Paul: I did write parts of the newsletters, but not the bad parts
posted at 5:00 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit
Dave Weigel has the transcript from a radio interview in Iowa.
CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?
PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.
CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.
PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.
“Eight or ten sentences”? Pick through TNR’s archive of the newsletters and see how much there is. Or scroll through this guy’s Twitter timeline; he’s been tweeting the choicer excerpts (sometimes repetitively) since before Christmas. Much depends, I guess, on what you think qualifies as “bad stuff.” Everyone agrees that the racist material is bad; how about the five paragraphs devoted in one newsletter to the idea that AIDS might have been engineered at Fort Detrick? How about the section a few months after the first World Trade Center bombing wondering whether Mossad might be responsible? How about the fact that Paul was willing to speculate on camera in 2008, a year in which he was running for president, that the Bilderbergers were chatting about controlling the world’s banking and natural resources? Dwelling on the racist aspects of the newsletters actually lets him off the hook because not only can’t anyone prove that he wrote those passages, even some of his critics like Eric Dondero admit they’ve never heard him use racist language in private conversation. The question isn’t whether Paul’s a racist, it’s whether the racist elements in the newsletters point to a more broadly paranoid worldview that Paul does appear to hold in some respects. Jamie Kirchick, his bete noire, makes the same point over at the Times:
In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the “treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country.” Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded,“there’s pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true.”
Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various “Rockefeller Trilateralists.” The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008…
Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones’s show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.
In light of the newsletters and his current rhetoric, it is no wonder that Paul has attracted not just prominent racists, but seemingly every conspiracy theorist in America.
His last appearance on Jones’s show came on December 13; a PPP poll of Iowa taken that day placed him one point behind Romney for the lead. It’s bizarre to me that his campaign would be image-conscious enough to lay down strict rules for their volunteers — no booze, no tattoos, clean-shaven and neatly dressed — while the candidate himself makes chitchat with one of America’s foremost conspiracy theorists. I can sort of understand him calling sanctions on Iran “horrendous” since, for better or worse, that’s his foreign policy. He believes what he believes and he’s sticking to it. But what’s the logic in sticking to Jones? Simple personal loyalty after being a guest for so many years or does he believe what Jones believes too?
Here’s Huntsman’s new ad — the very first attack ad of the campaign directed at Paul, by the way — hitting him on the newsletters followed by another new ad from Paul’s PAC pushing back on the criticism. Why does it take one of the also-rans in the field to go after the guy who’s leading in Iowa? Because, for various reasons, no other candidate has any incentive to do so. Romney would be fine with a Paul victory there, using him as an offensive lineman to clear a path for Mitt to take the hand-off in New Hampshire and sprint towards the end zone. (WaPo’s headline about that dynamic is perfect.) Gingrich, stupidly, has decided not to go negative in his ads so his shots at Paul are limited to interviews. Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum are too busy fighting with each other to become the social-con conservative that they can’t afford to worry about Paul — although if we see another poll or two showing Santorum breaking out, he’ll change his target. (We’re seeing that already, in fact.) So it’s left to Huntsman, who fears Paul winning in Iowa and then gobbling up his Not Romney share of the vote in New Hampshire, to take a swipe. For now. Exit quotation from Santorum: “Ron Paul says he’s going to eliminate five departments. Ron Paul passed one bill in 20 years. What give you the idea that he can eliminate anything?”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
L.N. Smithee, ideology aside, the reality is this: We are a social species. We are animals. We are both invididuals and collective in our nature.
Whatever my former philosophical heroine, Ayn Rand, said about it, altruism is real and evolved for perfectly understandable reasons, in the light of modern genetics.
I judge people as individuals, but I’m not unaware of some basic facts of life (and it was one quote from Paul’s newsletter that got me involved in this topic here specifically):
I’m more likely to be assaulted by men than women.
I’m more likely to be assaulted by young men than older men.
I’m more likely to be assaulted by higher-testosterone young men than by lower testosterone men.
African-American men average significantly higher testosterone than other racial groups.
Even if that turned out to be irrelevant — and I find that highly unlikely — the Justice Department and similar organizations worldwide point out that sub-Saharan-African-decended black men commit per-capita several tims more violent crimes than do white men (and Asians commit even less).
