Monday, January 02, 2012

Protect the Queen!


Many years ago, someone published some racially insensitive commentary under Dr. Ron Paul's name while he was out defending the Constitution. Ever since then, the Democrats, the RNC, the media, ZOG and the rest of the usual suspects have been using a desperate "guilt by association" strategy to link Dr. Paul with the writings published for years beneath his name and above his signature.

Unfortunately for the statists, this slander is doomed to fail because no hard evidence supports it. Where's your 48 kHz ADAT recording of Dr. Paul expressing solidarity with the KKK? Where's your hi-def video of him burning a cross on a black person's lawn in June of 1980? Where are his white-power tattoos? On which Skrewdriver album does he sing backing vocals? Where's his tweet that says "I hate darkies and I don't care who knows it"?

Face it: In the absence of compelling evidence, all you Paul-haters have is a bunch of racially charged rants published under his name for his direct financial and political benefit.

Which amounts to less than nothing, because Ron Paul is no racist, as evidenced by the fact that he can't be a racist because he isn't one, period. Ron Paul's supporters aren't racists either. When they found themselves receiving newsletters containing these arguably offensive comments, they immediately complained that someone was writing potentially horrible things under Dr. Paul's name. And as we all remember, Dr. Paul promptly reassured his subscribers by apologizing publicly for the articles and severing all ties with the person or people he paid to write them. Most important of all, he conceded that as the captain of his soul and the master of his fate, the whole dreadful episode was nobody's fault but his.

And I'm sure we all recall how shocked Dr. Paul was when he started getting letters and phone calls from subscribers saying things like "thanks for giving us God's honest truth about the nigras!" Once again, he identified the cause of this misconception, took Full Personal Responsibility™ for it, and announced that he'd prefer to do without the support of people who were praising him for hateful views that he doesn't actually hold.

To the limited extent that none of this actually happened, it's possibly because not only did Ron Paul not not not write the newsletters, but he also didn't mail them. Why? Because no one subscribed to them. Why not? Because subscription lists are a form of collectivism and the USPS is an outpost of Soviet Russia, where the mail checks you. To imply that Dr. Paul would use The Socialized Mail despite his steadfast adherence to the consistent principle of principled consistency is utterly beyond the pale, even for his reptile detractors. Furthermore, it's quite possible that when his subscribers received the newsletters they left them sealed on purpose. They probably said, "To open this newsletter and read it would be to subject Dr. Paul to an interrogation of sorts. It runs the risk of vandalizing the private property of his thought, without giving him the opportunity to defend it against my accidental misapprehensions or — God forbid! — my inadequate purity of intent."

That's what I'd do, anyway. And I don't flatter myself that I'm unique in that regard. If I'm right, as we have reason to believe, then not only did Dr. Paul not write the newsletters but his supporters didn't read them and the whole thing's a teapot in a tempest.

This is not to suggest that Ron Paul's views are necessarily in perfect lockstep with those of the multiculturalist elite, especially as regards homos. But consider this: He's a product of an earlier era and a different culture. Surely you don't expect the poor man to transcend these early formative experiences through the self-interested exercise of Willpower and Rationality? He can't help how he was raised! Cut him some slack, for Christ's sake.

And remember, a vote for Paul is a vote for peace in our time. There's no other unelectable third-party candidate you can say that about, anywhere. And even if there were, that person probably has some baggage too. After all, nobody's perfect!

And now, let us never speak of this again.

UPDATE I: I was perfectly well aware when I put the careful thought and ran the grave personal risk into and of compiling this unexceptionable summary of facts that only moral pygmies could deny, that the aforementioned moral pygmies would not only deny them, but also put their inquisitorial zeal on display by attempting to torture my words into revealing some consequence, some omission or some agenda that I could then be said somehow to have overlooked or attempted to obscure. These self-appointed Witchfinders General believe that by literally plunging their needles into my arguments, they will find some rhetorical devil's mark that will excuse them from the sad duty of facing the uncomfortable facts that shroud them in guilt. Regardless, ipso facto and notwithstanding, I will continue to speak the truth and literally let the chips fall where they may.

