Respectful Insolence

Holocaust deniers for Ron Paul?

The other day, I posted about how quacks and pseudoscientists seem to find Ron Paul’s promise of “health freedom” as irresistible as moths do flame. Now it seems that Ron Paul has another most excellent endorsement to add to that of Stormfront, Dr. Mercola, and Mike Adams, not to mention to the support of the likes of David Duke and 9/11 Truthers.

Yes, indeed, it’s Hutton Gibson:

(Hat tip: Orcinus and VoteRonPaul.com.)

Because nothing adds to the credibility of a candidacy with overwhelming support among pseudoscientists like the endorsement of a Holocaust denying conspiracy theorist, who thinks that Vatican II was a Judeo-Masonic plot to destroy the Catholic Church and that all Popes since Vatican II have been illegitimate.

Truly, Ron Paul’s crank magnetism is strong indeed! In fact, it’s so strong that Vox Day endorses Ron Paul as well!

I have to echo P.Z. Myers’ question: Why is Ron Paul so popular?

Comments

  1. #1 Bobby
    December 30, 2007

    Truly, Ron Paul’s crank magnetism is strong indeed!

    I have to echo P.Z. Myers’ question: Why is Ron Paul so popular?

    Surely your previous sentence answered that for you.

    That and a dash of utter ignorance. I talked to one fanboy who thought he was a Democrat.

  2. #2 Blake Stacey
    December 30, 2007

    To adapt a quotation often misattributed to Chesterton, once people stop believing in the Holocaust, they start believing in everything else.

  3. #3 R.P.
    December 30, 2007

    Your failure to understand why Ron Paul is popular reveals how ignorant and dumb you are, and your sleazy insinuation implying that if some stupid fascists support Ron Paul then Ron Paul must be one of them too, only proves that you are indeed very dumb.

  4. #4 Hans
    December 30, 2007

    You’re just trolling for hits from the Paultards.

    I’ve got to try that too some day.

  5. #5 Orac
    December 30, 2007

    Why on earth would I want an invasion of the Paul-bots?

    Don’t I have enough annoyance with the usual contingent of antivaccinationists, mercury militia-types, “alternative” medicine mavens, Holocaust deniers, and other cranks?

  6. #6 Blake Stacey
    December 30, 2007

    I’ve been skimming the threads which have suffered Paulovirus infection and the consequent inflammation, and a question just sprang to mind:

    Is Scott Adams a Ron Paul supporter?

    That would just be. . . so perfect. You’ve got the whole “the purpose of the Universe is to make me rich” Oprah-Chopra-woo which Scott Adams has going on, which synergizes so well with the “I have the liberty to get rich, and you have the liberty to starve” complex (New Dealer Isaac Asimov’s definition of libertarianism). And then you have all those cubicled technocrats, reading Dilbert and puffing about how far they’ve pulled up their own bootstraps. Perfect, I tell you!

    And just look what happens when someone points out a Scott Adams stupidity. You don’t happen to get paid by traffic flow, do you? (-;

  7. #7 Caldera
    December 30, 2007

    These people support Paul because he supports Individual freedom. This does NOT mean that Paul supports what they believe. He is not in the business of controlling how a society and free people should think or act. He is only in the business of making sure that the Constitution is upheld and that personal liberties are protected. After that, it’s up to us to figure out what we want to think and believe.

  8. #8 Rebecca
    December 30, 2007

    Caldera – If people like those who infest Stormfront are supporting Ron Paul because he supports freedom – well, they’re making a big mistake, since they *don’t* support freedom.

    R.P. – Your choice of vocabulary is not very persuasive. Tell me why I should support Ron Paul: is it because he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return us to the gold standard? Or is it because we should follow him into the type of isolationism that pretends that the rest of the world isn’t there? Or is it because we agree with him that 95% of the black men in Washington, D.C., are criminals (see his 1992 newsletter)? Or maybe because not only did he accept a $500 donation from Don Black, he was caught in a photo-op with him at the “Values Voters” event, and signed an autograph for Don Black’s son? (Don Black is the owner of Stormfront, the anti-semitic, neo-Nazi website).

  9. #9 hardindr
    December 30, 2007

    I have to echo P.Z. Myers’ question: Why is Ron Paul so popular?

    I would say the increase of conspiracism and paranoia fusion in America culture today. Basically, legitimate concerns of citizens about the so-called GWOT, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the PATRIOT Act/loss of civil liberties, economic marginalization, etc. get channeled into crack pot conspiracy theories for a variety of reasons (the link above explains in more detail). I would also say a deep and abiding cynicism about American politics and the ability for people to affect social change lies at the heart of Ron Paul’s appeal accross party lines. You can learn more about conspiracism here and here.

  10. #10 Robster, FCD
    December 30, 2007

    Caldera, Paul only supports parts of the constitution. Not the amendment founding the IRS, or the part granting rights of citizenship to those born in the US.

