For Acharya's Main Website, go to

TBK News Table of Contents

Bookmark and Share
Join the TBK Mailing List!
Enter your name and email address below to receive news and cutting edge commentary from Acharya!

Subscribe  Unsubscribe 

Monday, January 14, 2008

Ron Paul and the Neo-Nazis

I recently received the following message from my friend David Bergland, the 1984 Libertarian Presidential Candidate who has known Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul for many years. I asked him to clarify the rumors regarding Ron Paul's connection to "Neo Nazis" and "white supremacists," gossip that turns out to be a petty load of nonsense, as I expected.

While I do not agree with Ron Paul on certain issues, the fact will remain that on the most important aspect of his life's work--upholding the United States Constitution--I concur with him completely. You see, in preserving the Constitution, Dr. Paul and I can disagree on other subjects, freely and with respectful debate. Without the Constitution, one or the other perspective may become the dominant one, with the result of vicious fascism we have seen abundantly worldwide for millennia. Moreover, I entirely understand Paul's viewpoint that these issues upon which he and I do not agree--e.g., abortion--are not truly Constitutional or federal matters, but should be left up to the individual states. (I am also aware that Paul is a fervent born-again Christian, which, obviously, does not jell with my perspective of reality, but, again, his focus on upholding the Constitution gives him high marks in my book, as I consider that document to be A Truly Sacred Scripture preventing the world from descending into barbarism.)

In this regard, I am glad that Ron Paul is having so much success in his campaign, although I am cynical that the Twiddle-Dee & Tweedle-Dum Republocrat political system will allow him to take charge of the United States government. It is extremely hopeful, however, that someone of his caliber of honesty and integrity has managed to attain to such a high political office in the first place. (By the way, I've been reading Ron Paul's writings since the late 90s, and I can attest that he has been consistent for all that time. Nor do I believe he is part of any governmental "psy-op.")

Since Ron Paul has been unfairly smeared, I thought it important to bring to the forefront a well-written retort from my pal David Bergland, who considers Dr. Paul to be a politician of the highest standards of character. Following is what David Bergland had to say about the vicious rumors regarding Paul's purported ties to "Nazis" and "white supremacists." I reproduce Mr. Bergland's remarks here with his permission.
Dear Acharya:

Since you asked, there are no ties to neo-nazis, nor has there ever been. One white
supremacist sent Ron a $500 contribution. His attackers want him to return it. His response is: it's already been spent promoting liberty; if I return it, the donor will spend it on his foolishness. Also, he made the contribution to Ron to support Ron's efforts on behalf of liberty, not the other way around. Oh yeah, there was also a story about Ron having lunch with neo-nazis at some local restaurant in Washington. That was crap and the rag that published it retracted the story later.

There was also a crap piece in The New Republic about some not so nice, allegedly racist, statements in a financial newsletter that Ron published (not edited) a couple decades ago. Ron did not write the material and does not know who did. He has stated that he failed to exercise sufficient control over the newsletter content and disavows the negative stuff. The TNR article is just one example of how Ron Paul's enemies consistently decline to take him on based on his positions on the issues (which he has held for his 20 years in Congress) and are reduced to digging back into ancient newsletters for ammunition. On the "racism" issue, here is an interesting anecdote.

A while back, Congress was planning to give a medal of honor to Rosa Parks. Ron opposed it because Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on such things. At the same time, he pulled a $100 bill out of his pocket and stated that he would contribute it to a voluntarily financed medal for Ms. Parks. He also invited all the other Congresscritters to do the same. Not a single one accepted the invitation! But they did spend your tax money for it.

Our political and economic system is truly sick. I know Ron Paul personally, and know him to be 100% straight, honest, tolerant and completely committed to limited constitutional government. That's why I've been so busy in the Ron Paul Revolution.

One last item: abortion. I am a pro-choicer, but respect Ron's position because it focuses on the federal government role as limited by the Constitution. He correctly contends that the federal government has no authority in this area at all. The issue should be left to the states. Some states will authorize it, some won't. That's federalism; we should not undermine that important constitutional principle on "our" issue because that opens the door for all others to destroy federalism and allow the feds to run everything. (Most people really don't understand how
important it is to stick to principle, do they?)

Warmest regards,

David Bergland


Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is the only canidate worth voting for! If you really believe in what the founding fathers hoped for us, then vote for Dr. Paul.

asoka said...

Very strange that someone could "publish" a newsletter with his name on the masthead, and then claim to have no knowledge of who wrote the racist crap it contained. Ron Paul just doesn't know who wrote in his newsletter under his name for over a decade?

In all those years do you think Ron Paul ever read the newsletter he "published" with his name on it? Did he never disavow the content which now comes out to be white supremacist in nature?

