Saturday, December 22, 2007

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and the neo-Nazis

The Internet has been buzzing the past few days -- if not more so -- with charges that there are connections between Ron Paul and a hodgepodge of neo-Nazis, White supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like. Some of them have blogged about their supposed meetings.

The charges and counter charges -- which are enough to make your head swim -- first surfaced in mid-November. They have resurfaced again.

One thing, however, seems pretty certain: Paul's adamant refusal to decline their support, denounce their views, or return the funds they have given him.

And this man raised $6m in one day last week on the Internet.


Ian Thal said...

Former Senator, and current long shot Democratic candidate, Mike Gravel gave presentations on direct democracy to American Free Press and Barnes Review though he has since said at the time that he was not aware of the views they espoused and has repudiated their ideas every time he has been asked about it.

However, this reluctance to on the part of Ron Paul to repudiate the support of racists of any stripe is not merely abhorrent, but it seems to be just an extreme form of the acceptance of the most intolerant elements of American society that has been part of GOP electoral politics since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

Hume's Ghost said...

If you search 'Ron Paul' at the blog Orcinus multiple posts will come up on this subject (disclosure - I contributed a small amount of info to a few of the posts)

The main reason I can tell that the far far right loves Paul so much is that he shares their belief in a New World Order conspiracy and he is critical of neoconservatism which those folks interpret to be Paul attacking Jews in code. He also shares other Hostadter-esque paranoid beliefs such as the 16th amendment being illigitimate (he uses the passive voice, e.g. "some say .." to suggest this), that there is a conspiracy to create a North American Union, that the "collectivist Left" is waging war on Christianity vis-a-vis Christmas, and that church/state seperation is not in the Constitution (which he has said is "replete" with references to God.)

I do not claim that Paul shares their racism, but I do believe he has a gigantic blindspot for their extremism ... I compare this to the way that Bill O'Reilly calls folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell "traditional" Americans. O'Reilly doesn't share their totalitarian leanings, but he has a blindspot to their ultimate agenda. I think there's a similar dynamic going on with Paul and the far right (which also includes neoConfederates and the Council of Conservative Citizens ... Paul has said that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, a standard neoConservative revisionist talking point).

One thing, though. Paul has renounced the views of 9/11 conspiracists. He did so in no uncertain terms while being interviewed by Glenn Beck last week.

Hume's Ghost said...

Also, I would add that during the late 80s and early 90s Paul was sending a political letter. When the militia movement got going the letter was renamed The Ron Paul Survival Report to capitalize on the survivalist movement.

Paul's campaign will not release the letters and no members of the press have been interested enough to dig up any copies, but I would suspect that they're filled with typical far right notions about America.

The one copy of the letter that we have is because a neo-Nazi liked it so much that he posted it on his website, at which point Nizkor archived it.

The Paul campaign has said that it was written by a staffer and the Paul didn't approve it in advance, but that denial came years after its release and doesn't quite explain what a racist was doing on his staff writing campaign letters in his name. The letter contained racialist propaganda originating from American Renaissance such as the assertion that 90-95% of black urban males are criminals.

Another incidence of Paul's blindspot for extremism is that that Christian Reconstuctionist Gary North was on his staff for a brief stint. Again, I suspect that Paul had a blindspot for his Reconstuctionism and just agreed with his "Christian economics".

hockey hound said...

"the far far right"
"collectivist Left"
"the far right"
"standard neoConservative revisionist"

So many appellations, so little time! LOLOLOLOL!!

hockey hound said...

"One thing, however, seems pretty certain: Paul's adamant refusal to decline their support, denounce their views, or return the funds they have given him."

Exactly. "Silence gives consent." "No answer is also an answer."

hockey hound said...

First of all, I don't understand the use of terms like "far far right" in association to partisan held beliefs. The Leftists are as partisan and "ideologically" driven as anyone, in my opinion. Many on the so called Left have rightist veiws, and many on the so called Right have Leftist views. How many Democrats supported the war in Iraq? Quite a few, if I remember correctly. "Rightist" and "Leftist" are worn out appellations. Too often they are used without qualification.

