Returning contributions from Bad People is common. For example, Anti-Arab prejudice was so strong that in 1984 Democratic Presidential nominee Walter Mondale returned campaign contributions from Arab-Americans to avoid alienating Jewish-Americans.
Of course, returning contributions like Mondale did tacitly admits you are a whore. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, once you start returning donations, you've already established that you're a political prostitute, and we're just trying to decide who you will whore for.
Dr. Paul is, relative to the other candidates, nobody's whore. He's been in and out of Congress for over 30 years, and everybody knows he's going to do what he thinks is right, which might not be what you or the rest of the world think is right, but it will be what he thinks. What, is the New Republic worried that if a Nazi gives him $500, President Paul will invade Poland? What's his aksing price for invading Russia: $1000? (Of course, the ways things are going now, it likely won't be long before the New Republic is demanding the U.S. Army invade Russia.)
In contrast, nobody is talking about the sainted Sen. Barack Obama's connection to a man linked to Louis Farrakhan and Col. Gaddafi: the the radical Afrocentrist minister Rev. Jeremiah T. Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for the last two decades.
Obama knows he has a big problem with the Rev. -- that's why Obama "disinvited" him at the last moment from giving the invocation at Obama's campaign kickoff last winter. And the Rev. knows he's a big problem for Obama. (For one thing, he's a loose cannon who loves to be in the spotlight.) According to the NYT:
"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [in Libya]" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with [Black Muslim leader Louis] Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." [March 6, 2007 Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized By Jodi Kantor]
Wright didn't give Obama $500, he gave Obama's life meaning.
If Obama gets on the Democratic ticket, the GOP operatives will make the Rev. Wright famous, and fast. If Obama wants to be taken seriously as Presidential or Vice-Presidential timber, he needs to do a public Sister Souljah on his spiritual adviser, and soon.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
21 comments:
Steve Sailer: Returning contributions from Bad People is common. For example, Anti-Arab prejudice was so strong that in 1984 Democratic Presidential nominee Walter Mondale returned campaign contributions from Arab-Americans to avoid alienating Jewish-Americans.
You are using the word "Arab" to mean "Muslim".
There are plenty of Arab Christians, Arab Jews, and even Arab animists, agnostics, atheists, etc, who are our natural allies in this war.
I don't have a strong opinion about Ron Paul yet - I like some of his points while disliking others. However, there's something about him that seems genuine and seems to set him somewhat apart from the other candidates, Democrat and Republican. But I agree that this sort of smear job is pathetic. For example, here's another crypto-nazi group that's supporting Paul:
http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/advisors.html
Steve --
Ron Paul *IS* a lunatic who attracts lunatic people. He has a plethora of gold-bugs (he is one himself), UFO lunatics, 9/11 Truthers, and so on as his supporters. He is the Republican Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. Fundamentally a John Bircher-esque crank.
And you are right Barak Obama has bigger problems, and a small staffed campaign like Paul's cannot check every donation. HILLARY's campaign can't check all their donations. No one is staffed for it.
But when Paul appears constantly on 9/11 Truther Alex Jones radio show and panders to Truthers there is a problem.
Fundamentally Paulnuts indulge in a fantasy of small government and going back to the 1870s or such. Middle class people expect Big Government will do certain Big Government things well: interstate highways, national defense, air/rail networks, anti-terror. Paul's foreign affairs fantasy is isolationism along the lines of North Korea coupled with multiple Obama-like apologies for America.
What's sad is there is no discussion about the range of policies for national security and ongoing threats to the US: Unconventional Warfare (proxies, Green Beret military-building, etc. along the lines of Ethiopia in Somalia, Horn of Africa, or Afghanistan), Conventional Warfare, or "nuke-em first."
Clinton tried to ignore the whole problem (as did every President before him starting with Carter), Bush tried Conventional War (wildly unpopular). Paul is as bad as the others (Kucinich, Gravel) in trying to pretend "real hard" that the problem would just go away.
"But I guess there probably aren't many neo-Nazis with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put toward political campaigns. OR ARE THERE?!?!!?"
I would doubt it. Nazism is essentially a militant form of autocratic populism, and populism tends to attract people who haven't done well economically.
Evil Neocon said...
Steve --
Ron Paul *IS* a lunatic who attracts lunatic people. He has a plethora of gold-bugs (he is one himself), UFO lunatics, 9/11 Truthers, and so on as his supporters. He is the Republican Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. Fundamentally a John Bircher-esque crank.
