Saturday, August 1, 2009

Deja vu: Neo-nazis back Ron Paul's son for Senate

The neo-Nazis at Stormfront are backing the senatorial candidacy of Ron Paul's son Rand. Jamie Kelso, who goes by the screen name "Charles A. Lindbergh", has posted video of a Rand Paul fundraising speech on the Nazi website.

View a cached version of their forum, featuring their Odin's Cross logo, an advertisement for an "Iron Cross Polo Shirt", and YouTube video of Rand Paul speaking, here: Rand Paul's first fundraiser, July 23, 2009 in Bowling Green, KY.


UPDATE August 2, 2009 1:00 pm

Watch the Ron Paul Forum watching us here.

UPDATE August 3, 2009 12:30 am

It looks like Stormfront has been pretty active in supporting Rand Paul. It wasn't just a single post. A google search of the Stormfront website for the term "Rand Paul" gets 367 hits, which can be viewed here. A search of the terms "Rand Paul" + senate yields 64 hits, which can be viewed here. Some of these hits are posts supporting Rand Paul's candidacy or actually organizing on his behalf.

This piece has received a lot of traffic, largely from Ron and Rand Paul supporters. Although some of the comments from Paul supporters disavow racism, a majority of comments have expressed the view that racist organizing on behalf of Rand Paul is unimportant. It is not enough, however, to state that, because Rand Paul does not endorse racism, he can wash his hands of what his supporters do. Racists have a history of using campaigns such as those of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as opportunities to recruit new followers. They participate in these campaign precisely because a connection to mainstream politics confers an undeserved air of legitimacy. It seems very clear to me both why it is important for candidates to clearly disavow such support and why it is difficult for some to do so. In spite of what his base of supporters say, I hope that Rand Paul does the right thing and explicitly condemns Stormfront and other racist organizations, disavows their support and returns their contributions. I am not at all optimistic that he will do this; his father did not, when faced with the same situation.

I would also like to address a message to those of his supporters who have posted on the Ron Paul Forum (which is working as a major part of the Rand Paul campaign) comments to the effect that, because my blog's recommended websites area has links to the ADL and SPLC, my motives are somehow suspect. (Read here.) Your form of advocacy on behalf of your candidate tends to create the very fears about his candidacy that you intend to counter.

Regarding an unpleasant aspect of the response this post has received: I have a message for those who think that posting obscene or threatening comments is clever. It isn't. Those comments won't be published here. Neither will any comments that refer in any way to my family. Don't bother trying. The fact that you post these comments anonymously leads me to believe that even you understand that your behavior is shameful. Why not act on that feeling?


UPDATE August 6, 2009 11:00 am

Following up on Roland Dodds' comment that racists support Ron and Rand Paul because their version of federalism would allow local governments the freedom to be racist:

Ron Paul opposes all federal civil rights legislation. He opposes the Civil Rights Act. His advocacy of states' rights is so extreme it includes the right of states to secede from the union. He has testified in court on behalf of secessionists who believe that they aren't legally bound to pay federal tax. He expressed support for New Hampshire militia types who refused to pay a huge tax bill and holed themselves up in their house armed to the teeth.

Ron Paul also pushes the sort of isolationist conpiracy theories the racists do concerning a purported plan for a North American Union, international bankers, Israel lobby, one-world government, etc. -- a sort of post-Cold War version of the old John Birch Society paranoia. He recently reveled that he would support an investigation of the 9/11 truth conspiracy theories but didn't have the time to do it or the stomach for the controversy.

You wonder why these racist groups would support someone like Ron Paul even though he's stopped publishing his racist newsletter columns? Maybe because, in so many other areas, they're in complete agreement.

With repsect to Rand Paul, he seems to be running as a Ron Paul clone. I don't know where he stands on these issues -- maybe you can tell me. It would appear that, at least for Stormfront, they're happy enough with Rand to support his fundraising efforts and offer him a platform to campaign. That seems to me at least to be a warning sign that Rand Paul's views on these issues require close scrutiny.

27 comments:

Brent said...

I'm glad you provided this information! Who else would I turn to to roam neo-nazi forums to see what candidate they are supporting?