As for Ron Paul, how is he peculiar? I consider him an average but simple-minded politician. After all, you have a President who walks hand in hand with a Saudi "prince", smiling at each other while at the same time agreeing together to kick Jews out of their homes in Gaza and the West Bank. This is the same Saudi prince who insists that a women raped by four men is not become a national dilemma but a women being found in a car with a man not her cousin is an issue. And you're surprised at Ron Paul cavorting with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers?

Ron Paul obviously doesn't consider himself peculiar. Perhaps it's because he's noticed the President's Saudi extremist friends with whom he [the President] unashamedly walks hand in hand in public. Pascal was right: "The greatest shame is to have no shame."

hockey hound said...

"...he has since said at the time that he was not aware of the views they espoused and has repudiated their ideas every time he has been asked about it."

That is not repudiation, that is denial.

Hume's Ghost said...

"standard neoConservative revisionist"

I meant to write standard neoConfederate revisionist.

I didn't use far far right in reference to partisan held beliefs. I used it terms to political groups that are recognized as right-wing extremists. If you want qualification, check out a copy of American Extremists by Laird Wilcox and John George. I use the descriptors Left-wing and Right-wing in lines with their work.

Rebecca said...

One of the diarists on Daily Kos has a five-part series on Ron Paul's racism and ties with the extreme right. This is the first one in the series: Ron Paul. These were written from mid-May to early June of 2007 - so the charges about Paul's racism have been around for a lot longer than since November. We just haven't been paying attention.

Dezidor said...

I think that many groups that doesn't like multiculturalism of Democratic Party and are also against Bush administration support Ron Paul. That's all.

hockey hound said...

"...multiculturalism of Democratic Party and are also against Bush administration"

President Bush and his administration are multiculturalists: They insist that Islam's culture of violence and bloodshed should extirpate the Jewish culture of Israel.

hockey hound said...

Below is an example of the "friendships" developing between Islam's zealots and neo-Nazis.

I'm always amused by so-called experts such as Daniel Pipes (and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who should know better) using the terms "Islamist" and "political Islam" instead of "Muslim" and "Islam". He, like so many others, refuses to acknowledge that every Islamist is every bit a Muslim. Such glossing over is no different than those Christian apologists writing after the Holocaust that the German "church-goers" who were also active members of the Einsatzgruppen "were not real Christians." Oh, but they were.

And there is no difference between an Islamist and a Muslim. They are one and the same. If you read the Koran, you will begin to notice (after passing over the many anti-Jewish/anti-Judaism passages) that the "real" Muslim is the Islamist and the "moderate" Muslim is the apostate and the irreligious. But Mr. Pipes has not found the legs to say this yet. He is blinded and bound by the verbosity of fame and academic etiquette.

However,courageous souls like Wafa Sultan, Oriana Fallaci and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (all of them women) have pointed this out, but the world is turning a blind eye to their prudence and anyone who says likewise.

Oriana Fallaci warned that the media and the "politically correct" would punish those like her, and she was correct. She was correct about all things she cautioned about Islam. The sleeping world (a world much the same as slept through Kristallnacht) now gives assent as President Bush and his Saudi extremist friends (one of his allies in the war against "Islamist" terrorists-what a joke!!) obfuscate the reality of what has been a Jewish presence in Israel from ancient times until now; providing with millions a Muslim leadership proposed for Gaza and the West Bank, a leadership avariciously defying the fact that over 10,000 "moderate" Muslims voted for Hamas and against Abbas and the Annapolis conference (where, it should be noted here especially, the Saudis refused to pass through the same doorway as the Israeli Jews. Were any of the Christians attending this conference discomposed by this blatent act of racism? Apparently not.).

Another cause of hilarity for me is reading the newspapers describing Fatah as "secular". If Abbas is secular, why does he attend the extemists Mosques to denounce the State of Israel by approving suicide bombings? Why, if Abbas is secular, are the vast majority of his followers "moderate" Muslims? Welcome to Gaza. Welcome to Darfur. Welcome to Pakistan. Welcome to Islam's reality show.