Oh come on, Evil. Don't tell me the dispensationalist supporters of Bush have all their marbles in the jar.
I like some of Paul's ideas, and I'm glad he's there to put them out as food for thought, but I honestly don't think he has a chance. However, I don't think that's the case so much because he's a nut, but rather because his politics are out of tune with the biggest voting block in this country: baby boomers.
Most Paul supporters are around my age, i.e. 25-40. His ideas resonate with gen-Xers because we are fundamentally distrustful of authority, and therefore support libertarian ideals. The reason for that is that we've never had any authority to speak of, and aren't likely to get it for a long, long time. I'll bet baby-boomers, with their enormous political clout, hold onto the presidency for at least another generation.
Maybe from the perspective of a lot of boomers Paul does seem like a dangerous nut, but to young supporters what he says just seems like common sense.
I'd suggest that perhaps there should be better intergenerational communication, but I'm not sure that's possible given the vast political gulf between my grandparents' and parents' generations.
However, there's something about him that seems genuine and seems to set him somewhat apart from the other candidates,
It might be the fact that unlike other candidates, he actually is genuine.
You know that if he did give it back, every neocon columnist would just use it as an excuse to plaster the words Nazi, KKK, racist, etc. next to his name. After that, they'd require Paul to make a public disavowal any time some guy in Alabama put a Ron Paul sticker next to the confederate flag decal on his pickup truck. Better to treat this as the non issue that this is.
Could someone provide a source and a clarification for that Mondale anecdote? I can't really picture Mondale systematically going through his contributions and returning money from anyone with an Arab surname. Was he perhaps returning money to certain (possibly radical, like CAIR if it existed then) organizations?
Jeffrey Max: Good point, except currently individual donations are limited to (I believe) $2,000 per person.
Don Black is a Neo-Nazi. I'm guessing that Ron Paul did not know who the gentleman was before cashing in the check, and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking Ron Paul return the check. It isn't an irrational or exceptional request--Don Black stands for repugnant things, and he is far more of an extremist than any of Obama's associations.
...at what dollar amount does Ron Paul have a responsibility to question the contributor's intentions?
Your question makes no sense. The contributor intends to get the candidate elected.
Don Black is a Neo-Nazi. I'm guessing that Ron Paul did not know who the gentleman was before cashing in the check, and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with asking Ron Paul return the check.
Of course, there is something wrong with asking Paul to return the check. It's dishonest.
Don Black may or may not want something more than that his people be left alone. Clinton, McCain, et al., however, are happy to kill Americans and Iraqis to serve their lust for personal power.
Anyone who would ask Paul to return that $500 without demanding that the other candidates withdraw from the race is serving a particularist agenda and dressing it up in some sort of bogus universalist garb.
To recap, we have one candidate criticized because he has a supporter who may or may not be a bad guy.
And we have a slew of other candidates who have themselves done things far worse than anything that Paul's mere supporter has done.
"It isn't an irrational or exceptional request--Don Black stands for repugnant things, and he is far more of an extremist than any of Obama's associations."
I hope Ron Paul never considered returning the check. Whatever Don Black's political beliefs, he has the right to participate in the political process. Even the fact that he is donating money instead of stockpiling weapons ought to be taken as a positive sign. Besides, you wouldn't expect Ron Paul to reject this guy's vote on election day so why be a hypocrite and reject his money.
Also, as a person who has been the subject of all kinds of rumors, I can see how this Don Black might be something other than an evil nazi. You can't cut an American citizen out of the political process no matter how you feel about that person or what you choose to believe. Don Black should have all the same rights you. To deny him the right to support his favorite candidate is to embrace the fascism that nazi types might want to impose on the rest of us - so how are you different from a nazi, Salieri?
Does anyone remember when Bob Dole returned a contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans?
sailer salieri said...
Don Black is a Neo-Nazi.
No, he isn't. This guy is a Nazi. Don Black is a White Nationalist.
Get your facts straight.
I take a back-seat to no one when it comes to dealing with antisemites but when I run for the presidency I sure as hell won;t return their money.
Unlike Paul, I WILL publicly say that I hold these inborn freaks in high disdain, but return their money? Whatever for?
I'm perfectly willing to accept campaign contributions from NAMBLA, abortion-clinic bombers and anyone else. Heck, when it comes to people I don't like I'm perfectly willing to STEAL their money, you think I'd return it if they were stupid enough to GIVE it to me?
