Questions About The Ron Paul Campaign

David Bernstein, a law professor at my alma mater, and a co-blogger over at The Volokh Conspiracy, has been taking a lot of heat recently for comments he’s made about Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign and the reasons that he’s unable to get fully behind it, which he expressed in this post:

Ron Paul is a tempting protest vote, and I did support him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian, but he strikes me as running less of a “libertarian” campaign than a pacifist, populist campaign that does have some appeal to young and idealistic libertarians, but has too much appeal to the old, paranoid, and racist pseudo-conservatives. There seems to be a right-wing version of the Popular Front mentality among many Paul supporters: just like it was okay for Social Democrats to ally with Stalinists for “Progressive” ends in the old days, it’s okay to ally with 9/11 and various other conspiracy theorists, southern secessionists, Nazis and fascists, anti-Semites and racists, against the common enemy of the modern “welfare-warfare” state. Count me out!

I’ve expressed much the same opinion in posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

It is, I think, an important point.

Just because libertarians might have some agreement with the likes of Stormfront or other groups whose ideology is clearly incompatible with individual liberty on some issues doesn’t mean that we should make common cause with them. It may be fruitful in the short term, but, in the long term, I fail to see how having anything in common with the likes of Alex Jones or David Duke helps the cause of liberty.

Unsurprisingly, Bernstein’s comments have engendered a lot of commentary from bloggers at Lew, and elsewhere but, as Bernstein notes, they haven’t answered a very fundamental question that I’ve been asking myself for months now:

[W]hy does Rep. Paul’s campaign find it so difficult to simply issue a statement in Paul’s name that he neither solicits nor welcomes the support of the likes of Stormfront? And why do so many of his supporters think it’s such an imposition to ask this of him?

It is I think, a perfectly legitimate question to which a good answer has yet to be given.

Update: Mark at Publius Endures links to this article and makes this point worth repeating:

The fact is, if Paul and his core supporters continue to refuse to distance themselves from the Stormfront, neo-Nazi, and conspiracy theorists, the Paul campaign will have a net negative effect on the libertarian movement in this country. If, however, he and his core supporters DO make a bona fide effort to distance themselves from this crowd, the Paul campaign has tremendous potential to advance the libertarian movement more than any other event since Atlas Shrugged. But in order for this to happen, Paul and his core supporters must must acknowledge that the prominence of the nutcases poses a legitimate problem that must be dealt with.

That’s all that I, and apparently others, have been saying. And the question seems to be whether the campaign itself turns into a replay of 1988 or the rebirth of Pat Buchananite nativism.

Update # 2: As one of the comments to this post notes, the campaign’s communications director has sent a letter to National Review responding to a Mona Charen column that was, for the most part, so nonsensical that I didn’t even bother posting about it.

The full text of the letter can be found here, but here is what seems to be the part most relevant to the issues raised here:

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

It’s not exactly what I’d like to see — which is someone telling the Stormfronters to crawl back under the rock they came from and the Alex Jones crowd and the rest of the 9/11 Truthers that they’re nuts — but its close. What would be helpful would be for Dr. Paul’s supporters to realize that defending him doesn’t mean defending everyone who supports him, and that it doesn’t make sense to make a coalition with people (such as the so-called white nationalists) whose very ideology is anathema to individual liberty.

The question is — if you found out that people like that were part of your Ron Paul meetup group, what would you do ?

  • freedomLover

    to: David Bernstien

    What candidate is the best in your opinion?


    Do you think accepting money from special interest groups is better or worse then excepting money from individuals with unpopular beliefs?

    Tell me you don’t like Ron Paul’s ideas, or you don’t like his haircut, but to dismiss him because a small amount of donations came from whackos makes no sense.

    That’s like saying “I don’t like chicken because Hitler liked it.”

  • Georg Thomas

    A ridiculous accusation against Ron Paul.

    It is perfectly clear or easy to look up what he stands for. If the blogger cared to take notice of Paul’s positions, he would not have to worry about extremist leanings in it, no more than about extremist leanings in the Constitution.

    Ron Paul is well advised to keep spreading his quintessentially American messages, rather than wasting his time by enumerating an endless list of people, institutions, media outlets etc. who he would not side with if asked to.

    When asked about his appearances at Alex Jones, Ron Paul said – by my recollection – that if he were to appear only on radio shows etc with whose disseminations he entirely agrees, he could hardly show up in the medial public. (Will you ask him not to appear on Fox next time you encounter something despicable on that channel?)

    When asked why he had given an interview to a group of 9/11 truthers (allegedly of the dodgy type) he correctly said that they are responsible for their stance, his business is to defend his.

    Also – and I think this is Ron Paul in purity – the point of free speech is not to protect the opinions one cherishes but those that one dislikes.

    Writing from Germany, let me add: I would fight for Hitler’s right of free speech and fight the views he expresses courtesy of this privilege.

    And my opposition would be entirely based on the philosophy I share with Ron Paul and the growing number of his supporters.

    Ron Paul for President

  • Jeff Molby

    ’ve expressed much the same opinion in posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    Yes, we know. Thank you for saving us the trouble of pointing out that your argument is tired.

    Just because libertarians might have some agreement with the likes of Stormfront or other groups whose ideology is clearly incompatible with individual liberty on some issues doesn’t mean that we should make common cause with them.

    We’re NOT. They are making common cause with us. Do you have any reason to believe Paul is not the same wholesome guy you voted for in ’88? Are you going to abandon him now because some uncool kids sat down at your table?

    Dr. Paul is not going to lift a single finger for them. He’s going to continue to be who he’s always been. If they benefit from that as well, so be it.

    [W]hy does Rep. Paul’s campaign find it so difficult to simply issue a statement in Paul’s name that he neither solicits

    He has done that. I even gave you the link a few weeks ago.

    nor welcomes the support of the likes of Stormfront?

    That’s a gray area. He said he finds them dispicable, but if they want to give him money, so be it. Why wouldn’t you want to deprive such a group of their funds? It’s not like their donations will buy them anything.

  • Drena

    I think he should welcome the support from Stormfront. There is no legitimate reason not to. If Stormfront supports small government, laissez-faire capitalism, and individual liberty then good for them.

    Why do you say that their views are “incompatible with individual liberty?” Being a racist doesn’t mean that you want to aggress against other people. It just means you think your race is the best race. It may be a bit of an irrational view but trying to insinuate that somehow that makes a person evil is irrational too.

    Paul should issue a statement welcoming ALL people and groups to contribute to the campaign, because if they support his positions then they can’t really be that bad.

  • rho

    It has apparently occurred to nobody that even Nazis think the federal government is too big and too intrusive. When Jews, blacks, conservatives, liberals, libertarians and Nazis agree with you, I say you’ve got a winning platform.

    This is only an issue because David Bernstein is making it one. If we could dig through a roster of his friends I bet we could find an unsavory skeleton or two. His guilt-by-association attack is the tactic of a person with either poor critical thinking skills or a grudge. He’s a law professor, so it could go either way.

  • mketcher

    You mention so-called racist, anti-semitic support of Ron Paul. It’s a well-known fact that these groups have been heavily-infiltrated by federal agents. Indeed, there’s good reason to believe that the supposed support of Ron Paul by these groups could be part of a disinformation campaign designed to discredit Ron Paul’s candidacy.