From | Original article available at:

Canadian Islamists host a neo-Nazi
by Daniel Pipes
January 7, 2004

A just-finished, very large Islamist conference in Toronto (the Toronto Star says it attracted 7,000 participants) called "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" featured such stars of the Islamist circuit as Tariq Ramadan and Siraj Wahhaj. It also hosted a neo-Nazi named William W. Baker.

Baker was exposed in February 2002 in the Orange County Weekly in a major investigation by Stan Brin, titled "Hour of White Power: Reverend Robert H. Schuller relies on a man with ties to Neo-Nazis to build religious understanding." Brin established Baker's close ties to Willis Carto, the "dean of American neo-Nazi politics," and revealed Baker's many other insalubrious activities, including his chairmanship in 1984 of a neo-Nazi organization called the Populist Party. Soon after, the Crystal Cathedral's Schuller expelled Baker and cut all ties to him.

But the news has not gotten out. William W. Baker stills gets invited to – and paid by – reputable institutions. In October 2003, Campus Watch exposed Baker's presence at an event sponsored by the Muslim Student Association at the University of Pennsylvania. As Jonathan Calt Harris noted, "Baker's selection as speaker is bad enough, but the use of university funds to pay for it is a scandal; the Office of the Chaplain and the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life helped MSA come up with nearly $5,000 for the week-long program," part of which money went to pay for Baker. Our expose prompted press coverage, red faces and lots of denials – but the talk went ahead as scheduled.

On Jan. 3, 2004, Baker appeared at the Toronto conference and delivered a talk titled, "More in common than you think." The Star archly characterized his presentation this way: "During his panel, which was to explore common ground between Islam and Christianity, Baker criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinians and asked audience members if they were willing to stand up and demonstrate for the Palestinian people."

We have some idea of the content of his talk because More in Common Than You Think: The Bridge Between Islam & Christianity also happens to be the title of Baker's 1998 book, which Stephen Schwartz characterizes as an attempt "to bring together fringe Christians and extremist Muslims."

The Canadian Jewish Congress protested William W. Baker's presence, but the Toronto Star reports this in the softest possible way, stating only that the CJC alleged Baker "been connected with American groups with a racist agenda."

The Star then provides this full-bodied – but dubious – quote from Jeewan Chanicka, the event's media-relations director: "We have no business being involved in inviting anyone who shares any agenda of hate and racism, because we don't find that to be anything within the realm of Islam or beliefs as Muslims, especially within the purpose of this conference, which is promoting a pluralistic Canadian society."

It also bears noting that such big-time authority figures as Toronto mayor David Miller, Toronto police chief Julian Fantino and Royal Canadian Mounted Police commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli participated in the "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" conference, thereby giving it – and by implication, William W. Baker – their blessing.

As I wrote recently of a comparable case in Boston where politicians did favors for a radical mosque: "The moral of this too-oft-repeated tale is not hard to guess: politicians – and bureaucrats, journalists, clergy, academics, et al. – need to know an Islamic institution is clean of Islamist associations and intentions before endorsing it ... Good will and ecumenical intent cannot substitute for research."


For updates on William W. Baker's appearances, see "Keeping up with William W. Baker and the Islamists."

From | Original article available at:

Rebecca said...

What?! I don't like the Bush administration, but I don't see how you can claim that they want to "extirpate the Jewish culture of Israel." What's the basis of your claim? (After all, we give about 3 billion dollars a year to Israel for defense and economic aid, support Israel in the UN, etc. - hardly the actions of a government that doesn't support Israel).

And what does this have to do with Ron Paul? For more information on Paul, see the Respectful Insolence blog (on Science Blogs). He has a long discussion of Paul's devotion to crackpot "science." Yet another reason not to support him.

hockey hound said...

Have a happy Shabbos, Prof. Lipstadt.