Therefore, the one quote I initially defended, which was crouched by Paul’s newsletter in less offensive terms than those quoted on this thread, was not an illogical statement.
Politically taboo, but reasonable info to take into account when making one’s personal security plans, if a person is worried about it.
It’s probably just better to “Have A Plan To Kill Everyone You Meet”, but if one wants to reduce the odds of having to employ the plan, not walking through Gary, Indiana, at midnight would be a good idea.
Is that offensive? Fine. Move to Gary and prove me wrong! Personally, I’d vacation more in Stockholm or Hong Kong, if safety is my thing.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 9:01 PM
I’ve spent years of my life devoted to the Bildersberger spider-goat problem, and now you tell me there are nefarious hordes of Weta/Alligator hybrids scuttling around?
By the way, what’s a ‘weta’?
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM
We even move the brightest and most athletic out of the ghettos. Even most that have a real family move out. Thus the inner city ghettos get worse and worse. With religious leaders constantly reminding them how bad they have it while doing nothing to improve their lives preferring to keep them there voting for Democrats. Buying the big lie that Democrats want to help them when the truth is it has always been the Republicans that actually did the helping. Technically the Wigs prior to Lincoln, that became the Republican party with the Wigs disappearing with Lincoln.
Steveangell on December 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM
Margaret Sanger would be proud.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM
I dunno. You could look me up and see. I use my real name on here. But enough about me, how about you, Einstein? Written a book? Painted a painting? Married a non-relative?
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM
But, eva, all that goes over so well with the audience at stormfront.
The boys may just need some time to realize that they aren’t dealing with the drooling mouthbreathers that they’re used to.
They won’t be here long.
Solaratov on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM
This bugger: http://www.geekosystem.com/record-breaking-giant-weta/
I think they’re kinda cute, though.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM
Ah, when somebody tells you they are not racist, but…it usually is a lead in to a statement that is unquestionably racist. These two hacks can’t see it though.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM
White Jewboy who regularly walks the streets of Cleveland, Ohio at night. Only fight I ever got into was with a white guy, Red Sox fan, at the Harry Buffalo. I don’t think Red Sox fans are genetically inferior, mind you, just inferior by way of rooting interests and chowder poisoning.
I guess I always catch them on a low testosterone night.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:11 PM
Really? Find the offending “raaaacist” quotes. Saying that blacks have higher levels of testosterone? Do you cponsider that “raaaaaacist” and beyond consideration for even mentioning in polite company?
I’m trying to understand how hyper-sensitive you all are.
Is any talk, at all, of genetics not allowed? Does that offend you? The idea that your physical body might be connected to your physical behavior … radical and, as you hyper-sensitives have been instructing us, OFFENSIVE and not fit for conversation. Should no one ever talk about hormones and behavior, lest it drive someone to tears?
Ignorance seems to be the preferred state for many here.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Holy smokes. Are these people for reals? I guess I must live a sheltered existence -I haven’t ever heard such twisted, vile opinions in my life. And all seeming to come from Paulbots. Ugh. Enough already! If any of you sane people were on the fence about Paul- what is your opinion now?
AZgranny on December 29, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Ah, when somebody tells you they are not racist, but…it usually is a lead in to a statement that is unquestionably racist. These two hacks can’t see it though.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM
They’ve been hanging out with their like-minded pals too much. Troll Stormfront and you’ll see hundreds of pages devoted to the finer points of melanin content/crime index cross-referencing, with reams of statistical data thrown in to give it all an air of scientific authority. You’ll also see lots of enthusiastic support for Ron Paul. It doesn’t take reams of statistical data to see the correlation there. Connecting the dots has never been so easy.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:13 PM
Kinda surprised AP has allowed the white supremacist stuff to carry on for more than two pages.
catmman on December 29, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Just to be really, really safe, you should probably stay right there in the woods outside of Shittuck, Idaho… with the rest of the boys in the compound.
M240H on December 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM
“If you don’t like it, you can geeeeet out!” Ah, great reasoning. By the way, no one is forced to be in the UN. It’s only as powerful as the countries that join up. If it became some sinister entity, you know what people could do? Quit.
