And just curious: the "top dog of the NAACP in Austin,Texas" automatically counts as a "good character witness" for Ron Paul? (...or anybody else for that matter.) Really? How is that?

I have no dog in this fight; though it is an interesting one. (Personally I'm not afraid of Ron Paul in the White House because he ain't going to the White House, period. I'm more worried about those who actually have a shot, like Clinton or Obama.)

But carry on, folks.

Post 38

Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 8:40am

I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that you're one of those people who emotes real well, and chats up a storm with casual acquaintances or even random strangers --

Depends on the subject.

and that you're projecting that behavior on the recipients of those newsletters.

No, I'm not. I was married to one of them, and grew up with a father who was an overt racist (a real live Archie Bunker, now reformed, but much too late, unfortunately). They seriously didn't care about my issues with their ideas.

Not everyone is like that -- I'm pretty much the opposite. And, for all I know, nutjob racists keep their thoughts to themselves unless they're in the company of like-minded people, because they find it provokes hostile reactions and people telling them to STFU.

I agree that not everyone is like that, but far too many are. You can go on believing Ron Paul was completely cloistered from what his supporters were doing in his name. I'm not buying it.

Post 39

Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 11:15am