Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign?

[MaGZ]

The verbal gymnastics of the Paul supporters to excuse and/or justify Paul's trying to have it both ways on racist support is quite amusing.
I was not a big fan of Perot back in 1992,and though he was a borderline kook,but at least Perot had enough sense to announce early on that he did not want the support of racist/White Supremists organizations.
This whole mess is another reason why Paul will amount to nothing when all is said and done,the guy does not know how to run a campaign.

When Pat Buchanan ran on the Reform Party, White Nationalists infiltrated his campaign and ran some operations on the local level. Buchanan panicked and picked a Black VP Ezola Foster as his running mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezola_B._Foster

 

[MaGZ]

I expect RP or the people around him to know not to let rabid dogs that close to the candidate.

The old cooot is not fit to govern. no attention to details that might get him killed. Supposed these two terrorist slimeballs had been Muslims with an interest in offing him, instead of white nationalists with the intent to use him to advance their RaHoWa.

And now that the idiot knows who they were, why has he not denounced them and their ill-gotten money?

Maybe because they are not rabid dogs or terrorist slimeballs.

 

[volatile]

Am I an racist when I say that blacks have a lousy culture, they should never have been brought to America and that the africa should have been left alone giving them time to evolve??

Yes, you're a racist.

 

[MaGZ]

The Ron Paul Report quotes Ron Paul as saying "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal". That sounds quite racist to me; doesn't it to you? Read the whole article, too - it even quotes the Journal of Historical Review and encourages people to sign up for subscriptions!

Here's a question for you - if someone, particularly a politician running a Presidential campaign, is racist in private and against racism in public, which of those two positions would more likely represent his real views?

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he isn't racist, the just conclusion is thus that he's stupid. If organisations whose only reason for existing is to seek a racially segregated society praise you, might that not concern you somewhat? If organisations like the John Birch Society, who believe that The Civil Rights Movement was a conspiracy against white America, invited you for dinner, might you not decline? If someone like the leader of the Patriot Network invites you to support their cause (have you read their website? They think the Federal government is The AntiChrist fercrissakes!), might you not decline?

Ron Paul is either racist, stupid, or both.

Or perhaps he is a smart politician and will take support where he can fine it. If Stormfront did not have the numbers it does then perhaps Ron Paul would refuse Don Black’s $500.

It is not the $500 that Ron Paul wants, after all he has raised millions on the Internet. Returning the $500 would be an affront to White activists. Paul does not want to offend.

 

[volatile]

Or perhaps he is a smart politician and will take support where he can fine it. If Stormfront did not have the numbers it does then perhaps Ron Paul would refuse Don Black’s $500.

It is not the $500 that Ron Paul wants, after all he has raised millions on the Internet. Returning the $500 would be an affront to White activists. Paul does not want to offend.

This merits a laughing dog, frankly! Can you imagine! How impolite it would seem to offend a bunch of racist, hateful morons! Egads, man.

 

[Richard Masters]

And there are many reasons why someone wouldn't. Me, I like to look at the full picture before throwing my support wholeheartedly towards someone - do you think it's OK to support a racist candidate, for example, because you like their stance on foreign policy?

I don't think I've met anyone who didn't have some sort of prejudice against others. For example, Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly won't shut up about immigration, drugs, and the "dangers of Mexicans and illegal aliens".

Is Lou Dobbs racist? Probably. Nevertheless, the degree of racism may not reach a threshold that would alone dissuade me from voting for him. If he decided to do immoral things based on his prejudice, then I would rule out Lou Dobbs. Same with Bill O'Reilly, except, I suspect I'd ruled out Bill O'Reilly the first time I saw him on TV.

I watched several interviews of Ron Paul, some from before the time he considered the presidency. I've never heard him say anything racist. In fact, he claims we are inappropriately using illegal immigration as a scapegoat for our economic troubles. (You'd think he would blame Mexicans like everyone else).

In a book he wrote in 1987 he speaks ill of racism along with other behaviors he considers repugnant or harmful to society. Racism in the United States has only received due attention in the last 40-50 years. In context, it would not surprise me if older people (anybody currently over 40 years of age) were raised in environments where such ignorant attitudes or behavior were considered acceptable.

Just look at the portrayal of people in movies released in the 70s and 80s.

If conclusive evidence showed that Ron Paul held racist attitudes then, but changed, this would be acceptable to me (if not commendable) given Ron Paul's emphasis on civil liberties and his current view of the world.

There is no conclusive evidence. I do think the Ron Paul campaign should do more to dispel the allegations or claim responsibility (depending on the veracity of the allegations).