Ah, there we go. That mask was just begging to come off, wasn’t it? Yes, you caught me, I’m a tool of the UN’s New World Order agenda, a spy for the Bilderberg Illuminati Jews that run the Trilateral Commission. Damn, you Paulians are sharp! I almost got away with forcing one-government rule, if it wasn’t for you meddling
kidspsychopaths.Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:21 PM
Huh. I never got that memo. Or if I did, I certainly didn’t read it. And, if I did happen to read it…I certainly don’t remember it at all.
That’s my story…and I’m stickin’ to it.
Solaratov on December 29, 2011 at 9:21 PM
The only ignorance here is your postulation on items of color where the forebearance of facts that relate to increases in crime, educational gaps, and disparity in achievement have less to do with melatonin and more to do with enconomics, location and the breakdown of the family construct.
Did you grow up in a ghetto, have you been to a project, did you run in a gang or did you read about all that in a school textbook or one of Ron Paul’s newsletters? Societal issues amongst a certain class of folk have a whole lot less related to skin color no matter how many times you attempt to scientifically relate pan-africanism to be something less than human.
Facts are silly when they come from someone who hasn’t experienced any of them.
rgrovr on December 29, 2011 at 9:21 PM
I can’t show someone who is willfully blind. Take-off the pitch-black sunglasses and we’ll talk.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM
I’ve seen your white-sheeted, swastika-waving buddies protesting something or other not too long ago on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse. Let me put it this way: the air didn’t exactly crackle with the sheer intellectual energy radiating from that bunch.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Stop being such an a$$. I’m not a Paul supporter, to start. I happen to have lived in Israel and hold Israeli citizenship, so you can stuff it with the anti-semitic allegations. I don’t, however, call myself a “Jewboy” like you do … because I’m just not that cool and have some sense of self-respect.
You DO have a weird attachment to globalist organizations. I ask you again, why?
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:25 PM
It’s not “white supremacy,” catmm, it’s “science.” That’s the newest excuse, at least.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:25 PM
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Paul?
OhioCoastie on December 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM
Who knows what the reasons are – we only have various pieces of incomplete data to go on – but people here have declared these topics off-limits for discussion, anyway, so they would never find out what the causes are. And they’re happier that way.
You also seem to have already decided exactly what does and doesn’t affect behavior. Good for you. Your Nobel should be in the mail.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM
One more unmasking incident, Smith, and it’s back to sweeping bat-frog guano from the DNA hybridization labs. I really mean it this time. And whose idea was the bat-frog hybrid, anyway? What does a bat-frog hybrid do?
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:29 PM
Wholly shnickies – Ron Paul is on Hannity replay from the last debate trying to equivocate Iran’s threats against Israel and defending their Holocaust deniability.
Paul is off the rails.
rgrovr on December 29, 2011 at 9:29 PM
And I have a nuculear flying car, a Venusian mistress, and seats behind home plate at Fenway… even though I’m a Brewers fan.
M240H on December 29, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Reality is often so.
Science is about what’s true, not what’s pleasant.
It contains far more “such twisted, vile” truths than the fact that — exactly as you would expect from evolutionary theory — different, wildly geographically diverse populatons have different distribution of traits. If you think that’s unpleasant, then try this one: we’re all going to die*.
*And at different ages. I guess nature doesn’t really do “equal” and “fair”. Nature’s a b!tch!
Random on December 29, 2011 at 9:31 PM
Lech Teezdayen, ben zonah.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:31 PM
I don’t care if you’re ****ing Hillel himself, man, if you call me or anyone else a “globalist,” I stop taking you seriously as a debater and a human being.
Go back to re-arranging your Alex Jones survival seed kit.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:32 PM
Ouch.
catmman on December 29, 2011 at 9:33 PM
It may do you some good to bone up on any of Sowell’s books regarding class and the plight of urban minorities. Intellectuals and Society is a great start. There are facts galore he nails affirming what I wrote.
Thanks for the Nobel nomination – I can run for Pres now since that gives me as much experience as Barrack.
rgrovr on December 29, 2011 at 9:33 PM
I don’t believe you.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 9:33 PM
I would believe all of those things, except for Part 4. There aren’t any Brewers fans.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:35 PM
LOL. Good way to slink off instead of defending your treasured globalist organization – the UN – that you wrote more than a few comments saying how important it was. Why do you have an unnatural attachment to the existence of the UN? I have yet to hear why you think it’s needed. You did mention some things you thought it does well (it doesn’t do them well, either, as I responded to you about cost and the raping of little kids by UN workers) but other than those things that could be easily handled by private charities (and were not the reason for the UN, to begin with) what is it about that globalist org that you think is so necessary?
