The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Published: July 22, 2007

The most radical congressman in America is a Republican from Texas. And he’s running for president.
Whipping westward across Manhattan in a limousine sent by Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” Ron Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman and long-shot Republican presidential candidate, is being briefed. Paul has only the most tenuous familiarity with Comedy Central. He has never heard of “The Daily Show.” His press secretary, Jesse Benton, is trying to explain who its host, Jon Stewart, is. “He’s an affable gentleman,” Benton says, “and he’s very smart. What I’m getting from the pre-interview is, he’s sympathetic.”

Paul nods.

“GQ wants to profile you on Thursday,” Benton continues. “I think it’s worth doing.”

“GTU?” the candidate replies.

“GQ. It’s a men’s magazine.”

“Don’t know much about that,” Paul says.

Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness, Ron Paul is a 71-year-old great-grandfather, a small-town doctor, a self-educated policy intellectual and a formidable stander on constitutional principle. In normal times, Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution. But Paul has in recent weeks become a sensation in magazines he doesn’t read, on Web sites he has never visited and on television shows he has never watched.

Alone among Republican candidates for the presidency, Paul has always opposed the Iraq war. He blames “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: “Just leave.” During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Rudolph Giuliani reacted by demanding a retraction, drawing gales of applause from the audience. But the incident helped Paul too. Overnight, he became the country’s most conspicuous antiwar Republican.

Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq did not come out of nowhere. He was against the first gulf war, the war in Kosovo and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which he called a “declaration of virtual war.” Although he voted after Sept. 11 to approve the use of force in Afghanistan and spend $40 billion in emergency appropriations, he has sounded less thrilled with those votes as time has passed. “I voted for the authority and the money,” he now says. “I thought it was misused.”

There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home. But there is also something cosmopolitan and radical about him; his speeches can bring to mind the World Social Forum or the French international-affairs periodical Le Monde Diplomatique. Paul is surely the only congressman who would cite the assertion of the left-leaning Chennai-based daily The Hindu that “the world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony.” The word “empire” crops up a lot in his speeches.

This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine.

Over the years, this vision has won most favor from those convinced the country is going to hell in a handbasket. The attention Paul has captured tells us a lot about the prevalence of such pessimism today, about the instability of partisan allegiances and about the seldom-avowed common ground between the hard right and the hard left. His message draws on the noblest traditions of American decency and patriotism; it also draws on what the historian Richard Hofstadter called the paranoid style in American politics.

Financial Armageddon

Paul grew up in the western Pennsylvania town of Green Tree. His father, the son of a German immigrant, ran a small dairy company. Sports were big around there — one of the customers on the milk route Paul worked as a teenager was the retired baseball Hall of Famer Honus Wagner — and Paul was a terrific athlete, winning a state track meet in the 220 and excelling at football and baseball. But knee injuries had ended his sports career by the time he went off to Gettysburg College in 1953. After medical school at Duke, Paul joined the Air Force, where he served as a flight surgeon, tending to the ear, nose and throat ailments of pilots, and traveling to Iran, Ethiopia and elsewhere. “I recall doing a lot of physicals on Army warrant officers who wanted to become helicopter pilots and go to Vietnam,” he told me. “They were gung-ho. I’ve often thought about how many of those people never came back.”

Paul is given to mulling things over morally. His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague. As a young man, though, he did not protest the Vietnam War, which he now calls “totally unnecessary” and “illegal.” Much later, after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, he began reading St. Augustine. “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”

In 1968, Paul settled in southern Texas, where he had been stationed. He recalls that he was for a while the only obstetrician — “a very delightful part of medicine,” he says — in Brazoria County. He was already immersed in reading the economics books that would change his life. Americans know the “Austrian school,” if at all, from the work of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, two economists who fled the Nazis in the 1930s and whose free-market doctrines helped inspire the conservative movement in the 1950s. The laws of economics don’t admit exceptions, say the Austrians. You cannot fake out markets, no matter how surreptitiously you expand the money supply. Spend more than you earn, and you are on the road to inflation and tyranny.

Such views are not always Republican orthodoxy. Paul is a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, both for its policies and its unaccountability. “We first bonded,” recalls Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, “because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.” In recent weeks, Paul’s airport reading has been a book called “Financial Armageddon.” He is obsessed with sound money, which he considers — along with the related phenomena of credit excess, bubbles and uncollateralized assets of all kinds — a “sleeper issue.” The United States ought to link its currency to gold or silver again, Paul says. He puts his money where his mouth is. According to Federal Election Commission documents, most of his investments are in gold and silver and are worth between $1.5 and $3.5 million. It’s a modest sum by the standards of major presidential candidates but impressive for someone who put five children through college on a doctor’s (and later a congressman’s) earnings.

For Paul, everything comes back to money, including Iraq. “No matter how much you love the empire,” he says, “it’s unaffordable.” Wars are expensive, and there has been a tendency throughout history to pay for them by borrowing. A day of reckoning always comes, says Paul, and one will come for us. Speaking this spring before the libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, Va., he warned of a dollar crisis. “That’s usually the way empires end,” he said. “It wasn’t us forcing the Soviets to build missiles that brought them down. It was the fact that socialism doesn’t work. Our system doesn’t work much better.”

Under the banner of “Freedom, Honesty and Sound Money,” Paul ran for Congress in 1974. He lost — but took the seat in a special election in April 1976. He lost again in November of that year, then won in 1978. On two big issues, he stood on principle and was vindicated: He was one of very few Republicans in Congress to back Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican nomination. He was also one of the representatives who warned against the rewriting of banking rules that laid the groundwork for the savings-and-loan collapse of the 1980s. Paul served three terms before losing to Phil Gramm in the Republican primary for Senate in 1984. Tom DeLay took over his seat.

Paul would not come back to Washington for another dozen years. But in the time he could spare from delivering babies in Brazoria County, he remained a mighty presence in the out-of-the-limelight world of those old-line libertarians who had never made their peace with the steady growth of federal power in the 20th century. Paul got the Libertarian Party nomination for president in 1988, defeating the Indian activist Russell Means in a tough race. He finished third behind Bush and Dukakis, winning nearly half a million votes. He tended his own Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) and kept up his contacts with other market-oriented organizations. What resulted was a network of true believers who would be his political base in one of the stranger Congressional elections of modern times.

A Lone Wolf

In the first days of 1995, just weeks after the Republican landslide, Paul traveled to Washington and, through DeLay, made contact with the Texas Republican delegation. He told them he could beat the Democratic incumbent Greg Laughlin in the reconfigured Gulf Coast district that now included his home. Republicans had their own ideas. In June 1995, Laughlin announced he would run in the next election as a Republican. Laughlin says he had discussed switching parties with Newt Gingrich, the next speaker, before the Republicans even took power. Paul suspects to this day that the Republicans wooed Laughlin to head off his candidacy. Whatever happened, it didn’t work. Paul challenged Laughlin in the primary.

“At first, we kind of blew him off,” recalls the longtime Texas political consultant Royal Masset. “ ‘Oh, there’s Ron Paul!’ But very quickly, we realized he was getting far more money than anybody.” Much of it came from out of state, from the free-market network Paul built up while far from Congress. His candidacy was a problem not just for Laughlin. It also threatened to halt the stream of prominent Democrats then switching parties — for what sane incumbent would switch if he couldn’t be assured the Republican nomination? The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin. Paul had only two prominent backers: the tax activist Steve Forbes and the pitcher Nolan Ryan, Paul’s constituent and old friend, who cut a number of ads for him. They were enough. Paul edged Laughlin in a runoff and won an equally narrow general election.

Republican opposition may not have made Paul distrust the party, but beating its network with his own homemade one revealed that he didn’t necessarily need the party either. Paul looks back on that race and sees something in common with his quixotic bid for the presidency. “I always think that if I do things like that and get clobbered, I can excuse myself,” he says.

