Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) makes an earnest effort to discover why African Americans won’t vote for states right conservatives, his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is doing his very best to answer the question in his new role outside of Congress.

Paul, who retired this year from the House, is running a new think tank aimed at supporting his “non-interventionist” foreign policy and libertarian domestic politics. But rather than a new chapter for the longtime representative, The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity looks more like a return to the old extremist ties he tried to shake off in recent years as his movement gained a more mainstream following.

As Jamie Kirchick reports in The Daily Beast, his group’s advisory board includes incendiary columnist Lew Rockwell, who has been identified in news reports as the most likely author of a series of racist, homophobic and conspiracy-laden newsletters Paul published in the ’80s and ’90s.

Despite being marketed with his endorsement and sometimes presented under his name, Paul denied any knowledge of their content in his recent presidential runs. But Rockwell’s re-emergence into Paul’s inner circle suggests he hasn’t put the past behind him.

Other board members profiled by Kirchick include John Laughland, who made defending Slobodan Milosevic from ethnic cleansing charges a personal cause, and economics professor Walter Block, who argued on Rockwell’s website that the country would be better off if the Confederate states had successfully cut ties with the “monster Lincoln.” This is not far from Paul’s own comments — in a 2007 Meet The Press appearance he said that the “iron-fisted” Lincoln should never have fought the “senseless Civil War.”

Rand Paul, who has presented himself as more mainstream on foreign policy than his father, has not attached himself to the think tank and did not speak at its launch this month. But his father’s career continues to make Paul’s professed naivete as to the roots of conservatives’ minority outreach problem all the more puzzling.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/ron-pauls-extreme-ties-reemerge-at-new-institute.php

 

[diffusionx]

I am not sure Ron Paul is a racist, myself.

I am quite sure, though, that he felt it was politically advantageous to pander to racists and was fine with doing so.

I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[genjiZERO]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://newsone.com/444922/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist/

 

[Espresso]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

 

[Cheebo]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

The south would have continued with slavery for who knows how long. It would have caused some serious and horrible historical repercussions..

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

The latter part of your post is scary. Imagine a post civil war era 'United Southern States of America', a population that mostly supported slavery and whose economy would stumble and crash without it.

Frightening thinking about how much longer slavery might have gone on for given those circumstances.

 

[Dude Abides]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

Did he have any black friends? Some of his best ones?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

Really?

 

[Xdrive05]

He's also a hypocrite. Didn't he try to use the UN to take Ronpaul.com from his fans who owned it, instead of paying for url all free market style?

Internet cult of personality does not a good politician make.

 

[genjiZERO]

The south would have continued with slavery for who knows how long. It would have caused some serious and horrible historical repercussions..

The latter part of your post is scary. Imagine a post civil war era 'United Southern States of America', a population that mostly supported slavery and whose economy would stumble and crash without it.

Frightening thinking about how much longer slavery might have gone on for given those circumstances.

I completely agree that the South would be a Hell on earth. Don't get me wrong. But that aside, my question is whether the North would have been better off. Maybe you so no because of the moral repercussions of the situation in the South. I'm not saying it is, only wondering about it.

 

[Nemesis_]

I ALWAYS read Ron Paul threads as if we were talking about RuPaul and I proceed to get SO confused.

 

[Chichikov]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

The South would most assuredly wouldn't be better.
They're still people down there, even if they vote for the wrong party.

At the end of the day, slavery had to be abolished, it was a moral imperative, now I'm not saying that the way the civil war played out was the absolutely best way for that to happen, but I am suggesting that any alternative that would've kept slavery in place would have been worse, by definition.

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

10/10

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

Seriously? You would rather let the south have a 148 additional years of slavery and racism for free healthcare? We still have segregated proms down here in 2013 so I couldn't fathom what awfulness would be going on without the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement.

 

[Half and half]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

Don't do it! Don't do it!

Too late.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

I completely agree that the South would be a Hell on earth. Don't get me wrong. But that aside, my question is whether the North would have been better off. Maybe you so no because of the moral repercussions of the situation in the South. I'm not saying it is, only wondering about it.

