Ron Paul has ties with Neo-Nazis?

Well, they claim so. Would really suck if it's true!

0 comment on Ron Paul has ties with Neo-Nazis?

  1. yochanan
    December 22, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    ron paul (Y.A.A.F.M) is a kook supported by cranks, anti semites. neo nazi’s, holocust deniers, which should make him rather popular in iran and gaza.

    Reply
  2. Steve
    December 23, 2007 at 9:09 am

    Not everything the Neo Nazis stand for is bad. That might be hard for someone like you to understand because lots of what the neo nazis stand for is bad and tends to override the good and it is especially hard to see the good when the bad is so directed at you.

    But please look for a moment at the good. Neo-nazis tend to be in favor of a smaller Federal Government and also ironically less interventionism overseas, and therefore tend to support Paul. But just because they support Paul, it doesn’t mean that Paul supports them and that makes all the difference.

    Please understand that Ron Paul might just be the last chance for America and therefore the world. Ron Paul could be our last hope. So, just because some vile group that you don’t like have found reasons to support the guy don’t just write him off. He has the broadest group of supporters perhaps ever seen in American politics from across the political spectrum. This gives him the best chance of uniting this seemingly permanently divided society.

    So, please look at him, not just a few of his supporters. He is raising money like crazy which proves that he has a far broader reach. Look at what he will do for this country, and what he would to would be revolutionary and would benefit the entire world.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

    Reply
  3. RandallJones
    December 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    yochanan,

    Does it bother you that other candidates seek the support of Zionists? Israel often collaborated with the apartheid era South Africa and it gave apartheid era South Africa its nuclear capabilities. See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html

    See this brief video clip of the Republican debate in November 2007
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHN75MsgylY

    McCain calls Ron Paul an isolationists and says this is what caused World War II. McCain says “We allowed Hitler to come to power with that attitude of isolationism and appeasement”

    Paul responds to McCain by saying he is not an isolationist, he wants to trade with other countries and travel to other countries; he is a non-interventionists. He says “You don’t want to use force to tell people how to live, we would object to it here, they object to it over there.”

    These are not the words of a Nazi.

    Its ironic that McCain says that isolationism and appeasement helped bring Hitler into power, why does he leave out the fact that it was the United States that helped Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities? When Saddam was doing what the United States wanted, he was an ally; when he was doing what was best for his own people, then the United States bombed the country and put Iraq through years of sanctions.

    Its not only McCain that is in denial of the U.S. responsibility of the genocide in Iraq, all the presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat, are genocide deniers.

    Reply
  4. Roman Kalik
    December 24, 2007 at 5:17 am

    Randall, how nicely do you rewrite history. But at least you reveal your true colors with the support you now give to Saddam. “Doing what was best for his own people”, eh? Yeah, trying to kill over half of them over the years and invading a neighbor in a war of pure conquest, just great. You’re just pathetic, you know that? La-la land must be fun, because there the focus is on what helps forward your agenda. The rest is irrelevant.

    Reply
  5. leo
    December 24, 2007 at 6:48 am

    “But please look for a moment at the good. Neo-nazis tend to be in favor of a smaller Federal Government”

    Single dictator should do it.

    Reply
  6. brooklynjon
    December 24, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Roman,

    Some of what Randall says is true. But there is a bit of a twist to it.

    Israel’s relationship with South Africa was forged when both were pariah nations, and were desperate for a friend and trading partner. When a substantial chunk of the world boycotts Israel and opposes it diplomatically at every turn, they are a bit disingenuous (my Grandma would say “chutzpahdik”) to complain about Israel’s relationship with South Africa.

    Saddam was, of course, supported by the USA. But of course, he was a bulwark against two things that were worse – that is, the expansion of the Soviet Union, and the religious totalitarians in Iran.

    In the end, Saddam was essentially guilty of the same crime as the Apartheid regime in South Africa – that is, using brutal means to allow a minority to retain political power over a majority. However, if we have relations with only perfect states, we would be pretty lonely, indeed. Ultimately, in reality, you have to support better over worse, and you have to chose your friends from among those willing to befriend you. Sometimes you have to hold your nose in international relations, just as in life.

    And of course, the Nazis weren’t ALL bad. They opposed the Soviet Union, made the trains run on time, and made these lovely lampshades from the skin of my cousins.

    Reply
  7. Steve
    December 25, 2007 at 4:58 am

    The so called “neo-Nazis” in America have little relation to the true Nazis in Germany. There’s not much about the German Nazis I can say about them that was good (well Hitler was against the use of tobacco and started one of the first anti-smoking campaigns on a national level).

    I still hold a grudge against the Germans for what the Nazis did to your people.

    In America however the Nazis are a small. small, small movement indeed. And most of the people who come into the movement come into the movement because of some very legitimate problems they see within the country. Now their response to these legitimate problems – totally inappropriate. So, yeah I have contempt for them but I also have contempt for people like Stalin who the Left supported. I have contempt for Castro, another person the Left has supported. So, who really is the threat here? A bunch of yahoos who have been hurt by society and have chosen an inappropriate way to respond or the American Left who is growing in strength and already have control of the news media, Congress, Academia, etc, etc.

