Ron Paul’s Latest Gaffes

Does Ron Paul want to lose?

District of Corruption

In 2008, I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary. There has been some buzz on the internet that Paul might run again in 2012.

If he continues to pick unnecessary fights with conservatives on the basis of libertarian purity, he will only further isolate himself and end up as another discredited perennial candidate.

(1) The Ground Zero Mosque – A few months ago, Ron Paul came out in defense of the Ground Zero Mosque. Paul threw his support behind Barack Obama and loaded any future presidential campaign with a huge albatross that will limit his appeal to Christian voters.

(2) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Earlier this year, Ron Paul voted to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. If he runs again for president, Paul is now saddled with that albatross as well, and can look forward to spending much of his time explaining his support for gays in the military.

(3) Charles Rangel – Most of our readers are aware of the Charles Rangel corruption scandal. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to censure Rangel. Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP had appealed to the House to “show fairness” in a Politico article.

Ron Paul voted against censure.

(4) Wikileaks – Ron Paul is now making a stand for Julian Assange of the Wikileaks scandal. It seems Paul wants to reinforce the impression that he is soft on national security.

That was the most damaging accusation leveled against him in the Republican primary last time around. It allowed fools like Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani to run ahead of him in an anti-war election.

It is a shame.

If Paul runs in 2012, he could theoretically gain traction with issues like illegal immigration, foreign wars, the national debt, government spending, the size of government and monetary policy. There are a lot of other winning issues that Paul could campaign on like affirmative action. He could have positioned himself at the forefront of the Tea Party as Sarah Palin has done.

Instead, Ron Paul will now get to spend the campaign talking about his support for Julian Assange, Charles Rangel, Bradley Manning, and the Ground Zero Mosque. Lew Rockwell’s fellatio of progressives has been taken to a ridiculous extreme. This strategy of outreach to the Left hasn’t produced any reciprocity from their ranks. Just look at the vicious attacks Rand Paul endured in Kentucky.

If Ron Paul is serious about running for president in 2012, he needs to fire his advisors. He can’t afford to be weighed down by any further albatrosses of this sort.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Greg, I really appreciate how you stop in to make thought-provoking comments and field skeptical questions from people new or fairly new to your perspective, maybe objections you’ve fielded a million times already. The problem with WN organizing on the assumption of a collapse is that we don’t know when or how. If the collapse happens tomorrow, WN get nothing except life under martial law run by Obama and Holder. If it happens in 25 years, we might be more organized but present trends will have also necessarily continued for another 25 years thus strengthening the enemy’s hand the whole time. When we don’t know when the window of opportunity will present itself or what it will look like, no one can say for sure what approach is best. This is the problem with collapse-focused WN theory; the trigger for putting their plan into action is unknown and the circumstances speculative. Also, what credible evidence exists that WN who do want to withdraw and build will ever organize at all? They have’t yet for 50 years.

    If the system is still around in 15 years, we might be very sorry some segment or subset of WN didn’t organize and begin a fight for power within the system 15 years earlier. There is also no reason such a fight has to be fought at the national level where it would likely be futile. The fight could be fought at the state/local level where power is actually likely to devolve to when and if a collapse happens.

    When our enemies want to get something they don’t withdraw and build outwards. Instead, the use the system to get things done. They organize at the grassroots level and hire New York and Washington DC law, PR and lobbying firms to get chips into the game now.

  2. “In simplest terms what happened was that the international Jewry completed successfully dismantling of jew-free empire created almost single handedly by Stalin. Stalinism can be defined as Leninism without the jews: Stalinism = Leninism – Jews.”

    Yes Jews are vengeful creatures who went after Mother Russia after they lost control, but lets not conflate Organized Jewrys reaction with the actual end result:

    1.) Many Far-Rightists who were frozen out during the Soviet Era now are influencing Russian Policy. For example Alexandr Dugin, someone who has praised National Socialism and Julius Evola was recently given a top tier University position. ( )

    2.) Jewish looters have been dealt with by the Russian State. Khodorkovsky is freezing in Siberia.

    Things are looking up!

  3. Ted Denny Aylmer said: For example Alexandr Dugin, someone who has praised National Socialism and Julius Evola was recently given a top tier University position.

    Russia is not out of the woods yet but, yes, there are some encouraging developments. However, if the jews remain in total control of the West for foreseeable future, Russia will have no other choice but build some alliances with the East. That’s what The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is all about. That’s what Dugin is all about with his Eurasia Movement initiative:

    In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” …”The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union:

    Buy the way, it is interesting to note in this context that Alexander Nevsky did achieve his military victories over the German and Swedish invaders while employing collaborationist policies towards the powerful Golden Horde.

    Nevsky proved to be a cautious and far-sighted politician. He dismissed the Roman Curia’s attempts to cause war between Russia and the Golden Horde, because he understood the uselessness of such war with the Tatars at a time when they were still a powerful force:

    Does the history repeat itself or what?

Comments are closed.