Article:
'… I also pointed out that the author of those articles, James Kirchick, mentions that none of the racist newsletters have a byline, except for one.
The only problem, back in 2007, he did not disclose the name of that writer or which edition he or she wrote, until today.
For the first time, I am going to share with you the name of that writer in connection with the article he authored.
The full eight pages of his article match so closely to some of those other so-called “racist newsletters” it is stunning.
Powell writes about the 1992 riots in L.A., as well as the “holocaust coming to America’s urban areas.” He calls California Congresswoman Maxine Waters a militant leader. The article goes on to talk about how to be self-reliant when well armed gangs move in and threaten your home.
Like the other newsletters, it is not racist, per se, but certainly could be deemed questionable or insensitive.
It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. The article is titled “How to Protect Against Urban Violence.” The author is James B. Powell. …’
Comments:
‘The point is that Kirchick released the name. I’ve been pressing for Kirchick to answer some questions for a while on the sites and blogs, but I’m Joe Nobody and had hoped that some real journalists would look into it. I’m glad to see that someone is.’ - Woody
‘Grant is right. Yesterday Swann made a compelling case that the identity of the 1992 special report author may be determinable. All we need is a rescan of the last page of the 1992 special report which either shows the byline (if it exists). Today Swann claims to have uncovered the authors identity, but instead reveals the identity of the author of a 1993 special report. Nothing has been proven.’ - JohnP.Pretty
‘Why hasn’t anybody rescanned the last page so that it isn’t cut off? Do we know that there isn’t a byline? All of the talk about Powell is secondary and assumes we will never know. Just have the original scanner rescan the last page to prove it. If that was Kirchick, then the responsibility falls with him. If it turns out there is a byline and he knew, then his career is over.’ - JohnGGrant
Just scroll down a bit
From youtube
“also, NHLiberty4Paul started a twitter account the same day. and immediately sent this video to all the media heads and popular websites. clearly someone with an anti-paul agenda.”
can’t prove this yet, but lol if true
While I appreciate the time, I don’t think debunking these claims will help much. These claims are designed to convice people who already don’t agree or know anything about Ron Paul their views are correct. I just don’t think most people are interested in questioning their views, only solidifying their misconceptions.
I wish he had known about the screenshot of the early referrals. But more than that I wish he didn’t go into this “we like our supporters” shpiel. That was the wrong way to go with that. He should have stuck with the “Are you even sure it’s a supporter” (because it’s obviously not). I love the way she hung the “proof” on: “Well, it’s from NHLiberty4Paul, so…”
I was thinking someone should do a similar kind of ridiculous ad with an attack on Paul and put it up at NHLiberty4Huntsman, just to prove how easy it is to do such a thing. Obviously if it was a similar video and the same kind of name for the youtube channel, it would be made blatently obvious that anyone could do such a thing.
But of course I went to check if that handle was available…and of course it’s already taken. Have a look at the one video that’s posted there. That’s actually a much simpler way to accomplish what I was talking about.
Repost of my comment on your blog:
First of all, you deserve huge props for this. But the problem is, sophists from both political teams have turned this into a very noisy, powerful weapon to confuse discourse. They are not moving on because they do not want to respond to such a refutation. Nor do they need to, as they have claimed a moral high ground by tapping into a very base, primal fear that has been fostered in modern political debate. With such a Pavlovian, emotional premise of the narrative they are creating, it is easy to spread such fears.
The argument central to the narrative contains three premises: 1. Ron Paul willingly wrote and believed this stuff and is a crazy old far-right Goldstein and
- he is just another politician who has covered it up/denied it, or can’t be trusted to be elected because of his ‘negligence’
EDIT: Not to mention, 3. By virtue of having his name under such thoughtcrime material, Paul is by association directly responsible for all content under his name, and no objection to this point is valid (ex: Wouldn’t Arianna Huffington be responsible for everything posted under HuffPo, DailyKos guys responsible for all DailyKos stuff, democraticunderground/ FreeRepublic founders responsible etc) because the stuff is totally evil racist propaganda.