Wait, what does this have anything to do with anything? A neo-nazi supports Rand Paul? That's nice, I guess. Are you trying to paint him as an extreme person with neo-nazi white supremacist ties?

Adam Holland said...

Brent:

The post is clear. Rand Paul has the support of neo-Nazis.

The conclusions you draw about that are up to you.

Why do you object to my occassionally reporting on neo-Nazi intrusions into mainstream politics? That's part of what I use this blog for. Is there some reason that I shouldn't do this?

lew256 said...

If you were honestly trying to inform the world of reality, you would mention that there is no hint whatsoever that Rand Paul has ever supported any neo-nazi or white supremacist position.

Not to do so is to be a propagandist, supporting an ideology.

Ideology vs reality is the contest here. Ideology, believing some statement without evidence to support it, is the cause of nearly all of the evil in the world.

William said...

So let's see; Obama sat at the feet of avid Communists......Frank Marshal Davis and the Rev. Wright.

Then befriended little billy ayers and the acorn machine...no, he helped to put it on the map...and the Chgo. thug machine.

Now we were told that his associations were not material to his beliefs....

He solicited their help and Dr. Paul just received their endorsement. What are we missing here? Maybe a brain!

lew256 said...

Mr. Holland,

Had you been trying to inform the world of reality, you would have mentioned that there is no hint that Rand Paul has ever supported any neo-nazi or white supremacist position.

Not to do so is to be a propagandist rather than a reporter.

Believing a statement without evidence is the essence of ideology, the root of most of the world's evil.

Supporting an ideology with inuendo, failing to provide ALL of the context necessary for someone to make an informed opinion, is the essence of propaganda.

"The conclusions you draw are up to you", but you hope they are as stupid as you would like. Less than admirable, IMHO.

lew256 said...

"Visible after the blog owner's approval."

I don't expect to ever see mine, or any other carefully critical post.

Adam Holland said...

lew256:

Comments to this blog are moderated to prevent obscenity, hate speech, libel and, in rare cases, extreme boredom.

The delay in my posting your comments was due to my taking time out from this blog to teach my four year old how to hit a baseball. (He didn't need much teaching.)

Feel free to point out any factual errors in the post. So far, the comments both here and on the Ron Paul Forums have failed to do so.

Brent said...

I think what the Paul folks are trying to understand is why is it okay to paint him as a white supremacist because you found someone on a forum post his video, when it is clearly criticized when people associate Obama with the his preacher and his colleague (Wright + Ayers), among other people?

Are you to tell me we can do the same to Obama? I've seen black supremacist support Obama. Should I write a blog about that?

Mainly, I don't understand why you would take the energy to go to these racist forums, find this information, post it, and give the attitude "the conclusions you draw about that are up to you."

What is your conclusion about it? And do you do the same to other candidates, or just Paul? Did you do the same about Obama or any other candidate?

lew256 said...

Your post is less than clear: Who solicited what?

Who accused Obama of anything? Rand Paul? Ron Paul?

The best propaganda is very factual, completely honest. It merely fails to provide sufficient context for the receiver to come to a complete understanding of the situation, to make accurate judgement.

So, I assume the basic fact is true, that some neo-nazi group has supported Rand Paul. They did so for Ron Paul, tho I recall there was some doubt about where the money came from, whether some Republicans guided that effort.

Ron Paul took the money, and I hope Rand Paul takes any neo-crazies give him. Ron Paul used it to amplify his message of freedom and tolerance. I assume Rand Paul will do the same.

Ron Paul is a good person, the most careful adherent to the Constitution in the Congress. I don't know much about Rand Paul, have heard nothing to suggest he isn't like his father.

That is the context you need to provide.

Adam Holland said...

Brent complains that I don't draw any conclusions about Stormfront's support for Rand Paul. Why? I let you draw your own.

William takes some pot shots at Obama for his "associations", recycling the GOP talking points from 2008. Obama very explicitly denounced the actions of Ayers and Wright -- very eloquently, I might add. If I recall my history correctly, Lincoln had to do something similar with respect to some of his radical Republican supporters. In both instances, the response actually helped define the candidate. Funny how that can work.