An ignorant attitude is not a crime. Otherwise most people would be in jail at some time or another. I think someone with a potentially questionable attitude on race might be better for the world than someone who intends to start wars of aggression. I also think that someone who is racist would have trouble being diplomatic with Cuba or Venezuela.

http://www.ron-paul.for-president.us/ron-paul-a-diamond-in-the-rough.html
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/12/10/ron-paul-at-the-spanish-debate/

At the same time, while Ron Paul might (allegedly) have a racist attitude, he is not promoting racist legislation. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Obama are, despite their likely good intentions.

Does the alleged taint bother me? Sure, but I don't subscribe to racist ideology. I oppose it, and that's why I like so many of Ron Paul's views and policies, such treating people as individuals, friendship with our "enemies" (Iran, Venezuela, Cuba). He also opposes laws on victimless crimes that statistically affect "minorities" and believes we should treat drug users as individuals who may need help, not criminals to be punished.

 

[Richard Masters]

That he actively courts them, doesn't denounce them, and allows such vermin to associate with him in any way gives the white nationalists a slight patina of social acceptability far beyond what the mutts deserve. This is a diservice to the country.

RP's association with Stormfront should be held as much against him as Rudy's association with Bernie Kerick is held against him.

Maybe Hillary's association with the defense industry should bother you more.

What's more harmful? Dead people in Iraq or some old guy with an allegedly outdated attitude toward race?

I'll take my chances with the allegedly outdated attitude.

 

[Checkmite]

Actually I guess you missed just by a few clicks the most important link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Freemasonry

I've already done my piece of research that basicaly explains the possibilites behind the fact that my ex's mom was initiated. As starting data I only had pieces of the conversation in my head. I clearly remembered things being said about an "initiating ritual".

The type/form of her masonic membership is not important or interesting at all. What is the biggest issue here is that why did she say that "they" gave her the oppurtunity for the job.

I didn't go futher than this because I really don't want to become any kind of a knowledgeable man on freemasonry. Especially after meeting once a woman that was a "sister" in a local freemasonic lodge. She was into black-magic. So some of the "freemasonnetes" are really funny.

No, sir, I'm afraid not. Masonic lodges which admit women are considered irregular and are simply not recognized by Masonry at large. Such lodges as do admit women are so few and far between that the notion they could comprise some sort of secret "support network" of any substantial size is just silly. And although regular Freemasonry admits followers of all monotheistic religions, its members are predominantly (to an EXTREME degree) Protestant. So the likelihood that your "local" lodge not only admits women, but admits women who are "into black-magic" of all things, strains every last desperate ounce of credulity.

Now, maybe this woman you met belonged to some wannabe pseudo-Masonic fluff like the OTO, but again, it's most certainly not Masonry.

 

[Patejdl]

Checkmite : You're a lost cause. You apparently do not read or understand what I wrote back there. It is great to debate with people who are able to understand the facts but come to different conclusion because of their different level of empathy and beleif in some probabilities. This is the last time I repeat myself 4 for you. My point was - If people from even the lowest and pseudo looking masonry connections have friends in places and so use these connections to affect political systems in different countries, what could happen with even more powerfull people. And this is what life is about. I also use connections for my business through my old friends/old business partners. Yes I do conspire sometimes against my market rivals but that's what life is about. With more money you have more contacts and the connections are stronger and can have greater effect. Asian car manufacturers bribing politic officials is a game quite on the highest power level. Politicians and powerful people working toward globalism - doesn't seem crazy to me because it's a philosophy many people share. You know globalism can help their businesses very very much.
What is the reason for the bilderberg group meeting?? Maybe just about making business conections, saying hello to old friends, saying hello to possible new friends, debating on the current world's situation, and maybe even some individuals there are working toward their ideologies like money, power or even good philantropic goals. It can be very diverse.

So do you get it now??

You know there are 4 groups of people. 1 - people who are stupid and do not think (80% wrong conclusion 20% good ones). 2 - people who are stupid and think (70% 30%). 3 - smart people who do not think (60% 40%) 4 - smart people who think (80% 20%). What I know now for sure is that you don't belong into 1st or 4th category. I fear you are leaning to the 2nd which is a much bigger tragedy then 3rd.

So wohoo i'm an racist now. So racist are my 2 black friends because they share the same opinion. Dare I have to say that I dated an inteligent black woman once? And that she's one of my 2 black friends. Yeah I admit her mom was white so she had mostly white facial characteristics. Patejdl you damn racist

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe because they are not rabid dogs or terrorist slimeballs.

