Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo on the unholy alliance that has formed between the “extreme Left” and “neoconish Right” in response to the rise and rise of American presidential hopeful Dr Ron Paul:
The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether – as well as thrilling longtime libertarians who have been laboring in the vineyards all these years and haven’t seen anything like this before. On the other hand, it has inspired – if that’s the right word – a counter-movement, an anti-Paul coalition that extends from the extreme Left to the neoconish Right, and all points in between. What’s interesting is that the lies told by these anti-Paulistas amount to pretty much the same tiresome mantra, no matter what the politics of the perpetrator, and it amounts to this: Paul is a secret neo-Nazi.
I kid you not.
…The anti-Paul Popular Front is wide-ranging, extending from the neocons over at the Weekly Standard and the editorial offices of National Review to the left-wing Web sites priming their readers for Hillary’s candidacy – and leading, finally, to the lair of something called the American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP), a neo-Nazi outfit run by a weirdo by the name of Bill White. White’s contribution to the smear campaign is a cock-and-bull story, posted on the Vanguard News Network forum, which claims that Paul and his aides have regularly met with neo-Nazi nut-jobs such as himself, supposedly at a series of dinner meetings organized in Washington, D.C.
The entire piece is worth reading.
Raimondo concludes:
The sheer breadth of the anti-Paul Popular Front is an astonishing sight to behold, extending all the way from avowed Nazis to radical Zionists, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Beck. Both Fox News and the International Socialist Organization are out for Paul’s scalp – and you can tell an awful lot about people by their enemies. What this tells me about Ron Paul is that he’s just what many people on both sides of the political spectrum have been waiting and hoping for.
18 comments ↓
(neo-) Nazi’s and Zionists with the same goal? When has this happened before?
You shoulda read Time magazines feature on the GOP presedential race. over 8 pages and not a single mention of Paul. Not even one word. Even Tom freaking Tancredo got a couple of paragraphs in.
Screw the commies at Time, I say.
Ron Paul raises more money in a single day of fundraising than any other candidate in American history. And he does it twice. But nobody notices?
Teflon, I assume (correct me if I’m wrong) that this ‘raising more money in a single say’ is a result of a deliberate attempt to raise it on a particular day as a puiblicity stunt. Until now did anyone take any notice of ho much ws raised on a particular day? If in fact “nobody notices” then the stunt has failed and he’ll have to think of something else.
Not as a publicity stunt but because they want to raise money to fund the campaign. The fact that Paul got so many people to donate and so much was raised shows that the man is widely supported.
What’s the alternative anyway? The Muslim apostate Obama? The hideous Hilary who cackles when people mention dead Iraqis? Giuliani with his 911 911 911 911 mantra?
Ron Paul is our only hope.
Sorry, I meant the stunt of having specific days in which they tried to raise a lot of money – no-one else does that afaik, so it isn’t surprising that they “broke the record”.
As I’m not a Muslim, and as I have severe doubts about Libertarianism (I just spent a week in hospital with a transitory but life-threatening illness and it cost me … nothing – under a libertarian government I would probably have had to sell my house to pay for it) in general and Ron Paul in particular (Paul might not be a neo-Nazi but most neo-Nazis are voting for him) I shudder to thonk what would happen if he was elected. Luckily he won’t be.
Because you like the comfort of having a government tel you what to do in innumerable ways during your typical day Antish, no one is suprised that you have ’severe doubts’ about Libertarianism.
As for Ron Paul, go you good thing!
Nonsense. I am prepared to put up with some limitations on my freedom in exchange for (mostly) sensible policies. The mantra “if it doesn’t harm anyone else” is fine if it is worked out to its conclusion (for example, unrestricted clearing of forest on private land DOES hurt other people) but if that was the case a libertarian government would be enacting very similar laws to current governments.
That’s ridiculous. Most government policies are not sensible and a lot of the money they steal from you just goes to pay for the public servants who administer the stealing. I don’t know what you are so scared of Antish. Most people are intelligent and mature enough to decide what to do with their own money and don’t need some pen pushing thief in Washington or Canberra to do it for them.
I’m not sure America can survive four more years of a president whose religious beliefs don’t allow him to believe in evolution. The religious nutters waiting on their precious “end times” are getting enough of a run in way too many countries already. In any case, Ron Paul won’t be entering the White House. “Muslim apostate Obama…”? I’m sure he would beg to differ.
Hmm – list me (say) six mainstream (ie not cherry picking from the sort of stuff that Andrew Bolt goes after) policies that aren’t sensible. You will be able to find policies that I don’t agree with, no doubt, but none that I think we would be better off doing away with government over.
I wish we employed more ‘public servants’ to actually enforce those policies regarding tree clearing (as you’ll have noted, the environment is my area of concern), toxic discharge, illegal fishing and so on.
“Most people are intelligent and mature enough to decide what to do with their own money ”
Yeah? So why the obesity epidemic? Why the growing number of critically endangered species?
However, you are right in that almost everyone (how did the libertarians do in the election?) agrees to fund a management team to research and (yes) make the tough decisions. It’s called ‘government’. It’s us.
Libertarianism: Pay for what you use, government takes their filthy hands out of your pocket.
Mixed Market/ Keynesian: Government steals form everyone to use on services some people may never use.
You tell me which is more efficient.
Mixed Market/ Keynesian every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Libertarianism leads inevitably to Social Darwinism and gilded age excess. It inevitably leads to the dark satanic mills of Dickens England. Without regulation Capitalism will always be self destructive.
The reason Dr Paul is getting slagged right now is because he said some very stupid things. The man suffers from a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease. He is a deeply ideological person almost rigidly so. It’s part of his appeal, you know he isn’t sugar coating anything he says-he believes every word he utters. But what he believes in is shear madness; rugged individualism is not the cure for our ills. We have to build new ways to cooperate not compete. That ticking you hear in the background is the great CO2 alarm clock and it is about to go off.
Libertarianism is not social darwinism or anarcho-capitalism. F.A. Hayek, who I believe is the primary authority on the matter mentions in the road to serfdom that government regulation for protection of the environment is necessary. So is minimal economic security. What Libertarianism is against is the “planning of the economy” which inevitably leads to inefficiency, serfdom and ultimately communism and fascism.
Attention all:
Ron Paul has been excluded from the NH primaries debate by Faux news. Flood their pages! Make them pay! Liberty or Death! Ron Paul 08!
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com.....ment-17959
You know, I’d get a lot more involved in this if it wasn’t that I keep breaking into chukles, saying “Muslims? For libertariansm?!?”
The nanniest of nanny states is nothing compared to the nanny religion of Islam. How many pixels have died in the arguments about how to wash socks?
Anyway, I’l lke to debate libertarians in a forum that was actually about it – anyone know a URL?
I’d say an Islamic state would be at least fiscally conservative seeing how taxes are strictly forbidden.
Oh, and what made you think I was muslim? 0_o
I didn’t think you were Muslim – you’re here because the blog supported libertarian candidates in the Oz federal election, aren’t you?
‘An Islamic State’ meaning the pie-in-the-sky Caliphate, or an actual state claiming to be an Islamic state? Either way, you’ll find that the ‘no taxes’ rhetoric is the same as the ‘no interest’ rhetoric – economic/linguistic sleight-of-hand means that Islamic states can afford standing armies, public roads and so on, just as anti-interest banks will lend you money for a ‘fee’.
Leave a Comment