Lew256 imputes a sinister motive for my post's lack of factual errors, stating that "(t)he best propaganda is very factual, completely honest. It merely fails to provide sufficient context for the receiver to come to a complete understanding of the situation, to make accurate judgement." I don't really understand this criticism. What context does the story require, other than a response from the candidate? Rand Paul, as far as I know, hasn't responded to the endorsement. As a humble blogger, it seems presumptuous of me to ask him. Of course, he's welcome to issue his response here if he wishes, but I suspect that, if he does respond, it will be because a more widely viewed forum picks up the story, and his response will be there.

Here's a question for you Ron Paul supporters: if this story is as unimportant as you claim, why are so many of you visiting this site today, and commenting both here and on your own forums? Because the story is unimportant?

lew256 said...

We are responding because propaganda needs to be countered at the source every time it occurs.

No candidate is responsible for the views of his many and varied supporters. No candidate need respond to such endorsements. No candidate need return the money of even the most odious.

Any candidate worthy of my support must express their opinions in clear language, their standards and principles very explicitly. They must then live up to those standards, voting as they promised.

Ron Paul does that. He is one of the few honest politicians in the Congress. I have not heard that his son is any lesser human.

Ron Paul's reputation has increased since the election. I think that can't be said about anybody else in DC.

Congress's approval ratings are in the dirt. Few people whole-heartedly approve of either the Democratic or Republican parties. Obama's poll numbers are falling rapidly, even among the left. He promised to end the various wars, he promised to cleanse our nation of the torturers, he promised to close Guantanomo, ...

This is more of the context you are so anxious to avoid as you present your facts.

Adam Holland said...

lew256:

I'm giving you a forum to express your views. How is that avoiding?

Clint Hardy said...

As a supporter of Dr. Paul running for the US Senate I want to say that blacks, hispanics, women etc., should not be labled as a group. Any racial, gender bias is not apart of the Rand Paul 2010 exploratory campaign. Please understand supporters of Dr. Rand Paul are mainstream, traditional rank and file people and we do support Storm front or any other type of group.

jeff said...

Why does it matter who is supporting him? If it were simply a matter "this undesireable person supports this candidate" then you could just bribe any felon to say they support your political enemy.

Isn't it obvious that this is not a proper barometer to evaluate a persons positions of neo-nazism? Especially since the younger (AND elder) Dr. Paul are staunch supporters of civil rights, pretty much the polar opposite of national socialism.

I can understand your curiousity after discovering that he had a neo-nazi supporter but a brief search of any of his writings, speeches, or videos ought to invalidate that rather quickly. So unless you have some evidence, (or even HEARSAY) that might change some opinions..........

But you have nothing.

Larry West said...

For someone to even consider equating the views of the neo-nazi movement with the views of Rand Paul shows either a lack of knowledge of National Socialism and/or the views of Dr. Paul.

One would suppose that the Nazi belief that government should be in control of and directing the private sector (which is what the Obama health care plan and cap-and-trade are very close to being) would mean that they would be closer to Jack Conway's or Daniel Mongiardo's beliefs, not the free-market beliefs of Dr. Paul.

I once read that Hitler liked animals -- does that mean that everyone who likes animals is a nazi sympathizer? This is just as logical as your dispicable attempt to equate neo-nazis to Paul.

And although Obama has denounced Ayers and Wright, he has not (yet) denounced his Science Czar (Holdren) who advocates forced sterilization and eugenics to thin the population of "less-than-desirable" people. This, and Obama's ironic support for Margaret Sanger's organization, which she started in order to reduce the number of black people, means that it is far more likely that Obama's views would be closer to the views of the Nazis than Rand Paul ever will be.

Note: Although the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified a Larry West of Louisville, KY as a leader in the neo-nazi movement, that person obviously is not me.

Starchild said...

Has anyone checked to see who Charles Manson is supporting? How about Bernard Madoff? Al Qaeda? Al Sharpton? Rod Blagojevich? Anti-human environment extremist groups? The Trilateral Commission?