When it came time to protect minorities Ron Paul was missing in action. Ron Paul did not care enough about discrimination against gays to even show up to vote on bills in 2007 such as the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Ron Paul also voted NO on the Same Sex Marriage Resolution. Some Libertarian!

Those interested should check out Ron Paul's votes votes on abortion, on railway services, on water resources, on energy independence, on children's education, on children's health, on the arts, on the bloated war on terror budget, on authorizing the War in Iraq, on building boondoggle big fences on the border, on crime, on discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think you might get an idea of how disastrous a Ron Paul presidency would be.

Anonymous said...

I too wondered about this; Dr. Paul was interviewed on CNN about it. Never have I seen him so agitated and adamant. Claiming the newsletter happened many, many years ago while editor, not the writer and busy with his career. Denying all the allegations he said the "people" responsible were dismissed. However Dr. Paul failed to make clear what he did to rectify the problem. Any followup rebuttal or denial? He is also shown in Photo-Op with Neo Nazis on Stormfront website signing autograph.

Acharya S said...

I can't answer your question about the newsletter, obviously. As I understand his votes on these other issues, they are all determined by whether or not it is a constitutional matter. If not, he votes against it, because he works at the federal level, and the matter should not be settled there but should be dealt with either by the state or the local government. I think that fact was explained by David Bergland pretty well.

"Libertarian" does not mean libertine, so it isn't a question of "anything goes." The one issue I get nervous with the Libertarian position is when they advocate making all national parkland private. I just do not trust private ownership when it comes to our natural resources, although I don't know the details of the plank - is there a clause to stop big business from buying the land and destroying it?

Anyway, I have no idea where Ron Paul stands on that issue either. But I do know that his votes are dependent on whether or not the issue is a constitutional one. He's not necessarily voting against the issue but he's saying that it should be dealt with NOT by the federal government but by the local governments, which means YOU AND ME THE PEOPLE. It is much easier for us to prevent all kinds of corruption at the lower levels of government.

For example, my mother was a state and local politician, and I can guarantee you there was no voter fraud at the local level. The local librarian ran the one or two voting booths - we could be absolutely sure who won and what issues won.

Now, THAT'S taking back the power - and that's the whole point of a Ron Paul presidency.

Acharya S said...

Rosalyn Carter posed with John Wayne Gacy. Did she know that he was a vicious serial rapist and murderer? Is she responsible for his behavior?

Come on! Maybe some goombah walked up to Ron Paul and asked him to pose for a picture. What's he supposed to do, ask for credentials first? That wouldn't be very diplomatic for a politician - if he did that to the wrong person, then there would be a big brouhaha about that!

"Er, um, you wouldn't happen to be a white supremacist would you?" Yeah, I usually do that before I autograph books. Egads! What if someone who's got an autographed copy of one of my books is a white supremacist! I'm doomed!!

asoka said...

Ron Paul does vote YES for billions of dollars of federal government funding when it comes to military matters.

Ron Paul voted (on Sept. 14, 2001) to adopt a joint resolution (H J Res 64) to authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals.


Ron Paul does not usually vote YES when it comes to government sponsorship of projects for the common good... or even for private good (such as the right to use one's own money for an abortion in a military hospital, which he opposed) although he did vote YES to fund the War on Terror and authorize the War in Iraq.

On Sept. 14, 2001 Ron Paul voted YES to pass a bill that would appropriate $40 billion to an emergency response fund for recovery from the terrorist attacks of September 11.

So there are times (military appropriations) when Ron Paul believes in funding billions of dollars for government projects.

Billions for the military Ron Paul approves, but Ron Paul voted NO on House Amendment 753 to HR 4193 to restore $98 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

How many hours of the War on Terror would fund the National Endowment for the Arts for a year? Approximately 9 hours. But Ron Paul voted YES for the 40 BILLIONS for Military and NO for the 98 millions for Art. (And the Defense Dept. cannot even account for billions of dollars that have been authorized. The money simply disappeared in Iraq).

Ron Paul also vote YES on HR 5385 to pass a bill that appropriates $136.33 BILLIONS for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for FY 2007.

So he believes in state and local funding, but votes for billions for federal funding when it comes to "defense" (which will the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes, invasions, and occupations has actually become "offense").

Acharya S said...

You obviously know much more about Ron Paul's voting record than I do. I would be interested in knowing his reasons for these votes for military funding, especially when he took a somewhat laissez faire position regarding Muslim "blowback," or so it seems.

The "nuances" of politics - and the reasoning behind various political moves by individuals - can be extremely complicated, it seems.

By the way, although I am a lifelong pacifist, I am not against self-defense, where it is real and warranted. (What Bush & Co. have done in Iraq is not "self-defense.")

asoka said...