They're what Pierce called "legals."

Terrorists waiting for marching orders.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't think I've met anyone who didn't have some sort of prejudice against others. For example, Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly won't shut up about immigration, drugs, and the "dangers of Mexicans and illegal aliens".

Is Lou Dobbs racist? Probably. Nevertheless, the degree of racism may not reach a threshold that would alone dissuade me from voting for him. If he decided to do immoral things based on his prejudice, then I would rule out Lou Dobbs. Same with Bill O'Reilly, except, I suspect I'd ruled out Bill O'Reilly the first time I saw him on TV.

Lou Dobbs is married to a Mexican. That must be a difficult marriage being racist against Mexicans.

Implying racism is an easy tool to ignore realities.

 

[Kerberos]

No, sir, I'm afraid not. Masonic lodges which admit women are considered irregular and are simply not recognized by Masonry at large. Such lodges as do admit women are so few and far between that the notion they could comprise some sort of secret "support network" of any substantial size is just silly.

But don't you see? That's what THEY want you to believe!!!!

 

[MaGZ]

I don't think I've met anyone who didn't have some sort of prejudice against others. For example, Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly won't shut up about immigration, drugs, and the "dangers of Mexicans and illegal aliens".

Is Lou Dobbs racist? Probably. Nevertheless, the degree of racism may not reach a threshold that would alone dissuade me from voting for him. If he decided to do immoral things based on his prejudice, then I would rule out Lou Dobbs. Same with Bill O'Reilly, except, I suspect I'd ruled out Bill O'Reilly the first time I saw him on TV.

I watched several interviews of Ron Paul, some from before the time he considered the presidency. I've never heard him say anything racist. In fact, he claims we are inappropriately using illegal immigration as a scapegoat for our economic troubles. (You'd think he would blame Mexicans like everyone else).

In a book he wrote in 1987 he speaks ill of racism along with other behaviors he considers repugnant or harmful to society. Racism in the United States has only received due attention in the last 40-50 years. In context, it would not surprise me if older people (anybody currently over 40 years of age) were raised in environments where such ignorant attitudes or behavior were considered acceptable.

Just look at the portrayal of people in movies released in the 70s and 80s.

If conclusive evidence showed that Ron Paul held racist attitudes then, but changed, this would be acceptable to me (if not commendable) given Ron Paul's emphasis on civil liberties and his current view of the world.

There is no conclusive evidence. I do think the Ron Paul campaign should do more to dispel the allegations or claim responsibility (depending on the veracity of the allegations).

An ignorant attitude is not a crime. Otherwise most people would be in jail at some time or another. I think someone with a potentially questionable attitude on race might be better for the world than someone who intends to start wars of aggression. I also think that someone who is racist would have trouble being diplomatic with Cuba or Venezuela.

http://www.ron-paul.for-president.us/ron-paul-a-diamond-in-the-rough.html
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/12/10/ron-paul-at-the-spanish-debate/

At the same time, while Ron Paul might (allegedly) have a racist attitude, he is not promoting racist legislation. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Obama are, despite their likely good intentions.

Does the alleged taint bother me? Sure, but I don't subscribe to racist ideology. I oppose it, and that's why I like so many of Ron Paul's views and policies, such treating people as individuals, friendship with our "enemies" (Iran, Venezuela, Cuba). He also opposes laws on victimless crimes that statistically affect "minorities" and believes we should treat drug users as individuals who may need help, not criminals to be punished.

Hitler accepted Japan as an ally.

 

[MaGZ]

They're what Pierce called "legals."

Terrorists waiting for marching orders.

White Nationalists tried the terrorism route with Bob Mathews and The Order in the 1980's. It was a failure;White America was not ready for revolution. Revolutionary times in America will come when ready. The White Nationalist agenda now is sowing seeds and reaping the harvest later.

 

[Checkmite]

Checkmite : You're a lost cause. You apparently do not read or understand what I wrote back there. It is great to debate with people who are able to understand the facts but come to different conclusion because of their different level of empathy and beleif in some probabilities. This is the last time I repeat myself 4 for you.

No, again I'm sorry. You can't claim to be "repeating yourself for the last time", because the things you've brought up in this post are on a completely new tangent; they're things you've never said before. In addition, you made a very specific implication in your tall tale about somebody getting a leg-up in standing, with the help of a secret society, because they were of Jewish decent. That's nonsense; it has absolutely nothing to do with marketing and business connections, and smacks of the kind of "Elders of Zion" garbage that keeps anyone with a brain from taking you seriously. My only goal with the previous post was to expose your female Masonry story as bogus; i.e., that either you're 1) severely misinformed, or 2) willing to invent things to support your arguments. Neither bodes well for you.