Wait, hold up! Who various unsavory individuals and fringe groups are supporting really doesn't much matter! They have their own warped views of the world, and their reasons for supporting various anti-establishment figures in politics will likely have more to do with their own hatred for whatever aspects of the status quo they dislike, than with the more mainstream agenda of the person(s) they're supporting.

Basing your opinion of someone on what a few neo-Nazis nutjobs are doing is giving the nutjobs more influence than they deserve. Think for yourself, learn what a candidate actually stands for, and then cast an informed vote based on who you believe will do the most in office to uphold the Constitution and protect our freedoms. If voters act based on their fears of how others will vote rather than in accord with their own beliefs, the results will reflect mob psychology rather than informed individual choices and a republic or democracy will suffer.

Rand Paul's website is http://www.randpaul2010.com/. I don't live in Kentucky and have not read much about him in the press, but I don't find anything on his site that would give succor to neo-Nazis or other believers in an extreme authoritarian/nationalist political model. He doesn't even weigh in against immigration or for border controls, which is a big plus in my book since many politicians have jumped on the xenophobe bandwagon.

Take some time too, to learn about the history of fascism and Nazism, and what these movements were actually about and stood for. Here are a couple informative sites, one on the origins of fascism and its rise in Italy, and one listing the 1933 German National Socialist Workers Party (the Nazis) platform:

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm#n1

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html

Oldguy said...

Wiktionary definition of fascism:
A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

Anything in particular jump out at thr Paulbots here?

Roland Dodds said...

Some of us spent a great deal of time criticizing Obama’s connection to folks like Wright and Ayres during the campaign. We also criticized Paul for the radical and unsavory circles he swam in. As Adam and others have documented in the past however, Paul’s connections to the radical right go deeper than simply having some whack jobs casting votes for him.

I think Adam is right when he says that there are practical reasons Ron and his son don’t come out more forcefully and reject the crazies that have been attracted to their movements: they know they need those activists support and that it would turn off a slew of their followers if they came out swinging against them. Ron and Rand may not agree with a single thing the Truthers, separatists, and Nazis who support them believe. The fact that their rather small political movements have attracted so many of those types should be disconcerting to Paul however, and say something about the broader political realm they came out of.

It isn’t a huge leap for Neo-Nazis to support Paul and his program either. Paul is a libertarian and Nazis are often statist totalitarians, but that doesn’t mean the Nazis don’t have more immediate goals they would like to achieve, specifically in giving local communities more control over what is acceptable in their areas. The neo-Nazis in America have long hoped to create all white communities where they can govern, and the decentralizing that Paul advocates would play into their more immediate goals.

Oldguy said...

>The neo-Nazis in America have long hoped to create all white communities where they can govern, and the decentralizing that Paul advocates would play into their more immediate goals.<

Bingo!!!

lew256 said...

OldGuy :

If you had not used 'Paulbots', I would assume you were a Libertarian yourself, as your definition is indeed the opposite of everything that Ron Paul and most Libertarians stand for.

Leader cult? Compared to, say, Obama?

Suppression of opposition? Ron Paul is the opposition.

Mr Dodds:

Ron Paul, and I assume his son, come out very strongly for what they think to be true, and criticize very strongly both Republicans and Democrats. Neo-nazis and white supremacists are such a tiny minority in this country that ignoring them is good sense.

I have quite a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in all walks of life. I passed out Ron Paul literature and registered voters last primary election. I read a lot of posts from a Ron Paul meetup group and various pro-Liberty web sites.

In all of that, so far as I know, I have never met a neo-nazi nor a white supremacist. Not in person nor on-line. Such people are certainly not even a tiny part part of Ron Paul's support.

As for 'Paulbot' and 'leadership cult', you guys don't know Libertarians. If you read the posts of the Ron Paul supporters, here or anywhere else, you will find them to be, on the whole, rational and well-informed.

Ron Paul is the only Libertarian on the national stage. He has been in DC for 10 terms, has resisted the pressures to conform all that time. His stature on the national stage is growing, which you can't say about any other politician.

