Ron Paul Secures The Crucial Neo-Nazi Vote
A Links entry from Thursday, November 1, 2007Ron Paul Secures The Crucial Neo-Nazi Vote
StormFront:
Do patriotic White Americans finally have a candidate they can vote for without fear of being sold out again?
It appears they do! Finally a candidate that White America can agree on, without selling us down river to those damn, dirty Mexicans and their “chalupas” and “piñatas.” Learn all about the Jewish conspiracy, protecting European values and — not intending to be overly caustic — the greatness of the German Reich, over at White Civil Rights.
Go Ron Paul!
FZappa
He also gets more support from African-Americans than any other Republican candidate:
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=137617
It’s hard to wrap your head around a candidate who is the favorite of white supremacists AND African-Americans, but there it is.
Why? Becuase EVERYONE likes the Constitution.
Mark Cullen
Well except for Thoreau, the classic individualist philosopher who’s Civil Disobedience was in large part a tirade against the constitution for being anti individualist, but who’s counting? It’s not like that makes the entire libertarians for the constitution movement a ridiculous self-contradictory game of duck duck goose.
EDIT: A little bias? Your links lede is “Ron Paul’s inclusive message of peace, freedom, and prosperity may be attracting African American voters.” Furthermore, it presents various poll figures… which it doesn’t bother to back up by offering any statistical methodology or any indication of where the poll came from. Seems to me you probably shouldn’t trust that source.
EDIT 2: I apologize for jumping on the website in my first edit, but they really did not make it clear in browser where the link was. Here’s a picture.
http://www.velvethowler.com/misc/Picture%202.png
we are 95% confident that Ron Paul is polling between 23.5%-40.5% and 95% confident that Giuliani is polling between 5.5%-26.5%.
That really does not tell us a whole lot, but I agree with his assertion that Ron Paul's anti-war stance has a lot to do with it.
Bryan Klausmeyer
While my expertise is neither in Constitution history nor in “Objectivist” thought, if one could use such a phrase, it seems as though the type of individual power that Libertarians aspire to more vaguely resembles the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution, which was precisely created as a means to subordinate individualism to the greater dynamics of the state. Moreover, the Constitution was implemented in such a time that those who supported individual rights were not necessarily individuals in the strictest sense. They were, in fact, part of a larger collective movement that stemmed from high agrarianism, prior to capitalism’s entrenchment in the West. Thus, the emphasis on individuality was actually an emphasis on a collective perhaps stronger than “the nation” itself, a familial bond between the toiling farmers who occupied the same proto-class strata (what one might call Kleinbauer). In that sense, early so-called “Libertarian” thinkers are more akin to Trotskyite-Zinovievites in both their opposition to nationalist Thermidors as well as the hydra-headed beast known as Capitalism.
Perhaps that’s why many earlier agrarian movements, such as the Grange and the Populist Party between the 1890s and the 1920s, more closely resemble both the values of early American “Libertarians” as well as the socialists and communists of the early twentieth century (not to mention the fact that there is a serious politico-historical overlap between the two factions). The present day manifestation of Libertarianism is something far more insidious in its depoliticizing logic, hence the actual impetus behind this post.
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
3 Comments