NYT: Ron Paul’s Supporters Are “Iconoclastic White Men”

Posted by Maguire on November 12, 2007, 11:16 AM | #

See what can happen once the Jew is physically removed from the circuit?

“If his campaign had taken place in the pre-Internet era, it might have gone the way of his 1988 Libertarian campaign for president, as a footnote to history.”

Translation:  ‘Back then we would have subjected it to the censorship of dynamic silence and refused to make any mention of Ron Paul in approved mass media.  Look how well this still works with Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.’ 

‘We’ve tried to do that to Ron Paul as well this campaign but the tactic is failing now.  Except for Paul we’ve already managed to centralize this entire Presidential election in New York City with Hillary, Giuliani and Bloomberg as a wild card.

“But because of the Internet’s low-cost ability to connect grass-roots supporters with one another”

Translation:  The key to restoring our control is to raise internet costs and barriers to free communication ASAP.  Otherwise that white trash in flyover country will keep organizing laterally until they overthrow our entire Judeo regime.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 12, 2007, 11:23 AM | #

Good comment by Maguire.  For the Jewish press to take notice, they must fear Paul has potential.  Otherwise they’d act as if he didn’t exist, never mentioning him.  “Iconoclastic white men”?  Well, white men who’d like the bloodsucking to stop, yes, there’s that.  But the word “iconoclastic” suggests intensity, fire, passion, while Paul’s campaign actually comes across as pretty sedate.  I only wish it seemed more iconoclastic, and more “charismatic” in the Reagan style.  But if it’s got the Jewish press spooked he’s on the right track. 

Now, why would what’s good for the country spook the Jews?  Does that mean what’s bad for the country would reassure the Jews?  In the answer to those questions lies a whole education about what’s going on.

Posted by Al Ross on November 12, 2007, 12:30 PM | #

Maguire’s elegant phrase, “the censorship of dynamic silence” is ‘le mot juste’ as the Jew-ridden NYT, a paper which sees itself as the epitome of cosmopolitan intellectual life,  really deserves an alteration to its masthead motto, viz., - “All the news that’s fit to hide”.

Posted by Tommy G on November 12, 2007, 03:58 PM | #

When the MSM is not deliberately ignoring or disrespecting Ron Paul himself, they’re criticizing his supporters.

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=599

Posted by zusammen on November 12, 2007, 07:18 PM | #

Has the MSM bothered to tackle the points of the platform or are they entirely dedicated to smearing Ron Paul and supporters? If it’s all down to ad hominem, it would suggest that logically unjustifiable actions are taking place.

Posted by Marge O'Brien on November 13, 2007, 09:50 AM | #

I’ve actually been noticing how *many* Jews are supporting Ron Paul campaign; you can see this if you watch the donor names that get listed on the home page.  I don’t know what these two things mean, but they caught my interest:

The designers of the Ron Paul website are a group called Terra Eclipse (CA).  Here http://www.terraeclipse.com/journal/2007/06/  I learned that on June 4, 2007, Terra Eclipse “redesigned” the RP website, and on June 16, 2007, “TE expands network consulting services portfolio through partnership with Barry Schneider.”  I sent them an email congratulating them on their wonderfully creative design and followed that up with another one simply asking, who is Barry Schneider?  No reply to either.  (Why should they?  Who am I?)

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/supporter-spotlight/ - on this page, I wondered why 7-yr. old Alistair from NYC was receiving such wide media coverage for his $4 donation and why Eric Roth was being spotlighted for doing what I’m sure many supporters across the country are doing:  making multiple donations and attending multiple meetups.

And someone said the person who came up with the 11/5 idea was Jewish, but I don’t know that for a fact.

Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation interview left nothing to the imagination.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml  In a. side-by-side comparison, Schieffer boosts credible Mike Huckabee and derides poor old Ron Paul with a string of snidely sarcastic references to his age and his “anti” positions that no reasonable person could take seriously.

Paul handled it all well, except for Schieffer’s closing sneer, “you don’t really think you can win this, do you?” - I thought Paul should have responded more forcefully, instead of talking about how realistic he is, but don’t tell my supporters—they think I can.

Marge

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 13, 2007, 10:01 AM | #

From the “Ron Paul’s Handlers Still Don’t Get It” department:

Something Ron Paul’s handlers should have kept him strictly away from!  To Ron Paul’s handlers:  Do you guys think the latino vote, legal or illegal, has more potential to put your guy over the top than the disaffected whites vote, especially the white men the latinos are race-replacing?  You do?  WOW, YOU GUYS ARE REALLY ON THE BALL!

(Chalk one up for Tom Tancredo, who stayed away.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 13, 2007, 01:11 PM | #

The GOP Spanish-language panderfest is still three weeks away, which leaves plenty of time for Ron Paul to plan on ... catching laryngitis the day before ... and being ... uhhh ... forced for health reasons to desist at the last minute ... that’s right, health reasons ... forced for health reasons ... oh yes, and with deep regret! ... (almost forgot that last part about “with deep regret” — good thing I remembered ... That was close! ...).

Posted by James Bowery on November 13, 2007, 01:20 PM | #

Marge, “court Jews” are always positioned on all sides of any critical issue in a game that is part political arbitrage and part political manipulation.  Such compete position coverage by court Jews can provide “hedge-your-bets” kind of political arbitrage.  Jews tend to use this tactic when their influence is uncertain.  When Jewish influence is more secure, court Jews on the side that isn’t “good for the Jews” can simply express less competence than the court Jews on the side that is, and the outcome is “good for the Jews”.