The southern states that relied heavily on slave labor entered shitty economic times after slavery was abolished, its still cited as a reason some southern areas are still below average when it comes to income and poverty.

If that doesn't happen The South would probably have a smoother transition to modern industry at the cost of many enslaved people. Both sides might be better off today if we just cut ties with eachother back then. How much better off? Who can say. It would also change the timeline of WW1 and 2. Pearl Harbor gets bombed and does The South care at that point? It's interesting to ponder but I think the victims of continued slavery is far too high a cost.

 

[Slayven]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

So the USA would be better off without black people? You are with esteem company with that opinion.

 

[mr jones]

Seriously? You would rather let the south have a 148 additional years of slavery and racism to free healthcare? We still have segregated proms down here in 2013 so I couldn't fathom what awfulness would be going on without the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement.

Yeah, but at least the North wouldn't have to deal with the cray cray south. Plus, black folks wouldn't know no better unless they lived in the north.

I mean, think of how good we'd have it. Wouldn't have to worry about illegal aliens taking jobs, because you'd have indentured servants (slave is such a polarizing word) who would keep costs low. All of your iPhones and Jordans would be made in the United Southern States, baby!

Well, maybe not Jordans. Black people wouldn't be playing in the NBA. That's just not their place.

 

[ratcliffja]

I ALWAYS read Ron Paul threads as if we were talking about RuPaul and I proceed to get SO confused.

RuPaul is Ron Paul's illegitimate son, which explains his racism and homophobia.

 

[genjiZERO]

Seriously? You would rather let the south have a 148 additional years of slavery and racism for free healthcare? We still have segregated proms down here in 2013 so I couldn't fathom what awfulness would be going on without the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement.

Again... I said it would be awful in the South.

The southern states that relied heavily on slave labor entered shitty economic times after slavery was abolished, its still cited as a reason some southern areas are still below average when it comes to income and poverty.

If that doesn't happen The South would probably have a smoother transition to modern industry at the cost of many enslaved people. Both sides might be better off today if we just cut ties with eachother back then. How much better off? Who can say. It would also change the timeline of WW1 and 2. Pearl Harbor gets bombed and does The South care at that point? It's interesting to ponder but I think the victims of continued slavery is far too high a cost.

Those are good questions. It's likely Pearl Harbor would never have even occurred because the US may not have entered an expansionist phase and may have never seized Hawaii.

So the USA would be better off without black people? You are with esteem company with that opinion.

Oh good god man. First, there were black people in the North. Second, even in the scenario black people could still immigrate to the North. Third, I never said that so please don't put words in my mouth. Fourth, it's a scenario. I didn't say it was the correct scenario. It was simply something pondered, and did so, in what I thought, was a half-joking manner.

 

[speculawyer]

Seriously? You would rather let the south have a 148 additional years of slavery and racism for free healthcare? We still have segregated proms down here in 2013 so I couldn't fathom what awfulness would be going on without the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement.

Clearly slavery would have ended there eventually.

What would have been nice if we were still separated is that they would have to suffer the full consequences of their Bible-centric policies. They'd be the Christian version of Islamic nations. Or perhaps they'd realize it wasn't working so well and switched.

 

[Dali]

Seriously? You would rather let the south have a 148 additional years of slavery and racism for free healthcare? We still have segregated proms down here in 2013 so I couldn't fathom what awfulness would be going on without the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement.

Slaves in the South were already revolting here and there. It would only have been a matter of time before it turned into an all out revolution. The Union would have aided the "rebels" (by that I mean those going against the confederacy not the rednecks) and the Confederacy would have either been straightened out like a petulant child ("No more humans as a commodity! Bad!") or dissolved. At least that's how I see it happening.

 

[mr jones]

Again... I said it would be awful in the South.

Oh good god man. First, there were black people in the North. Second, even in the scenario black people could still immigrate to the North. Third, I never said that so please don't put words in my mouth. Fourth, it's a scenario. I didn't say it was the correct scenario. It was simply something pondered, and did so, in what I thought, was a half-joking manner.