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:36 PM
.לא נראה לי
M240H on December 29, 2011 at 9:36 PM
OH MY GOD!!! They’re gonna do SCIENCE!! Take cover!!
Solaratov on December 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM
LOL. I would make that up? You people are too much. I lived for a long while at the corner of Dizengoff and Ben Gurion. It was a great place. I was there from 2002 for lots of the fun post-9/11 suicide bombings in Tel Aviv.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM
I think that when Ron Paul finally leaves politics (soon after the GOP takes the white house) all his supporters should fling themselves into a volcano. That would be a fitting tribute to the only man who can save them from some self-examination.
V7_Sport on December 29, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Based on what? Your retarded feelings about what you think I am or what you think I “should” be? Get a brain.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM
With only various pieces of incomplete data to go on, Bubba despaired of solving once and for all the problems plaguing the search for solving the missing correlative constants unifying the the disparate threads of the Paulian Hypothesis. Besides, Sheila would be coming home from work soon and he needed to clean up the living room and the kitchen and make it look like he’d been out all day looking for a job. She just didn’t understand. The whole White world depended on his work and she just didn’t understand.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Sorry. Need to know only.
Perhaps after your next security review……
Solaratov on December 29, 2011 at 9:42 PM
That’s cold, man. Not as cold as Milwaukee, but cold, really cold.
M240H on December 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Ah, a Ron Paul thread…It’s like going back in time to the 1930s. Eugenics, Jews, racial supremacy, isolationism, economic catastrophe, global conspiracies, devoted followers of a demented leader. I just hope that history doesn’t repeat itself too closely, because the 1940s were even worse.
spiritof61 on December 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Live your lonely life. There is no home for you here.
M240H on December 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM
It doesn’t matter even if he didn’t write any parts. He let his name be attached to it, so the buck stops with him.
Othniel on December 29, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Because, firstly, I believe in Democratic Peace Theory. I believe that a U.N. comprised wholly of democracies would bolster the effects of DPT. I think that it’s health and necessary for allied countries to interact together in an open forum, not just in each other’s diplomatic reception rooms. That was the original intention of the UN, to help the cause of peace through communication. Not one-world government. Not spider-goat hybrids giving AIDS to children in Botswana. Just talking.
The U.N. needs to be streamlined and cleaned out of its carcinogenic elements, mainly all the tinpot dictators who get a seat at the table. I disagree with a blanket declaration of “One Nation, One Vote.” You should have to earn a spot at the U.N GA by being a stable, democratically elected government. The various committees and sub-committees should be cut down to three: the GA, the UNSC, and a third for purely financial/economic issues (ECOSOC without the SOC).
The UN can only serve its mission if the participants are willing to play ball. Countries that gum up the works should be given the boot.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:48 PM
It’s a pleasure to meet you, ThePrimordialOrderedPair.
I’m not a Jew, and in fact I’m outspoken on certain Jewish practices like circumcision on moral grounds (seriously, don’t cut off part of someone’s dick without their permission, anymore than you would a a females’s genitals), I remember in 2002 or 2003, there were lots of protests against the Iraq war and I was for it. I was staying at this backpacker’s hostel at the time, and supporters were greatly outnumbered, as you would guess.
Surprisingly, the long-hippie guy working nights behind the counter was pro-Israel and pretty conservative generally. The owners, while for business reasons not outspoken, were Jews from South Africa.
The owners’ son and I disagreed on virtually everything. He was a hard-core leftie. But when he returned from a trip to South Africa, he gave me an Israeli flag because the one political thing I agreed with was Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, and I was not shy in saying so.
I’ve had that flag on my wall at every place I’ve lived since then.
Even had a few sideways looks from women of the leftie/pro-Palestinian variety who did a double take and/or asked if I’m a Jew.
What most people here don’t understand, and I’m sure you understand, is you can defend the ideas you believe are true and good, without 100% buying into another person’s or culture’s ideology. You can even agree with people you dislike, if they happen to be wrong about someone, according to the evidence you have; and you can disagree with someone you like.