    The FBI infiltration of these extremist groups has been well-documented. During the height of the FBI’s Cointelpro (Counterintelligence Program) in the 1970s, the FBI discussed putting an informer into the highest position of the KKK. See this article from Time magazine:,9171,915760,00.html

    In fact, during the heyday of its Cointelpro operation, the FBI had some 2,000 informants and agents in the KKK.

    It’s clear that this infiltration of such groups continues to this day, although no one outside of highest levels of government knows the extent. For example, in 2006, according to this well-documented article from the Orlando Sentinel, an FBI agent-provacateur and informant organized an anti-semitic rally in the city of Orlando:

    Clearly, the FBI has infiltrated the highest levels of the neo-Nazi movement.

    What’s more, the FBI has every reason to discredit Ron Paul, perhaps as an official policy. Certainly, rogue elements in the FBI could have reason attack him, because their department’s funding would certainly be cut by Ron Paul and many of their cushy, non-productive jobs eliminated.

    It wouldn’t surprise me that this contribution by a neo-Nazi sympathizer, and the so-called support from neo-Nazis might be prompted by government agents. It seems strange that out of the tens of thousands of donations that Ron Paul received, that some reporter was able to sift through them all so quickly and come up with a donation from some obscure neo-Nazi that few people have ever heard of. However, a government informant would know that information and be able to feed it to him. A good reporter would do some digging to see who these supposed neo-Nazi supporters of Ron Paul are before jumping to conclusions. Not one single article I’ve seen on this subject has investigated this supposed neo-Nazi Ron Paul supporter. I think before jumping to conclusions about this, we should find out what might truly be motivating this guy and his donation.

    Another question is why is Ron Paul the only candidate being asked to screen his contributors based on their ideology? Why isn’t it demanded that other candidates denounce the beliefs of every oddball who sends them money?

  • Pingback: Publius Endures()

  • Georg Thomas

    Addition to my earlier comment: Can you imagine how much time he would have on his hands for productive activities if Ron Paul were to run around informing the public that he distances himself from your above insinuation of him being a crypto-fascist or not outspoken enough against fascism. (Adding, for arguments sake, that posts 17, 206 and 733 are exempted from such distancing). Ah, and the “Nutbush Mirror” suggests that Ron Paul…, but Ron Paul expressly distances him from the statement made in the “Nutbush Mirror” of January 14, 2xxx.

    He is entirely right to share with us the extensive wisdom and competence that he has acquired over decades in terms of understanding the full nexus of liberty – its economic, monetary, foreign policy, legal etc. implications and how these things hang together.

    Listening to him (or reading his publications) is a lot more rewarding than getting involved in petty complaints of the kind produced in the post above.

    Try to stay focused. Be positive – like Ron Paul, help people understand what liberty is about.

  • Dr East

    The reason the campaign will not issue a statement in this manner is because the best strategy men of principle have always had when dealing with scurrilous attacks is to ignore them. Why should the man bow to his critics? They certainly don’t have his best interests in mind.

  • Anonymous

    Unsurprisingly, Bernstein’s comments have engendered a lot of commentary from bloggers at Lew, and elsewhere but, as Bernstein notes, they haven’t answered a very fundamental question that I’ve been asking myself for months now:

    [W]hy does Rep. Paul’s campaign find it so difficult to simply issue a statement in Paul’s name that he neither solicits nor welcomes the support of the likes of Stormfront? And why do so many of his supporters think it’s such an imposition to ask this of him?

    It is I think, a perfectly legitimate question to which a good answer has yet to be given.

    That’s funny. I thought they answered this question at the November 6th Press Conference. See the question at 17:35 in the video. The answer was pretty simple — Ron Paul doesn’t support these views; if you are stupid enough to send us money anyway, we are going to keep it and use it to support positions you oppose.

    What about this answer was not adequate?

  • Scott McDonnell

    The simple answer:

    Because it won’t be enough. Even if Ron Paul gives the money back and offers a statement, it will not be enough.

    The people forcing this issue are completely against Ron Paul for reasons having NOTHING to do with this. They were looking for dirt, found a few grains of sand are trying to maximize it as much as they possibly can.

    They are not going to ‘let it go’ if Ron Paul meets their demands. Just like they won’t let it go about the newsletter even though Ron Paul explained it in 1996 (note: he wasn’t running for President at the time.)

    So, why should he bother responding to those attempting to smear him? Those that will continue to smear him.

    All one has to do is look at his record to see that he does not endorse these people. It’s that simple to see for everyone not already on the “destroy Ron Paul” bandwagon.

  • Cleaner44

    Ron Paul’s position on Racism is quite clear to anyone that will visit

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

    Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

    Please visit and judge for yourself.

  • Mark

    Excellent post- very similar to something I wrote yesterday, but you get to the core of the issue. Bernstein’s post (which only had one paragraph about the Paul campaign, and pretty well criticized all the GOP candidates) was not a “smear” of Paul or in anyway un-libertarian.

    I still support Ron Paul, but if he continues to fail to distance himself from the whackos, he will wind up harming more than advancing libertarianism in this country. But when you have supporters saying things like this:

    “Being a racist doesn’t mean that you want to aggress against other people. It just means you think your race is the best race.”

    …Well, you have to wonder if the Paul campaign is going to result in libertarians thinking racism is an acceptable political ideology. For the record, racism (especially the neo-nazi type that’s at issue here) DOES mean that you want to aggress against other people. “White Nationalism” such as is the slogan of Stormfront is a far cry from private discrimination.

  • Scott McDonnell

    Are we to honestly believe, Little Green Footballs, Volkoh, Lone Star Times, and the rest of the freaks are going to suddenly say:

    We fully endorse Ron Paul now that he refunded this money and made a statement?

    They aren’t even going to publish his statement, unless they pick it apart, say it isn’t geniune, etc…

    Why waste his time? Ron Paul panders to no one. Not neo-nazis and not smear-artists.

  • Drena

    The very fact that trollers such as yourself want Paul to issue a statement against them, is a great reason not to. Anything to keep you trollers irritated is fine with me.

  • Scott McDonnell

    And to be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they PLANTED the dirt in the first place. They certainly didn’t have much without it. And it isn’t much now.

    The list of unsavory characters for any other candidate is miles longer than Ron Paul’s.

  • Darel99

    David Bernstein? Who is he? I have never heard of David Bernstein…. Though I try to respect everyone’s views I must however point out the disdain I have for people that lack the ability to discerns the facts.

    Lest we not forget that Ron Paul has the greatest number of Bipartisan support then any other candidate. Show me a single article that Ron Paul has issued or for that matter where Paul has announces his support for nazis, anti-Semites, racists, etc. I’m very much aware that Paul has had a huge voter turn out from the Afro American population in his own congressional district and current polls suggest he has huge support for his 2008 run.

    When I started one of my small companies I found out later that a primary investor supported abortion rights since I have also supported the abolishment of Roe Vs. Wade I made it clear that part of my news site would be used to point out the defeat of Roe vs. wade yet a pro abortion investor submitted a large sum of funds for the sake of investment. Does this action imply that I didn’t have the right to accept his money when he knew what I stood for? Further, he knew I was pro-life and if he was dumb enough to provide seed funds then I accepted it 100%. Likewise If Ron Paul obtains a donation from some group that he doesn’t support and they are dumb enough to send it I say take every dime they send.