Anyone who is elected to Congress three times as a nonincumbent, as Paul has been, is a politician of prodigious gifts. Especially since Paul has real vulnerabilities in his district. For Eric Dondero, who plans to challenge him in the Republican Congressional primary next fall, foreign policy is Paul’s central failing. Dondero, who is 44, was Paul’s aide and sometime spokesman for more than a decade. According to Dondero, “When 9/11 happened, he just completely changed. One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was . . . it was, ‘Now we’re gonna get big government.’ ”

Dondero claims that Paul’s vote to authorize force in Afghanistan was made only after warnings from a longtime staffer that voting otherwise would cost him Victoria, a pivotal city in his district. (“Completely false,” Paul says.) One day just after the Iraq invasion, when Dondero was driving Paul around the district, the two had words. “He said he did not want to have someone on staff who did not support him 100 percent on foreign policy,” Dondero recalls. Paul says Dondero’s outspoken enthusiasm for the military’s “shock and awe” strategy made him an awkward spokesman for an antiwar congressman. The two parted on bad terms.

A larger vulnerability may be that voters want more pork-barrel spending than Paul is willing to countenance. In a rice-growing, cattle-ranching district, Paul consistently votes against farm subsidies. In the very district where, on the night of Sept. 8, 1900, a storm destroyed the city of Galveston, leaving 6,000 dead, and where repairs from Hurricane Rita and refugees from Hurricane Katrina continue to exact a toll, he votes against FEMA and flood aid. In a district that is home to many employees of the Johnson Space Center, he votes against financing NASA.

The Victoria Advocate, an influential newspaper in the district, has generally opposed Paul for re-election, on the grounds that a “lone wolf” cannot get the highway and homeland-security financing the district needs. So how does he get re-elected? Tim Delaney, the paper’s editorial-page editor, says: “Ron Paul is a very charismatic person. He has charm. He does not alter his position ever. His ideals are high. If a little old man calls up from the farm and says, ‘I need a wheelchair,’ he’ll get the damn wheelchair for him.”

Paul may have refused on principle to accept Medicare when he practiced medicine. He may return a portion of his Congressional office budget every year. But his staff has the reputation of fighting doggedly to collect Social Security checks, passports, military decorations, immigrant-visa extensions and any emolument to which constituents are entitled by law. According to Jackie Gloor, who runs Paul’s Victoria office: “So many times, people say to us, ‘We don’t like his vote.’ But they trust his heart.”

In Congress, Paul is generally admired for his fidelity to principle and lack of ego. “He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,” says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. “He is independent but not ornery.” Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (final tally: 412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

Every Thursday, Paul is the host of a luncheon for a circle of conservative Republicans that he calls the Liberty Caucus. It has become the epicenter of antiwar Republicanism in Washington. One stalwart member is Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who during the debate over Iraq suggested renaming French fries “freedom fries” in the House dining room, but who has passed the years since in vocal opposition to the war. Another is John (Jimmy) Duncan of Tennessee, the only Republican besides Paul who voted against the war and remains in the House. Other regulars include Virgil Goode of Virginia, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Scott Garrett of New Jersey. Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Jeff Flake, the Arizonan scourge of pork-barrel spending, visit occasionally. Not all are antiwar, but many of the speakers Paul invites are: the former C.I.A. analyst Michael Scheuer, the intelligence-world journalist James Bamford and such disillusioned United States Army officers as William Odom, Gregory Newbold and Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s former chief of staff), among others.

In today’s Washington, Paul’s combination of radical libertarianism and conservatism is unusual. Sometimes the first impulse predominates. He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage. He detests the federal war on drugs; the LSD guru Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for him in 1988. Sometimes he is more conservative. He opposed the recent immigration bill on the grounds that it constituted amnesty. At a breakfast for conservative journalists in the offices of Americans for Tax Reform this May, he spoke resentfully of being required to treat penurious immigrants in emergency rooms — “patients who were more likely to sue you than anybody else,” having children “who became automatic citizens the next day.” (Paul champions a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.) While he backs free trade in theory, he opposes many of the institutions and arrangements — from the World Trade Organization to Nafta — that promote it in practice.

Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one. He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. “It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

The Owl-God Moloch

Paul’s message is not new. You could have heard it in 1964 or 1975 or 1991 at the conclaves of those conservatives who were considered outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. Back then, most Republicans appeared reconciled to a strong federal government, if only to do the expensive job of defending the country against Communism. But when the Berlin Wall fell, the dormant institutions and ideologies of pre-cold-war conservatism began to stir. In his 1992 and 1996 campaigns, Pat Buchanan was the first politician to express and exploit this change, breathing life into the motto “America First” (if not the organization of that name, which opposed entry into World War II).

Like Buchanan, Paul draws on forgotten traditions. His top aides are unimpeachably Republican but stand at a distance from the party as it has evolved over the decades. His chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, worked for Pat Robertson and Bill Miller Jr. (the son of Barry Goldwater’s vice-presidential nominee). His national campaign organizer, Lew Moore, worked for the late congressman Jack Metcalf of Washington State, another Goldwaterite. At the grass roots, Paul’s New Hampshire primary campaign stresses gun rights and relies on anti-abortion and tax activists from the organizations of Buchanan and the state’s former maverick senator, Bob Smith.

Paul admires Robert Taft, the isolationist Ohio senator known during the Truman administration as Mr. Republican, who tried to rally Republicans against United States participation in NATO. Taft lost the Republican nomination in 1952 to Dwight Eisenhower and died the following year. “Now, of course,” Paul says, “I quote Eisenhower when he talks about the military-industrial complex. But I quote Taft when he suits my purposes too.” Particularly on NATO, from which Paul, too, would like to withdraw.

The question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”

Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals and groups who don’t recognize themselves in the politics they see on TV. To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”

Victor Carey, a 45-year-old, muscular, mustachioed self-described “patriot” who wears a black baseball cap with a skull and crossbones on it, drove up from Sykesville, Md., to show his support for Paul. He laid out some of his concerns. “The people who own the Federal Reserve own the oil companies, they own the mass media, they own the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, they’re part of the Bilderbergers, and unfortunately their spiritual practices are very wicked and diabolical as well,” Carey said. “They go to a place out in California known as the Bohemian Grove, and there’s been footage obtained by infiltration of what their practices are. And they do mock human sacrifices to an owl-god called Moloch. This is true. Go research it yourself.”

Two grandmothers from North Carolina who painted a Winnebago red, white and blue were traveling around the country, stumping for Ron Paul, defending the Constitution and warning about the new “North American Union.” Asked whether this is something that would arise out of Nafta, Betty Smith of Chapel Hill, N.C., replied: “It’s already arisen. They’re building the highway. Guess what! The Spanish company building the highway — they’re gonna get the tolls. Giuliani’s law firm represents that Spanish company. Giuliani’s been anointed a knight by the Queen. Guess what! Read the Constitution. That’s not allowed!” [contd]

Paul is not a conspiracy theorist, but he has a tendency to talk in that idiom. In a floor speech shortly after the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, he mentioned Unocal’s desire to tap the region’s energy and concluded, “We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the U.N. to ‘nation-build’ in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire.” But when push comes to shove, Paul is not among the “many” who “contend” this. “I think oil and gas is part of it,” he explains. “But it’s not the issue. If that were the only issue, it wouldn’t have happened. The main reason was to get the Taliban out.”

Last winter at a meet-the-candidate house party in New Hampshire, students representing a group called Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth asked Paul whether he believed the official investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks was credible. “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation,” Paul replied, “because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.” The exchange was videotaped and ricocheted around the Internet for a while. But Paul’s patience with the “Truthers,” as they call themselves, does not make him one himself. “Even at the time it happened, I believe the information was fairly clear that Al Qaeda was involved,” he told me.