    You know, I bet that Paul even has Pagans supporting him, ex hippies, who knows. He has the widest support from all over the spectrum than we have ever seen. But look at how much money he is raising from individuals. There aren’t enough neo-nazis, not enough Pagans, to account for this. No most of the money are coming from just average people concerned about their country.

    So, why don’t we hear about Ron Paul from his own words. Here is a speech he did in 2005.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2075686410728803039

    Reply
  8. Steve
    December 25, 2007 at 4:59 am

    The so called “neo-Nazis” in America have little relation to the true Nazis in Germany. There’s not much about the German Nazis I can say about them that was good (well Hitler was against the use of tobacco and started one of the first anti-smoking campaigns on a national level).

    I still hold a grudge against the Germans for what the Nazis did to your people.

    In America however the Nazis are a small. small, small movement indeed. And most of the people who come into the movement come into the movement because of some very legitimate problems they see within the country. Now their response to these legitimate problems – totally inappropriate. So, yeah I have contempt for them but I also have contempt for people like Stalin who the Left supported. I have contempt for Castro, another person the Left has supported. So, who really is the threat here? A bunch of yahoos who have been hurt by society and have chosen an inappropriate way to respond or the American Left who is growing in strength and already have control of the news media, Congress, Academia, etc, etc.

    You know, I bet that Paul even has Pagans supporting him, ex hippies, who knows. He has the widest support from all over the spectrum than we have ever seen. But look at how much money he is raising from individuals. There aren’t enough neo-nazis, not enough Pagans, to account for this. No most of the money are coming from just average people concerned about their country.

    Reply
  9. Steve
    December 25, 2007 at 5:05 am

    The so called “neo-Nazis” in America have little relation to the true Nazis in Germany. There’s not much about the German Nazis I can say about them that was good (well Hitler was against the use of tobacco and started one of the first anti-smoking campaigns on a national level).

    I still hold a grudge against the Germans for what the Nazis did to your people.

    In America however the Nazis are a small. small, small movement indeed. And most of the people who come into the movement come into the movement because of some very legitimate problems they see within the country. Now their response to these legitimate problems – totally inappropriate. So, yeah I have contempt for them but I also have contempt for people like Stalin who the Left supported. I have contempt for Castro, another person the Left has supported. So, who really is the threat here? A bunch of yahoos who have been hurt by society and have chosen an inappropriate way to respond or the American Left who is growing in strength and already have control of the news media, Congress, Academia, etc, etc.

    You know, I bet that Paul even has Pagans supporting him, ex hippies, who knows. He has the widest support from all over the spectrum than we have ever seen. But look at how much money he is raising from individuals. There aren’t enough neo-nazis, not enough Pagans, to account for this. No most of the money are coming from just average people concerned about their country.

    This is just the neo-cons trying to demonize on of the most decent people in modern American politics.

    Reply
  10. Roman Kalik
    December 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

    BrooklynJon, I totally agree with what you said. It always amused me that back when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear station, it was George W. Bush Sr., then Vice President if memory serves, who demanded that the US start sanctions against Israel for this “blatant act of aggression”.

    The United States saw Saddam Hussein as being the lesser evil back in the day, and I understand that. It’s not like the selection of possible friends in the Middle-East was all that promising, considering the various rulers. But in the end, Saddam Hussein had become worse than what he was meant to counter.

    As for the South Africa/Israel relations, I agree with you as well. Most countries across the world were far too busy keeping to Arab boycotts, or listening to the Soviet Union, and thus alienated Israel for no justified reason.

    What bugged me with what Randall Jones said is that the US supposedly only attacked Saddam Hussein when he was trying to “help his people”. Said “help” involved invading a neighboring sovereign state. There’s only so much agenda-driven propaganda that I can read, man.

    Reply
  11. RandallJones
    December 25, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Roman Kalik,

    Women, religious minorities, and even homosexuals had it better in Iraq than in Kuwait. And not just under the reign of Saddam Hussein, but also long before Saddam Hussein came into power. SO I am not defending Saddam Hussein. I am only defending the right for people to have self-determination.

    Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait because Kuwait had been slant drilling oil from Iraqi land. Saddam Hussein, former puppet of the United States, had gotten permission from the U.S. before the invasion. See this film by Barry Lando, former 60 Minutes producer, where he discuss this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0

    Why did the United States invade Iraq? THere are many possible reasons, one of them is that Saddam Hussein had changed from using the U.S. dollar to the Euro. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,896344,00.html

    Reply
  12. brooklynjon
    December 25, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Roman,

    I have to say, I’m not sure what history will say about Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait when the final chapter is written. My understanding is that the US probably gave tacit acceptance of his invasion (though probably not any encouragement) ahead of time. This may have been in the hope of drawing him into a conflict in which he could be beaten into a weakened state. I don’t know.
    What I do know, is that the ethnic cleansing (marsh Arabs, Kurds) and religious cleansing (Shiites) that he did cannot really be blamed on anyone other than Saddam. OTOH, it is entirely possible that an enlightened and just ruler wouldn’t stand a chance in Iraq.

