Mullah Ron Paul

Thoughts on the congressman’s defense of Iran, from Spengler.

And thoughts on Ron Paul’s real racism from Roger Simon:

Paul’s racial bias is more complex and intense than what has already been alleged of his attitudes towards blacks and Jews. He thinks even less of Muslims. He treats the Islamic world as if they do not have views of their own, their own ideology. In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.

In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us.

Besides being ethnocentric in the extreme, this negates many centuries of history — the majority of which took place before the U.S. even existed — and an entire, highly evolved system of religious, philosophical, and social thought. Whether Paul does this out of ignorance or arrogance I am not sure, but his disregard of Islam as something to be taken seriously in and of itself is particularly stunning when that ideology is close to the most antithetical imaginable to Paul’s self-proclaimed libertarianism.

Yes, by denigrating the Muslims’ moral agency, he dehumanizes them.

[Update a few minutes later]

I should note that denying moral agency to Muslims is something that the left has been doing ever since 911.

11 thoughts on “Mullah Ron Paul

  1. B Lewis

    I don’t agree with Rep. Paul on many issues. (Note: I don’t care if he’s a racist or hates Islam.) He would probably be a lousy president. However, the fact that all the smart people in the news media and entertainment industry hate him means that’s he’s probably the right guy to vote for

    1. Titus

      The problem is that the powers-that-be must destroy all non-Leftists. You’ll never have a terribly broad selection. Frankly, I’m amazed he’s come this far.

  2. Dennis Wingo

    In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.

    Reminds me of a gal I went to college with in the 90′s from Persia that swore that the CIA put the Mullahs in power so that we could take over the country for ourselves.

    1. George Turner

      That fits with the notion that once a person buys into a conspiracy theory, all evidence to the contrary will be explained away by an even bigger conspiracy theory.

  3. Jardinero1

    With regard to Spengler, has Spengler or anyone here read the letters or just read what someone read about what someone read?

    There is a good sampling here:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

    Simon has Paul’s foreign policy on exactly backwards. Paul advocates a policy of non-interference precisely because he respects ” the many centuries of history — the majority of which took place before the U.S. even existed — and an entire, highly evolved system of religious, philosophical, and social thought”.

    Paul doesn’t believe that an outside party can successfully intervene in the internal affairs of other nations without suffering some type of blowback. You have to weigh the low likelihood of success against the high likelihood of blowback. I would submit that those who believe we can successfully mold nations like Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones who ignore ” the many centuries of history — the majority of which took place before the U.S. even existed — and an entire, highly evolved system of religious, philosophical, and social thought”.

    1. George Turner

      I found that his newsletters were pretty informative, especially about how the CIA and WHO invented AIDS in a lab at Fort Detrick and the tip about wiping your fingerprints off the gun after you kill a black person, many of whom were running around New York stabbing white women with AIDS-infected hypodermic needles.

      1. Peterh

        Does Ron Paul believe that garbage, or is he the kind of fool who wouldn’t insist on some editorial control over a newsletter in his name?

        Still, I have a hard time seeing this as any worse than the incumbent occupier of the white house. At least he has fiscal policy right.

  4. Thomas Matula

    You know, the more the Republicans rant against him, the more likely he is to run as a third party candidate. It will be interesting to see what impact that has on the election.

    1. Dick Eagleson

      He already did that once before, in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket. I’m pretty sure that particular ballot line is unavailable to him this time around, but, even assuming otherwise, I don’t see Paul having any greater an effect on the electoral outcome now than he did 24 years ago. Ron Paul is simply our generation’s Harold Stassen.

  5. Gregg

    If Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate, his son’s Congressional career would suddenly take a turn for the worse.

Comments are closed.