“Every Wacko Fringe Group In the Country”

One evening in mid-June, 86 members of a newly formed Ron Paul Meetup group gathered in a room in the Pasadena convention center. It was a varied crowd, preoccupied by the war, including many disaffected Democrats. Via video link from Virginia, Paul’s campaign chairman, Kent Snyder, spoke to the group “of a coming-together of the old guard and the new.” Then Connie Ruffley, co-chairwoman of United Republicans of California (UROC), addressed the crowd. UROC was founded during the 1964 presidential campaign to fight off challenges to Goldwater from Rockefeller Republicanism. Since then it has lain dormant but not dead — waiting, like so many other old right-wing groups, for someone or something to kiss it back to life. UROC endorsed Paul at its spring convention.

That night, Ruffley spoke about her past with the John Birch Society and asked how many in the room were members (quite a few, as it turned out). She referred to the California senator Dianne Feinstein as “Fine-Swine,” and got quickly to Israel, raising the Israeli attack on the American Naval signals ship Liberty during the Six-Day War. Some people were pleased. Others walked out. Others sent angry e-mails that night. Several said they would not return. The head of the Pasadena Meetup group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters asking for guidance:

“We’re in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other ‘wackos’ for their beliefs whether that is simply because they’re liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. . . . We absolutely must focus on Ron’s message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next ‘Star Trek’ convention or whatever.”

But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers — and anger — are of a considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together.

http://truthworldorder.blogspot.com/2007/07/nyt-article-on-ron-paul-preview-this.html

I read that whole thing and found nothing that'll cause me to devote any of my time, money, or labors to Ron Paul.

Fact is, he's neither an anti-semite nor a racist. He's a 71 year old kosher konservative German babtist. Meaning most likely, that he's more concerned about his own soul and the well-being of his large family than with the survival of the white race or freedom from the jews.

Has he ever, for example, voiced any outrage about the incredibly shrinking white race, or race-mixing, or jewish domination of the mainstream media, or black-on-white violence ???

And his candidacy fills the white racialist vaccuum, and appeases white patriots who might otherwise join with us white nationalists and separatists.

The only part of the 2 above articles worth remembering is this:

(quote)
"Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one. He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. “It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.” (unquote)

Hey Alex, what's your opinion of him ?? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't read your analysis. Should WNs work and/or contribute to his campaign, or not ?? I say "no".

I Hope Ron Paul Wins !!!!!

:)

The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones.

...

Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States.
The kikenmedia may be saying "Ron Paul will lose" until their bitter end. Will we see another "Dewey defeats Truman" type of headline after the election?

The NYT has a new article about Dr. Know.

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/24/cq_3150.html

Iraq War Opposition Makes for Strange Alliances

By Alan K. Ota, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: July 24, 2007

Democrats have picked an unlikely ally in efforts to end the Iraq War. Or maybe it’s the ally who has chosen them.

But either way, it appears maverick conservative Republican *— and presidential contender — Ron Paul of Texas, will be getting plenty of help from anti-war Democrats on his proposal (HR 2605) to repeal President Bush’s authority to use force in Iraq within six months.

Democrats find it strange that Paul, who sounds like his GOP colleagues on a lot of other issues — like his staunch opposition to tax increases, for instance — would speak against Democrats’ timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (HR 2956). But the truth is, Paul prefers a tougher approach — an immediate withdrawal, which he believes would happen once the president’s authority to wage war has been revoked.

“It’s a good proposal,” says John Hall, D-N.Y., one of 19 Democratic cosponsors.

At least one other presidential contender agrees. Democratic liberal Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio has signed on as a cosponsor, too.

Could this be the beginning of a conservative-liberal presidential ticket?

Not likely, according to Bruce Fein, Paul’s campaign legal counsel. He says Democrats have latched on to Paul’s measure to inoculate themselves against charges they’re playing partisan politics with the war.

“Allowing a vote on the Paul bill would demonstrate bipartisanship. It’s all about optics,’’ Fein said.

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly

I read that whole thing and found nothing that'll cause me to devote any of my time, money, or labors to Ron Paul.

Fact is, he's neither an anti-semite nor a racist. He's a 71 year old kosher konservative German babtist. Meaning most likely, that he's more concerned about his own soul and the well-being of his large family than with the survival of the white race or freedom from the jews.

Exactly what he is.

He is, beyond all reasonable doubt, not an anti-semite, not a racist, and not a White Nationalist.

I've heard people who think he might 'secretly' be one of us, but there is enough evidence on the table to show he is not, and that that is just wishful thinking, they are seeing the candidate that they want to see, rather than the guy standing in front of them.

Has he ever, for example, voiced any outrage about the incredibly shrinking white race, or race-mixing, or jewish domination of the mainstream media, or black-on-white violence ???

He is sympathetic to some of "our" issues, and some of the changes that he would bring, should he be able to push such legislation through, might be beneficial to us, but on the other hand he is also sympathetic to some of the things we oppose, and with a likely democratic congress he'd have little trouble pushing through legislation relating to those matters.

A few facts that Ron Paul supporters, on White Nationalist sites (they appear on most WN forums etc.) tend to leave out of their posts.

1. They tend to ignore things like this:

http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/a/b/8/6/member_1843910.jpeg

John Clifton, The National Coordinator of the Coalition for Ron Paul (even without having met the guy his photo offers me enough clues to the fact he's not a WN ;) )

A quick dig around shows plenty of non-Whites and jews involved in the campaign for Ron Paul.

2. Even in this campaign, in recent weeks, he has stated openly he has no objection to gay marriages, or unions.

3. On at least three occasions, Rep. Paul voted for the notorious pro-illegal alien section 245(i) that is a form of amnesty for illegal aliens, on at least seven occasions, he voted against using troops to assist border control efforts, he voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program, he voted against a bill that would bar driver licenses for illegal aliens, he voted against an amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens, he voted against an amendment to increase security with a border fence, he voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers, he voted for a bill that nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers, and he cosponsored legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.

Those illegal aliens, who, he voted against barring from having a driving license are predominately Mexican, those H-1B workers, that he supported a bill on, that nearly doubled their numbers, have been predominately Asian, so he has openly supported legislation that has benefited immigrants, and more importantly to White Nationalists, non-White immigrants.

And so the list goes on. I'm not going to waste my time posting all the black marks against him, as the above should be enough to tell people what they need to know, he's not an anti-semite, he's not a racist, and he's certainly not a WN.

Don't get me wrong, he has voted for a number of issues to curb illegal immigration (note illegal), and as I mentioned above, he is supportive of certain issues that many of us could also be in favor of, and could be seen as being detrimental to our enemies, but at the end of the day, when you balance it up, he is just another colorblind Libertarian Republican, nothing more, nothing less.

If you believe in the concept of the 'lesser evil', then I think there is little doubt that in this field he is that lesser evil, but at the end of the day, if he became president, then immigration would not stop, the non-Whites would not be removed from our nations, and our decay and our destruction would continue.

Possibly it may continue at a reduced speed, but we would still be heading in the wrong direction.

At best Rep. Paul offers a minor brake on the current slide into the abyss, at worst he represents the maintaining of the status quo.

There are worse candidates out there, so sure, if someone wants to vote for a lesser evil then Ron Paul may well be the ideal solution for them, but he is not WN, he is not racialist, and he is not the solution to the problem.

Personally I don't believe in the 'lesser evil' concept, at the end of the day 'evil' is 'evil'.

It's like asking would you like to drink the fast acting poison, or the slow acting poison?

A fool would choose either, the wise man would choose neither.

And his candidacy fills the white racialist vaccuum, and appeases white patriots who might otherwise join with us white nationalists and separatists.

That's one of my problems with the whole 'lesser evil' route.

Imagine if Ron Paul won, send yourself forward in time to December 2008, put yourself at BBQ, in a bar, or at some other function, and you're talking to a White guy, who is talking about immigration.

Most active WN would see this an opportunity to recruit a man to our cause, but in December '08?

I'm fairly sure that with the newly elected Ron Paul on the scene they'd tell you there was no need to be worried anymore, and that the job was done.

It would appease people like them, and send them back into their slumber.

