by chlamor » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:14 pm
That letter about the riots was racist. I don't give a how anyone can explain Paul's views away as not being racist in terms of Ayn Rand's views on collectivism. This is racism filtered through Paul's libertarian ideology. Similar to the philosemites - they too were racists who pretended they weren't by filtering their bigotry through a layer of ideology.
Quote:
"The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property,material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality."
That's racist. Paul can say that its not racist because he believes its behavior that has resulted not from race traits but from "collectivism" all he wants and that is still going to be a protofascist sentiment ... which is exactly why the nazis at Stormfront are so stoked about Paul and saying stuff like this
From Stormfront:
"Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN, [White Nationalist] who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; as long as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.
Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti-semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a Bar Mitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.
Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!"
Or back to Paul:
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.
...
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor"
lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and theviolence subsided."
and then this charming passage
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Yep, not racism. Just criticism of "collectivism" - which in fact gets to what Paul is saying, blacks are the racists. I'll give you this, if Paul's not racist, then neither are a lot of the commentors at Stormfront, because they say the same thing. "I'm not a racist, it's just that blacks blah blah crimes rates blah blah ..."
That's Paul rationalizing his racism through the prism of his libertarian ideology. It reminds me of "philosemitic" antisemites in the 19th century who believed that Jews would lose their "jewness" and become German if they were granted full citizenship. But that didn't happen and the "philosemites" became flat out antisemites.
Paul is saying something similar, that once his libertarian dream-world comes into being "the market" will magically transform blacks from "collectivists" (read: communists) into humans with "sensible" opinions. This is the kind of typical "non racist" racism that you can find littered at a site like Stormfront.
That letter by Paul after the riots is white supremacy 101 ... which is of course why a neo-nazi holocaust denier liked it so much that he posted it to his website.
In the Political Letter that was archived at Nizkor Paul asserts that it is rational to be afraid of black men because 95% of black males in major cities are criminal or semi-criminal and that only 5% of blacks hold "sensible" opinions.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
