Thread: The Case Against Ron Paul

I think that the popularity of Ron Paul is a good sign - that people are starting to realize something's wrong - but he is not the "saviour" people make him out to be. Frankly, there will not be a saviour. One guy can't change anything, even if he's elected president.

Change is only going to happen slowly, painfully, and with a lot of major failures along the way. And it won't come from the top down, i.e. a presidential election. It will come from people like us, and spread outwards. Most white people just don't have the patience or the guts to go through what's necessary, but as things get worse more people will put the nose to the grindstone. And we'll be there to tell them, "Hell son, you think you've got it bad, why in MY day....."

The author makes a good point here.

Ron Paul is advancing his agenda and not the specific interests of White Nationalists.

The other Republican candidates are jew loving neo-cons and in my view if RP does not get the nomination, it would be best for our cause if Obama were reelected.

Originally Posted by negative3

I think that the popularity of Ron Paul is a good sign - that people are starting to realize something's wrong - but he is not the "saviour" people make him out to be. Frankly, there will not be a saviour. One guy can't change anything, even if he's elected president.

Well said.

I read the article and I must respectfully disagree.

Ron Paul is promoting his ideas, his movement, and the values that he undeniably cares about. He is doing this at the expense of our ideas and the values that we care about.

Which ideas are "his" ideas? RP has been dogging the Fed for a long time. It's only of late that it has been getting much coverage, and only because of the internet and books like The Creature from Jekyll Island.

It doesn't really matter who first began to shed light on the problem. We know that RP was on it long before any of us were even aware of it.

We all agree that we do not be need to be entangled in military conflicts all over the world, especially at the behest of US Khazar Zionists who are working to create a governmental system in which they rule, and destroy or denigrate every vestige of Christian and Anglo Saxon heritage in this country.

We realize that these wars, the Fed, and the Jewish lead banking cartels are behind the economic woes we are facing. We all can guess where the "missing" 4 trillion dollars are and who took them.

So what if RP took money for his newsletter? NO ONE can function in politics without funding.

The recent request by Mr Kelso to vote for Merlin Miller on "Americans Elect" was not based on the argument that he was electable, but merely that he should be noticed. The idea was that you have to start somewhere.

If enough votes are cast in the direction of RP, that would send a clear message to future candidates.

And why do you suppose that the press ignores RP or only makes disparaging comments about him?


The only reason I can think of for WNs to disavow RP is so that the media would not be able to cast doubt on him because we support him. If disavowing RP would help him gather momentum I wouldn't say anything in his behalf so long as I was visibly causing him to be associated with a faction which media propaganda has successfully framed as being "extremist", "antisemitic" (Lord that term makes me want to puke.) and "racist".

I cast my vote in his favor because the platform that RP stands on is restoration of the Constitutional form of government, the Bill of Rights, extricating the US from Zionist imperialism, and putting an end to the gargantuan theft being committed by the Globalist Usurers who want to make serfs of all of us (except the Chosen, or should I say C-S-N?)

If denouncing RP is based on the idea that he is promoting his own ideas, then everyone must be denounced because each and everyone of us are promoting "our own ideas". Whether they originated with us or not is irrelevant because they are the ideas which we embrace ourselves.

Presumably, everyone who posts on this web site agree on certain critical points, those which may be essential to our own preservation.

If I had money to contribute I would want it to go to promote agendas which I agree with. Creating a voice exclusively for white gentiles is one of those causes. It is one that is not only being neglected by white gentiles at large, but the very idea of it is being CENSORED by the Jewish media as being innately bigoted and hateful.

No one is allowed to make similar charges against the multitude of Jew only, Black only, Mexican only "civil rights" groups.


I submit to you that neither Ron Paul nor anyone else would be able to stand on such a platform and get anything but unanimous condemnation from the Jewish establishment.



IF the accusations made against RP which alleged that he knew of, approved of and endorsed articles in newsletters which have been deemed "racist" are true, then the author is incorrect in his assessment of Paul that he has no regard for white rights.

IF the accusations are false, this can only mean that the it is the news media that is biased against Paul which would only go to prove our case that it is the news media itself that has an anti-white bias.

In the first instance, it must be acknowledged that RP has our interest at heart, which is something that none of the other candidates place before the wishes of the powerful Zionist cabal. They clearly take the white vote for granted and therefore save their patronizing catering for the Latinos and blacks.

In the second case, the media is clearly overstepping it's bounds as a news mediator and showing unmistakable signs of trying to create the news as they do in totalitarian regimes, rather than simply report it.

This creates a strong case in favor of our argument that the media is INDEED controlled by Jews with a socialist/communist agenda.

As long as RP is on the ballet I will vote for him. If not, then I will write him in. If they don't allow that, then I give a vote of no confidence.

By and large I have to agree with the author that Ron Paul's campaign is more about spreading ideas than actually getting elected. Some of these ideas I agree with, some more than others, and some I don't agree with at all, but if there's anything that Ron Paul stands for, is that he represents 'Anti-Establishment', something that's essential if there's to be any change in the status quo.