We've seen it before (and no doubt will see it again).

I recall, particularly in 1979 in the UK (with the election campaign of Margaret Thatcher) and in 1981 in America (with the election campaign of Ronald Reagan) two right of center candidates, running on policies more favorable to WN ideology, than their opponents, great swathes of WN leaving the movement, thinking the job was done (or at least started) and the set backs it caused to our movement.

I also remember similar results with people like Pat Buchanan, a man who again was clearly not a WN, but managed to siphon off much of our funding, and many of our supporters.

We have to guard against similar mistakes being made again, regardless of our personal preferences, or ways of dealing with elections, so that those WN, who take time to participate in this election, supporting, or voting for, an established candidate, either as the lesser evil, or worse is better candidate, are clear from the get go that their actions will only be either acting as a brake, or an accelerator to our cause, and not as a direct end to our problems.

Sadly I have already seen many WN cheerleading Ron Paul as a WN messiah, truly believing he is the solution, rather than merely just a possible brake on the system.

Let's not forget, the people are angry, sooner or later the jew will have to throw them a bone (be it Ron Paul, or someone else), at that point the rug will be pulled out from under OUR feet, not theirs.

Sooner or later they will want a candidate who limits immigration (not stops it) to appease the growing number of angry individuals within our society.

Sooner or later we will get a candidate who is not WN, but is anti-illegal immigration, and who steals our thunder, who takes away our support, and undermines us, before going into office, and then, sure, maybe slowing down illegal immigration a little, but not stopping immigration, and other 'compromises'.

Ron Paul may or may not be that man, and even if he is that man it is true to say he is a lesser evil, but he is not the solution, and if he is the stooge the jew wants, and if the jew sees this as the right time for such a stooge, he may end up hurting us a lot more than he hurts them.

I can see Ron Paul being a lesser evil, but I can't see him being WN.

If he was elected I may well find reason to smile if immigration is slowed, or if other policies were enacted, but I won't be jumping for joy until a WN candidate takes power of our nations.

Let's not get carried away here, whatever, or whomever, this guy is, he's still a republican, and not a WN, and our decline will continue (albeit possibly slightly slowed) no matter if he wins, or loses.

Should WNs work and/or contribute to his campaign, or not ?? I say "no".

That has to be every mans personal choice, but I personally would rather see them working and/or contributing to White Nationalism, god knows we need that manpower and finances more than a Republican candidate does.

I read somewhere recently that Ron Paul had $2.4 million in cash on hand, imagine what we could do with that, and imagine how much of that has been given by people sympathetic to our cause?

I read somewhere recently that Ron Paul had $2.4 million in cash on hand, imagine what we could do with that, and imagine how much of that has been given by people sympathetic to our cause?
What would you do with it? How would you go about collecting it? How far have you gotten doing what you're doing?
Sadly I have already seen many WN cheerleading Ron Paul as a WN messiah, truly believing he is the solution, rather than merely just a possible brake on the system.
I celebrate Ron Paul not as a messiah, but as a statesman who works to represent white people and defend the rights we are granted under the constitution.

What would you do with it?

Something for White Nationalism.

That's what we're here for, isn't it?

I celebrate Ron Paul not as a messiah, but as a statesman who works to represent white people

That would be some white people, & blacks, & gays, & jews... let's not leave out the rest of the story.

Something for White Nationalism.
Specifically what would you do. "Something for WN" is vague. For all I know, you could spend it all on a huge crack party with WN symbols decked out where the party is being held.

That's what we're here for, isn't it?
I'm here to promote the survival, expansion, and advancement of the white race by any means necessary. Our ancestors did this for a long time without having to label themselves as "white nationalists".
That would be some white people, & blacks, & gays, & jews... let's not leave out the rest of the story.
Ethnic cleansing will occur. It'll be easier with a Ron Paul presidency.

Specifically what would you do. "Something for WN" is vague. For all I know, you could spend it all on a huge crack party with WN symbols decked out where the party is being held.

Well that would depend on the time, location, and other circumstances.


I'm here to promote the survival, expansion, and advancement of the white race by any means necessary. Our ancestors did this for a long time without having to label themselves as "white nationalists".

Well we can put any label we want on it, that's really unimportant, isn't it?

Ethnic cleansing will occur. It'll be easier with a Ron Paul presidency.

Why will it?

How will supporting gay marriages, and immigration, for example, help our cause?

If you want to go that route wouldn't it be better to pick a "worse is better" candidate?

Why will it?

How will supporting gay marriages, and immigration, for example, help our cause?
Ron Paul is against forced racial integration and the IRS/fiat money system. Government won't even have to know who or what you have a civil union with, there won't be any tax breaks for doing so. He'll won't have fags bitching about persecution for not allowing them to marry, but what respectable minister would do so anyway? Society itself decides what civil unions are legitimate, it's not something the government dictates.

Less government power=more white power.

Ron Paul is against forced racial integration and the IRS/fiat money system.

Is he against forced racial integration?

I thought immigration = forced racial integration

If you have a White town, and you let more non-Whites in, isn't that forcing integration?

And what about the rest, for example, Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so.

Is that pro-White?

Is Ron Paul racist?

Is Ron Paul anti-Semite?

Is Ron Paul a White Nationalist?

Is Ron Paul going to stop immigration?

Is Ron Paul going to deport non-Whites?

etc., etc., etc.

As I said above, some could argue he is perhaps a lesser evil, at best, but he's not pro-White, is he, and he's not going to turn the sinking ship around, is he, merely, at best work as a minor break, against the current downward slide.

Let's not play him as anything other than what he really is, he's a colorblind republican libertarian, who might do some things that we like, and will probably do something that are detrimental to us also.

Is he against forced racial integration?

I thought immigration = forced racial integration

If you have a White town, and you let more non-Whites in, isn't that forcing integration?

And what about the rest, for example, Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so.

Is that pro-White?

Is Ron Paul racist?

Is Ron Paul anti-Semite?

Is Ron Paul a White Nationalist?

Is Ron Paul going to stop immigration?

Is Ron Paul going to deport non-Whites?

etc., etc., etc.

As I said above, some could argue he is perhaps a lesser evil, at best, but he's not pro-White, is he, and he's not going to turn the sinking ship around, is he, merely, at best work as a minor break, against the current downward slide.

Let's not play him as anything other than what he really is, he's a colorblind republican libertarian, who might do some things that we like, and will probably do something that are detrimental to us also.

He's for shutting down the borders and deporting illegals. That is the job of the federal government according to the constitution.

Here's what he wrote about the tyranny of forced racial integration:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

He is also aware of the kike problem and has done a good job of burying what he wrote about it in the past in order to get elected. Racist is a smear term that I don't even attach to myself, I prefer "white racial loyalist".

It's not the job of the federal government to decide who is white. We don't pay taxes for that. That's the decision of the state and local governments.

He's for shutting down the borders and deporting illegals.

How about answering the questions this time?

Is he against forced racial integration?

I thought immigration = forced racial integration

If you have a White town, and you let more non-Whites in, isn't that forcing integration?

And what about the rest, for example, Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so.

Is that pro-White?

Is Ron Paul racist?

Is Ron Paul anti-Semite?

Is Ron Paul a White Nationalist?

Is Ron Paul going to stop immigration?

Is Ron Paul going to deport non-Whites?

etc., etc., etc.

As I said above, some could argue he is perhaps a lesser evil, at best, but he's not pro-White, is he, and he's not going to turn the sinking ship around, is he, merely, at best work as a minor break, against the current downward slide.

Let's not play him as anything other than what he really is, he's a colorblind republican libertarian, who might do some things that we like, and will probably do something that are detrimental to us also.

There not so hard to answer, so why don't you want to answer them?

He is also aware of the kike problem.

So that's why in 1981 he defended Israel bombing Iraq?

I'll tell you what, I'll continue to look at the guy standing in front of me, while you continue cheerleading the guy you wish was standing in front of you, how about that?

