I Wish Ron Paul was an Antisemite

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 15, 2014

PJ Media, a “conservative” news aggregator founded by the Jew Roger Simon for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to Jewish terrorists, has placed Ron Paul in the number five position on their list of the top ten “worst purveyors of Antisemitism” in the US.

My response: “oh, how I wish.”

Ron Paul drew immense support from the youth of America, along with the true conservatives, who were interested, I believe, in the nationalist aspect of his message. In this way, I view the Ron Paul “Loverution” as a sorry American analog for the presently rising hardcore nationalist movements in Europe.

The problem with Ron Paul was, quite explicitly, that he was not at all Antisemitic, and in fact embraced many of the core doctrines of the Jewish establishment.

If, instead, Paul had taken a more serious nationalist position, he would still have been sabotaged by the political and media establishment, but we would have made a much greater deal of progress in spreading awareness. As it stands now, we in the real nationalist movement are left trying to explain to the former Loverution supporters why it is they are wrong about economics, “freedom,” race and the Jewish question.

The Good

Ron Paul spoke to something fundamental about the American spirit, bringing up imagery of the Founding Fathers and the once great state of this nation our ancestors built. He invoked our history, and in recalling the glory of our ancestors, he stirred up something long-buried in our racial memory. He made us want to believe in America again.

Along with this, several of his key policies resonated; he supported a non-interventionist war policy, the principles of personal liberty which include the right to bear arms and the right to privacy and the right to question the actions of the government.  He spoke passionately against the corruption of the banking system.

The Bad

Instead of sticking to the core principles of traditional American Identity, Paul mixed traditional Americanism with the Libertarian Jewish lie about traditional Americanism, accepting that economically destructive “free trade” policies, a “right” to be a sexual and moral degenerate and racial “equality” were fundamental ideals upon which our nation was founded.

In fact, “free trade” meant something much different in an agrarian age before the advent of the technological era and the mass communications and transportation, and the rapid centralization of resources under a corporate economic structure that went along with it. The Founding Fathers believed in the right of the individual to establish an independent livelihood – this was the core of their thinking – the economic policies were meant to be an means to this end, not an end in themselves. During the period of the nation’s founding, economies were almost entirely localized, and capable of regulating themselves. As the economy has been so drastically changed by the rise of technology and globalization, it follows that in order to uphold the principle that a man should be able to obtain the end of an independent livelihood, the means by which this is done must be altered. In our present situation, this would involve a restructuring of the economy and a limiting of corporate influence by the State.

The “freedom” to engage in morally abhorrent behavior, such as homosexuality and “free love,” and to use the media apparatus to promote it, was also a kind of “freedom” that the Founding Fathers would have stood in staunch opposition to. At the time the country was founded, it was inhabited by Christian White men, and the collapse of basic morality was in no way foreseen. It made sense to allow people “total freedom of expression” when it was already pre-assumed that people would behave well within certain moral guidelines. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed that homosexuals be castrated, and thus it is utterly ridiculous to use his words to defend gay marriage. The laws that were passed regarding obscenity also demonstrate that the early American idea of freedom had nothing to do with sexual perversion.

The concept of “all men are created equally” was never intended to apply to non-Europeans, as is clearly evidenced by the fact that most of the Founding Fathers themselves owned slaves. This statement originally referred solely to the fact that the White citizenry possessed a universal right to be free from external oppression and to decide the course of their lives personally.  Paul easily could have stood behind his “racist” newsletters, and awoken a racial consciousness in his supporters, rather than backing down like a coward.

What if He’d Done the Right Thing?

Other than the Nationalist imagery and the appeal to the glory of our shared past, the biggest place where Ron Paul’s message resonated with the people was the in idea that we in America are presently victims of an oppressive system which is forcing a new value system down upon us without asking for our input.  The oppression we are suffering under by an elite class, headed by an international banking power, is something people have a drive to fight against, whether they understand the details of it or not.

If, instead of following along with the Jewish conception of American freedom, Ron Paul had presented a true message of liberty, one where the freedom to live a normal and prosperous life was defended above the economic rights of a financial minority and the sexual liberties of a degenerate minority, we would be in a much better position to speak to the people who were abandoned by the Paul Loverution when he dropped out of the race.

It would have been even better if he had actually been a hardcore Antisemite, and named the Jew as the source of our problems.

Even with his failure to obtain the nomination, and subsequent dropping out of the race altogether, he had such a great opportunity to educate the masses.  Though I do not think this opportunity was completely wasted, as he did do a lot to wake up a sense of American identity in the people, as well as bring some vague attention to the corrupt nature of the international banking system, he surely could have made our job a lot easier.

For all of his flaws, Paul was an alternative, and his success proved that people are ready for an alternative.  Presently, I view those who supported Ron Paul as our prime target for recruitment into our movement.  They already understand some of the key issues, and it is up to us to bring them up to speed as to the real depth of the problems we are facing, and how they must necessarily be solved.

Hail Victory.