"Neo-nazi" support doesn't explain that.

robert said...

regardless of how much i might disagree with the stormfront, panthers, jihadists etc i fully support rand paul's position of protecting their first ammendment rights no matter how hateful, laughable or discriminatory they might be.
i find it incredibly shortsighted when intelligent people on the left encourage limitations on the constitution which WILL definitely come back and bite them.

robert said...

oldguy:

Wiktionary definition of fascism:
A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.


that looks like a pretty good description of the obama administration and the 3 clowns who were in office before him.

oldguy, i have to question your understanding of the ron/rand paul platform. first off they are not totalitarian and believe in the opposite of centralized govt. they believe in almost zero governmental interference in business and private ownership. they also put individual liberty at the top of their agenda and they welcome any criticism. that does not mean that they can't debate that criticism of course

Adam Holland said...

Following up on Roland Dodds' comment:

Ron Paul opposes all federal civil rights legislation. He opposes the Civil Rights Act. He is an ardent advocate of states' rights. He has testified in court on behalf of secessionists who believe that they aren't legally bound to pay federal tax. He supported New Hampshire militia types who refused to pay a huge tax bill and holed themselves up in their house armed to the teeth. He literally supports the right of states to secede from the union.

Ron Paul also pushes the sort of conpiracy theories the racists do concerning North American Union, international bankers, Israel lobby, one-world government, etc. Some of what he's said sounds to me like a post-Cold War version of the old John Birch style paranoia. He recently reveled that he would support an investigation of the 9/11 truth conspiracy theories but didn't have the time to do it or the stomach for the controversy.

You wonder why these racist groups would support someone like Ron Paul even though he's stopped publishing his racist newsletter columns? Maybe because, in so many other areas, they're in complete agreement.

With repsect to Rand Paul, he seems to be running as a Ron Paul clone. Insofar as he has less of record, its harder to say where he stands on these issues. Maybe you can tell me. It would appear that, at least for Stormfront, they're happy enough with Rand to support his fundraising efforts and offer him a platform to campaign.

Seth Thomas said...

Some have questioned why Adam Holland would make comparisons between neo nazis and Rand and Ron Paul. He says he makes no conclusions so that others can merely draw them for themselves.

But the tags from the blog tell a different story: "Labels: Far Right, Fascism, Nazism, Rand Paul, Ron Paul"

He's no better than the bloggers who linked Obama to communist groups just because communist groups supported him.

My conclusion: Adam Holland favors character assassination by tenuous means, and is definitely an operative for another person in the senate race.

Adam Holland said...

Seth Thomas:

Let me get this straight. You say that, if I report on neo-Nazis supporting Rand Paul for Senate, that is "character assassination" and proves that I'm working on behalf of another candidate? What have I been doing for the past several years, blogging about anti-Semitism and far-right extremism while I wait for this moment to influence the Kentucky Republican primary? Yowza!

(Truth is, I honestly can't name the other candidate(s). Kentucky people, help me out.)

Seth, I don't don't know you, but somewhere deep down you must know that your argument makes no sense.

With respect to your argument about guilt by association: you are right to point out that calling Obama a communist because he either knew a communist or was supported by communists (not sure about the latter) makes no sense. That's why I don't say Rand Paul is a neo-Nazi, just that he's supported by them. I challenge him to tell the neo-Nazis to stop organizing on his behalf, purge the anti-Semitic material from his and his father's websites, return donations from neo-Nazi contributors, and, to the best of his ability put up a stone wall between his campaign and the hate groups.

His father's failure to take these steps during his presidential campaign was extremely troubling. It provided aid and comfort to far-right extremists.

This issue transcends ideology. Any candidate of any ideology must, as a prerequisite of participation in the mainstream, completely distance themselves from these hate groups. Let's see if Rand Paul rises to this challenge.

Adam Holland said...

oops! sorry for the inadvertent double negative! "don't don't" should read "don't"

Adam Holland said...

Message concerning Seth Thomas:

The last commenter in this thread responded to my comment with the sort of comment that I won't allow. I will not publish comments that are bigoted, obscene, libelous or gratuitously insulting. Seth, go somewhere else.

CONTACT

adamhollandblog [AT] gmail [DOT] com