Philip Weiss shills for fascistic demagogue Ron Paul —again

Philip Weiss on his modestly named MondoWeiss blog again gushes shamelessly for far-right zealot Ron Paul, effusing about his supposed “challenge to progressives.” What challenge would that be? To abandon every progressive principle at the lure of a little populist rhetoric? Gee, a good thing nobody has ever made that mistake before (cough). Weiss’ basic argument is that “Ron Paul’s campaign…might politicize the militant American policy in the Middle East. Americans will get to argue this openly. That is why the Washington Post is slamming Paul—it doesn’t want that to happen. That is why the New York Times has conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and white supremacism—to marginalize Ron Paul’s ideas.” As if Ron Paul’s “ideas” (like repealing birthright citizenship and selling the national parks to Exxon) don’t deserve to be marginalized! As if Ron Paul weren’t really in bed with actual white supremacists!

Since so many who fancy themselves “progressives” or on the “left” are falling for this cluelessly evil propaganda, it is worth examining Weiss’ rhetorical ejaculation a little (as distasteful as it is). He spurts:

His candidacy might actually force Romney and Obama into more antiwar positions. If he disappears, that prospect all but vanishes. An attack on Iran might actually be in the balance.

Wrong. In fact, precisely backwards. Mixing up an anti-war position with racism and right-wing populism will merely delegitimize it in the eyes of many Americans who have basically anti-war instincts but concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and saber-rattling. If Ron Paul becomes the face of the anti-war position, then instead of a principled anti-interventionism, they’ll see xenophobic isolationism—and be more likely to cut slack for imperial war moves. The way to oppose the war moves is by building a principled anti-war movement that is vigorously independent of the political class.

Weiss next spurts a spurious analogy to the Egyptian protest movement:

If you care about the antiwar issue, joining with Ron Paul is like seculars joining with the Muslim Brothers to get rid of Mubarak. You needed a broad coalition to push Hosni out. In the end, that coalition did the impossible; it moved Obama. Obama wouldn’t have jumped in if not for Tahrir. He needed political cover, and a popular coalition gave it to him. But what if leftwing secular social-media types had stood around Tahrir Square asking the smart question, Hey what do these folks—Muslim Brothers and Salafis—want to do with the role of women in politics? They would never have gotten rid of Mubarak.

Weiss, will you please shut up already? Even if we are to accept the Egypt analogy (which is a bit of a stretch), there is a big difference between a protest movement and a presidential race. If the isolationists and right-wing Libertarians want to join anti-war marches or campaigns to defend civil rights—sure (as long as progressives are clear on where we disagree with them). But a presidential campaign? Are you kidding? Because (like the proverbial stopped clock that’s right twice a day) Paul talks a good line on foreign military adventures and (some) civil liberties? While his general political program is utterly toxic—laissez-faire capitalist, anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-worker? Please, spare us… This also betrays a very poor understanding of what has actually been going on in Egypt. The secular-Islamist alliance in the protest movement that brought down Mubarak fractured precisely when it came to elections! And the Islamists are now being groomed as proxies by the military regime to beat back secular and progressive protesters! Wake up, Weiss!

More from this dangerous airhead:

Similarly, if progressives fasten on the fact that Ron Paul published racism in his newsletters in the 1990s and has never come clean on this—all true—they will lack the political power to take on the antiwar agenda.

What the hell? What does one have to do with the other? A clear and principled anti-racism makes the anti-war position weaker? Huh?

Weiss sinks lower still:

You say promoting Paul is dangerous. Here is my insurance policy. Ron Paul will not win. He can’t.

So it’s OK to betray every political principle because your candidate is a loser? As if there is no danger in legitimizing Paul’s reactionary politics? And we wouldn’t be too sanguine about Paul’s poor chances in this polarized and unpredictable climate. At risk of being Godwin-baited, we will point out that people said exactly the same thing about Hitler in 1932.

Finally, Weiss gets around to a few caveats:

One way Paul is unbearable is his whiteness. His movement seems almost entirely white, and there is the white racism in his past. But these are not skinheads. And the issue is: Can progressives engage these people? Can they learn anything from Paul’s radical economic agenda? And while you are judging that racism, look at the role of Zionism in progressive communities. The casually-racist statements about Arabs that are absolutely routine in my community.