    David Bernstein needs to understand it isn’t Paul’s support of the bad guys but rather some deranged groups support Paul. If Paul made a statement to renounce their support then he only divides and limits his long term stand for free speech. We have a choice we as a people can either turn out and watch a neo-nazi march or we as a people can stay home and not provide them any attention. It’s free speech for all if not then who decides?

    By the way I still don’t understand why Doug has issues with those who don’t trust the 9-11 story. I have a friend of mine who died on 9-11 and his own widow does not trust the official story of 9-11. As far as Alex Jones I have checked nearly 17 of his stories out over the last two years and I can only confirm he is telling the truth. Sure, he may get a little upset on air and scream and yell but don’t most talk show hosts? Jones has had leading economic mentors on his show, and hundreds of true conservatives…. It sounds like Doug has never taken the time to review the facts that Alex offers.

    As far as me I stand behind Ron Paul 100% and based on the issues Alex shares I can only say I support each story I have verified.

  • Chris Mcdonell

    Bernstein is a “PRO-SEMITE” and that does’nt mean that the rest of us have to rally around his cause! He would love the tiny donation from stormfront to become an issue because deep inside he thinks Israel is the capital of the United States and Ron Paul does’nt. I don’t hate the Jews but I have NO loyalty to Israel. What the fact that they have spys like Jane Harman in congress trying to stop any investigation into the massive Israeli Spying that is going on in this country. Israel WAS involved in 911 and that’s it. There is massive evidence to support it. Anyone care to debate me on the facts? I f**king dare you. I will win. Check out COMVERSE and AMDOCS both Israeli companys that spy on our government agencies. Why are all the Jewish leaders united against a new investigation into 911? Why are they so vehemently opposed to it. Me thinks ye douth protest too much! And don’t give me the bullshit argument about the pain the families are going through. They are the loudest voices for it!

  • Immigrant

    Ron Paul is going to make things happen. As long as people believe in the constitution and the concept of America then Ron Paul will succeed. Hell we might even get the national polls to take a stab at being accurate through accurate methodology. It looks like Ron Paul more accurately is at about 30 to 33 percent(counting those who DONT have landlines,dems and indies who have switched over and reps who didn’t vote last time)….which explains why the mainstream FCC govt run media is shaking in their boots at the prospect of a constitutional govt and giving misleading restricted demographic polling numbers. Its embarassing to see so many news agencies make up pure nonsense to mislead people. Ron Paul is going to win. The bigger the media offensive against him the stronger the chance of him being president.
    American Revolution 2.0 is going to shock the world, there’s simply no doubt about it.

  • Darryl Schmitz

    Sigh…yellow journalism.

  • jmklein

    I’m not going to give up my beliefs just because some anti-semite believes them as well.

    DISCLOSURE: I am a Jew, I had an orthodox Bar Mitvah, I have a sister and three nieces and nephews living in Israel, for reals.

    I would love a president that would let Israel do whatever it wants to its neighbors. My sister’s town got bombed in the last Lebanon war and all I remember is the Israeli Army floundering in Lebanon because Olmert was on the phone every night to Washington, begging on his knees for the privilege of sticking it to the Arabs.

    Under a Paul administration Israel might have to patch up 5% of its budget, but would finally be free to smack down the Arabs in proportion to the need to keep Israel safe.

    GO RON PAUL!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Unsurprisingly, Bernstein’s comments have engendered a lot of commentary from bloggers at Lew, and elsewhere but, as Bernstein notes, they haven’t answered a very fundamental question that I’ve been asking myself for months now:

    [W]hy does Rep. Paul’s campaign find it so difficult to simply issue a statement in Paul’s name that he neither solicits nor welcomes the support of the likes of Stormfront? And why do so many of his supporters think it’s such an imposition to ask this of him?

    It is I think, a perfectly legitimate question to which a good answer has yet to be given.

    What was wrong with the answer to this question that they gave on November 6? At the press conference they gave a very straight forward answer — Ron Paul doesn’t support these views; if you are stupid enough to send us money anyway we are going to keep it and use it to support positions you oppose. But don’t take my word for it, check out the video at the 17:35 mark.

  • Kris

    Wow. And you think Ron Paul supporters are nuts. Is it my mistake, or are you talking about 500 dollars here? 500 dollars.

    Not voting for a candidate because someone you don’t agree with supports them is the same as an Alabama fan not voting for Ron Paul because an Auburn fan supports him. Or a Michigan fan not voting Ron Paul because he’s the most popular candidate with Buckeye fans.

    I would read your other blogs, but the silly basis for your argument combined with an apparent lack of knowledge of Ron Paul’s stance on the issues shown here, screams at me that I’d be wasting my time.

    Thanks for the ‘heads up’.

  • WRR

    Mr. Bernstein put into one paragraph many of my own reasons for adamantly refusing to get behind the Paul campaign. Many of these problems are new with Paul and weren’t there in his previous run — when he was more libertarian. Since then he embraced immigrant bashing and the “Wall” on the border and the racists love him for it. Paul is more a fringe Right-wing candidate than he is a libertarian. He has notched up several degrees his anti-abortion position (which he played down in his previous run). He reversed himself entirely on immigration from abolishing INS to putting in on steroids.

    That none of the other candidates is good is not not a justification for supporting Paul. None of the other candidates are being widely touted as “libertarian” thus contaminating the libertarian brand. Unfortunately Paul’s supporters are acting more like worshippers and defend him, not with reasoned arguments but sound bites. In addition when Paul distorts things with his answers they lap it up.

    He is on Alex Jones because they both believe in secret conspiracies to rule the world. Sure they have slightly different conspiracy theories but Paul laps up the Bircher paranoia and dishes it out. I’ve listened to him on Jones and read transcripts. They are in mutual admiration society. The question is not whether he agrees with every radio show host when he appears on radio but whether he agrees with this one on the basics — and he does. His answer is evasive not substantive.

    Ron Paul is absolutely not the same candidate we had in 1988. I supported him in 88 and now regret it. He has moved away from libertarianism and it is hard to figure out how he differs from Pat Buchanan. Of course down in Auburn some “libertarians” want us to all lap up this populist, racialist tinged sort of politics.

    I believe Ron Paul is severely damaging libertarianism. Not only is he drying up funding for worth libertarian causes he is distorting the term libertarian so that now one can be anti-abortion, anti-immigration, states rights advocates (as opposed to individual rights), and be called a libertarian.

    We should not neglect that Paul wants only to protect rights from the feds and that he says the states are sovereign. So if the state of Texas violates your rights Paul has no complaint only if the feds do it. Why is that the case? I suggest the reason is that Paul is a cultural conservative who wants the states to be able to legislated inequality for gays, promote Christian religion, ban abortion, censor erotica, etc. He doesn’t think he can get this sort of thing federally but with states being unshackled by the bill of rights it is possible to get such repressive legislation locally. And this is supposed to be libertarian — it isn’t. It is old fashioned far right sort of thinking.

  • litcigar

    The simple point of the matter is that the ideology of a candidate’s contributors are irrelevant. Further, I would argue that Ron Paul’s strategy of ignoring those donors with questionable ideologies is actually a better approach to this problem.

    The news outlets are giving these people a voice. Every time this story is reported, more people are exposed to the group which potentially strengthens their numbers and emboldens their message. It certainly seems to give legitimacy to these groups as “dangerous” and “forbidden.” Ron Paul chooses to not commit this “sin” so to speak.

