Some good points, but glaringly absent was a criticism of Sager's nutty thesis that if a statement "plays into anti-Semitic tropes", it is anti-Semitic. Patently absurd, since it would forbid me from denouncing a dishonest, scheming landlord who happened to be Jewish. Similarly, I'd imagine that one can turn up an African-American who drinks too much and cheats the welfare office, or an Italian who shakes down restaurant owners . Shall I bite my tongue lest I be accused of racism? Sager's thesis suggests that Jewish individuals or groups are somehow incapable of ever behaving according to these tropes. That dismisses his credibility for me.

It is certainly intelligible (and, to my mind, convincing) to claim that Israel's influence over US policy is baleful. Honest people may disagree, but the claim itself is not anti-Semitic. (By the way, Paul should not be surprised that AIPAC doesn't represent all Jews. The claim of non-racist critics of AIPAC and similar zealots for Israel has never been, "Bad Jews!" but instead, "Bad AIPAC!". It is of course in the interests of Foxman, Dershowitz et al to conflate the two. Same thing with Finkelstein and holocaust reparations. His critics accuse F of saying that "Jews are cheats" or something similar, when even a slight glance at his work would make it clear that he is talking about some lawyers, heads of organizations, etc., who he claims are cheating the rightful recipients of reparations. Scoundrels prefer to make it seem that he's saying something else.)

I thought I covered that with "objectively anti-Semitic," which was really part of the same Sager critique.

I do think, though, that you're mistaken in your characterization of what Sager means by anti-Semitic tropes. He is right to observe that plenty of people who see Israel as a prime mover of U.S. affairs (which is really the same thing as world affairs) are just being euphemistic about one of the oldest and most sinister paranoias of history: that the Jews are collectively at the lever of some nefarious shadow government.

My point was that in Paul's case, judging by his record and isolationist idealism, he's clearly not trying to update the Protocols, only George Washington's farewell address. I still think he overstates the influence that Tel Aviv commands in Washington, however: see Suez, the Six Day War, or our current rift with the Olmert regime over how to deal with Syria.

I think Paul touches a nerve when he talks about non-interventionism as a policy the US should embrace. I think this idea is appealing to many because we've witnessed decades of aggressive interventionism and meddling, and in hindsight, it largely seems to have been counter-productive.

Where this morphs into charges of anti-semitism, is when Paul makes comments about the negative impact of lobbyist groups like AIPAC. Anytime anyone says anything disparaging about a pac that openly lobbies for support of Israel, they are routinely labeled a Jew-hater. I think this playing the race card can only go so far. Jew-haters certainly do exist, and unfortunately people like Ron Paul seem to attract their interest. But, Mr. Paul's endorsement of non-intervention is not based on bigotry against Jews. It's based on a bigotry against war.

We've got corruption run wild in the current GOP and you're taking this nothing of a story and running with it? LOL! Seriously. The man has been writing for 40 years! If he was a racists there would be a racists trend throughout that time. Good lord almighty. "Pull over! We're the NITPICK Politically Correct Police!"

Government and Racism

April 16, 2007 by Ron Paul

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It's disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It's also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we're told it's proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, "Congress shall make NO law."

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

It is no accident that his supporters come from groups like David Duke see davidduke.com, Pat Buchanan, 911 Truthers and every other anti semitic hate group out there.

If you check out groups that support him like the Republican Liberty Caucus, their internal Yahoo group has their supporters condmening Zionism as being like Al Quaida (except worse) believing 911 was caused by Israel (Osama must be covering up for her) etc. Holocaust denial is considered a legit opionion that shouldn't be censored.

If all the racists and bigots find one candidate they like, and that candidate courts them and makes sure to never condmemn them, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that candidate is a bigot.

Ron Paul is nothing more than a Klansman wearing a suit

Mordechai,

1) Ron Paul didn't write this.

2) He took responsibility for it and appologized anyway.

3) The staffer who did write it got fired.

Ron Paul's words on racism - That it is a particularly odious form of collectivism - and any other of his writings can be easily (and objectively) compared using http://textalyser.net/ It shows conclusively that the writers are not the same person.

While it may be true that David Duke and some members of Stormfront support Ron Paul, it can not be shown that ONLY David Duke and members of Stormfront support Ron Paul. It can't be shown because it isn't true. Even more difficult to prove is that Stormfront (et alia) aren't cynically saying they support Ron Paul because they know full well that their public support might be the kiss of death for a US politician. Ron Paul isn't courting them either - I have not seen anything from his campaign in the last 20 years that carries any water for them.

Many Ron Paul supporters are Jewish. Ron Paul was one of the few to support Israel's right to self-defense over the Osirak reactor in 1981. Being anti AIPAC is not anti-semitism or even anti-Israel. Being anti-Israeli policies (on any topic) is not anti-semitism. There is also a downside to American aid that is not mentioned much (thanks to Michael for doing so) - how the US constrains Israeli foreign and military policies.

Finally, this is all really old news. If Sen. Byrd can live down actually being an actual white-robe-wearing Klansman and remain in good standing among the Democrats, then certainly the statute of limitations has long run out on this.

If not AIPAC, then what "Jewish interests" (if such a diverse people could be said to have interests in common) would Ron Paul advance as president?