It’s called taking a stab at objectivity, or at least having the courage of your own damn mind without undue groupthink.
Speaking of which, I remember going to the anti-Iraq-war protest as the only supporter that I could see, and shouting back at thousands of opponents, engaging several in conversation. By myself, no camera.
I don’t do groupthink.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 9:48 PM
I didn’t mean long, ahem, the other way because I have no data to go on. Except, now that I think about it, he was doin’ the extremely pretty daytime girl … so could be.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 9:52 PM
It’s true. Everyone else is against you. Don’t give up, Random. White survival depends on your intellectual firepower.
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! GOOBLE-GOBBLE GOOBLE-GOBBLE!
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM
Ri-i-i-i-ght.
BWAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Solaratov on December 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM
HAhahahahahah!!!!!!!
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM
Actually, it sort of just happened. It all started with whippets then moved on to shrooms and LSD..and well…bat/frog was born.
What does it do? Ummmmm, it uhhhhh…eats bugs? Burns up millions of dollars in research money?
Hard Right on December 29, 2011 at 9:59 PM
So I suppose it’s more accurate to say that I believe in what the UN should be/what the UN was meant to be. It has become a bit of a bloated nightmare, like any bureaucracy left to its own devices.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 9:59 PM
That’s the problem.
Too many of them have been self examining.
Some of them need to get laid. By a real person.
With lady (or man) bits and everything.
catmman on December 29, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Yeah, you’re a rebel, all right: edgy, smart, brave, fiercely independent. You’re a man of destiny and know, deep down where it counts, some day your time will come.
Meanwhile, the teenage girl over in the makeup aisle looks like she might have slipped something in her purse and you agonize over whether or not to inform your boss, the shift manager. You get off in like ten minutes and it’ll take at least that long to tell him about it or report it to security, some moonlighting cop whose looked at you funny a few times and made you all paranoid because you knew the cop Just Knew you’d been out back with Randy before your shift started getting high behind the dumpster. You look at the clock, shrug, shake your head, decide against reporting the girl. You tell yourself it’s only lipstick. Not like jewelry or anything. Screw it.
Edgy, smart, brave, fiercely independent…
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM
Likewise, Random. You just can’t have a reasonable discussion about these issues in any sort of a public forum. People are too quick to try and show their “anti-raaaaacist” creds, even though most of them don’t seem to have a clue. And, coupled with the conservative hysteria over Ron Paul moving up in the polls … it’s just too much. I have rarely been accused of being a Ron Paul supporter, but these jokers seem to think the accusation serves as some special weapon (and assuages some of their own pathetic self-generated guilt, I guess).
And I’ve got this guy who loves to call himself “Jewboy” but who is terribly offended that I called him a globalist. Ha. After which he goes on some insane spiel about world democracies … WTF. He’s into Democratic Peace theory (or whatever) … but don’t call him a globalist. Typical …
On the bright side, it’s all kind of funny, in a graveyard whistling way.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM
This Plus This Equals??
Oh….dear….God…
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Because Democratic Peace Theory works. It’s why, in a post-Cold War world, we don’t fight advanced, civilized countries, but just backwater pits of Islamism.
I’m offended to be called a globalist because the very idea of globalism/NWO/one world government is so patently absurd that it offends me intellectually. To see anyone give it even a shred of credibility makes me weep for humanity.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Prunes help him alot in this department. As does his daily Metamucel.
Tim_CA on December 29, 2011 at 10:12 PM
I was taught racism is wrong by my father. I was a strident anti-racist for a long time, exceded only by my staunchly strident pro-life stance. This strident, vocal anti-racism lasted well into my adult life. I would have been the most anti-racism person here.
But then a funny thing happened. For one reason or another, I took a look at the scientific data, and it was clear. What’s more, it made sense logically in line with evolution. This was not a welcome revelation. I wish it were otherwise. And my racial group/mixture, is somewhere in the middle of these various racial group distributions anyway.