So that's why in 1981 he defended Israel bombing Iraq?

I'll tell you what, I'll continue to look at the guy standing in front of me, while you continue cheerleading the guy you wish was standing in front of you, how about that?

I'll use my influence as I see fit. Ron Paul won't say anything bad about Israel and the kikes. He knows they'll get what's coming to them.

Ron Paul won't say anything bad about Israel and the kikes.

People have noticed that.

He knows they'll get what's coming to them.

That's exactly the difference between you and me I mentioned in my previous post.

It's the difference between reality, and wishful thinking.

He communicate that to you through telepathy did he, or is it just want you want to believe, sort of like how he's anti-forced integration, but pro-immigration (which is forced integration), or like how he's secretly anti-Israel, but pro them bombing Iraq?

Like I said, I'll continue to look at the guy standing in front of me, while you continue cheerleading the guy you wish was standing in front of you.

It's the difference between reality, and wishful thinking.
The reality is that the kikes are through. Ron Paul doesn't take their bribes, doesn't do their bidding.
how he's secretly anti-Israel, but pro them bombing Iraq
Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war. It's not 1981 anymore.

Ron Paul isn't going to deport all non-whites on Feb.1, 2009, He's not going to bring all the treasonous Jews and treasonous non-jews to trial on Feb. 2. Nope he's not going to do many of the things wished for on this forum.

There is one thing he WANTS to do however that would really benefit everyone on this forum ! And it's why he deserves some support. He wants to DEFUND the sorry b*st%rds. Get everyone off the dole ! If that happens the natural order will be restored after we get away from the communist practice of redistribution of the wealth. No more foreign aid PEROID. That DEFUNDS the foreign foes ! Can anyone see the positives ???

As for you that are on the dole you should get off now, you are not the solution YOU are the problem...Fend for yourself, your family and then help your neighbor IF you choose to help your neighbor (no one should be forced to help someone, especially someone they don't even know)

Ron Paul doesn't take their bribes, doesn't do their bidding.

Did he communicate that to you through telepathy, too?

Or again, is it just want you want to believe, sort of like how he's anti-forced integration, but pro-immigration (which is forced integration), or like how he's secretly anti-Israel, but pro them bombing Iraq?

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war.

So did 133 other people, are they all anti the jew, because of that one action?

The reality is Ron Paul is a colorblind Libertarian Republican, isn't it?

I'll answer the questions you wanted to duck, even though you already know the answers.

Is he against forced racial integration?

No, regardless of what he says, he is pro-immigration, and therefore pro-forced integration.

Is Ron Paul racist?

No, regardless of claims made by some of his supporters, Ron Paul is clearly, and provably not racist, and has many non-Whites on his team, and amongst his friends and supporters.

Is Ron Paul anti-Semite?

Again, regardless of claims made the facts of Ron Pauls political history shows that whilst he may not be an open zionist, like some politicians, he is a long way from being an anti-semite, and has many times proven this, for example when he supported the bombing of Iraq, by Israeli forces.

Is Ron Paul a White Nationalist?

Most certainly not, given his support of many of the things we oppose, for example gay marriages, Israeli aggression, immigration, and forced integration, and I know you tried to white wash the gay marriage thing before, what was it you said, "what respectable minister would do so anyway?", sort of implying that secretly he was against the idea, like it was a covert trick to fool our enemies, but what is the truth, what are the facts, what is the reality, as opposed to your wishful thinking?

Let's ask his gay friend shall we?

“We first bonded,” recalls Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, “because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.”

He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage, siding with many Democrats, like his gay, jewish friend, Barney Frank.

Is Ron Paul going to stop immigration?

No, most certainly not, he's made that abundantly clear, both through his words, and his previous actions.

On at least three occasions, Rep. Paul voted for the notorious pro-illegal alien section 245(i) that is a form of amnesty for illegal aliens, on at least seven occasions, he voted against using troops to assist border control efforts, he voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program, he voted against a bill that would bar driver licenses for illegal aliens, he voted against an amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens, he voted against an amendment to increase security with a border fence, he voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers, he voted for a bill that nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers, and he cosponsored legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.

Those illegal aliens, who, he voted against barring from having a driving license are predominately Mexican, those H-1B workers, that he supported a bill on, that nearly doubled their numbers, have been predominately Asian, so he has openly supported legislation that has benefited immigrants, and more importantly to White Nationalists, non-White immigrants.

Is Ron Paul going to deport non-Whites?

No, whilst he may make noises about deporting some illegals (he has made it clear there would be exceptions), he has also made it clear he would not deport any non-illegal immigrants.

That's your reality.

Whilst you are telling the world how he has this secret agenda against the jew, that he has somehow only communicated to you, through telepathy, or something, he's out having lunch with his gay jewish friend, talking about his pro-immigration, pro-integration, and pro-multicultural agenda.

That's the difference between reality and a fantasy.

That's the difference between looking at the guy who really stands in front of you, and the one you wish was standing there.

Squint hard enough and anyone can appear to be on our side, open your eyes wide and you see a different picture.

Squint hard enough and anyone can appear to be on our side, open your eyes wide and you see a different picture.
Squinting improves clarity for the myopic. Go ahead and play your "I'm doing something for WN" whiny BS games. WN actually have some one running for office who is interested in preserving a vital piece of white heritage - the US constitution.
Is he against forced racial integration?
He's the only Congressman to speak out against the 1964 civil right act on it's 40th anniversary.
Is Ron Paul anti-Semite?
Why anyone would accept this label is beyond me. Kikes made it up.
Is Ron Paul a White Nationalist?
You want a president who calls himself one? Get one to run in the election.
He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage, siding with many Democrats, like his gay, jewish friend, Barney Frank.
ZOG doesn't have power over civil unions according to the constitution. He voted against giving ZOG more power that the constitution doesn't give them.
Is Ron Paul going to stop immigration?
He'll defend our borders, deport illegals, and end birth right citizenship. If you have a better platform, go run for president yourself or get some one who has a platform you like better to run.
That's your reality.
Your not going to force your perspective on me. You are not very good at winning hearts and minds. Dr. Know is.

Ron Paul isn't going to deport all non-whites on Feb.1, 2009, He's not going to bring all the treasonous Jews and treasonous non-jews to trial on Feb. 2. Nope he's not going to do many of the things wished for on this forum.

There is one thing he WANTS to do however that would really benefit everyone on this forum ! And it's why he deserves some support. He wants to DEFUND the sorry b*st%rds. Get everyone off the dole ! If that happens the natural order will be restored after we get away from the communist practice of redistribution of the wealth. No more foreign aid PEROID. That DEFUNDS the foreign foes ! Can anyone see the positives ???

As for you that are on the dole you should get off now, you are not the solution YOU are the problem...Fend for yourself, your family and then help your neighbor IF you choose to help your neighbor (no one should be forced to help someone, especially someone they don't even know)

Most importantly, he'll legalize competition with the federal reserve. Fiat currency is the heart of the kikes' power. That's where we need to strike at. The heart.

Squinting improves clarity for the myopic.

That's the first time I've seen someone try to defend closing their eyes.

Go ahead and play your "I'm doing something for WN" whiny BS games.

But I'm not playing the game, remember, that's you.

You're the one making all these ridiculous claims.

I'm just putting the facts on the table, countering the bullshit.

WN actually have some one running for office who is interested in preserving a vital piece of white heritage - the US constitution.

A perfect example.

Ron Paul is not running for WN.

Why keep repeating the lie?


Why anyone would accept this label is beyond me. Kikes made it up.

So?

You're playing word games again.

What matters is the substance, not your bullshit.

You want a president who calls himself one?

I don't care what he calls himself, I want a leader who doesn't stand against 90% of what WN believe in.


ZOG doesn't have power over civil unions according to the constitution. He voted against giving ZOG more power that the constitution doesn't give them.

Blah, blah, blah

He's friends with a jewish faggot, I think that says far more than your bullshit.