Combine those 2 premises with various bait (conspiracy theorist/Stormfront/9-11/Alex Jones crowd/whatever goes to the jugular of a typical liberal or conservative learning voter new to Paul), and you have a nice chum-bucket for the sharks.
The problem is that while some of us here have looked through many of the newsletters and your faq, the thousands (ok, maybe an exaggeration) of alarmist blog comment wars under dozens of articles with titles denouncing paul are making HUGE noise on the net. Not to mention the claim of absolute moral high ground on this issue (check the victorious, smug tone of the mrdestructo link as well as the more subtle approach from Kirchick and Reason) as if it’s a smoking gun that cannot be refuted.
Of course, it can. But those with a political axe to grind smell blood hardcore, and have been going, to put it politely, absolutely batshit about this. Make one refutation and they respond with a flurry of red herrings/emotional bait/fallacies, from basically every angle, few of which are even remotely relevant to the argument and only seek to muddle and confuse.
For instance, argue that most of the more dicey stuff (which in itself is the minority of the 50 pages, all of which are revealed to be rather pedestrian upon further critical scrutiny) resembles typical non-pc discourse of early 90s GOP grassroots material and they will argue that ALL of that is smoking-gun deplorable racist thoughtcrime, and proceed to build armies of strawmen to set flame to. It’s a one-way anti-dialogue whose only coherency is in its doublethink and aim in spreading fear in those who are unsure in supporting Paul.
It is framed such that a massive burden of proof rests solely with the Paul supporter, since the evidence is allegedly so airtight (it has been successfully presented as such) Not to mention a monumental array of strawmen that the defender of Paul is decreed to be willfully in denial of.
And in honesty it starts as a nice sophistic concoction started by a handful of confused liberal types, but its echo chamber resonates into a stampede. A big ass witch-hunt. Just look at how thoroughly the destructo link has been victoriously proliferated through twitter and blog posts. Just like how thoroughly the Kir-Apparatchick story was spread through the blogosphere 4 years ago.
Again, they want no debate nor any dialogue. Of course, this is a typical systematic smear operation that is classic politics and is not unique to Paul’s candidacy. But your faq is an incredible asset to combat this disinformation.
Right, they want everyone else to simply shut up. They don’t care about logical consistency except when they think it benefits them.
As an aside, I wonder if so-called “post-modern philosophy” was just a way to rationalize, in a very sophisticated-sounding way, the exceedingly primitive tactic of one person bullying others into silence (thereby demonstrating that he is the most “powerful”, and therefore people who’ve been trained to listen to the most “powerful” will listen to him and not others).
Thanks a lot. I hope everyone here spreads the link as much as they can.
Incidentally, here’s a quite useful blogpost that documents all of the anti-racist statements, writings, and votes of Dr. Paul going back almost 30 years, which I used to make some revisions to my own faq.
The Ron Paul fans on Youtube I believe attempted a counter-troll by making the NH4RickSantorum and NH4MittRomney accounts. These accounts were created the day that the video became popular (the original was uploaded on January 4th, it hit the news on January 6th and then these two accounts were made).
This was effective because anybody who didn’t like Paul and wouldn’t buy into the “conspiracy” that the video originated from the Huntsman campaign would probably be persuaded by the other accounts to make it look like it was some guy in the Internet who made a video for each candidate.
The guy who made the awesome Ron Paul rap video put the two Reality Check news reports together with a Ron Paul interview to make a nice expose about the newsletters.
I can see that. Especially since the philosophy of skepticism allows you to purely and only destroy any thought that comes along without the need to offer anything in its place, and also makes the philosophy of skepticism immune from skepticism 
Pure skepticism leads to the negation of all thought. It’s the same thing as nihilism. And nihilism leads only to death.
Thus the rise of emotion-centered existentialism.
I fail to see how existentialism is necessarily emotion-centered.
Well, it’s an irrationalist philosophy that focuses on the whim of the individual as a philosophic primary, ie: emotion.