Besides, I never said a propensity toward violence or criminality is “wrong”. That’s a value judgement. It could probably be very “adaptive”, to use the evolutionary term. Because of our exponential growth in technology, frankly, I think the Ashekenazi Jews, Caucasions, and Asians are mainly responsible for what will probably be the near-term biological destruction or at least supplantation of our species as the dominant species on this planet. This will come about probably mostly as a result of developing artificial intelligences greater than ours, that can then self-improve.
So what I’m saying is I expect Caucasions, et al., will probably destroy our species, and sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines, et al., probably would not have … not for a long time anyway.
So who is to say which is “better”? What standard should one use?
Is intelligence even an unqualified good? Many people have felt cursed by it. And as I said on this thread previously; and probably in part due to higher testosterone levels which cause people to feel good, strong, and confident; blacks have higher average self-esteem; at least until puberty — when testosterone really begins to kick in.
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/02/black_self_esteem/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3033597
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/jun/04/anthonybrowne.sarahryle
I’m talking about what the science shows, and defended a particular statement in Ron Paul’s often kooky newsletter as being in line with the evidence.
You’re the ones attaching all this emotional subjective value judgments to things.
If black people feel better about themselves, am I supposed to complain about the unfairness of this fact? Or maybe understand it to make myself feel better? Or just observe it as an interesting tidbit of the world we live in and the people in it?
I’ll do one of the last two, and if that makes you emotional in a negative way or something, that’s on you.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Likewise, Random. You just can’t have a reasonable discussion about these issues in any sort of a public forum. People are too quick to try and show their “anti-raaaaacist” creds, even though most of them don’t seem to have a clue.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM
No, it’s because we know what you are and what you’re about and find you and your beliefs deeply offensive. Encountering people like you is like lifting a rock in the garden and seeing the bugs underneath skitter away from the light.
You both think you’re intellectuals. I’ve been blessed to meet incredibly intelligent people. You aren’t. You think you’re truth-seekers. You aren’t that, either. Truth-seekers don’t patronize, antagonize, or alienate. They show good manners. They don’t throw out insults behind anonymous user-names to make themselves feel brave and strong. And you, ThePrimordialMoronWithAnImpossiblyPretentiousUsername, you aren’t Jewish and you haven’t lived in Israel. I’m also guessing wherever you live, you live alone.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Correction:
Random on December 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM
The post-Cold War world is only 20 years old. It has just started. And, we defended all of the advanced, civilized countries during the Cold War, so why do you think we’d be fighting them after?
Well, there’s still hope for you, but you have to understand that you are, yourself, advocating for global governance. The UN is global governance. It has no other purpose. It was only able to be kept alive this long because it had no power during the Cold War – everything then came down to just what the US and USSR decided. It was after the fall of the USSR when Bush Sr. made one of the dumbest moves in all of human history and empowered the UN for the ridiculous “coalition” against Saddam – which included every nation on Earth … except for Israel. That was the start of the real empowering of the UN and when it got very dangerous. When the USSR fell, the UN should have been junked at the same time.
Also, the UN has been the most anti-Israel and anti-semitic organization on the planet. If you are ever interested, go back and check all the UNSC resolutions and see what ridiculous percentage of them were just against Israel. For the first 50 years of teh UN, it did pretty much nothing but make anti-Israel resolutions. If you like Israel, then you would have to be against the UN, because the UN exists for no real reason than to get rid of Israel. Again, just check the resolutions and the percentage devoted to Israel (anti-Israel or pro-pali). It is AMAZING.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Wait, did I stumble onto Stormfront?
Lightspeed on December 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM
A funny this is neither of us are Ron Paul supporters.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 10:16 PM
*thing
Random on December 29, 2011 at 10:17 PM
I did just this the other night while lurking through another crazy Ron Paul circus. Got lost for a half hour checking out your website. Pretty damn impressive. Liked your art a lot.
Gang-of-One on December 29, 2011 at 10:17 PM
I think you just gave a nearly pitch-perfect, word-for-word synopsis of Alex Jones’ riveting documentary, Endgame. It’s also the same documentary where the dreaded spider-goat DNA hybrid menace is first mentioned.
With Ron Paul, it all comes back to spider-goats eventually.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Thank you. Thank you very much.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:20 PM
You seem pretty accomplished with your work.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Neither of you are racists either. /
catmman on December 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM
I miss Spathi.
