Posted on 02/14/2010 8:26:58 AM PST by big black dog
So, I wake up this morning and read this e-mail:
I just read your article titled “A Question for Ron Paul”.
And I have a question for you. Since you love the Neocon agenda so much, why don’t you sign up for a long stint in the military, and if you’re too old, why not urge your children to join?
As is the US military is underrepresented with Jews and needs more Jews to sign up so they don’t sound like the hypocritical war mongers they are.
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/2004/31104/commilitary.html
Since Jewish neocons are so prevalent among those banging the war drums, why don’t you promote Jews serving in the miltary instead of bashing gentiles who don’t want to serve Jewish interests?
And there was this comment in my other article, which is more typical for public statements (note the “on behalf of,” since we’re their servant and all):
A neocon is anyone who endorses an interventionalist foreign policy (primarily on behalf of Israel) overseas and a welfare state back home.
Then there was this comments on my Debra Medina article:
Typical Jew writer, without any foreknowlage of Ms. Madinas record he worries if she wont support Isreal first. Yes Jew writer guy, im sure USA will still pour billions into yuor state tresury.
The first thing you’re probably thinking is this: These are isolated examples. They aren’t representative of Ron Paul, and they certainly aren’t representative of his supporters.
I don’t know about that. I think that his most fervent supporters are more anti-Semitic than not. The only time that I ever receive anti-Semitic comments is when I criticize Ron Paul or one of his minions. I am not, in fact, Jewish, although I have great respect for Jewish culture. But the Paultards always assume I am; they cannot fathom why a person would want to support Israel, or that someone could honestly disagree with them without having some kind of ulterior motive. More importantly, though: why don’t I get these kinds of comments from angry Sarah Palin supporters when I disagree with her?
Ron Paul, it must be understood, is not strictly a libertarian. He is staunchly anti-immigration, pro-life, and a deep believer in the Christian faith. He pines for the days when Fortress America was still a recognizable ideal, and cites Robert Taft as his key political inspiration. These Old Right Libertarians — the faction Paul represents — have always had a massive paranoid streak. These are the kinds of folks that joined the John Birch Society in the 1960s, comprised the militias in the 1990s (still today, sometimes, actually), and are reading Lew Rockwell and supporting Ron Paul today. (Alas, this is not an exaggeration; I have met several militia members, all of whom support Ron Paul.) Members of the white nationalist Internet forum Stormfront support Ron Paul and only Ron Paul — if anyone at all (can’t be too sure!). This is what Arianna Huffington and Rachel Maddow think Glenn Beck represents. Ron Paul is who actually represents it.
The Old Right is, of course, a dying faction, but it has a deep mistrust of all “out-groups” and those that it cannot immediately identify as working for its own interests. Jews, the perpetual out-group, make for an obvious target of paranoia. The government, a strange, amorphous beast working for its own interests, cannot be trusted even to tell the truth about something as simple as 9/11, as witnessed by Debra Medina, who “needs more facts” about 9/11 to decide whether it was an inside job. Her lackeys online have declared Glenn Beck the enemy for asking a ‘mean and irrelevant’ question. How out of touch can you possibly be with the rest of America?
A lot of Paultards have become Internet-savvy and know how to work the “New Anti-Semitism” — they criticize Israel, “the Zionists,” and “the neocons” rather than saying “Jewish” outright. But if you scratch the surface, you see what lies beneath: “working for the interests of Israel” — as opposed to what? The interests of America. And why would one consciously work against America’s interests, on behalf of a random country of six million in the Middle East? Well, it’s because it’s the Jewish state, of course, and the “Israel Lobby” (Jew lobby) knows how to manipulate American leaders.
This is dog-whistle stuff for their fellow supporters. Rest assured, the other Paultards know exactly what is meant by “neocon” and “Israel lobby.” (They probably know what the term “ZOG” means, too.) Rank-and-file Paul supporters are mostly innocent of this, I imagine, but Paul’s most fervent supporters are knee-deep in anti-Semitism. After a while, you just have to put two and two together and call something for what it is. And that’s what it is: anti-Semitism. (When will Sarah Palin dissociate herself from this bizarre sect and retract her endorsement of Rand Paul?)
ping
What really brought the isolationist backlash by voters was the invasion of Iraq and Bush didnt sell Israel as the reason for that. The main reason for Iraq was WMDs. Even when the WMDs criticism became mainstream Bush never tried to counter it with a main argument by saying he was defending Israel.
I didn't see many Jews voting interventionist in 2008, they voted for Obama. Are they anti-sematic?
Very good comments and succinct.
For those who say that Ron Paul says the right things on some single issue or another, as we have seen with Medina, they aren’t who they say they are.
No. There were a whole list of reasons. WMDs was the reason that placated the British Left for Blair.
Good comment, but I do have to ask: Does Rand share his father’s nutso views on Israel and not wanting to project power “over there,” ignoring that this helps keep the fight “over there” as opposed to here?
Serious question. It looks like Rand isn’t a true Paulian, but that could be projection of an image for political purposes. Then again, people aren’t their parents and shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ nutso views.
See, the only problem I have is that so many supposed conservatives put their concern for Israel above their concern for the US. Why should Israel be driving our foreign policy. It has proven time and time again to be able to handle it’s own against middle eastern and north african islamic nations.
Sorry, You can google it and see all the Sunday news-show interviews with Cheney and Rice warning of mushroom clouds over US cities. That was the Bush administration that did this. Later Bush defenders tried to re-write history and claim it never happened but it never sold outside of a small isolated group.
I like Bush Sr now. He told us the war (Gulf I) was about oil and the US economy and got mid-East rich countries to pay for it. It was a win-win for the US.
AKA, the Paleocons? I hope so!
How many Semitics are anti Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is the supreme economic and social conservative.
He is not a security conservative.
The problem is that almost no one is all three.
Democrats support welfare, unions, illegal immigrants, abortion, minorities etc. no matter which group an individual belongs to or how they conflict with each other. All or nothing. Republicans could learn from that and stop being 1/3 or 2/3 Democrat themselves.
Oh, I do. That’s why I said “help.” Main battle action and bombings still happen mostly “over there,” but that is likely (certainly?) to change. That said, the more of them we kill on the battlefield, the fewer we will have to deal with here. Precipitously abandoning the fight in the ME would help bring the fight here all the faster, too.
Yeah it’s not like they found 50 tons of yellow cake uranium or banned missles or migs buried in the desert....
Yeah saddam was harmless....
Bleh...
There is no sane counter argument against Invading iraq now that we know where the mass graves are...
A far cry from Mushroom clouds over the US. Sadly there was no way the Bush administration could take back those ‘warnings’ after the fact, but Hannity tried, and tried..
If Bush administration believed that they should have made that case, before the 2006 midterms.
There were many reasons. WMDs was one of them. I did not say that the Bush administration did not mention it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.