But to address your diatribe anyway, you're right in one sense - people can make connections which help them out. This doesn't require any secret society or cabal of conspirators, as you indicated. Nor does it require being Jewish. The mistake you make is the assumption that all these highly-placed global operators are working together for globalism. I see absolutely no evidence for this. I've seen no evidence that the "Bilderberg" group does absolutely anything except spend Saturday bragging to each other about how elite they are, and Sunday playing golf. You seem to want to imply that a bunch of business leaders and politicians getting together and scheming would somehow be able to circumvent individual nations' legislative processes in favor of a "one-world" agenda, and this is where you become a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

The powerful people in the world's nations are powerful because there are different nations for them to be in charge of. Too many powerful people stand to lose a lot from a one-world government. Use your head. You think the HUNDREDS of elite fellows in the world are hoping for a nice position of responsiblity in the New World Order or something?

 

[Richard Masters]

Lou Dobbs is married to a Mexican. That must be a difficult marriage being racist against Mexicans.

Implying racism is an easy tool to ignore realities.

Uh-oh! I'm starting to sound like lefty, wildcat ... , just about everybody else around here. I guess anybody I don't like is automatically a racist. Man! What a great way to ignore reality1

 

[Father Dagon]

Recently Ron Paul on Meet the Press said that Abe Lincoln should not have started the Civil War, saying losing 600,000 people was not worth fighting the conflict. This will win him support in the South where some think the South had the right to leave the Union. I suspect there is some overlap with those who believe this and the readers of Stormfront.

Water under the bridge... If Paul was an european, he would be an englisman - the disgrace of Europe that is always bullying the germans for the war.

Regarding your OP: It's perfectly possible. I guess it could be called "soft entrism".

 

[leftysergeant]

White Nationalists tried the terrorism route with Bob Mathews and The Order in the 1980's. It was a failure;White America was not ready for revolution. Revolutionary times in America will come when ready. The White Nationalist agenda now is sowing seeds and reaping the harvest later.

Terrorist sleeper cells.

 

[Richard Masters]

Hitler accepted Japan as an ally.

That's a good point. And Lou Dobbs married a Mexican American.

 

[Patejdl]

Checkmite : Who ever said that woman was jewish?? I don't remember anything being said that she was initiated into a some kind of secret society because of anything jewish. You're screwing my words in order to paint a picture which i'm not a part of. When kids do this it's called bullying. And bullies ussualy don't strike with facts.

The story was simple. She joined a god knows what specific form of secret freemasonic society. That's a fact. Some people there helped her immidiately in her career to become one of the advisors for a key political player here. Another fact. Her job here as an very influental person was to help certain 2 british investors with privatisation of some previously state owned companies. Oh yeah.. a damn FACT .. so what is bogus?? Severly misinformed?? What are you talking about??

And to Bilderberg group. Screwing my words again.

So you say you're not a lost case?? I see
Your problem is that you fear so much that by admiting that people could conspire, you will become a conspiracy theorist. Well let me tell you. There are people who just beleive that people are people and some **** can happen and then there are Alex Jones type crazy people.

In fact there's quite alot of ◊◊◊◊ happening with my semi-successful business and I really have to conspire alot with other business guys to get ahead or just to be awarded by a flimsy contract. And do you know where I meet the most people I will later conspire with?? Big balls with big ass media people (by balls I mean where you take your beautiful wife/girlfriend and you dance until your suit is soaked with your sweat... sweaty balls.. haha). And now imagine that I'm powerfull and I meet someone at some kind of a meeting (hard to meet busy powerful people you know) who will then later help me acheive some of my goals. Doesn't sound much like Alex Jones trademark horrific stories. Don't fear people being corrupt and egoistic. It's just life. Nothing demonic. Just look into the history and you will see that even the most insane plans were people conspiring to make happen. By this i'm not really saying that new-world order is in fact being worked on. I'm just saying it would not suprise me one bit. Same thing with NAU. Would not suprise me one bit.

Regarding your previously mentioned mind-set.Same thing with Ron Paul. Clearly you don't like the guy and I have nothing against people not liking something but there are certain boundaries where people get really stupid and ignore the facts just to bully someone who's not there to defend himself. I mean the **** with the money. Just too emotional and not rational. As a gent truly admit that RP is not 100% clear on the racial issues but if he acknowledges and truly is able to praise inteligent people of all races/colors without any prejudice or negative feelings he's just a "racist" like me and that's damn ok in my book.