Log in

No account? Create an account
Steve Likes to Curse
Writing, comics and random thoughts from really a rather vulgar man
Ron Paul: Not just a nutjob - a poorly informed nutjob 
Thursday, December 27th, 2007 | 12:57 pm [conspiracy theories, history, politics]
Rick has been doing a great job the last few months at his Bent Corner blog writing about what a crazy old coot Ron Paul is. Congressman Paul’s most recent display of televised psychosis was this past weekend on Meet the Press, when, among other things, he claimed that Abraham Lincoln started the American Civil War. Lincoln apparently did this through a diabolical scheme of getting elected President of the United States, then cleverly waiting for Confederate troops in the seceded state of South Carolina to open fire on Fort Sumter. Starting a war by waiting for the other side to start the war . . . he was an evil genius, that Abe Lincoln. (Helluva wrestler, too.)
Not only did Paul blame Lincoln for starting the war, he blamed him for starting it for the noblest reason he could possibly have started it — to free the millions of African Americans enslaved throughout the southern U.S. The bloody Civil War, with its calamitous loss of life and resources, was unnecessary to end slavery, Congressman Paul said. Instead, Lincoln could have freed the slaves by having the government buy them from their owners and releasing them. Except that by the time Lincoln made it to office, the war had already started. Southern state legislatures began declaring their secession shortly after Lincoln was elected, months before he was inaugurated. I doubt they would have been receptive to offers from their most hated enemy to relieve them of their vast force of wage-free labor in exchange for fair market value. Plus, as Rick points out in his article, wouldn’t buying the slaves, even if only to free them, legitimize the practice of treating human beings like livestock?
Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War, and if he had, it would have been to restore the Union, not to free the slaves. He evolved into the Great Emancipator over the course of the war, but Abe was hardly an abolitionist when the shit started going down. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” he wrote in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
But faulting Lincoln and his then-non-existent desire to end slavery for the start of the Civil War wasn’t all Ron Paul had up his sleeve for us this week. As Rick writes about in another article posted today, Congressman Paul called in to Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning and defended his peculiar version of American history against guest host David Shushter, who had previously referred to Paul quite correctly as a “crackpot,” and co-host Jack Jacobs. Paul defended his “Lincoln started it” assertion by claiming that the MSNBC hosts hadn’t read “the right history books.” He also told Jack Jacobs that he was not “brave enough” to read those history books, the ones which told the real story.
Rick spent a few paragraphs expounding on how ludicrous it is for a man like Ron Paul to attack Jack Jacobs for questioning his shoddy history by attacking Jacobs’s personal bravery, but I think it bears repeating: Jack Jacobs is a retired U.S. Army Colonel. He served during the Vietnam War and was awarded two Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, and the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service. According to his Medal of Honor citation, Jacobs repeatedly crossed open rice fields, while under heavy enemy fire and bleeding from severe head wounds, to evacuate others to safety. Jacobs is credited with saving the lives of an American military advisor and 13 soldiers in the 2nd Battalion of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, to which Jacobs was attached as an assistant battalion advisor. That doesn’t mean his opinions should be treated with any more deference than anyone else’s, or that he’s exempt from being questioned, but it does speak pretty persuasively to his bravery. Congressman Paul, a Vietnam-era veteran himself, ought to know better.
The reason Paul claimed Jacobs lacked the courage to read the right history books is probably that Jacobs is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is one of the most feared and vilified groups in the world among the sort of conspiracy theorist wackos whose support Congressman Paul has been shamelessly soliciting for the past year. The CFR, along with the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and those owl-worshipping heretics at Bohemian Grove, is one of the main organizations comprising the Illuminati, the New World Order, the Republican National Committee — whatever you want to call it, the cabal of shadowy aristocrats who control all the banks and are plotting to enslave us all beneath the yoke of a world government. The facts that Jack Jacobs is a legit war hero, and that the Council on Foreign Relations is pretty much just an overfed think tank for rich people and bored, retired politicians, with no actual power whatsoever, don’t matter much to Ron Paul, or Alex Jones or Aaron Russo or David Icke, or the rest of their alarmist, delusional kind.