  11. #11 Barry
    December 30, 2007

    “Basically, legitimate concerns of citizens about the so-called GWOT, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the PATRIOT Act/loss of civil liberties, economic marginalization, etc. get channeled into crack pot conspiracy theories for a variety of reasons (the link above explains in more detail).”

    The normal checks and balances have clearly broken down. At this point, it takes a pretty crazy conspiracy theory to be crazier than the truth.

  12. #12 Evan Martin
    December 30, 2007

    The Ron Paul Revolution should be called the Revolution of the Intelligent. It’s so painfully obvious at this point that all the intelligent people and people who actually do their research are backing Ron Paul. The fact many neo-liberals still don’t understand is because they are uninformed or misinformed, which also leads me to question their intelligence.

    This article about freedom of health brings home this point rather well. Read the section a third way down called “The choice of thinking people everywhere”
    http://www.newstarget.com/022421.html

    And Orc, you really do shame yourself tremendously when you call things like nutrition and economic literacy quackery or psuedoscience. Or maybe you just watch so much TV and pop too many ‘FDA approved’ psychoactives to even know what health and intelligence means anymore.

  13. #13 Orac
    December 30, 2007

    Here’s a hint: Citing NewsTarget for anything does nothing for your credibility. In fact, it’s a distinct negative, for a very large number of reasons.

  14. #14 Rebecca
    December 30, 2007

    Evan Martin, did you miss my reference to the fact that Ron Paul was caught in a very friendly photo-op with Don Black, the notorious neo-Nazi (see Stormfront.org, his website)? Why would an intelligent person support a candidate who hangs around with neo-Nazis?

  15. #15 Ktesibios
    December 30, 2007

    I’m constantly amazed at how people who are concerned (with reason, I would add) about the power and influence of corporations and the increasing separation of our ruling classes from the lives and concerns of us “average” Americans support a candidate whose preferred remedy is to reset the legal and Constitutional clock back to approximately 1867.

    Hello? Just in case you haven’t noticed, it’s precisely that set of conditions that gave rise to the Gilded Age, a period when corporate power was even more unchecked than it is now, and when “to Hell with the people, we’re at the trough now and we’re going to feed” could have been the motto of our governing “elite”.

    The thinking of a damned lot of Libertarians, if you can call it that, can be paraphrased as “Ever since they made us put in those automatic controls and that safety valve and have those annual inspections, the boiler hasn’t blown up a single time. Obviously, we don’t need any of that shit, so let’s get rid of it”.

  16. #16 wolfwalker
    December 30, 2007

    My opinion: Ron Paul is popular because he has some very, very skilled ad-writers working for him. His radio spots are masterful combinations of slanted questions and platitudes that communicate a minimum of useful information. They make him a political Rorschach blot, in which each individual listener hears what s/he wants to hear, and the candidate’s actual positions are never made clear. I honestly think that the white-racists and other nuts are contributing to his campaign not because they think he agrees with them, but because they think he will create an environment in which their views can flourish.

  17. #17 kyle
    December 30, 2007

    The anti-Ron Paul crowd is no innocent babe either. Don’t smear Ron Paul and his supporters with such farcical and tangential association, or by your own false argumentation you are associated with these nutjobs;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtLa9Q6xW-8

  18. #18 anon
    December 30, 2007

    Orac, I don’t mean to attack, but isn’t this the classic ‘guilt by association’ fallacy? Just because some quacks and holocaust-deniers approve of Paul, doesn’t mean Paul endorses these people/organizations. It shouldn’t matter WHO supports him, but WHY they support him. Why don’t you focus on that?

  19. #19 Orac
    December 30, 2007

    Already addressed here.

  20. #20 Dan
    December 30, 2007

    I already voted for him once. I tend to vote 3rd party candidates because I do not like the limited choices of a 2 party system. Also my leanings are Libertarian. The only time I did not vote was for a 3rd party candidate was for Bush, a decision I regret like no other, especially since he is my boss (if you go way up the chain of command).

  21. #21 anon
    December 31, 2007

    Dan, you realize that voting 3rd party just because you don’t like how there are only two “primary” parties, regardless of who the 3rd party candidate is and what he stands for, is just stupid?

  22. #22 simon lefaux
    December 31, 2007

    I find the fact that the left/right punditry are smearing Paul to be hilarious. The man is not going to win, and most of the Dems/Reps know this, but what really scares them is that some of his more “libertarian” ideas and ideals seem to be resonating with the voters.

    The fact that his ideas are making an impact bothers the Repubs because that might weaken their rhetoric behind the “War On Terror” and the war in general. Paul believes that American foreign policies are to blame for the rise of terrorism. And that the “Aid” the U.S. gives the rest of the world is not only fiscally hurtful, but also politically. Funny thing is, when Paul says this the first thing that most of the TV talking heads ask him about is Israel. IIRC, it was a right wing site that dug up the “gotcha” picture of Paul with the Stormfront slug. Now, it couldn’t be because they were trying to conflate his criticism of the war, Mideast policy and financial support to Israel(among all other countries, but once again, they only talk about Israel) with Antisemitism, could it?