I would like to see Ron Paul win the nomination and go on to be President, and I'm not going to spend too much in self flagellation in fixating on all the reasons as to why he won't be President, like this writer, but in the end, I'm going to vote my conscious and in what I really believe in, as well as in a candidates, who whether they can win or not, shares in my views, which is why I'm going to vote for the A3P candidates, even if I have to write their names in own the ballot.

I realize that before, I have said that I would vote for Ron Paul, but that was before the A3P selected it's own candidates, and I think it's important that A3P members and nationalist in general, collectively vote for a true nationalist candidate, rather than the lesser of two, three, or even four evils.

That makes more sense to me than just trashing RP because he's not publicly speaking explicitly pro-white rhetoric.
A great many white gentiles may be very uncomfortable being open about what they feel privately, not only because of the social backlash from it, but because they honestly do not desire to see injustice done to anyone, including Blacks, Mexicans, and Jews.

Most of us would prefer to live in peace with the rest of the world and are embarrassed to say anything that would suggest anything otherwise. If a white gentile expresses his misgivings about the sincerity among people of other races for wanting the same thing, it is always taken to mean that the person saying them is only doing so because he "hates" everyone of a different color.

This is how deeply engrained the accusation of "racism" and anti-semitism has become. A white gentile cannot state the obvious truth about anyone black, Jewish, or Mexican without their words being taken to be a blanket indictment of the entire group. This is the stigma that one of "our" candidates would have to overcome.

White Nationalism is going to have to change that mind set before ordinary people will be able to get over the embarrassment of having to draw attention to moral and ethical infractions committed by non-white, non-gentiles. Trying to paint RP as a "Nazi" or some kind of vicious hate monger is almost laughable. That ploy is liable to back fire on his detractors because I doubt if many sensible people are going to really believe it.



Does anyone here actually accept the labels that our opponents lay on us? Are you going to admit that you hate everyone just because it's true that a sizable number of them piss you off and you say so? When I get mad at someone it's usually because they are doing something to provoke me.

Political correctness has given these other "minorities" a license to impose themselves upon us in unsolicited ways. And we have allowed ourselves to be muted in defense of ourselves and forbidden to be critical of the collective behavior of groups such as Jews, while it is simultaneously acceptable for the Jews or anyone else to trash our culture, our heritage, and show open contempt for things which are understood as belonging to the white, gentile sector.

The comments that RP has been accused of as being racist, or the ones which were supposed to have had his approval are easily understood here. They were all approximately true if one is allowed to do the same kind of lumping that is done to us.

Even if RP said them himself, I wouldn't take them to mean that he hates everyone or that he wanted to kill black babies or something. He was a Doctor before he was a politician, and he strikes me as the kind who would take his Hippocratic Oath seriously. I believe he would also take the oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend the US from foreign and domestic enemies equally to heart.

I'll be all for the A3P candidate that shows the same characteristics. I just am not familiar with any of them yet.

Another forum here has a posted a thread in which he states that polls reveal that RP has the second highest number of people who favor him. Yet the media makes no mention of it! Is that true or not?

If it is, and IF the voting system is not so corrupted that actual numbers still count for something, then when people go to the polls, if they vote as has been indicated, then I can't help but believe that the Globalist Banking Cartel would have to sit up and take notice, whether the media covers the story or not.

Which move would have the most immediate impact, getting behind RP, who already has a substantial following, or casting a vote for an unknown?

We could vote for RP and still promote an A3P candidate right on and on. I'll even get behind the effort myself.
Someone could begin by posting more info about them on this site for those of us who are unfamiliar with them. Why should we saddle ourselves with an "either or" proposition when we can do both?

I agree that we should promote a more positive side of White Nationalism that would encompass a greater range of whites of all socio-economic backgrounds, and hopefully have them realize that to vote 'white', isn't necessarily to vote 'hate', no more than it was 'hate', that compelled 98% of the black voters to vote for Obama in 2008. On second thought, it their vote may have been motivated by 'Hate'! The point, is that there voting based on race never will be called 'Hate', where ours will!

I posted an earlier thread where Samuel L. Jackson ,the actor, said he didn't care what Obama's message was, that he voted for him in 2008 merely because he was black! He made it quite plain, that his motivation had nothing to do with politics, and as far as I'm concerned, he might as well had come out and stated that he didn't vote for McCain, simply because he was 'White'! Now you can't get more blatantly 'honest', or what many would simply call 'racist', than that little confession by almost any definition of the word of any non-white or liberal, and yet you can be rest assured, that Jackson will feel very little repercussions from his remarks, if any at all! In fact, I will be surprised if we hear of his remarks at all on the mainstream news channels. This is a double standard that whites have to bring to the attention of these people and not let it just pass on by as usual.

Jackson by the way, isn't one of my favorite actors, even though there has been a couple of movies that he's been in in the past in the past that I liked over all, but after this rant of his, I don't think I'll be missing too much If I just scratch him from my viewing all together from here on out!