Sure, viewed with a certain mindset (for instance, unrestrained insanity), the Council on Foreign Relations can look like a creepy bunch. It’s mostly old white guys in suits, and it is undeniably an elitist and exclusive institution. It has some pretty sinister members, like Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, and Rick Warren. But the CFR also has some less intimidating names on its roster, like young ketchup mogul Christopher Heinz, news anchor Paula Zahn, Angelina Jolie, The View co-host Barbara Walters, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who you know would never hurt a fly, let alone bind all humanity to the brutal will of a global superstate.
What did Ron Paul mean by the right history books? Probably ones like The Lincoln No One Knows by Webb B. Garrison, and almost definitely The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo. I’ve not read either book, and neither strikes me as serious work anyway, but to get an idea of what sort of history might be found in books like these, here are a few lines from an article written by DiLorenzo, apparently a dedicated Lincoln basher, and posted online at this loony anti-Semitic religious fanatic and conspiracy theorist website:
Lincoln's stated purpose in the war was to destroy the principle of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, DC, so Lincoln waged total war against them for four long years. Of course, he didn't put it this way but instead sugarcoated his objective with language about “saving the Union.”
The rest of the website, called The 7th Fire, though not written by DiLorenzo, publishes many of his articles, as well as links to study guides for his “great work” aimed specifically at home schoolers (go figure). DiLorenzo ought to be more discriminating about where he allows his work to be posted. Here is another quote from that 7th Fire page, where six of DiLorenzo’s articles are linked under the heading “THE CIVIL WAR and the Role of the Illuminati”:
The American Civil War, in a very real sense, was the continuation of the Revolutionary war fought by our Founders against the Bank of England. The Civil War was planned in London by Rothschild who wanted two American democracies, each burdened with debt. Four years before the war (1857) Rothschild decided his Paris bank would support the South, represented by Sen. John Slidell, JEW, from Louisiana; while the British branch would support the North, represented by August Belmont (Schoenberg) JEW, from New York. The plan was to bankroll, at usurious interest rates, the huge war debts that were anticipated, using that debt to extort both sides into accepting a Rothschild central-banking system similar to the one that had bled (and is bleeding) the nations of Europe, keeping them in conditions of perpetual war, insolvency and at the mercy of JEW speculators.
Holy shit, Mel Gibson was right!
One more quote from a DiLorenzo article, because I can’t help myself:
As H.L. Mencken said of the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln absurdly claimed that Northern soldiers were fighting for the cause of self determination (“that government of the people . . . should not perish . . .”) “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
Heh. Well, not all of their people, H.L.
That’s what Jack Jacobs is too scared to read, according to Ron Paul. Because he disagrees with the unsustainable, half-baked worldview espoused by men like Paul, and DiLorenzo, and those fine folks at 7th Fire, Jacobs, who risked his life over and over again to rescue Vietnamese soldiers, is labeled a coward. Good old Congressman Paul, though, he ain’t no coward. No sir. Be you a Nazi or a whoremonger or a 9/11 Truther or a secesh-loving Lincoln basher, Ron Paul is brave enough to take your money and spend it in his stupid and hopeless run for the White House.
When Paul gets crushed in primary after primary and he’s finally forced to withdraw his candidacy, it will be partially due to his relative lack of funds, to the media’s preference for Romney or McCain or Huckabee, and to how batshit crazy he is. Ultimately, though, I think it will be those Nazi contributors, those conspiracy theorist radio hosts to whom he so regularly grants interviews, those authors of “the right kind of history books” that do him in. It won’t be the money, the media, or the man himself, but the company he keeps.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,  
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 04:06 am (UTC) - Please check out the following
Tom DiLorenzo is a professor at Loyola College, Maryland and is a fellow at the Ludwig von Mises institute. His two books on Lincoln are exceptionally well researched and written. I'm sure he has nothing to do the website you were looking at. Check out mises.org and lewrockwell.com for his original articles. They may seem controversial but will make you think for sure.