It is unclear in this situation which is operating since Jews just threw away a huge amount of political capital on Zionism, and their primary windfall of the 20th century, motion picture technology, is being decentralized out of their control.  In this situation, with so much “mystery meat” as Fred so graphically describes it, being imported to the West’s human ecology, the human ecology they’re used to winning in is being disrupted so it isn’t even clear to me that they can make their normal tactics work.

One thing I know is that there has been a strong Jewish influence on libertarian philosophy, the ultimate goal of which has been to subsidize centralized wealth concentrations by the simple expedient of taxing anything but the primary service provided by government:  property rights that would not exist without government’s protection of such unnatural property rights.

Posted by Marge O'Brien on November 13, 2007, 06:04 PM | #

I haven’t seen the mystery meat reference.  But regarding my sense on Sunday that Huckabee was being made “red meat” to divert conservatives away from Paul, this breaks a long pattern of negligible donations:

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/rp_vs_huck_today.html

Posted by VLC on November 15, 2007, 11:22 AM | #

Fred Scrroby
“The GOP Spanish-language panderfest is still three weeks away, which leaves plenty of time for Ron Paul to plan on…”

this may be a good opportunity for publicity though: Paul is against amnesty, against benefits for illegals, against birthright citizenship, in favor of building a fence and not being a flip flopper he’s not going to changes all of these positions because he speaks to a latino audience so think of all the boos from the crowd he can potentially get every time he speaks, they’ll take it personally.

Posted by Tommy G on November 16, 2007, 11:36 AM | #

Iconoclasts? It looks like London’s white men are descending into the worst form of iconoclastic behavior…or at least they are being advertised in such fashion.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term: European or Euro-pee-in!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1293138,00.html

Posted by Lurker on November 16, 2007, 12:55 PM | #

You wont see many like that in Camden market as the article claims. And obviously the picture is a reference to this Belgian landmark:

http://cache.gridskipper.com/travel/1121738-Manneken_Pis-Brussels.jpg

Posted by Tommy G on November 16, 2007, 01:14 PM | #

“You wont see many like that in Camden market as the article claims.”

Of course not. I was simply trying to illustrate how the faggots and Jews in the advertising bussiness denigrate white men by portraying them as lowlifes.

The perverts that control to advertising bussiness wouldn’t dare show a picture of a Muslim in a dirty headscarf publicly urinating in a cup. Oh no!!! That would be politically incorrect. Not only that, the Muslims, unlike the wimpy whites, wouldn’t stand for it. They’d riot and burn down Camden market and the Belgian advertising agency that created the add.

Posted by Jean West on November 17, 2007, 10:46 AM | #

I think I know what “Iconoclastic White Men” are now. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
November 14, 2007

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: “such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, “When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don’t believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society.”

Ron Paul is different. 

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.  He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions.  Paul has no traction in the polls—7% of the vote in New Hampshire—but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain.  And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul’s apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups’ public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 “patriot money-bomb plot.” 

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an “Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul” on TownHall.com.  It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto.  His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

There is more.

(in fact, much much more - a who’s who of racists, supremacists, anti-semites, leftists, and Arabs, and they all seem to have one thing in common!!!)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 17, 2007, 12:28 PM | #

Can Jean West say a bit what her point was in posting that last comment?  Though she’s a blogger here I can’t tell from her postings thus far what her views are. 

Medved’s extremely aggressive attack on Ron Paul 1) is a sign of Paul’s strength, and therefore a compliment:  non-threats aren’t attacked, certainly never attacked so aggressively as Medved has done here — they’re ignored or, at most, occasionally ridiculed sarcastically for laughs and that’s it; this very serious, very vicious attack means the neocons rate Paul a serious threat; 2) exactly what the Paul threat is, in Medved’s eyes, is his opposition to the Bush’s aggression in the Middle East, which of course all the “major” GOP candidates (as well as Hillary) can be expected to continue.

Medved is good in a number of ways.  Where he’s worse than unacceptable, unfortunately, is he’s a Jewish race-replacement advocate.  That rules him out completely from any sort of consideration as far as I’m concerned.  He’s a non-entity at best, a mortal enemy at worst, no matter how good he may be on cultural issues.  Michael Medved:  nice guy but for our side either a big ZERO or of minus infinity value.

Posted by Jean West on November 17, 2007, 05:51 PM | #

Derbyshire’s response to the article:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDZkZGI1M2JiOWI0Y2FkZjc0NzY1ODk2ZmVlNTA4ZDE

Posted by D.E. Johnson on November 17, 2007, 08:23 PM | #

So Derbyshire is not entirely unfamiliar with simple logic after all.  Go get him, Medved you hypocrite.

Posted by Amalek on November 18, 2007, 07:58 PM | #

Don Black, the Stormfront magister ludi who gave $500 to Paul, was also behind the aggressive anti-Democrat and anti-Jesse Jackson demonstration in West Palm Beach, Florida, during the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election.

For days Black rallied his white nationalists to turn up and harass the pro-Gore protestors. At no time then or later did the Bush campaiign dissociate itself from these volunteers. Nor did Medved or any other member of the kosher commentariat insist that GWB should do so to prove be wasn’t a neo-Nazi.

But when Paul gets one unsolicited donation from Black, we get a spate of articles such as this one:

http://tinyurl.com/2q6aeb

However, the heavy majority in the comments against these smears is also a sign of the times. The usual suspects seem more stuck on 1938 than ever, and it’s laying an egg among all manner of fair-minded folks nowadays.

Perhaps Holocaustianity is losing just a little of its magic, hmmm?