I've met very few Nazis who do not, at least passively, support Paul (and I've "met" [online] many Nazis).
These people are not generally known for their intelligence or decision-making abilities so I wouldn't claim to believe that their support of Paul is based in some rational reason, rather than in simply supporting someone who (like themselves) is an underdog (and an unafraid underdog).
If there ARE however rational reasons for these genocidal ones to support Paul then its the responsibility of Paul's opposers to point those REASONS out rather than lazily tarring Paul with the brush of "guilt by association".
Selah.
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
I've met very few Nazis who do not, at least passively, support Paul (and I've "met" [online] many Nazis).
-mnuez
Just out of curiosity, mnuez, is your definition of "nazi" any white gentile who stands up for his/her own ethnic group's rights?
I've found that this is what people usually have in mind when they call others "nazis."
quote: "Of course, there is something wrong with asking Paul to return the check. It's dishonest."
No, it isn't. Ron Paul accepting the dude's check is a hint on Ron Paul's part that he's open to being influenced by the likes of Don Black.
Again, Paul may not have known the about the guy--but now that it is evident, it's important for him to return the check in order to distance himself away from Don Black. If he remains silent on the issue and keeps the check--then it's a clear sign that he's willing to accept the consequences that come with accepting Don Black's check, like his opponents repeatedly bringing it up in order to tar him. In the cutthroat world of politics, you damn well know that that route is fair game.
quote: "Whatever Don Black's political beliefs, he has the right to participate in the political process. Even the fact that he is donating money instead of stockpiling weapons ought to be taken as a positive sign."
No one is denying Don Black the "right" to participate in politics. In fact, asking Ron Paul to return the check is a reaction to Black's politics--it is not political disenfranchisement but political reaction.
quote: "Don Black is a White Nationalist."
He's also a former Grand Wizard of the KKK. Even the term "white nationalist" is loathsome enough on its own that it's a enough to justify pressuring politicians from associating with him in any way.
Racists like Don Black--a former KKK leader--are dangerous to society, and are marginalized for a reason. No wonder Steve Sailer stands up for him. He sure knows who his audience is.
"Racists like Don Black--a former KKK leader--are dangerous to society, and are marginalized for a reason. No wonder Steve Sailer stands up for him. He sure knows who his audience is."
How is Don Black dangerous to society? I love how you label him as the racist while you yourself are presumably innocent of said character flaw. I believe racism is inherent in human nature just as many believe that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer - note that inherent racism could be one reason for this.
A man who wants to preserve his racial or cultural heritage is not of necessity a threat to society no matter how heretical his beliefs are when compared to socialist orthodoxy. Racist doesn't equal dangerous no matter how many times you pair the two descriptions. And to deny that you yourself are racist is a lie. You want people who resemble you to rule so that you will feel good about the decisions they make because they think like you/share the same socialist beliefs and that you have been treated fairly because these are your people. Don Black would also be happier living in such circumstances.
Your absolutism is what's really dangerous, Salieri. You polarize the situation further. Any whites who aren't happy with the new social order where non whites have most of the power and influence are to be driven out of society. With no where else to live, that could leave such people in dire straits all because they'd prefer the kind of world you prefer but are the wrong race. You should be more tolerant, Salieri. Don Black is in no position to institute a white supremacist society. Keep some perspective. Be logical. Let this guy protest as he is allowed by law and let him support his presidential candidate.
That said, I do see scenarios where Paul could legitimately draw the line with someone he considered extremist. A contribution that gave the donor undue influence should be rejected - in this case, the $500 is chump change. Also, were Black to try to become a campaign worker, Paul shouldn't hire him. I'd consider it acceptable, however, for Black to make phone calls or pass out flyers as long as he wasn't also promoting his other interests.
And what is this mysterious reason for marginalization? I think it's ego gratification for people like you Salieri. If you want to rule, you're going to have to cope with the fact that not everyone is going to be happy about it without killing them or driving them into poverty.
Be a man.
quote: "Don Black is a White Nationalist."
He's also a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.
-Steve Salieri
So was Sen. Robert Byrd.
Even the term "white nationalist" is loathsome enough on its own that it's a enough to justify pressuring politicians from associating with him in any way.
No, it isn't loathsome. Sam Francis, a brilliant scholar and writer I admired very much, and most importantly a humble, good man, was a White Nationalist. You may feel free to disagree with White Nationalists, but their position is as morally valid as that of any other defender of his or her own ethnic group.
Post a Comment