  • Pliny

    If you don’t support Ron Paul you’ll be supporting a big government status quo politician. Who would you rather have “common cause” with, individuals who have no chance of getting their distasteful policies implemented or those who have been getting their freedom demolishing agenda implemented now for the last hundred years? I’ll be supporting Ron Paul and the Constitution because I care about liberty first.

  • Maria

    “[W]hy does Rep. Paul’s campaign find it so difficult to simply issue a statement in Paul’s name that he neither solicits nor welcomes the support of the likes of Stormfront? And why do so many of his supporters think it’s such an imposition to ask this of him?” I beleive Ron Paul isn’t going to distance himself from such groups because it is against his policy of following the constitution. It would be akin to the sanctions the USA places on countries we disagree with. He beleives in free speech for EVERYone, not just those that he personally agrees with. I’m not so sure why that’s difficult for the Libertarians here to understand. No, Ron Paul, nor I, agree with white supremacists, and we may not agree with conspiracy theorists, but if we all beleive in Liberty, we have a responsibility to work together to protect Liberty from an increasingly tyrranical Federal government.

  • Bob A

    Ron Paul and his supporters are being undermined at every opportunity. Apparently, there is much concern for the media, the pulpit and the politicians to worry. No longer are we living in small towns where folklore is the gospel..we are informed to the teeth. Call us “truthers” or “liberals” or “conspiracy theorists”.. but call us informed. Why do I support Ron Paul..because, like me..he is “Mad as Hell!” Do you think the Federal Reserve, Central banks and Christian coalition should rule this country? Over my dead body!! A democracy is nothing more than Mob Rules.. if 51% of the people are brainwashed and misled..the other 49% are forced to go along for the ride. The media is doing their best to keep the American public in line with the religious right and Rockefeller’s.. but the media obviously has a stake in this too. Probably 90% of Americans think the Federal Reserve is a government agency..but they are no more Federal than Federal Express. If people understood the central banks are a failed experiment in Govt. policy, they would be up in arms. To think, they (the banks) have had the power to outlaw owning gold bullion..the only currency of any value and replace it with worthless paper. To lend this paper to our Govt, with interest creating the Federal Income Tax. Our lives, our country is in a perpetual debt to Central banks.. and the only way to break the cycle is to STOP THE MADNESS. Of course the Churches want their sheeple to toe the line..they don’t pay taxes! They have their fair share of GOLD. Of course the media wants you to toe the line, they’re owned by an assortment of special interest corporations. Of course the politicians want you to keep in line, they’re owned by the banks, the Churches, the corporations and the media. Where does that leave us? Holding a pocket full of paper, “legal tender” they call it.. backed by nothing but a promise. The Federal Reserve CREATED the depression, they have created every bubble and watched it burst. With each burst, people lose property, savings and everything else they have. Who gets it? Yeah..the BANKS. It was the bankers that created the panic in 1907 that almost collapsed our economy. What did they do in return? They allowed the Govt. to borrow money, then they drew up the Federal Reserve act that allowed all the Central Banks to rule our country. This legislation wasn’t written by Congress..actually, nobody knows who wrote the act.. but it was LOBBIED by influential people with lots of money and signed by President Wilson. He later regretted it, stating it was a huge mistake that gave all the power to the banks. The Federal Reserve created the Great Depression by systematically pumping cash into the economy, giving margin loans, interest only loans (sound familiar). Eventually, they told everyone to “pay up” which caused everyone to cash out on Wall Street and the rest is history. Lastly..history always repeats itself. Sorry for rambling, but I’m mad as hell. I don’t want a President I can drink a beer with, or one with a sense of humor.. I don’t want a religious nut or someone that panders to them. I want a President that can identify the real issues here and start to fix them. If you think that Ron Paul is nuts because he rambles about the Federal Reserve, call me nuts too. People don’t realize how fortunate we AMERICANS are to have a man like Ron Paul stand up and tell us the REAL bad news..and not have us distracted by some Islamo-Fascist with a boxcutter, hiding in a cave 6000 miles away. Call it what you want..but it’s the truth. Face it..nobody likes the truth when it hurts..but there is no Santa, eventually we got over it.

  • Barney

    Who here believes Berstein supported Dr Paul in ’88 as he claims?

    Dr Paul’s message has been impeccably consistent for over 3 decades.

    When you lose credibility on your first sentence, the rest is just diatribe.

  • Pliny

    WRR – I didn’t notice your post until after my initial remarks about the main article.

    1. It isn’t racist to insist that the law, including immigration law, be enforced. Ron Paul’s main solution to the immingration problem isn’t a fence anyway, but rather ending the economic incentives (read government handouts) that encourage illegal immigration. It isn’t that he is against migration per se, but he does want the law followed.

    2. His anti-abortion position has been consistent as far as I can tell. Its also very refreshing to those of us who believe in Federalism because his solution is to exercise the Constitutional authority that the national government possesses to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of federal courts and thus allow the states to make the decisions about protecting unborn life just the same as they set policy on protecting all other life. Dr. Paul is the only politician who is offering a quick pragmatic solution rather than pandering about a Constitutional amendment which will never be passed in the country as things now stand.

    3. If the states violate your rights the you have another outlet for redress of grievance; your state government. No government is perfect, but I’d sure rather run the risk of one state violating personal liberty than concentrating power at the national level where the personal liberty in all the states can be violated at once. We have had more violations of civil liberties in this nation as power has concentrated in Washington. When the states had the most power such problems were much less frequent and because the source of the problem was closer to the people the people could identify and fix the problem much more easily.

    4. Ron Paul has no desire to legislate morality or infringe on individual liberties. If your theory were true, and he merely wanted to legislate religion and anti-gay measures by returning power to the states then how do you explain his opposition to the drug laws? Ron Paul has stated on numerous occasions that he things drug use is awful, that it destroys lives and families, but he still wants it legalized. If he really wanted to force his personal preferences on everyone then he wouldn’t be calling for the federal government, which has already successfully criminalized everything, to get out of the drug war business. The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul wants everyone to live their lives as they see fit, even if he personally disagrees with their choices, so long as they don’t injure someone else’s liberty.

  • Brad

    Wow, The Authors Of These Articles Are Tenacious In Their Trivialities.

    What About Supporting Stopping The Government From Robing The People And Spending It Foolishly.

    What About Shutting Down The Laws That Put Nonviolent People In Prison, Take Tax Payers Out Of the System And Makes Them A Burden To Us All.

    What About Stopping Us From Going Bankrupt Or Going To War With Russia.

    Seems to me the author and his cronies could use an awareness check. There are far greater issues than donations from people with exceptional views.

  • Max

    Loser with a capital L Doug, you’ve been pretty quiet since november 5 when we raised all most 4.5 million dollars that put you and the rest of your ilk in place didn’t it.

    So Doug, who are you voting for president?????

  • Max

    Oh and doug, why is ron paul under attack from every establishment hack from Bill O Reilly to Sean Hannity Glen Beck the list goes on and on including yourself.

    One more thing, do you believe in preemptive war?

