Friday, December 23, 2011

Ron Paul: The "Just Don't Look" Candidate - Part 2

With Ron Paul facing a firestorm of criticism over the overtly racist newsletter he published in his name for decades, it is necessary to understand that it is Paul’s ideas and worldview that are abhorrent, not simply a few racist statements. The paleo-right Ron Paul comes from and that he helped cultivated for decades is as ugly and reprehensible as it once was; its advocates have simply found more acceptable ways to transmit the same old conspiratorial and anti-internationalist nonsense. 

Yesterday, I posted the first part in this series directed at Paul’s domestic policies. I argued that while advocating a libertarian free-market, free of government intrusion and regulation is not racist, it ends up working towards the ends advocated by the powerful, as well as racist organizations. I respect a number of libertarians and often appreciate the libertarian impulse for greater individual control of one’s body, time, and resources. Having said that, I have seen how the old-right has adopted a libertarian exterior to pursue their true goals: maintaining the class and power status quo by undermining policies which redistribute opportunity and access to resources to the poor or downtrodden. It is no surprise that racist organizations routinely trumpet the “less government” and “state’s rights” appeals commonly echoed in the Ron Paul camp; if they can’t control the federal government and its national instruments, they can fall back into communities they dominate and avoid contributing towards the “greater good” they loathe. 

Ron Paul has garnered a great deal of support from self professed liberals and lefties, generally due to his anti-interventionist foreign affairs position. With the United States having achieved little in the way of political success in its most recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), it is easy to see how Paul’s brand of anti-interventionism would be popular with those who may also find his domestic laissez-faire policies reprehensible. I will get into the realities of a Ron Paul foreign policy later, and its lack of historical context. What first needs to be discussed is the role racist and anti-Semitic notions play in formulating Paul’s policy recommendations, and how Paul’s foreign policy is rooted in the same conspiratorial worldview that dictates his domestic program. His ideology cannot be divorced from the policies he advocates, and liberal and leftist supporters should be wary of supporting the man. 

Mr. Destructo has scanned and posted a number of Ron Paul’s newsletters, and for those of us that follow the radical right, there really isn’t anything new here. A distrust and distaste for minorities in the United States, as well as a heightened sense of superiority over colored people living in other nations. The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy has been eluded to by Paul for years, and is a requiring point of contention in his speeches and statements. Just a few years back, while on the Alex Jones radio show, had this to say:

“The new world order people see it as an opportunity to move one step forward.” Paul stated, alluding to an infamous description of the current US led international coalition of powers.
“Bush senior bragged about that, remember he didn’t want to go to Congress, he came and got a token approval in 1990/91 for the Persian Gulf war, but he got his orders from the UN, he didn’t need to go to Congress… That was the first time I heard a president use the words ‘new world order’, anyone who used that had to be a conspiracy nut, but Bush was saying this is what we need to do for the ‘new world order’.” Paul explained.
 In 2003, Ron Paul said we should renounce the UN for the following reason:
“Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.” (Emphasis mine)
 For those unfamiliar with the New World Order, it’s a conspiracy that has its roots in the far right in the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism and modernity among some Christian groups, but became more popular in the 1990s, and worked its way into other political persuasions and movements. The NWO is conceived as an un-elected, totalitarian, and often anti-Christian world government that will subvert all nations and people to its will. Many of the early supporters of the theory believed that the NWO would be controlled by the anti-Christ, and would bring about the end of days. William Guy Carr was a formative conspiracist who infused the religious and anti-Semitic overtones of the existing NWO theories to post-war anti-communism popular in the 40s and 50s. Public Eye detailed the outlook that followed Carr’s work:
“Anticommunism became a broad umbrella under which those with a wide variety of views as to "who is really behind the conspiracy" could find common ground. Was the plot run by Moscow Reds, Wall Street Plutocrats, British Bankers, or the Jews? Issues could have multiple subtexts. For instance there was concern over the erosion of national sovereignty by the United Nations because it was seen as favoring communist-style collectivism. Right-wing conspiracists expressed the conviction that the United Nations would erode nation-state sovereignty, and facilitate intrusive federal intervention on the local level. The concern over federal violations of states' rights was promoted in some cases by libertarians, such as the publishers of the periodical The Freeman, but "states' rights" often provided a veneer that masked underlying segregationist and white supremacist sentiments, even if they were unconscious. 

