Who wrote Ron Paul’s “racist” stuff?

[BucksforPaul]

Hello hasbara bitch,

You have been told many times in this thread to stop being speculative such as making if and then statements without providing any proof. Now it is time for you to move on to other assignments showing up as alerts on your desktop. Do you understand genius? Don't you have any babies to kill tonight? Any women to widow or any children to orphan? You should stick to that instead of spewing hate towards the doctor. And for your info, I am a minority and I love Dr. Paul and always will so you can take your hasbara tacticts elsewhere. Do you really think your methods are going to work on these forums? They may be successful elsewhere, but not here so please crawl back into the hole that you came from. Anyone who thinks I am being too harsh, just look at this fools post history for yourselves.

Ohh hasbara, tell the hand that feeds you to give you more substantive stuff next time because this is weak and only ends up embarassing you. It also reveals too much about where you come from and who you might represent. A question for this thing and everyone else reading this.

A person who sells their body might be called a prostitute so what should we call a person that sells their mind and soul for a few measely monopoly monies? ie: a thing that writes trash for cash such as the hasbara in this thread.

 

[Shavenyak]

Where's the proof a ghostwriter wrote them? Where is the name? On and off for years? No Hasbara involved in this one -- this is 100% Ron Paul's doing.

How's this:

http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201

 

[BucksforPaul]

Where's the proof a ghostwriter wrote them? Where is the name? On and off for years? No Hasbara involved in this one -- this is 100% Ron Paul's doing.

Hello again hasbara,

It is you who is making the accusations so the burden of proof is on you and not us. Come on now your masters must have given you more than this right? Of course not and they have left you out to dry and that is cool with you because you would even sell your own mother for some fiat money. Last time I checked it was innocent until proven guilty and I understand that it might not work like that where you come from, but this is the US so go back to attending all those alerts showing up on your desktop.

Hasbara never answer questions and continue to spew bullshit in circular fashion. So I ask again what should we call a thing that sells its mind and soul for a few bucks?

 

[BucksforPaul]

You just admitted to being hasbara in your first sentence and I rest my case. Now don't you have to go cover up some murders?

 

[Shavenyak]

If you don't like hasbara, then blame Paul and his newsletters, now it's going to be even harder to criticize Israel because people will associate racism with anti-Israel policies pointing to Paul and these newsletters.

If he had only attacked Israel and left out the name-calling of blacks ('animals', 'zooville'), then there would be absoulutely no problem, but he didn't.

I don't buy his story because it's full of holes. It's out of character for Ron Paul not to read what was written in his own newsletters and it wasn't a couple of them, there are a whole lot of them spanning some years. The non-racist views in the articles accord with his as well - the obsession with sound money and the dislike of the welfare state.

Saying this is an Israeli operation is stupid and makes the whole thing worse.

Any luck with this:

http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201

???

 

[BucksforPaul]

That link works perfectly fine and your hasbara tactics are becoming hilarious by the minute. Thus far you have made accusations without any proof and infact have repeated verbatim TNR BS. Are you a parrot? Of course not, since you have admitted to already being a hasbara and that explains everything. I repeat again since you cannot read: It is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. So stop the circal jerk and move on Einstein.

 

[Shavenyak]

Here's the body from the website:

Who wrote Ron Paul’s “racist” stuff?

Published on 08/01/08
by wirkman
The New Republic once again brought up Ron Paul’s strange career as figurehead for a series of newsletters, complete with racially insensitive statements and provocative rhetoric.
As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these “Ron Paul” newsletters, I have vague recollection of “common knowledge”: it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron’s name in the minds of right wingers with money . . . future donors.
It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken’s did, and Mencken was indeed the model of the style. But these “Ron Paul” writings went further than Mencken’s usually did (at least for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.
I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, rather disgusted by the general level of hate regardlesss of race. I was also a bit shocked by the writing because the style was so obviously not Ron’s, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor’s* writer my writer?
And yet some bits of this writing, held up for inspection by TNR — for example, the bit about Salman Rushdie — seem interesting and worth discussing, not worth quickly relegating to the trash file. The author of the Rushdie/Zundel “comparison” was primarilly attacking the hypocrisy of the mainstream “liberals” regarding free speech. To characterize this as a simple comparison (and thus to suggest a “moral equation”) is to miss a very big point. I figure that if I read more of this stuff, I’d find more missed points. The provocation is obvious. But there’s intellectual content behind the provocation, and the content is worth considering without the bad connotations elicited by the rhetoric.
Most of us “old-time” libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul’s career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn’t realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story.
It also indicates the most thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced.
But then, so has nearly every president in American history, our current president most of all.
Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian “industry” just “knew” who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on.
Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

 

[BucksforPaul]

Bottom line, we need names of the hand that feeds you since you have already admitted to being hasbara. Also, since you would sell yourself for some paper money, I offer a nickel for you to go away. That should be a lucrative deal considering your track record. Btw still waiting for you to prove that you are not a murderer and don't kill babies while away from your duties here.