There are so many things wrong with this we hardly know where to begin. Does anti-Arab racism in the Jewish community (presumably what Weiss means, unless he is talking about the idiot pseudo-left poser community) let Texas rednecks off the hook for anti-Black racism? Or does tolerating anti-Black racism among the goyim squander the credibility of progressive Jews in calling out Jewish anti-Arab racism? Do you ever think before you write, Weiss? And what is this “in the past” jive? Paul is in bed with real live white supremacists now! “Not skinheads”? Stormfront is close enough! Hello…? Anybody home…? Finally, we can “engage” confused white working-class types by establishing a principled dialogue that makes clear where we agree (anti-war, pro-civil liberties, no blank check for Israel, etc.) but equally clear on where we disagree (racism, reproductive rights, bogus capitalist solutions to the crisis of capitalism)—certainly not by rallying around the man who is pandering to white supremacists and proffering bogus pseudo-solutions!

Fortunately, some of Weiss’ readers are smarter than he is. One writes in a comment:

“white racism in his past” um… you mean the past week? that would be more accurate. After all, Ron Paul and his supporters are out supporting restrictive elections laws that will disenfranchise millions of voters. Especially people of color. and with Ron Paul, say good-bye to federal enforcement of civil rights laws. or sexual harassment laws. or labor laws. States Rights!!

But this is not a crusade to overthrow a dictator. this is a crusade to elect a right-wing extremist. I am not joining. The message that will be sent to america by voting for the Bircher may not be what you want, Phil.

My last post on Paul. I think my belated New Year’s resolution is to ignore this site. I am sure there are many others who have already made the same decision. But maybe [Stormfront leader] Don Black will recruit new supporters for you Phil.

Meanwhile, more verbal gems continue to emerge from the inexhaustible font of hate which is the Ron Paul oeuvre. The gay-oriented On Top Mag presents a quote from Paul’s 1987 book Freedom Under Siege, in which Weiss’ hero wrote that “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care.” (This from the man whose campaign catchword is “Love,” eh?) And nor is this ugliness in “the past.” From On Top:

When Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked about the comments, Paul answered: “I don’t know how you can change science. I mean sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sexual activity. And when it’s promiscuous, it spreads diseases… In a free society people do dumb things, but it isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people.”

“Why should they have to pay for the consequences?” Paul said.

A charmingly Hitleresque notion of homosexuals as degenerate useless eaters. Fortunately, once again, not everyone on the left has his head thrust deeply inside his posterior orifice, even if it is starting to seem that way. The Nation—where Robert Scheer recently served up pro-Paul swill—now happily runs a response by Ben Adler entitled “Progressives and Ron Paul.” From Adler:

Scheer argues that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Tell to that African-Americans and people with disabilities who would not be protected from discrimination in workplaces or places of public accommodation in Ron Paul’s America… If liberals can’t agree that opposition to civil rights disqualifies you from the presidency, what can we agree on?

Thank you, Adler. So demoralizing to have to belabor the obvious like this.

See our last post on the Ron Paul pathology.

  1. JPost: Rand Paul: My father is misunderstood on Israel
    A Jan.4 Jerusalem Post article, titled Rand Paul: My father is misunderstood on Israel starts out with:

    “Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s son tells ‘Post’ his father’s positions Iranian nuclear threat in line with Israel’s.”

    Also, Weiss says:

    “On the other hand, if [Paul] sticks around, we might have a presidential debate in which candidates openly dispute aid to Israel, an attack on Iran, and what Paul has called apartheid conditions on the West Bank, with honesty no other candidate is capable of.”

    However, Paul told Ha’aretz on Dec. 28,

    Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.

    And also:

    I do not know, as I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year…… Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

    I don’t know if Weiss has seen that, but letting Israel “self-determine” and opposing an attempt to prevent Israel from building in occupied Palestinian territory sounds like giving Israel the green light to ignore international law & convention & a little thing called “the Green Line.” Bantustanizing the OPT is the way in which Israel’s apartheid policies towards Palestinians is most pronounced. Israel is doing exactly what Paul recommends, feeling free to do whatever it wishes, namely determining its own borders w/the apartheid wall.

    1. Jeffrey Goldberg: Ron Paul, Zionist
      Famed former Israeli prison guard Jeffery Goldberg wrote a Dec. 6 piece on the Atlantic site, Ron Paul, Zionist. A choice bit:

      [Paul] went on to say that in the event of an attack, “(W)hy does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. I mean, we interfere with them. We interfere with them when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us.”

      I understand that this does not make Ron Paul a Zionist in the traditional American conception of the word. But in some ways, he understands Zionism in much the same way the original Zionists understood the term.

