The Racism of Ron Paul

I intend to volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign when he heads to Florida for his primaries.  I almost voted in 2008, but never got around to it because, by the end of election Tuesday, I was convinced that the system was bereft of anything worth a shit as far as ethical standards go.  Two 'opposing' political parties with 'differing' policies that allowed a corrupt system to stick their fingers up our proverbial asses and point us to where they wanted us to go. 

Recently, I decided I liked what Ron Paul had to say.  When I made vocal my opinions (as I am wont to do) several people I have high amounts of respect for called me out and told me that Ron Paul was a racist.  However, these same people who called me out and provided their rationale are the same people who helped direct me to think for myself in my formative years.  Needless to say, with good conscience, I cannot berate or blast them as I can any other faceless asshole on the internet, since I know and respect these people as friends and human beings.  One compelling strategy to prove Dr. Paul as a racist is to go straight to the primary source--his own writings.  In Freedom Under Siege, Paul states:

Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change.
It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer
to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student
rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, Asian-
American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless
rights, etc.(22).   

On the outset, this seems like a good idea.  But from a standpoint of individualism, it's bound to bring about more problems.  Philosophically, whether these ideas are social constructs or not, is it not relevant as long as there are still categories for them extant.  By virtue of the category, it perpetuates the problem of bigotry (which is in and of itself a product of categorization that we impose on ourselves and others). 

Moreover, it is easy to misinterpret quotes like that when you read quotes that state that, "[t]he individual
suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care (Freedom of Siege 31)."  It is patently unfair to refer to the previous quote as being bigoted.  For one, Paul did not say the AIDS patient is always  a victim of their own lifestyle.  Anyone knows that isn't true.  People get raped, and forced into situations without consent and the consequences can be disastrous.  However, we also know you can get AIDS and other diseases from your own choices--like fucking whores and sharing heroin needles without cleaning them.  So is it really a misnomer to say that they are frequently the victim of their own choices?

Victim of their own way of life?

Then there is this picture

Ron Paul hanging out with Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Don Black.  The context we have regarding their relationship is a donation made to Paul's 2008 campaign.  And Don Black Stating that he doesn't believe Paul to be a white nationalist.  Whether you can take this guy seriously, or not, is of secondary importance.  One important thing about both the picture, and the video is this: if you are a politician representing the people, you can't pick and choose who you want to represent.  If people identify with your message, to a degree, you do not always have to identify with other aspects of their beliefs.

Another argument for Ron Paul as a racist stems from the previous paragraph.  He voted against the renewal of the Civil rights act of 1964.  Controversial, I know. Taken from his website, to defend his vote he states

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife (emphases his own).

The argument here is about private property.  And it pains me to say that it is really easy to see why the Derek Vinyards in the world can identify with such a philosophy. 

Derek Vinyard

If the Federal Government would take pains to promote this act, then it should tell Downsize Fitness that they have to allow all people, not just fat people to join their gym.  And it should intervene in the privately funded religious secondary schools, and colleges in America as well.  

As a hypothetical situation, I can see a guy with the beliefs of Malcolm X supporting the view of a guy like Ron Paul.  Both of them believe in forms of slavery still existing, regarding debt enslavement, and enslavement to the promises of someone holding authority over someone else.  Malcolm X called those blinded by the shiny promises "house niggers." 

Both Malcolm and Ron Paul have a system of resistance that is civil and disobedient (not in the same way as Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.) in that they believed in gun ownership to protect your individuality.  Malcolm X along with the Nation of Islam were targeted by our government often with acts of disinformation, and one way to counteract that was to defend themselves (not commit wanton acts of violence). 

Moreover, in his life, Malcolm X was criticized as racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic.  Much like Ron Paul.  But to be fair, Ron Paul was not the only one critical of the civil rights act and the economic system. The good stuff is halfway through the video, where Malcolm talks about how it doesn't really open up new opportunities for blacks in America.




The main problem I find with the "No" vote on the civil rights act is that he doesn't provide a solution, and acts as though with time, people will become understanding all of the sudden. As if, I, a business owner will suddenly awaken and say, "Maybe I SHOULD let everyone that I never allowed before inhabit my business now." Common sense (which he overestimates its abundance in the American People) says that any smart business owner wouldn't discriminate that way because it's bad for business. And though some would realize that, not all would. That's one flaw of his thought process. But, in accordance with his extreme anti-collective lines of thought, he'd be more of a hypocrite if he voted yes on something like the civil rights act and tried to give it some lame bullshit justification.  For such consistency, we should give laud as it is a rare trait in any American politician these days.  


At the end of the day, I can see why racists like the guy's view points.  I could go on about it, but there's no need.  I gave you some primary sources, youtube has a shitload of interviews of him speaking his philosophy, and if you're not an idiot, you can form your own opinion, which I hope you will.  In the end, I can see a guy who just wants to stop fucking with cultures we couldn't begin to comprehend, and who just wants to unfuck our country.  Let the flame wars begin.