    Reply
  13. RandallJones
    December 26, 2007 at 3:17 am

    brooklynjon,

    Yes, what ever violent actions Saddam Hussein committed against any group of peoples, he is directly responsible for it. If the United States gave financial and strategic aid to Saddam, then they are accomplices to his atrocites.

    But also, whatever deaths, destruction of infrastructure and displacements of peoples (in other words ethnic cleansing) that resulted from the bombings (from two invasions) and sanctions, is the responsibility of the U.S. government.

    Some people (even those on the political left) like to pretend that what is going on in Iraq is just a civil war and the United States is an innocent bystander. But how can what is going on in Iraq be called a civil war, when it is foreign governments (mainly USA and Britain) that
    #1) bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
    #2) rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
    #3) makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
    #4) benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
    #5)can break into jails to release prisoners against the Iraqi’s governments wishes. (Remember when two British men where caught disguised as Arabs carrying explosives and weapons in their car? Their fellow British soldiers broke into the jail they were in and helped them to escape) see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089

    Regarding your comment about “an enlightened and just ruler wouldn’t stand a chance in Iraq.” In the United States we’ve managed to survive without an enlightened and just ruler,” so maybe the Iraqis can survive too.

    Reply
  14. Roman Kalik
    December 26, 2007 at 6:05 am

    I have no real idea on that one, BJ. I’d like to believe that this region can do better than Saddams and Assads and Nassers, and I often take the Jordanian monarchy as an example of a better path… But then again, the Jordanian monarchy wasn’t that nicey-nicey over the years, just relatively better, and with what appear to be a kind of pragmatic approach mixed with good future goals that I think the region so desperately lacks…

    I’d like to believe that this region can do better today, but maybe it can’t. Maybe a generation or four will pass on before that happens. Maybe I’ll see some good here in my dotage, or maybe I won’t *have* a long life due to how messed up this place I call “home” is.

    Maybe what this region needs now is an iron fist, because it would devour anyone else. But maybe the iron fist doesn’t have to be held by a megalomaniac who saw European fascism as a role-model, or a clan of mafiosos, or some revolutionary nationalist that saw Communism, war, and mass-expulsion as great ideas. Maybe I’m too much a romantic hiding behind a hardened layer of cynicism, hoping that here and there a Salah a-Deen will be the counter-balance to the Almuhadeen, Crusaders, and Hashisheen of the region… I’d like to believe in that maybe, just a little, though more often than not it will still be the cynic in me talking… Because this region seems to devour dreamers as easily as it devours anything resembling an enlightened and just ruler, unless the dream happens to be a nightmare…

    Reply
  15. Howard Beale
    December 26, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Huh? Hey “yochanan ” . Did you bother to actually look for FACTS before you posted this crap? or are you just another internet idiot that believes/posts anything he hears online? This really pisses me off since Ron Paul is one of the few HONEST people running for president in the USA.

    Ron Paul has NO connections with ANY nazi organizations.

    George Bush”s family on the other hand, DID, at one time , do business with the nazis, as well as, China during the embargo:

    http://googlonymous.com/?q=bush+family+nazis

    http://googlonymous.com/?q=bush+family+china

    Do some research man!

    HB

    Reply
  16. brooklynjon
    December 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Howard,

    Yochanan didn’t say he had connections with any Nazi organizations, only that he was supported by them. By inference, you have to wonder why they support him. Not that he himself is a Nazi or supports them. Just that they support him. Look, if I were running for dogcatcher and all the junkies and drug dealers said, “Yeah, vote for Brooklynjon,” dontcha think you ought to wonder why they support me? Just saying.

    And let’s disagree respectfully, please.

    Roman,

    IMHO, a big problem with the ME is the propensity of the people to think in tribalist terms. They support their tribe absolutely, and think of justification for it later. It then follows, incidentally, that much of the debate is deductive (my tribe is right, now let me figure out a way that I can argue for it) rather than inductive (here’s my axiomatic principles, let’s see where they lead). The sort of absolute principles that we expect in the west (e.g. individual rights such as free expression, even if its insulting) do not hold sway. Under these circumstances, it is hard to have any dialogue that’s much more useful than hitting one another over the head with clubs – the bigger club wins.

    It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to patiently wait out being in power when there is zero chance of regaining power by virtue of compelling argument. The only things that work are demographics (lots o’ kids) and bigger clubs.

    So when will the ME be ready for a free, intellectually polyglot country based on something other than nationhood and violence? It’s hard to say, but tribalism makes it hard to introduce freedoms into society, and without those freedoms, it is hard to be anything but tribal.

    Reply

1Pingbacks & Trackbacks on Ron Paul has ties with Neo-Nazis?

  1. [...] see, no one is safe from rumours this year. And once more Sandmonkey is commenting on such news in one of his posts: Ron Paul has ties with Neo-Nazis? Well, they claim so. Would really suck if it's [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>