UPDATE II: Given their Manichean zeal to act as Lord Inquisitors against principled voices of dissent -- no matter how calm, rational or impossible for a good-hearted person to disagree with -- one can easily imagine the sort of Kristallnacht my bland statements of demonstrable fact are even now driving the Enemy to plan and launch. This robotic devotion of literally brainless shills to falsehood and viciousness not merely as political tactics, but as supreme ends in themselves, is the litmus test that distinguishes the Obama era's ever-dwindling authentic humanity from hyperpartisan personality cultists. Suffice it to say that the binary thinking to which these apologists for evil are prone typifies everything that any reasonable person must concede is wrong with people like that.

UPDATE III: It pains me to imagine the lengths some people will undoubtedly go to twist my remarks here into something other than what I have already repeatedly stated that I intend them to be; viz., an honest assessment of a situation that others have not only failed to examine in any depth — for reasons we hardly need to guess at — but also to notice at a time when noticing them was in fact a moral obligation of citizenship, properly so called. Has it really come to this? Q.E.D.

UPDATE IV: What can one even begin to say when the putatively highest soi-disant "principles" of one's opponents are manifestly the mere delusions of situational ethicists who literally wallow in the entrails of the foreign babies they murdered by proxy for the greater glory of the assassins who slaughtered these innocents in their name? All one can hope is that if these cultist shills can't bring themselves to agree with me when circumstances ineluctably demand it, they can at least be honest about their motivations. They can say, "I don't care who the President hunts down and kills in this Brave New World of foreign adventurism; it's all worth it because some coal plant got closed down in Kentucky, even if that's probably just a prelude to invading Wales." Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.

UPDATE V: I consider this matter closed. Those who wish to beat this dead horse are welcome to chase their tails in perpetuity, or until their batteries run down.

16 comments:

Rmj said...

To imply that Dr. Paul would use The Socialized Mail despite his steadfast adherence to the consistent principle of principled consistency is utterly beyond the pale, even for his reptile detractors.

I have often wondered how Dr. Paul (or his son Dr. Paul) justifies earning an income derived solely from the benefits of a government imposed and sanctioned monopoly.

I mean, you can't practice medicine unless the government lets you, and then you have to do it the way they say it should be done.

Which doesn't even touch on the matter of being a government employee, as they now both are....

Phila said...

I have often wondered how Dr. Paul (or his son Dr. Paul) justifies earning an income derived solely from the benefits of a government imposed and sanctioned monopoly...


I've often wondered the same things, oddly enough. As contradictions go, it seems like a pretty hard one to miss.

In other news, it's very nice "see" you, RMJ. Best wishes to you and yours for the new year!

Makarios said...

Hahahahahahaha! Excellent, excellent work. Very good indeed.

Anonymous said...

@ Rmj
Indeed, if the Dr. Pauls had any principles they would be on welfare.

Jan Rogozinski said...

Before it was taken over by AIPAC, the New Republic was for many decades a Communist magazine read by the upper middle classes (which still existed then). During the 1930s, columnists discussed whether it was acceptable to spend one's days as a bond trader while waiting for the Proletarian Revolution to occur.

The general, although unhapppy, conclusion was that one had to live until the Revolution took place. And that as long as one was working, one ought to work as well as one could, make a lot of money, and give as much time and money as possible to the cause.

I think the same reasoning works for the Pails. They have to work to eat. They like being physicians. They can't be physicians without being licensed. So they accepted the license, are making money, and giving as much of their time and money as they can to the cause.

I do not see any possible contradiction. To say there is one is just silly. Without an income, the Pails could do nothing to advance the cause they love. When they win, they will abolish all governmental licenses. They can't fight to win without eating.

Actually, it's had to think of any job one can hold,"on the books," which is not regulated by the government. So anything they did to earn a living would make them, in your sense, governmental employees.

Anonymous said...

We'll take our chances.

Nameless Cynic said...