How many more bullshit excuses are you going to make up for him?

He's not anti-gay, so why try and convince others he is?


He'll defend our borders

By letting in more immigrants?

FFS stop talking crap every post.

The facts are out there, why talk shit all the time?

You are not very good at winning hearts and minds.

Yeah, go vote against the White race, based on your telepathy, and against all the facts.

You're not very good at being intelligent, are you?

I'd rather be "not very good at winning hearts and minds" than a skilled master at bullshitting and making excuses for non-WN's to my so called friends and colleagues.

Dr. Know is.

Yeah, Dr Know the jew, and be friends with him.

Dr know the queers, and how to be friends with them

Dr know how to let more immigrants into this country

& Dr know how to get morons to sell out their race, and actually try and bullshit their fellow whites into doing it with them

That's the first time I've seen someone try to defend closing their eyes.
I can always read the snellen chart better by squinting. Eyeglasses are a crutch that makes your eyes weaker in the long term. Blinking (closing your eyes) provides essential lubrication. Blinking 100 times rapidly is a good exercise for eye health.
But I'm not playing the game, remember, that's you.
I'm not sitting on the fences when it comes to politics. What's your definition of politics? Here's mine: Interacting with different groups and having different standards for information exchange for each group depending on what you can get in return.
Ron Paul is not running for WN.
Who the hell is then? You?
What matters is the substance, not your bullshit.
What have you done to spread the truth about the federal reserve system, which is the heart of ZOG? Less than Ron Paul has, I assume.
I don't care what he calls himself, I want a leader who doesn't stand against 90% of what WN believe in.
Then elect one to local office. If you can't even do that, how do you expect to elect a president who will use government power to force WN beliefs on everybody in the US?
He's friends with a jewish faggot, I think that says far more than your bullshit.
Politics is politics.
By letting in more immigrants?
The constitution has standards for US citizenship. He'll enforce those and deport illegals. White immigrants made America great, and the constitution for centuries favored white immigrants.
He's not anti-gay, so why try and convince others he is?
Politics is politics.
Yeah, Dr Know the jew, and be friends with him.

Dr know the queers, and how to be friends with them

Dr know how to let more immigrants into this country

& Dr know how to get morons to sell out their race, and actually try and bullshit their fellow whites into doing it with them
Politics is politics. He's Dr. Know how to take down the ZOG machine of white destruction.

I can always read the snellen chart better by squinting.

I'd rather look clearly, with both eyes wide open


I'm not sitting on the fences when it comes to politics.

Not much :rolleyes:

Who the hell is then?

Not Ron Paul, that's all that matters in this thread.

It's the bullshit you tried to sell us, but I've always considered being pro-kike, pro-immigration, pro-integration, and pro-fag to kind of go against being WN, or representing WN.

Seriously, for one minute, put your picture of Ron Paul down, pull your pants up, do up your zipper, and think about it.

If I sat here a year ago, and made a thread telling you I knew this wonderful guy who was pro-kike, pro-immigration, pro-integration, and pro-fag, and that we should vote for him in 2008, what would you have said to me?

Would you have raved about how wonderful he is, how marvelous he is, would you have lied to defend him, talked about him being the model WN, enemy of the jew etc?

Damn right you wouldn't, yet look at you now, that's exactly what you are doing.

Less than Ron Paul has, I assume.

Yeah, that's right, I like to go out to lunch with fags and jews, to prove my WN credentials :rolleyes:

Get real


Then elect one to local office. If you can't even do that, how do you expect to elect a president who will use government power to force WN beliefs on everybody in the US?

Here we go with that old chestnut, we won't ever get a WN elected, so let's vote for a kike lover instead.

What a wonderful tactic, it's right up there with you might never get laid, so why don't you let some guy butt rape you instead.

No thanks, not my style.

Politics is politics.

And friends are friends.

Stop bullshitting and accept facts.

You sound pathetic making up excuses for a fag lover.

Again, put your little fantasy guy aside for a minute, and deal with facts, what would you say if anyone else came on to this board and tried to make excuses for people having queer and jew friends?

Politics is politics.

And bullshit is bullshit, no matter how you try to spin it.

He's Dr. Know how to take down the ZOG machine of white destruction.

Right, by being their friends

Fuck you sound more like an anti every post.

Hey, got any bullshit defenses for Sharpton, and Dees while you're here?

The guy is buddy with fags and jews, he's not anti immigrations, and he's not anti-integration.

You know he doesn't even want to bring down the zog machine, just as well as I know it, one major difference, I'm not sitting here looking like an asshole trying to lie on his behalf.

Have you no pride?

Take a look at it once again:

NIGGER

http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/a/b/8/6/member_1843910.jpeg

FAG & JEW

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/F000339.jpg

That's what you are lying for, that's what you are making up excuses for, that's what you are cheerleading.

Don't ever forget that.

They are YOUR friends, they are the people YOU are supporting.

Bringing down the zog machine?

:krofl

Why not just send your checks direct to the ADL?

Ron Paul isn't going to deport all non-whites on Feb.1, 2009, He's not going to bring all the treasonous Jews and treasonous non-jews to trial on Feb. 2. Nope he's not going to do many of the things wished for on this forum.

Exactly, good to see some realism at last.


There is one thing he WANTS to do however that would really benefit everyone on this forum ! And it's why he deserves some support. He wants to DEFUND the sorry b*st%rds. Get everyone off the dole ! If that happens the natural order will be restored after we get away from the communist practice of redistribution of the wealth. No more foreign aid PEROID. That DEFUNDS the foreign foes ! Can anyone see the positives ???

Indeed, there are also positives that he will do, and as I said many, many posts ago, I can see an argument from many that he could be seen as a lesser evil, that's beyond doubt, but this fantasy stuff some are peddling is just embarrassing.

I noticed you avoided the essential question:

What is your definition of politics?

Have you no pride?

I do have pride. Pride in my political influence, and how such influence can be used to promote the survival, expansion, and advancement of the white race. Follow the Ron Paul campaign, you might learn a thing or two about politics. You might even come up with a strategy to get an outspoken white racial loyalist elected to local office.

Watch "Deep Inner Game". Watch all 13 hours on 7 DVDs rips and take extensive notes. It's a manifesto on politics and much more.

http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/616142/David_DeAngelo_Deep_Inner_Game

Check out the video clips of the testimonials at the bottom of the webcopy for this series on this page.

http://doubleyourdating.com/0/DeepInnerGame/index.asp?s=0&

I noticed you avoided the essential question

No, I think you'll find you avoid all the obvious points, that being that Ron Paul isn't a messiah, but a colorblind Libertarian Republican, and one who is a million miles from White Nationalism, despite your repeated efforts to white wash him.

What is your definition of politics?

pol·i·tics (pŏl'ĭ-tĭks) pronunciation
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

Straight out of a book for you, now tell me where in there does it say "Bullshit to everyone, in defense of that which you know is indefensible?"

I do have pride. Pride in my political influence, and how such influence can be used to promote the survival, expansion, and advancement of the white race.

Just for one post, drop the bullshit.

That's not what you are doing is it?

Come on, you avoid the issues every time, be honest, see if you can do it?

Follow the Ron Paul campaign, you might learn a thing or two about politics. You might even come up with a strategy to get an outspoken white racial loyalist elected to local office.

I've served at council level, and helped get 4 people elected to local office this year, anymore smartarse advice for me?

Watch "Deep Inner Game". Watch all 13 hours on 7 DVDs rips and take extensive notes. It's a manifesto on politics and much more

Answer me seriously, why should I take any advice from you?

You've shown in this thread you were either to dumb to discover the truth about Ron Paul for yourself, or so lacking in integrity you'd lie to try and get people to support someone who is pro-kike, pro-fag, pro-immigration, and pro-integration, someone who is personally friends with jews, and queers.

Explain to me why I should take any word you say seriously when you can't even make a straight post?