  • charles ranalli

    oh dear…
    Professor David Bernstein is sooo horrified that Ron Paul won’t formally distance himself from some people who publicly advocate “white pride”. (everybody knows that “jewish pride” (per the jewish anti-discrimination league b’nai brith etc) and “black pride” (per the national association of colored people congressional black caucus etc) are perfectly wonderful and acceptable in our post-constitutional politically correct society – but “white pride” ?? – oh horrors – never !!!).
    now let me ask Professor Bernstein to set a good example for Doctor Paul by going public with some information about certain preferences of his own – for example what does the good Professor think about the Good Rabbis at Neturei Karta
    hmmm – what say you – Professor Bernstein ???
    charles ranalli

  • Georg Thomas

    Go, Ron Paul, Go!

    To the author of the post (a self-styled “libertarian”, ha, ha, ha): How low can you get? Am I to dictate to people who is allowed to applaud me? Also: making donations is an instance of expressing oneself, it falls under “free speech”. It is the indubitable right of anyone to make legal donations to whomever (legally entitled to receive such donations) they wish to leave their money with.

    Is the author of the post going to police who should in his opinion be allowed to make a donation and who not? Will he set up arrangements to “hunt down” people who have been involved in an abortion, yet (possibly remorsefully) donate to Ron Paul?

    Just imagine the millions of possibilities to play police state that way.

    Can we have more substance than what is to be found in the post (on which we are commenting)? To that purpose and allowing the spirit of his writing to prevail: Will the author (this cop of the mind) give us a detailed proposal for an effective witch-hunt?

  • charles ranalli

    oops – blew it.
    heh heh

  • Georg Thomas

    It is awkward how half-baked “libertarians”, unacquainted with the basics of liberty – e.g. the nature and purpose of free speech and its incompatibility with organizing “political correctness” – (which the post’s author seems to have in mind), prove to be especially active in concocting propaganda intended to be detrimental to the renaissance of liberty in the US, i.e. the Ron Paul movement.

    (See also my three or four comments above).

  • Georg Thomas

    And finally: Should I discover that my enemy or my political opponent is making donations to me, I were to rejoice in it.

    The only damage that might come of it – is helped by the kind of thoughtless insistence on imposing personal notions of “political correctness” on the donation’s recipient, blaming him for not being in line with the proponents “superior preferences”.

    Dear author of the post, cop of the mind, pope of the political correct: go study liberty, before you waffle about some travesty of it.

  • Chad

    Doug, I usually really appreciate your posts (I often “defend” you when lots of people misunderstand what you’re point is), even when they aren’t full-tilt supportive of Ron Paul, as some people seem to expect from anyone on the internet.

    This post, however, I really do not agree with.

    Your implication seems to be that the entire libertarian movement should pick up its skirt and move tip-toe to the centristt position, just because some racist ass holes happen to have common beliefs about SOME things (like federalized government instead of centralized).

    I realize you would not put it this way, but I can’t help but take that from your message when you say:

    “It may be fruitful in the short term, but, in the long term, I fail to see how having anything in common with the likes of Alex Jones or David Duke helps the cause of liberty.”

    The fact is that WE ARE NOT (and more importantly Ron Paul is NOT) purposefully “having anything in common” with those people. THEY are “having anything in common” with RON PAUL! Do you actually want him to CHANGE his opinions to avoid being smeared by people who will make up something to smear him on no matter what?

    If your only point is that the campaign should issue a FORMAL release saying “we don’t like those ass holes,” well than that is fine and reasonable.

    I personally don’t care if they do or don’t. They’ve already answered questions about it in official press releases, saying essentially “they’re wasting their money if they donate to us, since we completely disagree with them.”

    To me, returning money and making big apologetic statements about the Stormfront ass holes would just lead to similar demands about 9/11 Truthers, (who I also dislike, but are less odious than racists)…then what after that? Maybe they should return money from “anti-government people.” Why not?

    The fact is that these people, ass holes though they may be, are not criminals. We can all hate them and feel resentful that they’re associating themselves with our movement, but we should have the courage to stand up for our own beliefs regardless of who tries to taint them.

    Ron Paul is more transparent with his message than any candidate in the last 50 years. If people donate to him, that disagree with him, that is their own problem. It seems very fitting for neo-nazis to fund a libertarian, equality for all freedom-lover. I’d MUCH rather their money go to his worthy campaign than to some racist organization like Stormfront.

    Anyway, take it easy Doug. Again, I really appreciate your commentary and your balanced thought process. This is just one thing I really think you’re emphasizing in the wrong direction.

    Liberals (and liberal GOPers) have been trying to paint the freedom movement as biggoted for decades. Don’t let them intimidate you into believing such a nonsensical pot of BS.

  • Chad

    Here’s Ron’s press secretary partially addressing this issue among others.

  • Chad

    Also, Doug, I’m not one of these idiots who thinks that keeps bringing up “free speech.”

    I know this is not a matter of free speech, since nobody is suggesting that Stormfront ass holes should NOT BE ALLOWED to donate. They’re just suggesting that the Paul campaign should actively disassociate themselves. I understand this feeling, but see my post above for my disagreement with it.

    My concern is, where does it end? The NRO types will next ask Ron’s campaign to disassociate with “anti-government types” … me.


  • Georg Thomas

    Chad: “…these idiots who thinks that keeps bringing up ‘free speech’…” have problems to get what you are saying: either you feel entitled to dictate to a person, whom he should accept donations from and from whom he has to distance himself and from whom not, or else you accept the value and deeper meaning of free expression.

    Is that too deep?

  • Eric

    I am truly amazed at the distortion of what free speech means. I am not denying anyone their right to free speech if I denounce what they say. Nor is Ron Paul, for that matter. I am not denying anyone their right to political free speech if I refuse to accept their donations. Nor is Ron Paul.

    By accepting those donations and endorsements, Ron Paul appears to be aligned with them. Now, before everyone shouts about how awful the people are supporting Hillary, Giuliani, etc., stop and think for a minute. Ron Paul is supposed to be the candidate standing for principle, liberty, etc. He is also a dark horse. Giuliani can afford to be tainted by whacko’s and anti-liberty supporters. Ron Paul cannot. Why is it so hard to understand that if you are the principled candidate you cannot afford to not distance yourself from the unprincipled?

  • Eric

    Just to add to those thoughts on free speech. This is a “negative right”. That is, you can’t prevent someone from saying what they want. But, that in no way obligates either the government or an individual to provide a platform for said speech. You are free to say what you please, I am free to refuse to provide you with a venue to say it. That is far more the essence of liberty than the idea that by refusing to provide a venue for you to say what I want I am somehow infringing on your liberty.

    Too many years of the government telling you that there is such a thing as positive rights has caused some of you to lose your perspective on liberty, apparently.

  • Kevin

    All Ron Paul has to do to get this to go away is to stand up and make a statement at a rally or even briefly afterwards stating that he does not support the views of the Truthers, conspiracy theorists, racists, neo-Confederates, anti-Semites, and fascists and will not accept campaign contributions from them. Ron Paul himself has to make this statement publically, not one of his flacks. Also, he should probably stop appearing on Alex Jones’s radio show and his movies.

  • Georg Thomas

    Eric: Anyone reasonably acquainted with Ron Paul knows what he stands for. By making a positive case for liberty, he dissociates himself from its enemies.

    If you feel Ron Paul takes a stance identical or similar to a group intolerable to you…make that explicit, criticise it, oppose it.

    If you are convinced, as I am, that he is the right man, enjoy any action instrumental in strengthening him. If people who have views incompatible with his support him, so much the better.

    If Hitler donated to me, I would be the happier for it, becoming an even stronger opponent to him.

