Ron Paul is insane. And he hates Jews, blacks & gays.
I am not a fan of Ron Paul. He's an ideologue. He has a few good attitudes, and a bunch I do not buy. (And then there's that whiny voice.) Leaving aside the ambiguities of whatever "hating" means*, why should a libertarian be fond of three of the most reliably and vehemently statist-voting (Democrat-voting) groups in the country? After all, we have a president who doesn't even seem to like his own country very much, especially the bitter part, full of "typical White people", which clings to guns and God.
*The supposedly all-loving Jesus actually required it. Lk 14.26
2 comments:
But anarchism or libertarianism must get lost sight of when connected to animus vs this or that population group, right?
If the white male in generis were an isolationist anarchist or libertarian, America would not even have purchased Louisiana, and in fact the anti-federalists would have prevail'd over the federalists. There would have been a separation of church and state without any state.
... Millions of white males voted for George McGovern, and millions of white females voted for Richard Nixon. The "gender gap" was a huge theme for 1970s feminists, but the conclusion from their hype would have to be that the difference in "voting patterns' between men and women was not as important as the difference between Jew and Gentile, black and white, fancy-educated and ordinary-educated, evangelical Christian evangelical and God's pilgrim people Christian, etc.
(Always surprising to me to read that e.g. 10% of American blacks vote Republican.)
If you give anarchism or libertarianism over to anti-semitism, anarchism will become a tool of anti-semitism -- a platform for Protocols exegesis. is that Ron Paul's wish?
Isolationist Gore Vidal wants America to do (implode) as the USSR empire did, but he enjoys his villa life in Italy conquer'd by Americans' blood during WW2 (into which America was irrreversibly plunged by Japan's attack and Hitler's declaration of war on America, not by FDR's imperialist designs, though he did have such designs I don't doubt).
Calling for "small government" today or a return to the social and economic conditions of 1776 is absurd and damaging when used for policy formation, opinion leadership etc. I suppose :small government" it's fine as a fanatasy for dropping off to sleep with, though I prefer to think of starting out with Cor Shasta in the third Narnian chronicle.
A realistic plan for renewal of American government would be renewal of the Christianity which provided the moral foundation for the American state (Federalist #2). But even the American RCC, Congregationalists, Episcopalians are only a pilgrim people -- just passing through speaking critiques to power (e.g. borders are wrong), and "conservative" Christians agree that 'secular' means consumerist Godless etc etc.
So Paul's libertarian isolationism reduces to a demand for a merely shrunken version of what the American political economy is today. He isn't a Pericles who can say that the American global system built up by blood and care (Sorge) must be preserved (holds a tiger by the tail, etc) even at the cost of not giving elderly Americans $1-million-per-week technological medical care for the last few months of their lives or whatever. The elderly of the 'greatest generation' apparently insist that the lives of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren can go to heck and the deaths during WW2 can be for zilch. (Ron Paul says that medicare etc can keep on growing exponentially indefinitely if America simply 'cuts overseas spending'.)
I guess such medicare (for the aged who would rather tax and borrow to provide public money for technological medicine rather than anything that the future, the young, those with lives in the world could use) mirrors the Church (the community of senexes, according to Machiavelli?): a pilgrim people that couldn't care less about the world and their progeny in the world but insisting that they receive the most advanced technological bios-prolonging care during the last months of their sojourn in the world, the seculum. It's so loveless a vision I'm almost shock'd!
Ike should have warn'd about the medical-industrial complex.
John Galt, Ayn Rand's Thucandra, is supposed to have stamp'd off in a huff out of the world after his speech to the jury/state he socially constructed.
Why is he still sticking around insisting on technologized medical care ad infinitum?
Post a Comment