LOL As if there wouldn't be hella laws put in place so that couldn't happen. President Ron Paul would probably have a official task force set in place to prevent indentured servants from setting foot on Northern soil.

 

[Chichikov]

Clearly slavery would have ended there eventually.

What would have been nice if we were still separated is that they would have to suffer the full consequences of their Bible-centric policies. They'd be the Christian version of Islamic nations. Or perhaps they'd realize it wasn't working so well and switched.

Considering Jim Crow, I can't see how they would've become anything better than Apartheid.
It would've probably ended eventually, my guess around the same time as the South African apartheid, but man, that's a whole lot of pain you're inflicting on a whole lot of people, more pain than having to deal with idiots like Ron Paul.

 

[RDreamer]

The southern states that relied heavily on slave labor entered shitty economic times after slavery was abolished, its still cited as a reason some southern areas are still below average when it comes to income and poverty.

If that doesn't happen The South would probably have a smoother transition to modern industry at the cost of many enslaved people. Both sides might be better off today if we just cut ties with eachother back then. How much better off? Who can say. It would also change the timeline of WW1 and 2. Pearl Harbor gets bombed and does The South care at that point? It's interesting to ponder but I think the victims of continued slavery is far too high a cost.

Yeah, it's definitely interesting to ponder whether they would have figured out a better way to economically emerge from slavery had it not been ripped from them and forced on them so quickly.

I also wonder when it would have ended had we separated. I think clearly by now there wouldn't be slavery in the south. It would assuredly be worse for black people there, even now, though... I think. I wonder if the North would have almost got more racist, though. If you think about it if we separated and the South continued slavery the North would probably have offered asylum for anyone and everyone that could escape it. The north would get a lot of people who would very understandably need a lot of help. Stuff like that brings about resentment in quite a lot of people.

Ultimately I'm sure the cost of the civil war and ending slavery right then was pretty damned worth it, but I guess we'll never know for sure how things would have played out otherwise.

Slaves in the South were already revolting here and there. It would only have been a matter of time before it turned into an all out revolution. The Union would have aided the "rebels" (by that I mean those going against the confederacy not the rednecks) and the Confederacy would have either been straightened out like a petulant child ("No more humans as a commodity! Bad!") or dissolved. At least that's how I see it happening.

Yeah, this makes some sense. Things would have got to a tipping point of all out revolution that would be aided by the North, anyway, or that tipping point would have pushed the politics in the south into ending slavery and trying to figure out how the fuck to do that themselves. Probably more likely the revolution scenario, though.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I am not sure Ron Paul is a racist, myself.

I am quite sure, though, that he felt it was politically advantageous to pander to racists and was fine with doing so.

I'm not sure which is worse.

His son argued, during the course of his Senate campaign, that businesses should have the "freedom" to discriminate according to race.

Coupled with other things I've read about Ron Paul, I figured that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

 

[Slayven]

And if they have separated the north's economy would eventually sunk. The south had damn near all the agriculture.

 

[Chichikov]

And if they have separated the north's economy would eventually sunk. The south had damn near all the agriculture.

The north produced more food than the south since the 19th century.
The south mostly focused on cotton and tobacco, it made a lot of money for the US, but the economy would've survived without it.

Here's a pretty interesting book on the subject (though it cover a bit broader themes).

 

[johnsmith]

Don't worry op. I never for a second stopped thinking that Ron Paul was an awful, racist, piece of shit.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Who cares. This guy and his son will never be president anyway.

 

[devilhawk]

His son argued, during the course of his Senate campaign, that businesses should have the "freedom" to discriminate according to race.

Coupled with other things I've read about Ron Paul, I figured that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

That is pretty standard libertarian ideals though. The thought that businesses should be allowed to do stupid things and the market will correct for it as it will either go out of business or change its ways.

That's the thought at least. Doesn't really work out that way in practice but I don't think the theory is based in racism.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Who cares. This guy and his son will never be president anyway.

And it's not like this'll change any minds among the Paulites.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

That is pretty standard libertarian ideals though. The thought that businesses should be allowed to do stupid things and the market will correct for it as it will either go out of business or change its ways.