Come on, make an honest post and we might be able to move this forward, but keep with the bullshit, the spin and the excuses and we're not going to move forward, are we?

I do have pride.

Here you go, another one from the book for you:

pride (prīd) pronunciation
n.

1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.

So what is your value, is your value as a petty liar, a cheap conman, someone with no integrity, someone who knows that kikes are bad, but will support them, someone who knows immigration is bad, but will support it, someone who knows integration is bad, but will excuse it, and someone who is homophobic, but will turn a blind eye, to a friendly queer?

Is that your own view of your personal value, is that the actions of a man you can respect, is that the sort of thing you can do publicly, and be exposed for, and look upon yourself as dignified for doing so?

If that's having pride then you have a sadly low opinion of yourself.

Ron Paul isn't a messiah
He's a statesman.
Answer me seriously, why should I take any advice from you?
You aren't looking for advice. I'm sharing it for those on the forum who are interested. Try thinking about some one other than yourself for a change.
Explain to me why I should take any word you say seriously when you can't even make a straight post?
Enough people already take me seriously. My support doesn't have to be universal to be effective.
I've served at council level, and helped get 4 people elected to local office this year, anymore smartarse advice for me?
Can you name them? If not, why? Have those you helped out spoken out against the federal reserve system, which is the heart of ZOG? If not, how can I trust that they'll effectively dismantle the ZOG machine of white destruction?
What is your definition of politics?
Words mean different things to different people. You might be interested in Machiavelli's perspective of "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs."

He's a statesman.

Come on, say it, see if you can, he's a colorblind libertarian republican.

Why do you find that so hard to say, it's the truth, isn't it?

You aren't looking for advice.

Not from you, no, for the reasons already provided, why should I?

You can't even make an honest post.

I'm sharing it for those on the forum who are interested. Try thinking about some one other than yourself for a change.

This coming from the guy who would lie to everyone here, just to try and get them to vote for his poster boy, regardless of the fact you know he's none of the things you claim him to be.

:rolleyes:

Enough people already take me seriously. My support doesn't have to be universal to be effective.

It never will be, while you spout as much bullshit as you do.

Can you name them?

I'd have to ask them first, if they minded.

Have those you helped out spoken out against the federal reserve system, which is the heart of ZOG? If not, how can I trust that they'll effectively dismantle the ZOG machine of white destruction?

Yeah, sure, where as your tactic is giving blow jobs to jews, sure, you keep to that broken record ;)

Fuck you're a joke, and a bad one at that.

Words mean different things to different people.

Yes, but the truth is universal, you might be interested in thinking about that.

A word of advice, if you are a liar, make sure you're good at it, bad liars look foolish.

Yeah, sure, where as your tactic is giving blow jobs to jews, sure, you keep to that broken record
That's your fantasy. Not mine.

Hoozajew, hoozafag, hoozamud, hoozacoward, and hoozatraitor are all issues that will be dealt with.

The primary issue right now is: The kikes are in power, we have to take back control.

Act whatever way it takes to regain control. If you want to conquer a castle, it helps to have some one on your side on the inside to open the gates. The guy on the inside is brave, not a traitor or coward for "befriending" the enemy to gain access to the gate lever.
Seriously, for one minute, put your picture of Ron Paul down, pull your pants up, do up your zipper, and think about it.
It's a well known fact at VNNF that I spank it to fat chick pics. What isn't well known, is that sometimes I shoot the jizz on a pile of silver rounds.

That's your fantasy. Not mine.

Nope, I think you'll find that cheerleading the guy with the jewish fag friends is your idea.

Look at him, his picture is right here for you to see.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/F000339.jpg

Your guy, not mine.

You're siding with the jews and the fags.


The primary issue right now is: The kikes are in power, we have to take back control.

Correct, give the guy a cigar!

Act whatever way it takes to regain control. If you want to conquer a castle, it helps to have some one on your side on the inside to open the gates. The guy on the inside is brave, not a traitor or coward for "befriending" the enemy to gain access to the gate lever.

Listen moron, you don't have a guy on the inside, that's just your fantasy.

What part of that are you not understanding.

Now you might have smoked a few to many drugs here, and it might have done something to your brain, but any guy who is pro-kike, pro-immigration, pro-integration, and pro-fag is not on the inside of a castle working for you, regardless of what the voices in your head say, so why keep trotting out that same bullshit every post?

No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many times you repeat the lie, the white race is not being secretly served by a pro-kike, pro-immigration, pro-integration, and pro-fag agenda.

Wake up, and stop making a fucking idiot of yourself.

You really are making yourself look more and more stupid with every post you make.

Seriously, if it's frying your head like this lay off whatever drugs you are taking.

Seriously, if it's frying your head like this lay off whatever drugs you are taking.
I'll smoke whatever I please. I am grateful for my constitutional freedoms.
You're siding with the jews and the fags.
I'm siding with the constitution in this election, and the white man who champions it. You must like posting the kike and nigger pics. However, it doesn't support your argument against constitutional statesman Ron Paul.
Listen moron, you don't have a guy on the inside, that's just your fantasy.
How specifically do you know what I have? I know I have you spending lots of time responding to me. I also know that I have lots of other people responding to what I write, and they don't all respond the way you do.
Come on, say it, see if you can, he's a colorblind libertarian republican.
He pays lip service to colorblind society. When everyone in your society is white, racial differences aren't much of an issue to pay attention to.

Come on, say it, HE'S A WHITE MAN!

Viva La Revolution!

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1798/placemarker1rz2.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=placemarker1rz2.jpg)

Blonde hair - check
Blue eyes - check
Child bearing hips - check

It is now acceptable to commence spanking.

Figured I'd share an image of something really beautiful from Texas in this thread.

I'll smoke whatever I please. I am grateful for my constitutional freedoms.

Oh is that what it's really about?

Are we finally getting there, fuck your race, you want your drugs?

You want to look into that problem, when you're willing to talk as much shit, as you have in this thread, for those drugs, then you don't control the drugs, they control you.

You must like posting the kike and nigger pics.

Not particularly, but you're to blind to see them, so I have to keep posting them, until the drug induced haze clears, and you can see them.

However, it doesn't support your argument against constitutional statesman Ron Paul.

Of course it does, what a stupid thing to say.

Mind you, this coming from the guy whose sole argument appears to be some sort of telepathic communication, or drug induced vision, or something equally insane, it's hardly surprising you are unable to add two and two together to make four :rolleyes:

How specifically do you know what I have?

Because I can look at the facts?

I know I have you spending lots of time responding to me.

Actually kiddo, I made the first post, so technically that makes you responding to me, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy, you haven't up until now.


He pays lip service to colorblind society.

Yeah, and we all know where those lips are, don't we?

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/F000339.jpg

Come on, wake up!

Why make a moron of yourself all the time, you sound like someone who is mentally ill.

Seriously, that's not a flame, that's an observation.

You ignore all the facts, you ignore 90% of everything Ron Paul has ever done, and ever said, you ignore his personal friendships, which have got jack shit to do with politics, you ignore everything you don't want to see, because... because you believe that he is your secret man, on the inside, working against zog, who when elected is going to tear off his mask, and reveal that the last 30 years was all a diabolical plan, to deceive the jew, so that he could get into power, and do exactly what a half-witted, drug addled moron supporter wanted him to do, and you know this, despite the fact he's not communicated it to anyone, never said it, and that it contradicts 90% of everything he has ever said, or done, because of some hunch, telepathic message, or drug induced vision.

See?

Can you not see how it sort of makes you look just a little bit like a frothing at the mouth lunatic?

Try turning it around, try it this way, I'll play the part of you, ok?

uh huh, uh huh, gimme more drugs!!! itz!

Oh, people here mom?

Oh, I best put down ma picture of Ron Paul, and put my pantz back on....

ok, listen up, this be how it is, Ron Paul he really be da satan, cuz him out to get me, I heard his voices and shit in ma head

all that anti-fed stuff, man, that be a trick, he is only saying that to fool the people, really underneath it all him be zog, he is actually loving them, know what I mean, and you better done believe me cuz I am the super political greatest man on the earth, and I have so much fuckin' influence, shit, I got a zillion people doing what I want, man!

yeah, when he gets to power hes going to rip of his mask, and really he be more evil than the zoggiest zog, all the facts about the constitution and shit itz all lies to fool you, I know cuz the voices I heard in mah head!

uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, can I go back to my room now mom, I want me some more drugs!

:rolleyes:

Are we finally getting there, fuck your race, you want your drugs?
White people can survive, expand, advance, AND have their drugs. We can be free AND alive.
Not particularly, but you're to blind to see them, so I have to keep posting them, until the drug induced haze clears, and you can see them.
Ah, the old Bush strategy. Repeat the same thing. Catapult the propaganda. Good for you.
Of course it does, what a stupid thing to say.
Read Jung. You're projecting.
Because I can look at the facts?
You'll look at whatever facts you want to justify your position.
Actually kiddo, I made the first post, so technically that makes you responding to me, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy, you haven't up until now.
:krofl You're responding to my responses! :krofl
Come on, wake up!

I suppose you'll never get politics. That's OK. You still have your role to play. You play it well.

White people can survive, expand, advance, AND have their drugs. We can be free AND alive.

You want to see to that problem, when you need to bullshit, and your political beliefs revolve around those drugs, you got a problem.


Ah, the old Bush strategy. Repeat the same thing. Catapult the propaganda. Good for you.
Read Jung. You're projecting.

Says the troll who keeps repeating his fantasy about Ron Paul

:rolleyes:

Really, you need better material child.

Think before you post, go on, I dare you.

I find it funny that the drugged up loser, wanting to vote republican, is making the Bush comparisons, kind of weakens your argument, doesn't it kid?


You'll look at whatever facts you want to justify your position.

No, read the thread that's what YOU are doing.

I have accepted facts, from both sides of the argument, you've completely ignored them from any view point that doesn't suit your drug fueled agenda.

Why bullshit all the time?

If you are that desperate for drugs you got serious issues kid.

:krofl You're responding to my responses! :krofl

I know you are, but what am I?

:rolleyes:

I suppose you'll never get politics.

:krofl

Coming from an idiot like you that is funny, now what did you say about projection?

That's OK. You still have your role to play. You play it well.

Now why don't you find a role?

One that benefits your race, rather than your drug habit.

Since I'm in the mood for it, I'll alter my role slightly.

Some people say Injuns lived here before the white man. I say not. My supporting evidence? Kennewick man!

http://www.newnation.org/NNN-kennewick-man.html

Smoking is a sacred white tradition. We must preserve our heritage.

Smoking is a sacred white tradition. We must preserve our heritage.

You want to deal with that problem/obsession, kid.

When you are willing to lie, when you are willing to make a fool of yourself, when your whole political doctrine revolves around drugs, and you make incoherant, and ridiculous statements, as well as suffer from delusions, then you know the drugs are in control of you, and when you'd rather argue for them, than even recognize those problems, then you haven't even reached step one in your cure.

The first step to sorting yourself out is to realize you have the problem, until that point you just keep drifting.

I remember when I was about 16, I bet I read every word you now try to justify your habit with, I bet I could even make a more convincing case for it than you could, but it would be the same old bullshit, whether I typed it or you did.

You might now want to use the arguments about drugs in religious ceremonies, and their medicinal use in the past, oh, and why not trot out that one about how hemp is such a useful plant for rope, clothing and even doing things like building motorcars, so yeah, that's another good reason to get high, isn't it, I mean if you can make a hemp tshirt then drugs are good, aren't they? :rolleyes:

Heard it all before kid, even said most of it before, and like I said, I could probably put forward a more convincing case than you could (I mean you fucked up the whole Ron Paul thing didn't you, over played your hand, went the messiah route, and turned a "lesser evil" candidate into one that now frankly looks a lot worse than if you'd just been honest and up front about it, instead of throwing your rather badly thought out bullshit into the mix).

Actually, if you want to go the old "first arrival" route you'd be better off mentioning the Solutrean's of the upper paleolithic period, who may well have migrated from the Mâcon district, Saône-et-Loire, eastern France, to the New World, crossing the Atlantic, by moving along the pack ice edge using survival skills similar to that of modern Inuit people, during a previous Ice age, and mentioning the fact that the culture of their descendants, in France, and therefore also quite likely themselves, included the use of various herbs and mushrooms, of an hallucinogenic type, that assisted with various visions etc.

See, it's a better argument than yours, but it still doesn't change the fact that 90% of what you've said in this thread is clearly bullshit, driven by your drug problem.

Like I said, you want to think about it, and sort it out.

Here's a little thing for you to remember, you know how they say "Guns don't kill, people do", well with drugs, it's not the drugs, it's whether the person controls the drugs, or the drugs controls the person.

If you're one of those people, who is under the control of the drug, or drugs, whatever your preferred poison, and you are willing to prostitute yourself for those drugs, in any way shape or form, whether it's selling your body down a dark ally, or just bullshitting to all your friends, and coming out with insane drivel, or even if it just materializes in psychotic episodes, where you beat the crap out of someone, or talk to the walls, then you have a problem.

when your whole political doctrine revolves around drugs
You're the one spending lots of time typing up your opinion of what herbs you say I should consume. I respect what you decide to put into your body. You must respect what I decide to put into my body. It's a freedom that I defend vigilantly, just like I do all of my constitutional rights.

My political doctrine revolves around liberty for white people. Twist that however you please if you think doing so suits your agenda.

You're the one spending lots of time typing up your opinion of what herbs you say I should consume. I respect what you decide to put into your body. You must respect what I decide to put into my body.

Nope, I don't have to respect that, when it becomes a danger to my race.

My political doctrine revolves around liberty for white people.

Nope, we've already proved that's bullshit.

We've already proved when it comes to your drugs you say fuck to your race.

Twist that however you please if you think doing so suits your agenda.

Nope, that's your game.

You've been shown repeatedly as the desperate bullshitter who will twist anything for his drugs problem.

Still, I'm sure you're grandchildren will be in some way comforted, when some great ape is raping them to know "well at least grandpa got high"

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

You might as well just be any other wigger.

Still, I'm sure you're grandchildren will be in some way comforted, when some great ape is raping them to know "well at least grandpa got high"
So anybody who doesn't take your advice is prone to have their grandchildren raped? Fear mongering tactics don't work on me.
You've been shown repeatedly as the desperate bullshitter who will twist anything for his drugs problem.
The drug problem is yours as well. Prohibition of cannabis facilitates the growth of kike owned big drug companies. Pretty soon, your children may be forced to take drugs if they fail a mandatory psychology exam. And we all know how the kikes like to rig those to label anyone with politically incorrect beliefs as psychotic. See how well they'll defend themselves against rapists when they're really doped up.
You might as well just be any other wigger.
I don't mind being underestimated.;)

So anybody who doesn't take your advice is prone to have their grandchildren raped?

Nope, but those who work against the interests of their race, like you are doing, increase the chances of all our grandchildren being raped.

Fear mongering tactics don't work on me.

And bullshit doesn't work on me.

The drug problem is yours as well.

Yes, it is, your drug problem, and the problems of all people like you, are a problem to our entire race, you are correct.

I don't mind being underestimated.

I don't underestimate you, there's not really much to underestimate is there, in this thread alone you have shown you have a drug problem, that you are below average intelligence, politically naive, prone to lie a lot, weak, easily manipulated, and willing to sell out your race for personal highs.

I think perhaps you over estimate yourself, wigger boy.

Nope, but those who work against the interests of their race, like you are doing, increase the chances of all our grandchildren being raped.
Please enlighten me as to how I can better work for the best interests of the white race.

Q: What's the difference between rape and ravish?

A: Salesmanship!

http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_37.gif