The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat : Miami IMC

Photo: Abraham Lincoln, Ron Paul renewed the rhetoric of the Southern Confederacy and those who opposed the Civil Rights Movement by calling for “states rights” when he voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act gave Blacks the right to vote in the south.

The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

By STEVEN ARGUE

For the most part the Iowa caucuses were business as usual for the Democrat and Republican Parties. Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti--single payer health care, Barrack Obama. Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

Seeing the failure of the Democrats to deliver a candidate worth supporting; some left leaning individuals have been suggesting support to Ron Paul. One is anti-war Vietnam veteran Stan Goff, who suggested in his January 4, 2008 article ”Monkey Wrenching the System, Ron Paul’s Revolution” that people vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, switching party registration right away if they live in a state where such a move is necessary to vote in the Republican primaries.

At the root of the Ron Paul "revolution" is the dismantling of Social Security and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs, and the elimination of worker and environmental protections. Advances like single payer health care? No way. Ron Paul's message is that you need to take care of yourself, and that there shouldn't be such government programs, nor such interference with private profit. While he puts forward reasons for not supporting going to war abroad, his domestic policies would ignite civil war at home.

In addition to pretending he's against all government, he's for the continued ban on same-sex marriage. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

On abortion, Ron Paul is against it and puts forward a “state rights” argument. It took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions.

In addition to his opposition to a woman’s right to choose, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

He's also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

On race, Ron Paul was one of 33 Congress members to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, an act that was first passed to give Blacks in the south the right to vote. On a similar note, he says the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution and impedes on individual liberties as well as states rights. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions. Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, "95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal".

Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

No wonder the American Nazi Party has close relations with him (see letter from Nazi Commander Bill White below). In addition, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black.

Hell would freeze over before I'd support Ron Paul. And being an atheist; that will be a long time.

There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?

I discuss some of the campaigns that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

Or here is a different version of the same article:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/93820.html

*****************
American Nazi Party Chief says Ron Paul is one of us

Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party, aka The American Nazi Party, wrote the following on the Nazi Vanguard News Network:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

*********
Poor Bill White. He’s having trouble with his brand of racism, anti-Semitism, mass extermination, and genocide not being "in fashion". But hey, you've got to thank the knuckleheaded Nazi for confirming our suspicions on Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan! -Steven Argue

This has been a public service warning of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Also see, the Ron Paul Time Machine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY

Final Nails in Ron Paul’s Racist-sexist-homophobic Campaign Coffin

By STEVEN ARGUE

Since I wrote this article new information has surfaced regarding Ron Paul’s pro-fascist agenda.

That information is discussed in the following January 7, 2008 MSNBC interview conducted by Tucker Carlson with the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. In it he gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

http://antironpaul.com/

The following are newly released copies of Ron Paul’s extreme right newsletter to which Jamie Kirchick refers:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf

In addition to these revelations, in New Hampshire Ron Paul also failed to repeat anything close to the 10% vote he achieved in Iowa.

Somewhat surprisingly, there are a large number of liberal minded anti-war people who have urged a vote for Ron Paul.

They are liberal "support the lesser viable evil" types that see Ron Paul as more viable than any anti-war Democrat (arguably Kucinich and Gravel).

Additional questions have always existed if Ron Paul really was viable, or if he really was a lesser evil. New Hampshire and the latest revelations ought to put both questions to rest.

But for me there are always more important questions than if a candidate is viable or a "lesser evil". I think that building a long-term movement for real change is much more important than backing a candidate of any degree of evil. For me that includes deflating illusions in the corporate politicians of the Democrat and Republican Parties, getting out information on candidates to the left of the Democrats (the real anti-war and anti-corporate candidates), and urging further actions such as protests, strikes etc.

Simply put, there is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. In fact, there is nobody in the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties that are worth supporting. I discuss some of the candidates that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

I love how you cut and pasted all the random negative speculation about Ron Paul and claimed it was some article you wrote. I did in fact check your sources myself though, it seems you like to read socialists blogs and sites. Socialist are always naive trust fund kids. Fuck You, not because you are bashing Ron Paul but because your a bullshit lefty revolutionary dick head.

The IMC has really gone down hill, it boast a roster full of socialist morons.

It's a weird irony that in these times, peace advocacy is associated with leftist-styled statism, while advocacy of war and military imperialism are associated with right-wing styled statism.

Steven Argue's strident, bellicose attitude belies this association.

It stands in stark contrast with the benign, peaceful voluntarism of Socialism as practiced by Robert Owen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

It is the militarstic imperialist Socialism of Joseph Stalin. Not grassroots bottom-up Parecon:

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3480

As advocated by Chomsky:

http://noamchomsky.tribe.net/thread/a78c9ff4-f2ba-47e3-8e0f-0cc81a2da0ef

I won't bother to debunk Argue's race-baiting demegoguery, as "Frenchie Revolution" touched upon.

I would only point out that true peace can only come from tolerance and acceptance. From efforts to find effective ways to agree to disagree.

Not through the use of coercion and threat of violence, as advocated by the likes of Steven Argue and georgewbush, but through voluntary cooperation, as practiced and advocated by Owen and Chomsky.

Libertarians such as Ron Paul and I advocate "states rights" not merely as a means of promoting our own social agenda, but as a means to have our own amenable socio-economic enviorns while allowing and respecting those of the Owens and Chomskys of the world.

Of course, Argue and his ilk will have none of it, in the persuit of having their way in mine and everyone else's life.

The chism is not between Socialism and Libertarianism. It is between war and peace.

THe lines are drawn not between Argue and Owen on the one side, and Paul and I on the other. But rather, between Chomsky/Ghandi/Paul[and I] and Stalin/Franco/Argue on the other.

In reality, Libertarians have absolutely NO problem with the practice of Socialism (other than to offer criticism).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22122#comment-93679

It is the employment of coercion to which we object.

Clearly, in the fashion of his soul(or should I say soul-less)-mate in the Oval Office, Mr. Argue relishes the thought of civil war.

We peace advocates may abhore it; but if Mr. Agrue and his fellow thugs initiate it, so be it.

Finally, I would like to point out that while I wear my Ron Paul Revolution T-shirt proudly and unapologetically, I am not in agreement with him on some issues, such as as immigration and reproductive rights.

But I accept, as he does, that there will be, in the real world, those that disagree with me.

George Bernard Shaw pointed out that if you wish to build a perfect society, you must kill all that do not fit in.

Paul would provide the means of peaceful co-existence. I doubt Mr. Argue would have a problem with a Stalin-style political genocide, if that were "necessary" to impose Socialism.

And as there will aways be those of us who understand that freedom and responsibility for one's own well-being are intrinsically and inextricably linked, then war, as is the case with georgewbush, will appear to Argue as his only viable option.

BTW, I'm every bit the atheist that Argue is (taken at his word). You might not notice, as I don't go around trying to stuff it down unwilling throats.

---THe Bikemessenger