JPeterman on December 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM
My God, I can’t believe there are people with the same twisted logic as yours. Granted I’m only 25, but still…
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM
See? I’m not a racist, silly.
I’m a eugenicist.
Big difference.
– Paultard.
catmman on December 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Idiot Spathi was, a twisted malevolent being he wasn’t. I wiosh I could say the same about certain people on this thread…
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM
*blushes* Aw, shucks, ma’am. Thanks. I’ve been working on a painting series for the last 6 years. Nearly done. Don’t know how I feel about it being nearly done.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM
For the record, I am a guy. I know my hadle tends to through a lot of people off, but there is a real good reason why its “eva”.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Spathi would post a link and take off. This new group is really twisted and disturbing.
JPeterman on December 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Fair enough, eva. Then one of my points above wouldn’t apply to you. The point was correct in general, though.
Random on December 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM
He’d also make stupid assertations about everybody who wasn’t Ron Paul, but I think his heart was in the right place. He certainly wasn’t a soulless pair of creeps these guys are.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Nah, couldn’t spare the time to read trash, I have already had enough of you and your supremist malarky. I don’t need to really waste anymore time on the two of you.
eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Already seen pretty much all of them. What effect have they had? None, because the veto powers of the P5 keep the rotating members in check. A resolution by itself doesn’t necessarily do anything; a lot of them are just passed so that certain statements are “on the record.” You are misplacing the blame for the anti-Semitism; the anti-Semitism didn’t arise from the UN, the already existing anti-Semitism in certain UN member nations is reflected by some of the things the body does as a whole. Hence the need for cleaning house. Again, if the UN has on the whole an anti-Israel agenda, it is due to the constituent nations themselves.
As far as DPT, those ~20 years are all we have to go on, because the Cold War was an entirely different chessboard. I don’t think there’s a single flawless IR theory, but I think that DPT has the fewest holes. It integrates the key theory of Realism, that states are self-interested actors and will behave as such. I believe that civilized democracies are able to rationally view their interests and achieve them diplomatically. I believe diplomacy works, but only when the participating countries want it to work. I believe that civilized democracies can see the consequences of war, and have more of a reason to avoid it.
I don’t think DPT needs the UN to function. If I did, I’d be more properly termed as an Institutionalist, not a DPT proponent. I think that the UN, in its original purpose, facilitates the type of diplomatic interaction that strengthens DPT.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Why, there are 5 of them right here!
cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 10:37 PM
First of all, you said that internal controls were enough but now you are saying that the blatant anti-Israel stance of the UN has been due to there only being internal controls (the member states) and no competition from outside.
Secondly, the rot goes much deeper. Here’s a UN trivia question for you:
Which member state was unable to even be considered for a seat on the Security Council (it was not allowed on the UNSC, period) for the first 50+ years of its membership in the UN and why? Hint – it was only one country ever that was treated like this.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:40 PM
It’s funny you mentioned the anti-Israel stuff, though. Walt and Mearshimer are two of the most famous anti-Israelites in the field of IR, and as far as I know, they’re not proponents of DPT. Pretty staunch Neo-Realists, actually.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:43 PM
I’ve got bad news for you: your handle would tend to throw everyone off. No harm, no foul. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM
And this is incorrect. I was talking about resolutions of the security council which were passed. And they do have an effect.
But, if what you say is true, that no UN resolutions have any effect, then why waste tens of billions a year on an organization that does nothing? It does manage to steal lots of money and cause immense problems all over the world, so there is that.
Personally, I liked how the Dutch government established serious culpability by the UN in the Srebrenica massacre, proving that the UN knew the area was unsafe but continued to direct people there and did nothing to defend the area, even though they lied to the people and told them it was safe to go to. What was the reaction to the Dutch government’s investigation? The UN got the Nobel proze that year. LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM
Wow…
I know I’m part of the noob influx, but
…Wow.
Pressing on: About 20 years ago on an early fall afternoon, I was strolling down MLK Drive headed to the ole beauty supply store when this really young white guy in oversized glasses and an ill-fitting suit strolled up with a grin and stuck out his hand.
“Hi!” he said all loud and eager. “My name is Jack O’Mally and I’m here to ask for your vote!”
We shook, I accepted his flier and continued on. Later, around dusk, I was driving to my mom’s and he was still there! Standing on King Drive, now surrounded by about a dozen men and women who were laughing up a storm at whatever arm-waving story he was telling.
