|
|
|
His Early Writings: Is Ron Paul A Racist Wingnut?
Posted by Pile
(15743 views)      [E-Mail link]
|
 |
| Ron Paul writes in an early newsletter, that blacks are "barbarians", "The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills.." |
From the Ron Paul Political Report:
LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM
The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from
thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and
everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who
earn it, and Christian morality.
Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands
beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll
of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars
and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too
enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores
targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold
products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay. Worst of all,
we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal
public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal
anarchy.
In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert,
the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary
Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The
police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous
Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a
jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and
when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were
to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.
Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had
committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians
in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled
the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of
the civil rights of whites or Asians.
The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is
justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a
black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or
so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've
never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman,
the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.
But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the
anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black
leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory
to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all
that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They
demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks
understanding it.
The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large
sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage
together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has
transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare
programs in the last 30 years. And if we adjust that figure for 1992
dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied
economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the
rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little streetcrime. Are
black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were
treated far worse in California than blacks. They were even put in
concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D.
Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans,
hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive
people in America (the reason for black hatred).
The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The
cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend
themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean
storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm
within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles
riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington
politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to
tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by
handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said
the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enf orcement. America's
number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass
blacks.
Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will
escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los
Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies,
burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.
The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.
The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King,
a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night
of March 3, 1991. He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for
almost eight miles. They raced on the highway until King turned off to
drive through traffic lights and stop signs on residential streets
(families could have been killed). The L.A. police department came to
assist in the high-speed chase with lights and sirens on. One of King's
passenger s asked him to pull over. King initially refused, driving
faster, but he finally complied. When the cops approached the car,
suspecting armed criminals, the two black passengers immediately stepped
out of the car and fell flat on their stomachs with arms stretched out, as
instructed. They were handcuffed. King could have done the same. But he
chose a different route. He refused to get out of the car. He stalled for
a minute, and several times, stepped out of the car and then back into it.
The police wo ndered if he was searching the car for a gun. Once King
stopped this game, he was told by cops with guns pointing at him to put his
belly down on the ground with arms outstretched. Instead, King began to do
a crazy dance and laugh freakishly. He taunted the police and even the
helicopter buzzing above him. This is why the police thought he was on PCP.
Despite police orders, King continued to dance, grabbing his buttocks
to make lewd gestures at a female cop. Sgt. Koon approached him and warned
that he would be stung with a Taser gun. King got down on his hands and
knees, but refused to lay flat. He was again warned, but King refused.
Officer Powell put his knee on King's back to get him down on the ground so
he could be handcuffed. King went down to the ground, but bounced back up,
shaking off all the police who were trying to get hold of him. Fina lly,
Koon stung him with the gun, delivering 50,000 volts of electricity, and
King fell to the ground again. But again he bounced up, prompting Koon to
deliver another 50,000 volts. King fell again, this time into the proper
position. Not a single baton blow had been delivered and the cops thought
everything was over.
At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer
Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250
pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action
again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged
Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started
using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away
the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again.
Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought
out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck
to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.
In all, he was hit 56 times, and even in the end he refused to comply.
He had to be cuffed in an odd position that risked the lives of the cops.
The hospital reported that King had suffered an injury on the face from
when he fell to the ground and minor injuries to his leg. He was never hit
on the spine or the head, which would have violated regulations. And he was
not beaten nearly to death, as some have claimed. The jury concluded that
at every point of that night's action, King was in control. He could have
complied at any time and stopped the beating. Whether we agree or disagree
with the juries verdict--that the cops did not use exxcessive force--it is
instructive to know what they saw and what the media still refuses to tell
us or show us. None of the major networks showed the video scene when King
rushed Officer Powell after the first Taser jolt. Only CNN showed it, one
time. And no major paper even mentioned it. Neither did any major paper or
network tell of the two passengers who complied and were peacefully
arrested. Why? We were shown the section of tape where the cops hit King
as a metaphor for white racism. Shown it again and again, we were supposed
to feel guilty.
Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a
transvestite prostitute, and when caught, tried to run over the cops who
intervened. He was not arrested. This was not reported outside of L.A. He
was also not jailed for violating his parole (for armed robbery) or for
drunk and reckless driving or for violently resisting arrest. The verdict
was handed down at 3:15pm on April 29. For weeks we had heard threats that
the blacks would riot if the officers were not convicted. Taking that into
account, did the media or politicians defer to the jury (as they do when a
liberal-approved criminal is released)? Not at all. At 5:10 pm, liberal
black L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley said he was shocked and outraged at the
verdict. He denounced the jurors for approving "the senseless and brutal
beating of a helpless man." As an afterthought, he asked the ci ty to
"remain calm." With those words, he might as well have thrown a match into
a pool of gasoline. It was permission for the blacks to "express their
rage."
Ten minutes later, the police got their first report of trouble.
Blacks were throwing beer cans at passing cars. When the police showed up,
the crowds had gotten much bigger. Cops tried to control them, but realized
they were outnumbered. Realizing that they could not use their guns or even
look cross-eyed at a black, a video recorded a policeman saying: "It's not
worth it. Let's go." Indeed it wasn't worth it. The cops could only have
put themselves on trial and had their lives ruined too.
Ironically, they were being filmed and are now denounced. But it was
the Establishment's reaction to the Rodney King verdict that set the
precedent that black criminals always have the benefit of the doubt over
white police. At 5:45, the field commander in the area where the riots
began ordered that no police go into the area. "I want everybody out of
here. Get out. Now." He wanted to protect his police force, which could
take no action without media criticism and legal action, from rioters who
vastly outnumbered them and were sometimes better armed. The blacks
started to attack cars driven by whites and light-skinned Hispanics with
crowbars, rocks, bottles, and even a metal traffic sign. At the last
minute, some police officers rescued a woman abandoned in her car and were
pelted by rocks as they left.