    In the final analysis, it all hinges on your assessment of the integrity and consistency of Ron Paul’s ideas. I have the fullest confidence in him, and warn against vicariously and meddlingly micromanaging donation acceptance or endorsement policies on behalf of Ron Paul.

    Why divert energies into issues that are intrinsically divisive (there will be lots of people who do not care about x, as you might do, but insist that y be dissociated from and so on and on and on), when apparently a lot of people are still not acquainted well enough with the position of liberty represented by Ron Paul. Get to know him (still) better – and you will never worry about (probably) millions of persons/groups/organisation that he has not dissociated himself from expressly – but clearly by implication, by explaining and fighting for freedom.

    For the many other points I made in favour of Ron Paul, refer to my several comments above.

  • Georg Thomas

    Kevin: Do you have any other dictatorial prescriptions for Ron Paul to humbly comply with?

    By the way, who is a Truther and who not? Can you add your likes and dislikes concerning such distinctions.

    Long live liberty, as long as it is in line with my preferences.

    Get together with the post’s author and give us a detailed set of orders as to how Ron Paul should conduct his campaign (to meet your taste).

    I warn you, though, Ron Paul is about principles, not about personal taste.

  • Eric

    Georg, no one knows who Ron Paul is other than a very small percentage of the voting population. If no one knows who he is, or what he stands for, it is ridiculously easy to smear him. In a day and age of sound bite news stories and people who don’t believe it if they don’t see it on TV, you are asking for trouble if you allow the mass media to dominate the coverage of him with negativity.

    Aside from that, you are dead wrong in saying that denouncing someone is opposing free speech.

  • Kevin


    Excuse me, I did know I was questioning King Ron. I apologize.

    King Ron knows better than little peons like me. All hail King Ron. He’ll bring peace and freedom and gold to all.

  • Georg Thomas

    Insufficient visibility, danger of smearing. True enough, Eric. That is why I do not understand the diversion of energy away from making Ron Paul known toward setting up ultimata on who he should dissociate himself from and whom not. Theoretically speaking: if he complied, the next ultimatum would come up in no time – and this time it might involve a group you do not think he should dissociate himself from.

    We need to think in terms of principles and their implications, not in terms of specific demands from Tom, Dick or Harry. The latter is the pattern of prevailing politics – muddling though by unprincipled pandering and “management by exceptions”.

  • Georg Thomas

    Kevin: Initially, it seems, you did not think you were questioning King Ron. Your initial assumption was right.

    How are you getting on with detailed propositions for a Ron Paul policy of dissociations: Would I be on the list?

    Common guys, let’s stop farting around. I do not wish to antagonise anyone (okay not doing a good job on that).

    I am just envious like hell.

    Look, all those 15 presidential candidates send them over to here – Europe – where they belong. That is where their thinking and doing is rooted: state paternalism, no idea what liberty is about.

    Boy, do I wish we had a guy like Ron Paul over here. And Ron is just the representative of millions of Americans who believe in liberty and understand it.

    Please, take back your country.

  • Pingback: Libertarians Questioning Paul’s Connection To Extremist Right - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought()

  • Georg Thomas

    Various hatemongers are demanding that Ron return a $500 donation that supposedly came from another hatemonger.

    Even if we assume this man is who we are told he is, so what? Should Ron also return donations from neocons and other Bushites who have actually helped commit mass murder in Iraq? Should he check all donors’ backgrounds, or just allow his enemies to tell him which contributions he can take and which he can’t?

    The National Socialists stood for genocide, aggressive war, government-business partnership, the welfare state, the warfare state, belligerent nationalism, militarism, suppression of civil liberties, abolition of states rights, routine spying on citizens, torture, secret prisons, state abortion, state euthanasia, capital punishment, glorification of the Leader, deification of the state, and demonization of the Other.

    Only Ron Paul opposes all of these. If an old-fashioned fascist, or a neo-(con)fascist, should send him a check, that is their loss, not his. Or maybe their conscience is telling them to atone.

  • Kevin


    Please mind your own business. I don’t comment on Europe’s various pathetic “leaders”. Please stay out of our presidential election.

  • Georg Thomas

    Kevin, an official contributor of “The Liberty Papers”, writes to me: “Please stay out of our presidential election.”

    Full comment:


    Please mind your own business. I don’t comment on Europe’s various pathetic “leaders”. Please stay out of our presidential election.”

    Is it my nationality? (Are you sure, I am not an American citizen? If that helps.)

    Or is it my unflinching support of Ron Paul? Or both?

    Good luck in your fight against the Stormfront.

  • Kevin


    I don’t speak for the blog. I speak for me, if that makes you feel better.

    I don’t appreciate people who are not American citizens and do not vote in this country telling me who I should vote for or against or what I can say about a particular candidate.

    Again, I don’t comment about elections outside the United States (let alone endorse anyone) because the residents of those countries would not appreciate being told by an American who to support.

  • Georg Thomas

    Are you sure, you know my nationality? If I can prove I am an American, will you admit me to the discourse?

  • Georg Thomas

    Dear Doug,

    Will you dissociate yourself or your blog from your contributor Kevin, who demands that I do not make contributions to your publication (commentary evidently open to all) on the presumption that I am not an American citizen?

    I am eagerly awaiting your reply.



  • rickdog

    i was going to bookmark this blog because it seemed to have a lot going for it, but now that i see that some the people involved are trying to stifle the free flow of ideas because they don’t agree with them, i’ve changed my mind. why act in a manner like what you are standing against?

  • Kevin


    i was going to bookmark this blog because it seemed to have a lot going for it, but now that i see that some the people involved are trying to stifle the free flow of ideas because they don’t agree with them, i’ve changed my mind.

    You were able to post that just fine, weren’t you?

  • Kevin


    Are you sure, you know my nationality? If I can prove I am an American, will you admit me to the discourse?

    No. I’m not interested in anything you have to say.

  • Georg Thomas

    Then let me ask, once more: Dear Doug,

    Will you dissociate yourself or your blog from your contributor Kevin, who demands that I do not make contributions to your publication (commentary evidently open to all) on the presumption that I am not an American citizen?

    I am eagerly awaiting your reply.



  • Brad Warbiany


    Our comment policy is here. As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t violated anything, so I see no reason to ban you from our blog.

    However, I would say that your comments indicate a rather muddled understanding of freedom of speech, when you take our admonishment of Ron Paul for not disassociating himself from these nutjobs as if it is a “dictatorial prescription” for the man.

    You see, we don’t believe we have any dictatorial powers over Ron Paul. The only power we have “over” him is to vote for him or against him, and to contribute to his campaign or to an opponents campaign. In fact, these are not powers we hold “over” him, because this is power he’s granted to us by engaging upon a candidacy for the presidency. We don’t own any media outside of this little corner of the blogosphere, so I don’t see how anything we say can be considered “ultimata”, as we have no power to enforce anything we suggest here on the blog beyond our own vote and pocketbook. Thus, anything we say does not infringe upon Ron Paul’s free association rights, nor on Stormfront’s free speech rights. It is, and should be taken as, advice based on what we believe would best HELP Ron Paul sidestep some landmines in his bid to be elected President.

    On the other hand, we do have power over this blog and who does and does not comment here. Yet even if you were banned from this blog, it would not infringe upon your freedom of speech. After all, the blog is the property of the contributors, and while you have the right to say anything you like, you have no right to speak on our property if we forbid it.