Rmj:
One way they tried to get around that whole government requirement-thingy (you know, that they prove they won't kill you or make you blind if they treat you) was that Paul the Lesser tried to make an end run around board certification for doctors.

Batocchio said...

Bravo. Very well done.

Rmj said...

I think the same reasoning works for the Pails. They have to work to eat. They like being physicians. They can't be physicians without being licensed. So they accepted the license, are making money, and giving as much of their time and money as they can to the cause.

I do not see any possible contradiction. To say there is one is just silly. Without an income, the Pails could do nothing to advance the cause they love. When they win, they will abolish all governmental licenses. They can't fight to win without eating.

Actually, it's had to think of any job one can hold,"on the books," which is not regulated by the government. So anything they did to earn a living would make them, in your sense, governmental employees.


Am I supposed to take seriously an argument that declares the absolutism of a position, but only when the world finally makes that position wholly convenient to me?

By this reasoning I can be an immoral animal until all the other immoral animals finally start acting morally, and then it won't cost me anything and I can finally step to the head of the parade and claim my rightful place.

Good grief.

BTW, Phila, good to be visible (and to "see" you, too).

blackdogg said...

I too am constantly amazed by those who relentlessly attack "The Pauls" for mere words that come out of their mouths or appear above their signatures. The spoken and or written / copyrighted word, is given far to much weight in these sad days of "gotcha journalism".
To paraphrase Mr. Gingrich: "Anyone who attacks me using that interview I just did is obviously lying."
"The Pauls" should adopt a similar approach, since their loyal supporters have taken the initiative and done so on several occasions.

Fiddlin' Bill said...

You've really got to be kidding. The newsletters (s!) were written under his masthead.

Fiddlin' Bill said...

Um, indeed, very very well done (as my previous comment attests).

Phila said...

I do not see any possible contradiction. To say there is one is just silly. Without an income, the Pails could do nothing to advance the cause they love. When they win, they will abolish all governmental licenses. They can't fight to win without eating.

Right. Because the stark, inescapable choice here is work as a doctor or starve. Surely we're not asking the Pauls to starve to death? What ogres we must be!

It's very interesting to see this defense of the Pauls' suboptimal personal decisions. In libertarian cloud-cuckoo land, if you have a financial or ethical or moral problem with one job...why, you simply go out and get another. What could be easier?

And yet, to point out that the Pauls are not only avid sucklers at the taxpayers' teat in their capacity as career politicians, but also rely on government regulation and oversight for the personal authority and distinction they enjoy as licensed doctors...well, that's just heartless. I mean, we can't just let these poor men die in the gutter, can we? That'd be inhumane.

Phila said...

We'll take our chances.

A political slogan for the ages.

Phila said...

Indeed, if the Dr. Pauls had any principles they would be on welfare.

I'm so old, I can remember when going Galt wasn't an option so much as a duty.

Those days do seem to be gone forever, though, so I guess it's like you and Jan say. The Pauls' options are: 1) continue to enjoy Congressional salaries and benefits, and the professional advantages of medical licensing, while screeching "gummint bad!" like trained parakeets; 2) starve to death in a land of plenty; or 3) loll around on welfare like some skinny ghetto crackhead. The first choice is clearly the best one for self-respecting white men. And besides, they only need to dirty their hands with taxpayer money until the Revolution comes, at which point they'll pay us all back with interest.

Looking at it that way, I guess I don't mind helping 'em out with a little $$$ until they can stand on their own two feet. They'd do the same for us, right?

Phila said...

Somehow I missed this quote from Jan on the first pass:

Actually, it's had to think of any job one can hold,"on the books," which is not regulated by the government.

RMJ referred specifically to "a government imposed and sanctioned monopoly." Can you think of any job one can hold, on the books, that doesn't fit that description? 'Cause I can. Hell, I have one.

So anything they did to earn a living would make them, in your sense, governmental employees.

It doesn't take an especially close reading to notice that RMJ's sense of "government employee" is "employed by the government as congressmen."

This is why we can't have nice things.