    I know his wrongheaded view on immigration and the overemphasized Stormfront link have many screaming “xenophobia”, but what is Paul saying about immigration that makes him worthy of the “xenophobe” label? Most of his complaints about “illegal” immigration have been framed within his stance on the “welfare state”, and not about race.

    As for the Dem/left punditry and their attacks on Paul, well, as usual, they don’t have a candidate with any real vision, so all they can do is ripped down the Repubs. and mount another “anybody but ‘X” campaign.

    Wait, that’s not true, there is Kucinich. He seems to be the only Dem with spine enough to call for the end of the war, and yet, all people want to talk about is his UFO experience or his wife.

    Doesn’t matter, it will be Clinton in 08. And I’m sure she will be an even better Republican President than her husband was.

    Hooray for the status quo.

  23. #23 Tyler DiPietro
    December 31, 2007

    “…but what really scares them is that some of his more “libertarian” ideas and ideals seem to be resonating with the voters.”

    Yes, criticism of Paul can’t simply be taken at face value, there must be a conspiracy.

    *Cue spooky ambient music*

    “Most of his complaints about “illegal” immigration have been framed within his stance on the “welfare state”, and not about race.”

    Ranting against the “welfare-state” has been a racist dog-whistle for quite some time, remember “welfare queens driving welfare Cadillacs”? And there’s much more to Paul’s anti-immigration stance than you let on. Consider his recent campaign ad promising “no more student visas to terrorist nations”. Aside from the abject appeal to collective guilt, that’s nothing but a racist dog-whistle for “keep those terror-lovin’ Aye-rabs outa muh country!”

    “As for the Dem/left punditry and their attacks on Paul, well, as usual, they don’t have a candidate with any real vision…”

    Vision is overrated, I’d settle for level-headedness. Though admittedly even that may be a dashed hope.

  24. #24 Bronze Dog
    December 31, 2007

    I think I’m at the point that a do-nothing caretaker president looks like a worthy ambition.

  25. #25 Dan
    December 31, 2007

    Anon said

    Dan, you realize that voting 3rd party just because you don’t like how there are only two “primary” parties, regardless of who the 3rd party candidate is and what he stands for, is just stupid?

    Thankyou very much. However, they never get elected.

  26. #26 grad
    December 31, 2007

    Paul only supports parts of the constitution. Not the amendment founding the IRS, or the part granting rights of citizenship to those born in the US.

  27. #27 john
    December 31, 2007

    Paul because he supports Individual freedom. This does NOT mean that Paul supports what they believe.

  28. #28 simon lefaux
    December 31, 2007

    quote TD “Yes, criticism of Paul can’t simply be taken at face value, there must be a conspiracy.

    *Cue spooky ambient music*”

    TD are you suggesting that politicians and their handlers don’t measure and weigh the effects their opponents have on the voters? Are you saying there aren’t any political strategies that are aimed at trying to defuse their opponents appeal or try to stoke the fear factor in the minds of the voters? So Dems who complained about the alleged racism and pandering of those Willie Horton ads during the ’88 election where just a bunch of “tin foil hat” wearing pinko liberals?

    If it’s conspiratorial to believe that specific critics and their criticism of a candidate is part of a larger smear/spin campaign, then cue the theremin and call me Kolchak.

  29. #29 Tyler DiPietro
    December 31, 2007

    “TD are you suggesting that politicians and their handlers don’t measure and weigh the effects their opponents have on the voters?”

    Seeing as though the reaction here is to criticism coming from non-politicians, I don’t see what this has to do with anything. Not every criticism coming from Paul’s critics is a “smear”, and calling it so is just an attempt to avoid the serious issues people have with the guy and his campaign.

    For what it’s worth, I appreciate that Paul has been able to bring attention to issues of executive overreach, runaway militarism, and the war on drugs. That doesn’t mean I have to sit back and ignore his blemishes, as so many of his supporters seem to assume.

  30. #30 gRegor
    January 2, 2008

    Guilt by association is my favorite logical fallacy.

    And no, you didn’t address it in that other post.

  31. #31 Laser Potato
    January 2, 2008

    No True Scotsman is getting quite a bit of mileage from the Paul fanboys, isn’t it?

  32. #32 TT
    January 2, 2008

    I think hardindr put it best:

    “Basically, legitimate concerns of citizens about the so-called GWOT, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the PATRIOT Act/loss of civil liberties, economic marginalization, etc. get channeled into crack pot conspiracy theories for a variety of reasons (the link above explains in more detail).”

    But Orac, wouldn’t you say the loss of civil liberties through the GWOT, Iraq War, Military Commissions Act, etc. are things to be concerned about? This is slightly off the original point, I know. Still it seems there is tendency among many bloggers to dismiss those concerns as just more conspiracy theories.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.