    However, as Kevin pointed out, when he “demanded” that you no longer participate here, he was not speaking on behalf of the blog. Any decision to ban or not ban a commenter is done collaboratively, and is reserved for rather egregious cases. I can only assume he was suggesting you go learn about the intersection of free speech rights with private property rights. You commentary clearly shows you don’t understand the concepts you’re arguing, and that you’re wasting everyone’s time.

  • Brad Warbiany


    I won’t speak for Doug, but I don’t intend to disassociate myself or this blog from Kevin.

    In fact, you should view this as an interesting example of what we’re talking about. You’re clearly offering a “dictatorial prescription” on whether Doug (or I, or any other contributor) should distance ourselves from Kevin.

    However, such a “demand” holds no weight. Just as we cannot force Ron Paul to disassociate himself from those who contribute to his campaign, you can’t force the contributors of this blog to disassociate ourselves from Kevin. What can you do? You can not read the blog. Or you can not comment on the blog. Or you can comment here and disagree with everything we say (as long as you do so respectfully). Or you can open another blog and call us a bunch of wankers.

    You see, the consequence of you opening a blog and calling us a bunch of wankers may be what I risk by not disassociating myself or this blog from Kevin. But I’m willing to take that risk. Someday you could run the biggest blog in the world, and if you continued calling us wankers, it might hurt our traffic and diminish our respect in the blogosphere. But it still couldn’t affect whether or not we could operate and post upon this blog.

    It’s much the same with Ron Paul. We can tell him that there are some pretty likely consequences to not addressing this issue. We could even call him a wanker if we chose (although I personally don’t consider him a wanker, and plan to vote for him). We have that right. Ron Paul has the right to ignore us, even if it may mean that the Stormfront issue costs him the presidency.

    You see how freedom works? You can demand that I (or Doug) disassociate ourselves from Kevin. We can refuse your demand (because you don’t have the power to enforce your demand), even if it could potentially cause us problems in the future. We can demand that Ron Paul disassociate himself from unsavory campaign contributors, and he can refuse our demand (or ignore us), even if it could potentially cause him problems down the road.

    Are you learning the lesson yet, or do you need me to repeat it?

  • Georg Thomas

    I see no reason to ban you from our blog, writes Brad. Humble thanks. My question was: will you dissociate yourself or your blog from a policy of disallowing comments on the grounds that the comments are made by a person presumed to be not an American citizen?

  • Georg Thomas

    Presumed foreigners banned from the blog, yes or no – an issue apparently not readily resolved by “The Liberty Papers”.

    At the same time, you endeavour to offer “advice based on what we believe would best HELP Ron Paul sidestep some landmines in his bid to be elected President.”

    Kindly, sort out your admission policy for legal aliens, that is: presumed legal aliens.

    We will take it from there – dear friends of liberty, self-styled advisers to the Champion of the Constitution, get your own dissociation policy worked out first, before pressing one on Ron Paul.

  • Chad


    Excuse my typo…however, I think we have a disagreement about what free speech means in this case.

    A constitutional freedom of speech has to do with whether or not the government should make any law that prohibits someone from speaking their mind in any way. That clearly is not the issue here, since nobody is suggesting that Ron Paul be FORCED to return donations or FORCED to denounce racists; additionally, nobody is suggesting that racists be FORCIBLY prohibited by the government from donating to any campaign.

    Tolerance is another concept; one that I personally endorse. However, as a contributor to Ron Paul’s campaign, I have every right to care about what the campaign says and express myself. If I felt the campaign implicitly encouraging financial fraud, for instance, I’d likely call them and demand that they explicitly clear the air.

    So to summarize, I do not think the campaign should bend over and say “oh I promise we don’t associate with _________” every time someone unpopular donates money to them.

    However, I completely disagree with some Ron Paul supporters that this is some kind of “freedom of speech” issue. Public pressure is not an infringement on free speech. It might be annoying or misplaced, but it’s only an infringement on free speech rights if the government or somebody else attempts to force you into doing something.


  • UCrawford

    Obviously Georg has a few shortcomings on his grasp of freedom of speech, but I can’t really argue with his position that it’s more than a little hypocritical to claim we’re pro-freedom then tell people to stay out of our political debates simply because they’re not Americans. Freedom is not exclusive to Americans and any individual’s nationality does not necessarily increase or diminish the credibility of their argument or determine what value they can bring to the conversation. Frankly, Kevin, if your worldview is so collectivist and provincial that it excludes everyone outside your preferred group from participating, maybe it’s not Georg who needs to keep his opinions to himself.

  • Akston

    Anyone else see the irony of attacking these Paul campaign contributors as nut jobs and kooks? Anyone else remember the prevailing response to Ron Paul a few short months ago? Is there any chance at all that the libertarian philosophers present could pick the high road and continue to explain the subtle necessities of freedom? Or are we doomed to eagerly join the low road and embrace sound-bite evaluations?

    I cannot think of a single Stormfront view I agree with, except that they chose a fine candidate to support in 2008.

  • Brad Warbiany


    I provided you a link to our comment policy. Did you see anything in the comment policy about banning foreigners from commenting on our site? Did Kevin not make it clear that he was speaking for himself, not for the blog in general?

    If you’re claiming this issue isn’t resolved, I fear you’re not reading what I’m writing. You haven’t been banned. As long as you conduct yourself with decency (as you have so far), you won’t be banned.

    Where is the confusion?

  • JoeMorgan

    “…libertarians might have some agreement with the likes of Stormfront … clearly incompatible with individual liberty…”

    Libertarians/Marxists/egalitarians want to create atomized societies, radically individualized societies.

    This is an imposibility, given the predatory nature of our species.

    So, all Stormfront is, is a forum for Europeans to promote their ethnic interests, something all healthy races do, something that all Jews and nonwhites in the West are encouratged to do, and are not given the scarlet letters of Nazi or racist when they do.

    So, I think Bernstein’s problem is not with Jews and nonwhites who discriminate, but only with that race he holds with contempt.

  • Doug Mataconis


    From a libertarian point of view, collectivist views like racism or nationalism are irrlevant.

    I don’t care what ethnic group I or anyone else belongs to — and my rights aren’t dependent upon which group I come from.

  • Francine

    Let me get this straight.

    Republican/Conservatives “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Liberal and/or Left-Libertarian.

    Democrat/Liberal “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Right-Libertarian.

    Libertarian/left-libertarian, right-libertarian, neo-libertarian(oxymoronic label) “Leaders”: Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Liberal.

    So to summarize, according to these self-appointed political elitists i shouldn’t support Ron Paul because he is too Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian and/or not Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian enough.


    And they wonder why Paul supporters ignore the talking heads…

  • UCrawford



  • TerryP

    Doug, you said

    “From a libertarian point of view, collectivist views like racism or nationalism are irrlevant.

    I don’t care what ethnic group I or anyone else belongs to — and my rights aren’t dependent upon which group I come from.”

    Don’t look now but you may have just made a case for why Ron Paul doesn’t need to do anything in regards to the Stormfront people and others like them.

  • js290
  • JoeMorgan

    Doug wrote:

    “From a libertarian point of view, collectivist views like racism or nationalism are irrlevant.”