Ron Paul basically share a large number of ideological viewpoints with Austrian economists. They are pro-peace, anti-state, and pro individual liberty. Mises and his successor, Murray Rothbard (both now deceased) are the real intellectuals behind this movement. If you want to know where Ron Paul's intellectual framework is based, Google Mises and Rothbard.

The message of freedom attracts all kinds - sometimes including kooks you mention. Both parties condoned the Iraq war, which has led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. That's just or even more kooky than conspiracy theorists who listen to Art Bell at night and harm no one.

Ron Paul's point about the civil war is to look for a peaceful solution. Lincoln fought to save the union "at all costs." Ask yourself why? What was so great about the union? Was it worth 600,000 dead and all the money spent in reconstruction? Slavery was the shame of the nation for sure. But slavery ended (nearly) everywhere by peaceful means - could our country not find a better solution? That's all Ron Paul is saying. Lincoln greatly expanded presidential powers - shutting down newspapers (in the north!) and suspending habeas corpus. History is written by the victors, and Paul and the pro-liberty folks he represents are tired of undeclared wars, the CIA overthrowing governments, and generally the relentless expansion of the executive branch.

Also check out Kevin Gutzman's book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" for more about secession and what the founders said about it.

Good luck.

Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 08:19 am (UTC) - your very misinformed
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 08:50 am (UTC) - Ron Paul
you are a foolish little man. In every other nation where where the slave trade flourished such as the entire British Empire, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and other nations, slavery was phased out without a bloddy civil war that tore the nation apart. The US Civil War was not faught to end slavery, you cod. You can learn that in "The Civil War for Dummies". surely that ones not too hard for you. You people need to actually learn your history. You must one of the welfare statists coddled by this nanny government who's too afraid and too dependant on the Federal Government to even dream of it being largely dismantled, despite what the US Consitutution says. It's a sad world when the man who is NOT bought and sold by major corporations and the military industrial complex like every single other candidate running for president with the exception of Kucinich is the crazy one. I'm glad you call 18 million a lack of funds considering he's made more than any other Republican from 60,000 donors and he's recieved more money from the armed forces than any other Republican candidate running, and I'm also glad you leave your political decisions up to the media because of their "preference". So it will be the $500 from the Stormfront guy out of 18 million that does him in eh? What about Hilary's hundreds of thousands of global corporations who make the rich richer and poor poorer. Do you have a mind? Think for yourself why don't you?! Turn off FOX and do your homework for the fucking sake of America! You sir, are the batshit crazy one. You are a blind little shrill, and a sheep at that. So fall in line, little one, because everyone with a brain and love for this nation knows this is bigger than Dr. Paul. it's the movement. no more world police. no more welfare state. We'll be around after Dr. Paul is gone and after his children are gone and after their children are gone. This is only the beginning. I truly have pity for you. Your lips are firmly planted on the tits of the establishment and you don't know any better.
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 08:42 pm (UTC) - Re: Ron Paul
Every other slave-holding country in the world ended slavery without a bloody civil war because they ended slavery before their bloody civil wars started. Here in the U.S., I guess that's just not how we roll. I say again: most of the South had already seceded when Lincoln took office. How was he going to end slavery peacefully once that had occurred?

And, as you said, ending slavery wasn't even the initial point of the war (though I'm not sure about the "cod" part . . .)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to join the rest of my fellow Paul-bashers for our afternoon snack. The establishment only has so many teats, and it gets cranky with latecomers.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 07:51 pm (UTC) - Re: Ron Paul
You are so ignorant on so many issues. You need to stop talking and start listening and reading. I question you're ignorance though because it seems as though you support everything which the globalists do. I'm well aware of the fact that intel agencies have individuals disseminating false information for the rest of the gullible public to lap up. The question is are you simply one of these gullible idiots or are you being paid to engage in propaganda? "Oh conspiracy theorist! Blah Blah Blah!" STFU already you dim wit!
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 09:34 pm (UTC) - Re: Ron Paul
God, this is twice in one day I find myself thinking of that "total paranoia is total awareness" quote . . .

Are you really so sold on your own bullshit that anyone who doesn't buy into it is either a gullible idiot or a paid government shill? And then you try to preempt me from calling you a conspiracy theorist — but, man, what else am I supposed to think when you write shit like that?

Seriously. You've read this blog, at least somewhat. I'm a government intel operative?

This goes without saying to everybody else, but just for your benefit: You've lost your fucking mind.
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 03:50 pm (UTC)
Tom DiLorenzo is a professor at Loyola, but he doesn't teach history. He teaches economics. He's not a historian.
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 04:49 pm (UTC) - The Civil War had much to do with Economics
So you're saying that economics has no place in history? The Civil War had nothing to do with economics? And the man's field of study is somehow a debunking of his well-sourced history books? Try again, only this time, use something other than fallacy.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 07:54 pm (UTC) - Re: The Civil War had much to do with Economics
Didn't you know, intelligent individuals can only be intelligent in the field they earned a degree in! They can't apply their intelligence to fields outside of their degree. How stupid could you be!!?? What makes you think that intelligence and abstract reasoning could cross fields or that someone could study and research issues outside of school? Are you retarded??
Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 05:49 pm (UTC) - Conservative Idiots
This article is so full of ignorance about the nature of the federal Union and the history of the war that there's almost no point in responding to it. Suffice it to say that Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed with every word here -- and if it's Jefferson and Ron Paul versus some no-name propagandized automaton, I like Ron's odds.