  2. Well said, sir!
    I think it’s time to ask what the true motivations of pundits such as Weiss are.

    Even if Paul is trounced later on in the primaries, he will by then have done what many of us thought impossible: make Republican candidates such as Romney & Gingrich look reasonable and generous.
    Paul’s candidacy can do no good for most Americans unless he wins the nomination and then is soundly defeated, dragging his Old Right spiel down with him as Goldwater did in I,964.

    Unless Weiss and company are attempting to achieve such an end by the devious means of appearing to support a candidate whom they actually despise, then their motivations can only be cast in a sinister light.

    As I’ve written to you before, both publicly & privately, I believe most supporters of the Left don’t support socialism.
    They support the Left in order to support various single issues or lifestyle choices.
    If that’s so, then it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether some of those who are supporting Paul are themselves moving towards the popular Right or hope to become part of future popular Right political campaigns.

    1. Thanks, but…
      We agree strongly on Ron Paul.

      As for the “Left”… It depends how you define it. I’d say any “Left” that is worthy of the name at least supports vigorous public restraints on the workings of capitalism (e.g., rent control laws, labor standards, environmental regulations, a minimum wage, progressive tax structure, etc.). This is inimical to everything Ron Paul stands for, of course.

      Weiss demonstrates the dangers of single-issue thinking. For him (as for the Zionists he loves to hate), it’s all about the Jews. He’s willing to chuck every single other issue overboard.

  3. Your hate for Ron Paul is amazing
    You seem to be willing to misrepresent and twist Ron Paul’s words however which ever way you want. First of you say
    In fact, precisely backwards. Mixing up an anti-war position with racism and right-wing populism will merely delegitimize it in the eyes of many Americans who have basically anti-war instincts but concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and saber-rattling. Ron Paul has repeatedly said it would be better if Iran did not get a nuclear weapon but this is no reason to go to war considering many of its neighbors have nuclear weapons including Israel.

    1. “Leftist” shilling for Ron Paul is amazing
      That doesn’t address my point at all. Someone who is in bed with neo-Nazis like Stormfront and who spewed racist horsecrap into his newsletter for 20 years has no moral legitimacy to talk to mainstream America about issues of war and peace. Get it?

      1. I am not “shilling” for Ron Paul
        I just don’t like liars. “In bed with neo-Nazis” How is he in bed with them. He says he does not support their views. What more do you want him to do? Say in publicly that he doesn’t want support from neoNazis. He doesn’t agree with the War hawks such as Obama yet i’m sure he would not mind his backing. Obama’s policies have been more detrimental to minorities such as continuation of the drug war which Paul would discontinue. Obama is your conventional pro war, pro wall street, and a pro corporation politician with murder of an un prosecuted american citizen on his hand. Ron Paul is a much better candidate than Obama. And saying Ron Paul is a racist due to his apposition if the Civil Rights act is like saying he is against the american troops for his apposition to ndaa.

        1. Yes you are, shill
          And yes Ron Paul is in bed with neo-Nazis. Click on the link. That’s what it’s there for. He says he “does not support their views,” but won’t repudiate their support. If that’s good enough for you, then you’re a shill. But we already knew that.

          Being against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t necessarily make you a racist, but it is pretty good evidence that you don’t give a shit about racism. At the very best.

  4. Ron Paul issues new non-disavowal of Nazis
    Ron Paul supporters are pointing to a new interview with CNN‘s John King Jan. 6 in which he supposedly “disavows” his ultra-creepy supporters like the neo-Nazi Stormfront, American Free Press (marketers of March of the Titans: A History of the White Race) and the Militia of Montana. Again, he gives a lukewarm and perfunctory disavowal of their views (while engaging in red-baiting about how maybe “communists” and “socialists” support Obama), but while explicitly not disavowing their support. (“I don’t investigate my donors.”) This is really sinister propaganda. Ironically, King leads by asking if Paul is “comfortable with these donors,” and Paul responds that he’s “not comfortable with you making a big deal about it!” And this is what his supporters call a “disavowal”!? Egad!

    Meanwhile, fellow GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman is calling on Paul to repudiate a hateful online attack ad posted by “NHLiberty4Paul.” The ad features video footage of Huntsman in Beijing when he was ambassador to China, as well as of Huntsman speaking Chinese with his adopted daughter from China, and playing with his other adopted daughter from India. It features Chinese music, calls Huntsman a “Manchurian Candidate,” and closes with a mock-up of him in a Mao uniform. “American values? Or Chinese?” the ad asks, ending with “Vote Ron Paul.” We aren’t aware that Paul has responded, but some of his more paranoid supporters (e.g. The End Run) are claiming the ad is a “‘False Flag’-style Dirty Trick Against Paul.”