At 6:45, a white man was dragged from a delivery truck and thrown to
the ground and beaten, as black assailants yelled, "That's how Rodney King
felt, white boy!" Another white truck driver, Reginald O. Denny, pulled
into the area and five blacks beat him nearly to death. One threw a fire
extinguisher at his head as he lay unconscious, breaking nearly every bone
in his face. A white boy was pulled from his motorcycle and shot in the
head. All this happened less than an hour and a half after the mayor had
denounced the verdict. Rather than call for even minimal standards of
justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excusemaking mode, justifying
black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12
years of neglect," etc., but never evil. The fires burned out of control as
firemen were attacked by the rioters as well, in one case with an axe.
All banks within the vicinity of rioting, meaning nearly all of
central L.A., were immediately shut down. People who wanted to cash checks
or make deposits were shocked to find them closed. They were also stunned
to find city transit not running. Taxicabs were nowhere in sight. White
people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the
minefield of black gangs out for their blood.
Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops,
California has a 14-day waiting period. And then, just to make sure honest
Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned
(poor ragefilled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun
and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up
earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.
Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom
defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of
firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one
left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real
Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our
liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back
and think of England. White reporters and photographers who entered the
riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for
the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes
accumulated.
In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine
Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified
because blacks "can't get no justice." The newsmen of the major networks
interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city
youth."
Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to
Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the
Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the
inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood,
Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned.
The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long
Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched);
Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las
Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and
Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white
man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up
from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as
the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT
teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of
blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas. I'm sure that
there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we
haven't heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn't want us to
know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth.
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor"
lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no
deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks
had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the
welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the
violence subsided.
Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were
rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not
be prosecuted.
Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops
off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an
Asian). But it was the leading "civil rights" organization that is at fault
for this.
What did Bush say about the riots? First he promised to have the Justice
Department see if it could retry the cops for violating Rodney King's
"civil rights." But what about the constitutional prohibition of double
jeopardy? No one cares. Then Bush promised an immediate payoff of $600
million to L.A. gangsters. When the liberals called this a "token", he
raised the amount to $1.2 billion. He has vacillated between pretending to
be a tough guy and condemning the rioters, and taking up the Jack Kemp line
that inner-city "despair" can be fixed through more federal programs. But
this is capitulation to terrorist demands. The advice some libertarians
give---"don't vote, it only encourages them" applies here. We must not
kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.
At a Washington, D.C., rally two weeks after the L.A. attempt at
revolution, many poured out to lobby for more money to be given to the
cities. The most commonly held sign was: "Justice for Rodney King. Free all
the L.A. prisoners." Now, consider for a moment what this slogan implies.
Were they upset by the murders, the burned buildings, and the $1 billion in
property damage? Not at all, except to use it as an excuse to get more
cash. They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves
set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class
blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly
different from the Crips and the Bloods. But the Crips and the Bloods, it
turns out, have been "misunderstood," according to Ted Koppel who
interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them,
he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn't pull him out of his
stretch limousine.
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
Michael Lubin writes, "In 1996, when Paul was again running for congress, the Houston Chronicle exposed this piece. According to the Chronicle, Paul responded that “he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ‘current events and statistical reports of the time.’” Furthermore, the Chronicle reported, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.”
In other words, he copped to writing the piece, then tried to defend it as non-racist, hoping few people would bother to look at the nitty-gritty of its contents, which aren’t exactly reminiscent of Jesse Jackson.
Beyond basic skepticism, Paul’s later 2001 denial is inherently implausible. He published the piece in his own newsletter in 1992, said nothing about it until confronted with it during a campaign, admitted at that time to having written it–while arguing that there was nothing wrong with it–and then…five years later, he said he didn’t write it. Furthermore, Paul to this day refuses to provide the media with copies of his old and now-unobtainable newsletter so that the rest of us could have a look at what all he had to say." |
|
|
|
Refuted
Posted by Peter on 2007-11-23 13:56:39 | | This has already been refuted. Even the New York Times has stated that Ron Paul did not write the article, but a ghost writer. |
| Posted by Pile on 2007-11-23 15:00:08 | It was in Ron Paul's newsletter. Even if he didn't write it himself, it obviously reflected his sentiment or else he wouldn't have put his name on it.
However, it's hotly contested, the claim that Ron Paul denies writing it. As mentioned, Paul copped to writing it in 1996, and then changed his tune in 2001. |
| Posted by Mike on 2007-11-24 06:08:58 | Someone else wrote the article. Unlike other politicians, Ron Paul took the blame for it. It was only years later, that he admitted that he didn't write it:
“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” |
| Posted by Mike on 2007-11-24 06:10:41 | | “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.” |
| Posted by TCO on 2007-12-16 22:32:22 | | He's not a racist or a wingnut. He's tellilng the truth. we have balkanized this country |
| Posted by Torquewrench on 2007-12-21 10:03:13 | While it has been proven that Dr. Paul did not write it, something more important should be considered:
What part of the writing is provably false?
America is not perfect, as the document indicates. Political leaders are required to deal with such problems, not just those that are politically correct and ethnicly de-coupled.
It appears that the writer has the gumption to deal with a very nasty problem. |
What is false?
Posted by Robert on 2007-12-29 16:06:53 | | I agree and challenge anyone here to demonstrate what in the article is provably false. |
|
Bumper Sticker Store