+ Ron Paul would be very good to the cause of Religious Freedom.
+ Ron Paul would be very good to the cause of individual liberty and freedom.
+ Ron Paul would put mitvahs (welfare, health care, etc.) back where they belong, in our hearts and our hands, not in our tax code.
+ Ron Paul would get the USDA off the back of the OU and other rabbinical kashuring groups. (my wife worked for 2 years as the office manager at the local glatt kosher meat processing plant.)
+ Ron Paul would reduce taxes (leaving you more money to implement your own ideas about saving the world) and stop the Federal government from trying to save the world.
+ Ron Paul would get the CIA out of the business of training Arab terrorists (google "Tim Osman CIA".)
+ Ron Paul would keep our children from being drafted in a foreign war.
+ Ron Paul would keep "No child left behind" laws out of our schools.
+ Ron Paul would end the government's intrusion into religion, via "faith-based" initiatives, that end up actually removing the faith from any of the funded activities.
+ Ron Paul would sign a tax break for parents who homeschool or send their children to religious schools.
+ Ron Paul would never allow the federal government to confiscate firearms as happened in New Orleans. "Never again" can only be meaningful when the intended victim is able to defend himself. (http://www.jpfo.org/)

Later.

Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic. He is against foreign policy entanglements, which seems wise given the Bush fiasco. I am a RP supporter but I'll toss my yard signs and peel of my bumper stickers if you can prove he is an anti-Semite. I have run into one anti-Semite online via an email list through Meetup. I confronted him and told him that I support libertarianism, not anti-Semitism and I did not appreciate Israel-bashing or anti-Jewish statements as I have Jewish family and friends and draw inspiration from Jewish economists who are libertarians. So far no response from the Israel-basher. Just as William F. Buckley had to run off the fringe right in the early days of the Conservative movement today's libertarians need to stand up and reject the kooks like Duke that try to leech support from the freedom movement when they stand for anything but freedom. It's almost like the Bush family leeching support from the small government movement.

Until Candidate Paul repudiates the support of the ultra rightwing anti-semites like David Duke which forms a significant base of support, I will presume that he is indeed an anti-semite.

Quite playing the whoa-is-me card. Ron Paul is not anti any group of people...only those who attempt to throw away our Constitution! Cut him some slack and stop being so sensitive!

I won't begin to get into the other aspects of his racism, such as his antipathy for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or his homophobia ["We The People Act"]. Instead, I'll try to keep it relevant.

He wouldn't try to prevent- in fact, he'd encourage- a nuclear escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why? Because only Americans' lives are worth anything, according to Ron Paul. Have you ever heard him voice a genuine concern for any lives outside of this country? Every other candidate says that they want to "save the lives of as many Americans and Iraqis as possible", or something to that effect; Ron Paul makes sure never to mention Iraqis. Ron Paul's only priority is ending the loss of American lives, and giving the big F-U if the region destabilizes and full-out genocide breaks out. Ignoring problems that we caused? Yeah, that sounds so reasonable. He also claims that the founding fathers intended the USA to be a Christian nation.

"Non-Interventionism" is to "Isolationism" what "Holocaust Revisionism" is to "Holocaust Denial": a contrived euphemism to mask the inherent stupidity of the ideology.

He is so ambiguous in his speeches... he professes not to be racist, and he's soooo constitutional, and yada, yada, but his congressional actions would suggest otherwise. Bush and Paul have a lot in common. They're both Republican, Texan, old, white men who claim divine right from an ancient document- of which they distort the basic moral principles to suit their needs. That's JUST what we need, the Constitution of the United States of America becoming the new Christian Bible.

Anyway, I'm running out of time/room. There's a lot more I could say.

P.S., Yes, Paul did give a weak apology for his racist statements (about as good as Larry Craig's excuse), but
how did he allow them to be published in the first place? This man
wants to be president, and he can't even control his own newsletter?

I've learned watching them destroy the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, and our foreign policy over the last several decade as they lobby for laws forbidding anyone to speak out against them. I don't deny the Holocaust. I wasn't there. But I know one thing for damn sure: WHEN the next one comes, and "Israel" is destroyed, I'll not shed a single tear for the wretched lying, murdering, manipulating, conspiring rat-bastards.

GOOD GODDAMNED RIDDANCE, MEL GIBSON WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT (AND SO IS BOBBY FISCHER).

Ron Paul and his supporters should get used to increased media scrutiny. You raise $4 million in a single day and people are going to start looking at what you've done and said.

I tend not to credit anything written in the NY Sun so I'm sympathetic to Michael's basic premise. Ron Paul is guilty of ignorance and speaking in cliches about important issues like Israel and Jewish influence. But that's far diff. than being an anti-Semite.

Does AIPAC control Congress? No. But does AIPAC dominate Congressional discourse on U.S. Israel relations? You bet. There's nothing wrong with Ron Paul saying that. It's unfortunate that he conflated the Israeli government with AIPAC. But AIPAC itself makes so little distinction between itself and Israeli policy that the ill-informed can only be partially faulted for their ignorance.

Richard Silverstein

Tikun Olam (blog)

How can Ron Paul be anti-Semitic when his two greatest intellectual heroes, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard (both of their pictures hang in Paul's congressional office) were BOTH JEWS?

this may come as a shock to some people, but paul is not PC.

does this mean he's a racist? read the entire articles instead of the snippets some activist singled out and figure it out for yourself! here's one from the most popularly toted "evidence" that he's an outright bigot.

paul takes donations from all kinds of garbage, but that doesnt mean he's about to praise stormfront and wage war on the "zionist conspiracy. do not let the television dictate where your vote is going. put apathy aside and really look into the candidates, you will quickly find that paul is by and far the most honest and efficient from either party.