    1. Ron Paul strikes blow against Internet privacy
      Hypocrite. From Raw Story, Jan. 29:

      The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union have told a federal district court that the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) should not be able to unmask an anonymous YouTube user who uploaded an offensive video attacking Jon Huntsman.

      The amateur-looking video, titled “Jon Huntsman’s Values,” suggested the former candidate lacked American values based on his time spent abroad and the adoption of children from India and China. The video was uploaded by a user named “”NHLiberty4Paul.” A corresponding Twitter account publicized the video on January 4, the day both accounts were created and the video was uploaded.

      The video was reported by, RedState, Mediaite and several other media outlets, some of which implied it was an official video of Paul’s campaign. Soon afterward, Paul disavowed the video.

      In a complaint filed January 13, Paul asserted that the use of his name infringed his trademark and defamed him by improperly implying that he was behind it. The campaign has moved to identify the anonymous YouTube user, and seeks to have the video removed from the web and for the user to be prohibited from ever using Paul’s name.

      But Public Citizen, the EFF, and the ACLU said in an amicus brief (PDF) that the YouTube user has a First Amendment right to speak anonymously and cannot be subpoenaed unless the complaint produces evidence showing that there is a realistic chance that the lawsuit will be successful. The brief also argued that trademark law does not allow lawsuits over purely noncommercial political speech.

      Go ACLU! Call out that bogus “libertarian”!

  5. Ron Paul rails against public transit
    In this video clip online at DC Streets Blog, Ron Paul responds to the question of a supporter who feels conflicted, adhering to Paul’s free-market principles but appreciating his city’s public transit system. Paul responds by boasting that he has never set foot on the DC Metro and hopes he never will. He makes the valid point that if not for government subsidy of highways, there “would have been a greater incentive for the market to develop transits [sic?], trains going back and forth.” But in the very next line he blames “regulations and union wages” for destroying the private rail industry! Now that we already have the highways, in Paul’s universe we can’t use public funds for alternatives—so we’re stuck with those highways, apparently. Maybe this explains why he wants to turn all public lands and waters over to oil companies.

    1. “Ron Paul is a nice guy”
      Wait why would Noam Chomsky want to have dinner with a neo nazi, oh cause he is not a neo nazi. Thanks for making my point for me Bill, you’re a nice guy.

      1. I didn’t say he was a “neo-Nazi”
        Just a fascistic weasel who hangs with neo-Nazis.

        You better go watch the vid again if you think the central point was “Ron Paul is a nice guy.”

  6. Ron Paul: white separatist
    The New Republic continues to mine toxic specimens from the inexhaustible font of hate which was the Ron Paul newsletter for some 20 years. Still rooting for this guy?

    The newsletters warned repeatedly of “race war.” The June 1990 Political Report carried an item entitled, “Race War?” which claimed that said war was on the horizon because of “the victimization mentality created by the civil rights movement, where every black failure is a white crime. If there is indeed this sort of trouble ahead, it is just another reason why every honest American should be armed.” The August 1990 Political Report claimed that “we’ve got a potential race war.” The December 1990 Investment Letter reported that “Abortion is rampant, race war is heating up, AIDS is spreading, and inflation is wiping out the middle class.”

    The September 1992 edition of the Political Report wrote of a supposed spate of bank robberies this way: “Today, gangs of young blacks bust into a bank lobby firing rounds at the ceiling.” It also said that “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held as responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult, and should be treated as such.”

    A January 1993 Survival Report item headlined “Poor Marge Schott!” defended the former Cincinnati Reds owner, who was “being crucified” after she referred to her own players as “million dollar niggers,” said that “sneaky goddamn Jews are all alike” and “only fruits wear earrings,” and claimed that Hitler was an initially positive force for Germany.

    The March 1994 Survival Report warned of a “South African Holocaust.” It said, “Quite frankly, I cannot see how South Africa is going to escape a blood bath.” In June 1994—two months after South Africa’s first democratic election—an item headlined, “There Goes South Africa,” claimed that “Mandela is trying to appear as a moderate, and indeed he may be as the Red ANC goes.” The newsletter advocated a separate state for whites in South Africa, writing, “If everyone accepts the notion that a homeland can be created for the Palestinians, I wonder why no consideration is given by world opinion leaders to a similar situation for the whites in South Africa, as they have requested.”

    A 1992 issue of the Political Report featured an article headlined, “What Blacks Think,” which concluded that “they have some odd political opinions.”

    There was also support for white nationalist eugenics advocate Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance hate group.

    All hyperlinked to the offending text in the original.