Anti-Jewish allegations could easily be added to anticommunism. In the mid-1950s William G. Carr promoted the anti-Semitic variant on conspiracism with books such as Pawns in the Game and Red Fog over America. According to Carr, an age-old Jewish Illuminati banking conspiracy used radio-transmitted mind control on behalf of Lucifer to construct a one world government. The secret nexus of the plot was supposedly the international Bilderberger meetings on banking policy. The anti-Semitic Noontide Press distributed Pawns in the Game for many years.”
Whether Paul believes some of the crazier positions Carr argued or not is irrelevant. Paul’s insistence on a NWO controlled through the UN, and meant to undermine American sovereignty and values, is simply a new branding of an old and sinister conspiracy. One can argue that international aid doesn’t help the people it is intended to support (a position I will challenge in the next piece), but one cannot also say that Ron Paul’s self professed ideology does not contribute or dictate his policy positions. Believing that only 5% of “blacks” have “sensible political opinions,” and that “internationalists” are trying to control American foreign policy for their own nefarious ends surely influences who you believe should receive international assistance and aid. If foreign, colored, and non-Christian peoples are not seen as capable of formulating rational thought, and the UN is the vehicle in which the American character is being undermined and destroyed, then you should avoid contributing to them.

Ron Paul may argue that he is merely advocating a “realistic” approach to foreign affairs, but his ideological footing says otherwise.

Part 3 this weekend.


Anonymous said...


I don't wish to get into an argument about whether Ron Paul is a great candidate, or even if the president is an extremely important office for everyone to worship and make a big deal about constantly 24/7/365 (I'm obviously a non-voter), but I DO want to point out that the term, the phrase, "new world order" is NOT just used by conspiracy theorists! It's not just used by fans of Alex Jones or the John Birch Society, Ron Paul, etc. It's honestly been used by quite a few people, and you insinuate in your article that any and all talk about this sort of thing comes only from them or is merely their jargon.

For instance, in the Jason Bermas documentary, "Invisible Empire" (if I'm remember the right one), he has clips of a lot of officials, politicians, people in the media, etc., using the phrase:

Jason Bermas is the guy that did Loose Change which has also been heavily promoted by Alex Jones. Not trying to say that you need to listen to Jason Bermas, Alex Jones or Ron Paul. Just gets on my nerves that people still write about this phrase as something that only comes out of conspiracy theorists' mouths.

Also saying that a candidate has associations with a certain society (John Birch) or "right wing extremists" doesn't make for a good argument. It doesn't really paint a picture in my mind (unless perhaps it's a message meant only for the choir) because I don't know what you're talking about.

It's a "guilt by association" argument, except you don't describe very well (or at all) who the association is, even though guilt by association is usually considered a bad form of argument anyway.

Personally I think people put too much stock in the President and he isn't supposed to be that powerful of a guy. If Obama stays president, it's fine, but he's not supposed to be a super-powerful guy, and neither is Ron Paul, or Bush, or Clinton, whoever. I kind of want *anybody* to be president because I don't understand why people need great leaders to fix everything for them anyway. Maybe I really am that much of a "libertarian" but I don't think about my political positions much or even understand this kind of thinking. (I think I came over here from clicking a Simply Jew link off a link from

I don't know why presidencies are so important to people, but they are! They are looking for a king or a dictator, a great national leader to save everything. Ann Coulter talks about this in her book "Demonic," I think?

A final thing, sorry about the long comment, maybe I'll just email it -- I don't see why racism is held as so important to people. On the one hand I don't like that people are racist, but I don't see it as a problem unless it's violent, if it's actually criminal, but then in that case the important thing is the crime, not the reason for doing the crime.

A problem with everyone being less racist is that everyone will mix together and there will be less race differences. That's if you LIKE the race differences. If you find them beautiful. But then if you say this you get accused of (or assumed to be) some kind of closed racist that's trying to put a nice spin on things, because nobody seems to trust what the other says at face value and they're always looking for hidden meanings in things (liberals do this to conservatives and conservatives do this to liberals).

So for the record (not that the record for me probably matters), I don't care if people think I'm racist -- now or in the future. I don't get why that's such a stigma and so important to people.

Ughh, what a crazy message to leave for people this Christmas Eve. Well the person I'm probably leaving this message to probably isn't Christian and I have no idea what blog this is, and I ain't Christian, either, but...

Anonymous said...

Sorry - I could have just linked to this:

Not sure if that Bermas documentary is the one that had the fascinating montage of clips from people on TV using the phrase or not. May have been Paul Joseph Watson or somebody else's.

- matt

Anonymous said...

We are not electing a priest or a dad or a god; we are electing someone to rein in the big-brother government.
I don't care if he is racist, sexist, gay, or ugly.
Ron Paul is the best one to change this USA to a better and freer place.
If he wins, I might even move back to the USA and feel free again.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit on Matt's part. To try and argue that the NWO conspiracy garbage is some rational political position is downright stupid. Bush may have referenced the term when discussing post cold war, but he didn't mean it in the Paul/Alex jones way.

Anonymous said...

You neoCONs are running scared!