I love how it's "batshit crazy" to suggest that 620,000 deaths wasn't the most brilliant way to end slavery (and ending slavery hadn't been Lincoln's intention in the first place), but it's not "batshit crazy" to believe in fiat currency, to think the U.S. can avoid going bankrupt with troops in 130 countries, or to agree with the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson.

The conservatives of just a generation ago would be embarrassed at the stupidity of modern conservatives, who think enforcing a Stalinist orthodoxy on American history is "conservative."

Ooh, I can't take any independent thought! Teach me about Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin! Tell me what to think, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes!

And yes, Ron Paul is obviously the most informed person running. What on earth could any of these hacks say about monetary policy? What does any of them know about antitrust policy, or even the Constitution? Here they are with a bunch of rehearsed answers, and you just love them. You've been told that these candidates are acceptable, so you dutifully get in line and condemn the one independent voice.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is actually well read, but he dares to disagree with the Official Version of History, so you condemn him with laughable smears that should wind you up in court.

Incidentally, how much Ludwig von Mises do you think Giuliani has read? Oh, wait, you don't even know who Mises is.

Now time to get back to making sure we get another sloganeering hack for president! "Please, please talk down to me! Please speak to me in slogans! Please, don't expose me to independent thought! Please, just repeat what my fourth-grade teacher taught me!"

Friday, December 28th, 2007 | 08:47 pm (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots

620,000 deaths WASN'T the best way to end slavery. The best way to end slavery would have been not to have slaves in the first place. But as that was not an option, and as the southern states chose to split at the mere THOUGHT of an anti-slavery president (which Lincoln wasn't, even), I'm not sure what other peaceful options Lincoln had open to him.

And yes, I know all about how well-read Ron Paul is. He's read von Mises, he's read Tocqueville, he's read Knox and Paine and ... shit, even I'VE read Paine, for Christ's sake ... He's a smart man. I'm not saying otherwise. But he's also a conspiracy theorist who sees the building of a big highway in Texas as proof that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are going to fuse into a massive superstate. That's the point in the conversation when you're supposed to raise your hand and call, "Check please?"
Saturday, December 29th, 2007 | 01:13 am (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots
It this the conspiracy you're talking about?

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 07:59 pm (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots
Hey stupid ass propagandist, tell me what kind of dicussion occured in Wisconsin with regards to secession prior to war and a lock down of discussion?
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 09:26 pm (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots
Do you mean the "dicussion" where the governor threatened to secede if slavery wasn't abolished, where he polled his state militia's and disarmed the one unit he found that expressed loyalty to the Union over Wisconsin, even though its commander also detested slavery?

What are you expecting me to say, that it was wrong for the Confederacy to secede because they fought for slavery, but okay if Wisconsin wanted to because they opposed it? Better luck next time.

Are you trying to impress someone with your command of Civil War esoterica?
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 08:11 pm (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots
You throw around the phrase "conspiracy theorist" like a propagandist or a brain washed idiot. Let me help you out:

Our friend www.dictionary.com:

1.the act of conspiring.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

1. a person who theorizes.
2. a person who deals mainly with the theory of a subject:

So by definition a conspiracy theorist is one who theorizes about conspiracies. What you are doing is citing minimal evidence and using the phrase as the media has conditioned it-to mean a "wacko","nutjob","tin foil hat wearer". Either you're a propagandist who is using classical conditioning by associating Ron Paul with the conditioned phrase "conspiracy theorist"(tin foil hat wearer) to discredit him or you are an idiot who doesn't realize that you are repeating propagandists techniques. Either way fuck you! (BTW I don't support Paul but I hate idiots and propagandists, ie: YOU)
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 | 09:09 pm (UTC) - Re: Conservative Idiots
Since you know full well the popular definition of a conspiracy theorist is not "one who theorizes about conspiracies," but rather the proverbial tin-foil hat wearer, your splicing of the dictionary definition seems like a waste of time.

And it's not "propagandists" (meaning, apparently, anyone who refuses to accept certain premises which you hold sacred) like me who have associated Ron Paul with conspiracy theorists -- it's Ron Paul himself, who published typical conspiracy theorist drivel in the various incarnations of his newsletter for years, and still writes a regular column for WorldNetDaily, a "news" website which has touted conspiracy theories, including elements of the 9/11 Truth movement, for years.
This page was loaded Jun 24th 2018, 5:18 pm GMT.