That's the thought at least. Doesn't really work out that way in practice but I don't think the theory is based in racism.

Well when proponents of libertarian theory like Paul cozy up to blatantly racist colleagues and supporters it makes it hard to tell if he's racist himself or just opportunistic and desperate for backing. I tend to think it's the latter myself but it's hardly any better than the former.

"Yeah you know I'm not really racist or anything but, hey, if bigots got my back then I got theirs!"

 

[IHaveCandy]

Thinking that people, including business owners, have the right to be openly racist is not being racist.

Well when proponents of libertarian theory like Paul cozy up to blatantly racist colleagues and supporters it makes it hard to tell if he's racist himself or just opportunistic and desperate for backing. I tend to think it's the latter myself but it's hardly any better than the former.

"Yeah you know I'm not really racist or anything but, hey, if bigots got my back then I got theirs!"

I don't think it's fair to make loose inferences and claim somebody is racist.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I don't think it's fair to make loose inferences and claim somebody is racist.

I said I don't think he's racist. I think he just doesn't care.

 

[Chichikov]

Thinking that people, including business owners, have the right to be openly racist is not being racist.

That's not what he's saying, he says they have the right to discriminate, two very different things.
I don't think that necessarily make him a racist, though I kinda struggle to see how someone with reasonable views of race relations can support something like that.

 

[Tallshortman]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

Yes it is wrong, what an extremely selfish thing to say.

 

[JDSN]

Hola shit, that line-up looks like the extraordinary league of racists gentlemen.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

That's not what he's saying, he says they have the right to discriminate, two very different things.
I don't think that necessarily make him a racist, though I kinda struggle to see how someone with reasonable views of race relations can support something like that.

Agreed. He may not be a racist himself but it does make him a giant asshole who enables and arguably supports racists. Basically he can go get fucked as far as I'm concerned.

 

[childplease]

I don't really care if he is. I still want him as president.

Legalization of marijuana, no foreign aid to israel would be worth it alone.

Who knows what kind of other crazy laws he would try to push.

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I don't really care if he is. I still want him as president.

Legalization of marijuana, no foreign aid to israel would be worth it alone.

Who knows what kind of other crazy laws he would try to push.

Yeah a return to the gold standard would be a blast.

 

[ChosenPredator]

I don't think that dude is racist for one second

 

[Chichikov]

Agreed. He may not be a racist himself but it does make him a giant asshole who enables and arguably supports racists. Basically he can go get fucked as far as I'm concerned.

I generally try to focus more on what politicians do (or want to do) and less on what thoughts are inside their mind.

I think Ron Paul is a terrible politician because I think the policies he put forward are disastrous for this country, not because he may not like black people.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

It would still be a conflict today. Border disputes would never end.

 

[IHaveCandy]

That's not what he's saying, he says they have the right to discriminate, two very different things.
I don't think that necessarily make him a racist, though I kinda struggle to see how someone with reasonable views of race relations can support something like that.

That's what I meant by "openly racist". I guess I could have made that more clear.

Also, believing it is somebody's right to do something isn't supporting them doing it. Much like how people thinking it is a woman's right to get an abortion isn't necessarily them supporting their decision to have one.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

I generally try to focus more on what politicians do (or want to do) and less on what thoughts are inside their mind.

I think Ron Paul is a terrible politician because I think the policies he put forward are disastrous for this country, not because he may not like black people.

The likelyhood that the thoughts in his mind could easily lead to laws that unfairly discriminate, should concern every reasonable person.

Basically what he wants to do as a politican and not liking black people could very well be one in the same if given authority and voter support.

 

[Mileena]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

He was probably scared of them

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't think that dude is racist for one second

Trolol.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

That's what I meant by "openly racist". I guess I could have made that more clear.

Also, believing it is somebody's right to do something isn't supporting them doing it. Much like how people thinking it is a woman's right to get an abortion isn't necessarily them supporting their decision to have one.

I don't think comparing racism to abortion is apt. As a society we've pretty much closed the book on racism with the conclusion that it's universally detrimental and therefore has no business being institutionalized.