A couple weeks later I was ignoring a campaign commercial until the announcer boomed something like:
‘Vote Jack O’Malley, Republican for Cook County State’s Attorney. Back Jack!‘
And I did.
Mr. O’Malley went on to become an Illinois Appellate Judge. Apart from Jack Kemp (when he was Mr. Dole’s Running Mate), I never saw GOP Politicians South of the Loop–Hey, maybe only Irish(ish) Repub. pols named “Jack” have the stones to deliver the invite!
:)
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM
But the UNSC hasn’t been able to move against Israel in a meaningful way, precisely because of those internal controls (P5 veto).
Also, do you have a source for the contention that they weren’t “allowed” to be considered? Unless it was sort of a “wink wink, nudge nudge” sort of thing.
Non-permanent members are based on a vote, so it’s not surprising Israel hasn’t been picked. I mean, they’re not a very popular country. There are 73 other countries which have also never been on the UNSC. Besides, if the G4 countries actually win permanent voting rights, being a rotating member will mean less than nothing.
Non-permanent members are also selected by “group,” and Israel is in the competitive “Western Europe and Others” group, which has lots of important, powerful non-P5 countries.
Besides, I think Israel on the UNSC would cause a lot of PR problems, at least with the way the UN is currently constituted. “Zionist conspiracy,” anybody?
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM
That is a good question.
cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM
He did advocate treating 13 year old black children as adults when they commit crimes, but not 13 year old white children.
cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM
You can’t be on the UNSC unless you are in a regional group. When do you think Israel got into that group and why do you think that Israel isn’t in its geographical group? Answer those questions and you’ll know why Israel was not even eligible for a seat on the UNSC until something like 2003, when the Western group finally took them in. “Gee … thanks, guys.”
I blame Israel, though. They should have left the UN years ago. It serves Israel no purpose to stay in that ridiculous org. It’s like a battered wife thing.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM
What you say may be true, or it may not be. However, it doesn’t mean that the government can treat you differently because of any differences in genetic makeup. Ron Paul did advocate treating blacks differently than whites because they commit more crimes.
cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 10:56 PM
He DID get ONE passed!!!
cptacek on December 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Even if they were passed, it doesn’t mean they do anything. A lot of them work like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1947
Recalls a previous resolution, reaffirms the purpose of said resolution, promises to stay abreast of the matter, tweaks a few bureaucratic miscellanies, and calls for a review in five years. *Yawn* Doesn’t actually do anything.
I never said they were efficient. I said they weren’t sinister.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 10:58 PM
LOL. Do you remember what the UN did to Israel with Lebanon and the border issue? Shebaa Farms ring a bell? What did Israel sign with the UN and what did the UN renege on in that contract? Do you not consider that sinister (and I haven’t even gone into how the blue helmets liked to stand around watching Hezbos load up on weapons and such)? What does it take?
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM
But it’s largely cosmetic. As far as why they aren’t in their geographic group, IIRC “Arab” isn’t a geographical designation for the UNSC, but at least one of the 10 rotating members has to be an “Arab” country, which I assume means a member of the Arab League. Israel, for obvious reasons, isn’t a member of the Arab League.
Even with their membership in the WEOG “group,” they haven’t been elected, because they’re an unpopular country. All those little third world hellholes aren’t going to vote Israel a seat at the mean girls table, unfortunately.
BTW, Kiribati as of 2006 isn’t a member of a regional bloc, so they’re also technically ineligible for a seat on the UNSC. Is there a sisiter anti-Kiribati agenda as well?
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM
Again, you’re blaming the UN as collective for the sins of member nations. You look at the anti-Israel stance of the UN and see a sinister global agenda, instead of correctly seeing the individual anti-Israel views that are held by, unfortunately, a majority of member nations. Which is why I’ve said about ten times that we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, clean house, and re-start the UN with a bit more exclusive membership. You’ve yet to actually rebut that point, besides your fevered supposition that the “only purpose of the UN is globalism. Period.”
Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM
You REALLY don’t want to give these people any ideas.
They had wanted to cross a hagfish with a democrat…until they realised it would merely be duplicating nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
Hard Right on December 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »