The Core will Survive

A-men.

God, you're hateful

Hey Anonymous,

Shut the fuck up.
If all you're going to do is post negative comments, don't post at all.

Some of us like his writing.

Everything he said was true.
And it will keep being true if someone doesn't do something.

And by writing, he is doing something.

Hateful? No, moron, what Nate has posted isn't hateful.
I can understand why his writing has upset you though. Being spoon fed all the "wonderful" information that our government and the corporate controlled media has been giving us over the years is very easy to swallow. Do you know why it is easy to swallow? No? It has been treated with all the same crap as a McDonald's hamburger. 100% pure beef my ass.
Unfortunately for those of us that continue to think have a hard time with the way our country is being mis-managed.
Not that you care or have even been able to concentrate on since I typed the word McDonald's. Now get back in line.


Thank you Nate. I am not good with words and I am grateful that I have found someone that has the ability to expound their views for the rest of the world.

Whether he wrote them or not, you can't deny that he could have done a lot more to disassociate himself with the comments.

And I'm not sure what the hell you're getting at by comparing the past presidents. Are you trying to suggest that Serbia and the Gulf War were racially motivated? I can only presume this is another shot at the ambiguous 'the media'.

For what it's worth, I agree that the newsletters probably didn't have anything to do with Paul. But he's almost certainly lost the jewish vote and the black vote now. I mean, would you vote for a guy if you thought there was a 10%, or even a 1% chance he'd act against your best interests?

I give this a resounding two thumbs up the fucking asshole ... FUCK YEAH. Many people don't realize mainstream media is ran by a bunch of cheesedicks to build propaganda ("propaganda" as in, what ever favors the corporations in terms of making the rich man richer and the poor man poorer). It's mind boggingly fucked up nobody knows that American media is owned by corporations. These corporations use the media to influence public perception in order to get society to be agreeable with it's propaganda. If you want further proof of this, it's in the numbers:

-90% of the media in America is only owned by 5 corporations.

(and we all wonder why the majority of this country's wealth is only in the hands of the top 1% of the population)

-No one else realizes that for every bill the Federal Reserve prints, a debt is automatically issued to that bill.

I fucking hate CNN; that's not even legit news. That's like the Haters News. It's also really funny mainstream news like 'CNN' and 'MSNBC' never EVER mention Ron Paul - and the one time they do, it's only to tear him down. Makes me want to set my crotch on fire.

Ron Paul is the one true straight-talker more than any other Republican or Democratic candidate in this race. He is also the ONLY candidate not backed by a corporation, I think that's pretty ace. I am not a Republican - but I am grateful that someone is authentically expressing the Republican point of view.

I'm also willing to bet Jay Leno is secretly a Ron Paul supporter, it's in his 'tude. I really think Ron Paul is the only hope left for America.

Being on Jay Leno as the headlining guest was MUCH more helpful to Ron Paul than being just another one of the stuffed suits sitting around on the Fox News table taking turns puffing chests, raising noses, and smugly reciting campaign slogans. Jay was respectful and gave a good interview. When at every corner we are confronted by cowards and their shifty-eyed news agency cohorts, it is very welcome to see two men with dignity and class take the stage. Hats off to both Leno and Paul.

P.S. Corporate-owned news can try to smear his public image all they want; it hasn't changed the fact that Ron Paul is now the #1 GOP Fundraiser!!! Oh, and all that donation money is coming from individuals throwing their change like me over the INTERNET. Dr. Paul is also the only candidate that is not backed by a corporation - which makes this even more impressive.


Ron Paul on Jay Leno (PART I):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcDDb9bq34

Ron Paul on Jay Leno (PART II):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Q1Aqugv3M

This is a great clip of George Carlin narrating the blind issues America faces and other whatsits. (George Carlin is a HILAR comedian supporting Dr. Paul, by the way):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIECyzf4YM

dude, please tell me you dont seriously think that people dieing after katrina was bush's fault. that sort of thing is what a mental midget believes. i'm hoping you were just using that as an abstract example.

I'll admit I didn't read much of the other comments, cuz it mostly seemed like everyone was yelling at anon, so i don't know if this has already been said. In my opinion, you're post was inflammatory as all hell. But, its the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts and it takes people being pissed off before they get off there asses and do something. Just my two cents on this whole thing. Oh, and job well done.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!

I liked your post. Alot.

Doesn't it suck ass that even in a country as 'tolerant' and 'accepting' as America, you can say that just because of some shit that happened a few decades ago someone running for president "lost the jew and/or black vote?" ugh. It's just sick that a whole entire race of people might be so willing to look at a couple of fake documents someone said were his but quite obviously weren't that they'd just not vote for to keep their rights... Hell, its a miracle anyone in America is voting for a white man/woman at this point, isnt it? Haven't we all been portrayed as racists in some way?

I adore that all of you posting comments are implicitly endorsing "collectivist thinking" (Vote Ron Paul) as a counter to "collectivist thinking" (media conspiracy theories).

Isn't individuality about making up one's own mind? Or is the only way to be an "individual" is to embrace the greatness of Ron Paul--just like everyone else here?

Nate,

Even if the letters weren't written by him (and certainly I accept that, because the style doesn't match with his other writing), the fact that he allowed them to be published under his name, and with his signature, is a tacit endorsement of those views.

I've actually read a fair bit of the letters, and they are chock-full of hate and racist invective.

I do believe what you have said about a media smear campaign - but just because there is a smear campaign doesn't mean that he did not endorse those views. Furthermore, the New Republic is hardly part of the "establishment media" - they are well-known for excellent reporting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while I agree with your premise that he didn't write these articles, and that he is being smeared with them, they should still disqualify him from holding high office. Allowing such tripe to be published in his name (and written in the first person, as though it had been written by him), amounts to an endorsement of the ideology. And nothing can excuse such views.

In order for me to even consider him, he would need to publicly repudiate those views, and state categorically that he does not accept such ideas.

Hey man its like my grandfather told me. As a black man if you know your boss is racist don't give him an excuse to fuck with you. So if Ron Paul knows someone is out to get him why the fuck would you give them a newsletter full of racist shit. Regardless of whether or not he wrote them they were published under his name. As a black man I have a hard enough time trusting old white people anyway but now you're asking me to vote for an old white person from Texas who has published newsletters saying that blacks only stopped rioting so they can pick up their welfare checks? How fucked in the head would I have to be in order to do that shit? And given the fact that Ron Paul wants to revoke native born citizenship thus opening the door for a scenario in which a black person could just be declared a non citizen and have any old fucking thing happen to him i believe I'm a have to pass.

Old News? Some people seem to be under the impression it's just beyond the pale to go digging up musty old scrolls from the antediluvian period of 1989-1996. This is odd. It seems to me perfectly normal, and perfectly justifiable, that when someone launches a presidential campaign, we begin looking into and scrutinizing their history. We do this even when elements of that history had already been published in local media, long before the candidate became nationally prominent. Is it irrelevant to bring up the Bernie Kerik scandal, even though politically engaged New Yorkers knew about it already? And, not to harp on the obvious, but is it actually "old news" when we're breaking the story that the author of this stuff Paul repudiates so vehemently continues to be one of his close advisers? Because that seemed like new news to me, except, apparently, to a handful of longtime movement insiders.

For what it's worth, I myself didn't know anything about this stuff until Ryan Sager wrote about one of the newsletters last spring. I was disappointed that Paul had apparently defended the ugly language Sager cited, even if he himself hadn't written it. But I was willing to take at face value the idea that it had really just been a couple comments in one or two newsletters, something written by a rogue staffer that had somehow slipped through the cracks. On net, I was willing to give him a pass. The full extent of the ugliness, the amount of it, and the long span of time over which it appeared were actually news to me when Jamie Kirchick's article dropped. I figure that means they were probably news to some other people too. And I'm hearing from, and seeing blogs by, plenty of Paul supporters who find all this unsettling and want some better answers from the campaign. Which, incidentally, is all we've called for in a piece that strikes me as a hell of a lot easier on Paul than it could have been, or would have been had it run anywhere else.

But Paul's Not a Racist! I know, I know. You've even got a genuine black guy who'll say so. You can stop sending me the link. The thing is, it doesn't matter. I've never thought it very likely that Paul was personally a racist, and I've said as much. But that's not the point, is it? If you decide to get into the publishing business with a bunch of guys who are very loudly proclaiming their intention to drum up political and financial support by reaching out to racists, that's just pretty bad in itself, isn't it? Is it really a defense to say that, after all, Paul himself knew the views his colleagues were exploiting to be pernicious and wrong? Are we supposed to think that in addition to never reading the newsletter, Paul was totally in the dark about the well-publicized views, both substantive and strategic, of the Paleo intellectuals he handed his newsletter to? Views that had been the subject of ample controversy among libertarians, and a source of much criticism directed at Paul for being linked with them, well before the newsletters turned rancid? It doesn't pass the straight face test. I'm glad Paul's not personally a bigot, but stressing this over and over, as though we'd been centrally concerned with what lies deep in Paul's heart, just seems like an attempt to change the subject.

nate, i've never been so sorry to say that you're totally, and completely right....
sigh.......

"I have a fantasy where Ted Turner is elected president but refuses because he doesn't want to give up power."
Arthur C. Clarke
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

Watching you stumble around in this arena like a newborn discovering how to walk has been fascinating. I do not think you truly represet yourself accurately, Mr. DeGraaf. You are either way more educated than you let on, or way more ignorant than your writing reveals.

Either way, I like your take. Slow to come about though it is.

Dr. Smith