    Our species is a predatory species. For someone to promote Marxist/egalitarian/libertarian ideology, all based upon the idea that our species is not predatory by nature — is folly, at best, and dangerous, at worst, because as Europeans die out via multiculturalism: (radical feminism, intermarriage, mass non-European immigration), they are being replaced by highly ethnocentric races, who lack the ability to maintain First World, individualistic societies.

    Doug wrote:
    “I don’t care what ethnic group I or anyone else belongs to”

    And as these highly ethnocentric Muslims take over Eureope, you will see how nonsensical and dangerous your idea of, “hey, I’m just an individual” is.

  • Doug Mataconis


    If Europe and the rest of the world followed individualism rather than collectivism that absurd ideas like viewing people based on what racial, ethnic or religious group they belong to would be seen for the absurdity that they are.

    Your philosophy is one of eternal war. The Freedom philosophy recognizes that peace is preferable to war.

  • JoeMorgan

    Doug wrote:

    “If Europe … followed individualism rather than collectivism…”

    It would be one thing if Europe stayed European, stayed a place for its indiginous people, and didn’t participate in this very dangerous multicultural experiment. Europeans, by nature, are much more individualistic than other races, and so more able to maintain individualistic societies.

    Doug wrote:

    “…that absurd ideas like viewing people based on what racial, ethnic or religious group they belong to would be seen for the absurdity that they are.”

    You mean like everyone else on the planet does?

    In America alone, you have 1,000s of racially defined nonwhite groups, with 1,000s of racially defined nonwhite leaders, all of whom discriminate when in their ethnic interests.

    You are working from the premise that we evolved from individualistic grazing animals, rather than predatory species.

    All healthy races, all alpha races, work to maintain their power within a siciety, both in terms of its percentage and its power within the power structure.

    Sick races accept their beta status, accept being punished for discriminating.

    So, why is it that Jews and nonwhites in America are encourgaed to organize along racial lines, to follow racdially defined leaders and to discriminate — while white Gentiles are punished if they hint that they might engage in the same behavior?

    This is simply alpha/beta behavior.

  • Doug Mataconis


    You view people as races, which is the same way that every destructive philosophy that has waged war against human life and liberty has view them (i.e., Naziism, Communism, Fascism, racism, Radical Islamism, Christian religious bigotry) and the history books are replete with examples of the disaster that collectivism brings to humanity.

    I view them as individuals. I think its time the rest of the world did too.

  • JoeMorgan

    Doug wrote:

    “You view people as races…”

    Tribal conflict, tribal homeland, tribal chieftain…

    Familiar terms?

    The National Council of La Raza (The Race) is the largest Chicano organization in America.

    There are 1,000s of racially defined nonwhite organizations in America, all promoting discrimination when it serves their ethnic interests.

    All this sounds pretty collectivist, to me.

    All people view themselves as part of a racial family, that is human instinct and normal, especially for alpha races, races that are not punished for discriminating.

    Guess what, where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they discriminate against ethnic minorities. Read Pres. Carter’s book, Peace Not Apartheid.

    Nazism and racism are terms used by the politically correct against white Gentiles when they discriminate, and never used against Jews and nonwhites when they do the same.

    It is a politically motivated term that selectively targets white Gentiles for punishment.

    Collectivism is the norm for predatory species.

    Jewish collectivism is called Zionism. That same collective thinking in Jews is seen in their support for multiculturalism. The way it is practiced, multiculturalism encourages racial consciousness and racial aggression in Jews and nonwhites, minorities, while punishing any hint of racial consciousness in white Gentiles, the majority.

    Minorities support multiculturalism because it empowers minorities, not because they oppose collectivism. It allows them to act collectively, while punishing the enemy, white Gentiles, when they hint that they might do the same.

  • Boston Dan

    This website is quickly becoming one of the biggest jokes on the internet.

    Your true colors are coming out, vis-a-vis attacks on RP.

    When it comes time to tooting the horn of this site, self promotion and such – you guys love to claim David Duke…

  • Eric

    Dan, your inability to think and reason is showing through clearly.

  • uhm

    I wish this was more balanced and all candidates were questioned about their supporters and asked to repudiate the ones who aren’t good wholesome Americans. I agree Ron Paul should say he disagrees with these people forcefully. I also think Ron Paul is being singled out because there isn’t much else to attack him on.

  • Linus

    For the Ron Paul Neo-nazi and Troofer conscientious objectors (a strange pedigree to be sure!), I think the country may be leaving you behind… (rotflmao [for Liberty!])

  • James Bowery

    Hey, JEW. Yeah YOU. Why do you think it was bad for Dr. Mengele to conduct experiments on Jews without their consent, but it is just hunky-dorey for Jews to take hypotheses about human ecology from their Frankfurt School of social “science” and Boasian school of “anthropology”, and test those hypotheses on us and our children without our consent?

  • Doug Mataconis


    I have no idea what you’re talking about and even less idea what you’re smoking.

  • James Bowery

    Ask Bernstein.

  • JoeMorgan

    Doug wrote:
    “I have no idea what you’re talking about and even less idea what you’re smoking.”

    He’s talking about the two “experiments” largely created and advanced in the West: the multicultural experiment and the Marxist experiment.

    Part of Jewish religious thinking is that they are the “light of the world,” and that they have the destiny to “repair the world.”

    Jewish supremacists have taken this and translated it with these experiments on Gentiles.

    The problem is, for average Jews, they have suffered greatly under Marxism, and will suffer even more under the multicultural experiment, both Diaspora and Israeli Jews.

    The multicultural experiment will simply empoverish the West, Balkanize it and fill it with tension, alienation and instability.

    Not goood environnments for Diaspora Jews to live under. And as the West becomes Balkanized Third World societies, our ability and desire to prop up the aparthied state of Israel will disapear.

  • Doug Mataconis


    Go have fun in your collectivist mind set.

    Libertarians are individualists, get it ?

  • JoeMorgan

    Doug wrote:
    “Libertarians are individualists, get it ?”

    Deer, elk, etc., are individualists.

    Predatory species are collectivists. Human beings did not evolve from grazing animals, that is why there is omnipresent ethnic and racial conflict on the planet.

    I doubt you could find one person out of a thousand in America that embraces libertarian ideology, and ouside the West I doubt you could find one in a million.

    Zionism is Jewish collectivism.

    Jewish support of multculturalism is also collectivism. Why? Because multiculturalism is not an egalitarian movment. All multiculturalists are pretend egalitarians.

    The reason that “minorities” support multicultursim, for now, is because it encourages collectivst behavior in Jews and nonwhites, while punishing white Gentiles who attempt the same.

  • James Bowery

    The hunting pack as collective is an interesting take on human evolutionary psychology that I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for that perspective, Joe. Its rare to find a genuinely new perspective.

    I’m not sure I agree with its equal applicability to all human races and indeed I think in Euroman there is a stronger streak of individualism than most, which is why we are so vulnerable to exploitation by immigrants from other parts of the world.

    As for the comparative mental midget, Mataconis (probably suffering from having paid a Jewish collectivist hypocrite for his “education”), he the issue he’s bringing up is valid but not to the point:

    An INDIVIDUAL has a right to refuse being subjected to experiments in human ecology. The mere fact that an INDIVIDUAL may wish to live and raise his children in an ENVIRONMENT ethnically similar to that within which he himself was raised, is not sufficient grounds for removing from him his right to refuse to be subjected to such experimentation — even if the experimenters are so “enlightened” as Jewish hypocrites posing as libertarians.