One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront. White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement, and Paul refused to return a donation from Stormfronter Don Black on the grounds that he'd rather the money be spent on the Paul campaign than spent by racists.
The Bob Barr campaign's taking a different approach to the same issue. Yesterday, James Buchanan posted a racist Barr endorsement at WhiteCivilRights
[...]
Stormfront member "WhiteRights" posted the column in the site's message boards, which is where the Barr campaign found it. Barr campaign manager Russ Verney released this statement:
The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.
Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out! ''
Scott Gordon of the Barr campaign is quoted as saying "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody equally under the law."
So, by that criterion, they ought to be denouncing Affirmative Action supporters, La Raza and all the pro-illegal immigration advocacy groups, the ACLU, the NAACP, and a whole lot of others. But I notice that they are only, so far, denouncing pro-white individuals and groups. Why? Oh, silly me, I forgot that only whites can be -- say it along with me, everybody -- racist.
The usual dozens of politically correct comments follow, mostly applauding Barr's statement. There are a couple of comments that dissent from the majority like this one:
Episiarch | June 2, 2008, 1:42pm | #
Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms
Hating haters is ok, though, right?''
And this one:
Abdul | June 2, 2008, 1:47pm | #
Is telling Nazis to go pound sand really an act of political bravery in today's world?''
Good question, Abdul. Obviously it takes no bravery at all; few people in our 'free' Republic are willing to defend the rights of anybody to the right of Joe Lieberman. And I think it's worth pointing out, too, that the condemnation by Barr or his spokesmen was pretty inclusive, not limited to 'Nazis', of whom I am sure there are only a handful in these United States. Almost anybody who holds politically incorrect views on race and other such matters are lumped in with 'haters' who wear WWII German regalia.
If you want further examples of the dismal state of awareness in this country, check out the thread on this at Third Party Watch. I had not realized what a politically correct bunch they are there, for the most part.
One of the few worthwhile comments was this one by Sean Scallon:
# Sean Scallon Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
So political bavery in this day and age is now reduced to denouncing Nazis and other white nationalists? Or in other words, beating one’s chest to denounce what in Cosmoland is a required act of faith which is constantly proving you’re not a racist in our multicultral word?
Spare me the phony morality plays. The only people who think that the nation under threat from racists and Nazis are the cosmos themselves.
Ron Paul was refreshing that he wasn’t going use a non-existant threat i.e. Nazis, KKK, white nationalists, etc. to proclaim his PC bonafides. Since nothing either Ron Paul said or did was remotly racist in any way shape or form (and don’t start with the newsletter crap)why was it necessary spend even a minute of time denouncing basement dwellers? Does one have to do this in order to prove something or receive some sort of stamp of legitimacy from the cosmos? What if Barr just ignored the crap one sees on Stormfront like most normal people do in everyday lives? Does that make him less of candidate because he refuses to waste time with such nonsense?
[...]
But the PC games continue on I guess so long as the cosmos continue to need their validation stickers to stay a part of the establishment.''
I think libertarians make up the majority of the commenters at TPW, and of course at Reason, so this discussion is just another illustration of how even libertarians who make a great deal of noise about 'liberty' and individuality just go along with the liberal Politically Correct groupthink. Collectivism, anyone?
The bigger issue here is: do those who hold old-fashioned views on racial matters, the same views held by the majority in each and every generation of Americans, North and South, have the same rights as the rest?
I certainly don't agree with the designation 'haters' -- but if we are going to condemn hate, are these self-righteous people going to condemn Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan or any of the Reconquista types? Not a chance; they reserve all their censorious sanctimony for whites who are politically incorrect.
Do the politically incorrect have no right to representation? There are more of us out here than the respectable types care to recognize; they comfort themselves by saying that it's just a few 'extremists' and 'haters', when there are plenty of ordinary people who fit the very broad definition of 'extremists'. How extreme are such views when they were the dominant views in our society for centuries, until circa 1965-70?
It seems to me as if the extremists are the ones who are in the driver's seat now, and who make up the bulk of the 'respectables' in both parties. The extremists are the open borders, we-are-all-equal fanatics. The fact that they've succeeded in commandeering both political parties, the major media, and academia give them the illusion of being the majority.
I think this bugbear of 'neo-Nazis' and 'haters' is mostly conjured out of thin air, in order to gin up a defense of 'equality' and to persuade people that there is a racist menace lurking in the shadows. The left has never stopped moaning about how the threat of Communism was exaggerated in order to incite fear and obedience. This is exactly what is being done by this constant drumbeat about racism, racists under every rock, in every corner. The left (and I include libertarians in this definition) have to have a villain, even an imaginary, cartoon villain, to make themselves look like the great champions of all that is good, champions of 'justice' and 'equality.' They need this straw boogeyman to keep people in conformity with the PC agenda.
I've met a lot of people who are realists on the subject of race; I don't believe there are many true 'neo-Nazis' out there; I would not be surprised if most of those who claim to be such are actually agents provocateurs, plants. The 'far right' is so marginalized in this country that it's quite laughable to claim that there is a looming threat of any kind from said 'extremists.'
And what a cheap way for opportunistic politicians to boost their 'moral' credibility, by engaging in a pretend duel with the non-existent boogeymen on the 'far right.' Way to go, Bob Barr and minions. If I ever said a kind word about Barr, I withdraw it. I've lost whatever smidgen of respect I may have had for him. Just another PC lackey.