 

[Bryan]

There was an interesting post on this made back in June- it compares the writing styles / skills of Dr. Paul's work vs. the unknown in terms of complexity, average syllables per word , average sentence length and readability - while not a 100% proof, this "writers signature" analysis show a clear difference in authors where Dr. Paul's writings had a much higher level of sophistication vs. the unknown (was very junior in comparison).

See the full analysis:

Ron Paul racism text comparison
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=3277

Again- not a proof but interesting none-the-less to support Dr. Paul's statement.

 

[luckystars]

If Paul did write them he needs to say so now, because the entire Libertarian movement is at risk. It would be so easy to suspect everyone and in that label them all as racists. Personally I don't care who wrote them, I care about the movement.

 

[Johncjackson]

Cmon. Everyone knows who wrote the letters. Or you should by now.

Dondero is an a$$ but he has no reason to lie about this. He outed the author- or at least "80%" was that guy and the rest his assistants or people who still write at his website ( you know the one begging for donations since apparently that guy cant make a living without Ron Paul).

The "former aide" ( though still very visible) and the numerous articles from Reason. Balko, McElroy, Virkkala, made it very obvious.

And then even some of the people claiming to be associated with the Mises people show up in blog comments pretty much bragging about their racist views and calling libertarians who oppose racism stupid names.

Well,
FU
***

and all you "paleo" "populist" POS aholes who want people to think "real libertarians" are racist nutjobs and everyone else is "liberal" "commie" or whatever smear racists are using these days. Tanks for trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[joshdvm]

I think it's pretty obvious Paul wasn’t the author, and I don't think Paul's a racist.

But I don't think that's the issue here any longer.

Paul is on record (per the CNN interview) saying he "absolutely, honestly has no idea" who wrote them. But if the author really is who we think it is, then surely Paul must indeed know who wrote them, which would make Paul a .... I can't say it it's too painful.

And there are more problems.

He has said in the past that this was the writing of a ‘former aide’. How can you know the specific individual involved—a ‘former aide’— yet simultaneously have ‘no idea’ who it was, as he said to Blitzer?

Also, if this ‘former aide’ is who we think it is, it’s dishonest and misleading to refer to him as a ‘former aide’ implying he’s disassociated himself from this individual a long time ago, while maintaining a close association with this same individual in the present.

And if Paul still has a close association with this ‘former aide’, why should Paul be believed that he rejects their past writings?

I think the CNN interview on this sucked by the way. He doesn’t answer Wolf’s simple question about how that shit got in there.

 

[Duckman]

The campaign should be doing this unfortunately Paul has shielded Lew Rockwell from being named. He defends his friends at the cost to his image and name. I do not know why Paul is committing political suicide, perhaps things will change tomorrow and the campaign will finally do what it should have done from the start. I am no longer holding my breath though...

Yeah, it's sad. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's appearance on Wolf Blitzer last night convinced me he is lying when he says he doesn't know who authored these newsletters. I believe that is because the identity of the true author will be damaging because it is someone Ron Paul is still close to (Lew Rockwell).

I can understand why Ron would lie about this, since this is very, very damaging stuff. But I think at this point he needs to fess up. Frankly, the best way to deal with a scandal like this is to admit what everyone suspects, apologize, and take corrective action. That is what really gets you past a scandal. Pretending the scandal is false, or "dealt with in the past" when 99% of the public hasn't heard about this scandal before is not a reasonable way to deal with it.

 

[murrayrothbard]

I think it was Rockwell and some of the other columnists that still write for his site (Gary North inparticular). However, I really do think that the newsletters were just opportunistic money making and were written to appeal to a certain, easily swayed audience. I've read hundreds of essays by Lew Rockwell. None have had this kind of rhetoric.

It was a sleazy money making operation. I won't say it was wrong, but definitely short-sighted and irresponsible. I think some people are REALLY embarrassed right now and are just hoping to ride it out.

Just my 2 cents...