Acharya S.

I am also a life long pacifist, which always puts me into a quandry when considering a vote for ANY presidential candidate, since the president is also the commander in chief of the armed forces. As a pacifist I do not feel comfortable voting for a commander in chief of the armed forces.

The way I usually have avoided this moral conflict is to vote for candidates I am sure will not win. For example, when Nader ran on the Green Party ticket I voted for him, with the added advantage that the Green Party has nonviolence as one of its ten core principles.

This time round the candidate most closely representing a pacifist position is Kucinich, who has just tonight won a court battle to be included in the NBC debates in Nevada.

I feel a bit guilty about going on about politics, as you have noted that your usual fare is not political.

Tat Tvam Asi

Acharya S said...

I have no problem discussing politics, as it's an important issue - and a confusing one, obviously. It is obvious that very few people are well enough informed about any of the candidates, and that we are exposed mainly to faces that may not be genuine. For instance, while I am assured by my friend David Bergland that Ron Paul is what he seems to be, another friend has sent me a message apparently with all sorts of scandalous accusations against Paul! Whom do I trust, since I don't personally know Paul? Right now I must trust the individual who DOES know Ron Paul to some extent personally.

Acharya S said...

Oh, and by the way, "asoka," you have been very polite about your discussion of politics, so, again, there's no problem with me.

I am concerned that millions of people can never get a clear picture of what is really happening with the people in power on this planet!

xtiml said...

He is only one who even mentioned the 9/11 debacle.The lack of information in popular medias is astounding(well not really since we know who owns it all)no mention of chemtrails,nafta,genetically modified foods, monopolizing seed,bio-chips and 1000 other interesting things the anunaki(elites, top 300 families council of ten etc,etc) are doing here.what we are doing in iraq,well i guess it is too much to expect anything like the truth or a humane attitude to our fellows here on dis they are screaming for Iran and if we do there will be retalition on us the sheltered us citizens, and then what?they will be glad of it, depopulation you know,

xtiml said...

you can critisize mr paul all you want but here is the bottom line, all the others are complicit and active mebers of implemeyting the most shameful plan to destroy all the commoners on earth,

xtiml said...

anyways voting is for the deluded, better everyone not vote then they have no mandate. if you vote for the lesser of the 2 perceived evils then you are still voting for evil and you get the man or woman you voted for and evil is as evcil does and it tends to grow.only congress woamn in office is that black woamn down eastern south they allways harrass , she is good and for us the peeps.

Anonymous said...


Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education and, in his words, "end the federal education monopoly" by eliminating all taxes that go toward public education and "giving educational control back to parents." Which parents would those be? Only those with the leisure time, educational training, and temperament commensurate with home schooling! Whatever real problems the U.S. education system suffers from-and there are many-eliminating 99 percent literacy rates that generations of public education has achieved and tossing the children of working parents out of the schools is not an appealing or viable option.

Paul also opposes equal pay for equal work, a minimum wage, and, naturally, trade unions. In 2007, he voted against restricting employers' rights to interfere in union drives and against raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25. In 2001, he voted for zero-funding for OSHA's Ergonomics Rules, instead of the $4.5 billion. At least he's consistent.

Libertarians like Paul are for removing any legislative barriers that may restrict business owners' profits, but are openly hostile to alleviating economic restrictions that oppress most workers. Only a boss could embrace this perverse concept of "freedom."

As far as the racist statement attributed to Paul, in a posts it is reported:

Paul was more blunt writing in his independent political newsletter distributed to thousands of supporters in 1992. Citing statistics from a study that year produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, Paul concluded: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

J.L.King said...

Probably the one most important question when looking at any member of Congress' vote is "is this constitutional?" I believe it is important for every American to take some time out to actually read and understand the United States Constitution and attain a working knowledge of what and why the founding fathers wanted for their descendants.

Ultimately, they wanted to bequeath to their descendants to be ever free from any kind of tyranny, to ever experience the freedom to life, liberty, and ownership of property.

The Constitution does delineate powers attributed to the "Federal" government and the individual states. Dr. Ron Paul is definitely correct in his votes on most legislation as those bills come up before the House.

The issue of voting for billions of dollars for the war is a constitutional issue as it gives the Federal government the responsibility to protect us from any foreign threat to our collective sovereignties. The States had the responsibility to furnish the militia as well as provide part of the money needed to wage war when it became necessary.

Taking Dr. Paul to task for having voted for the appropriations to fund the wars is to be a bit unfair to him because you must remember that the great majority of Congress voted the funds to invade Iraq.

Dr. Paul, along with many others have deep regrets for having done so because in the interim we have found that the "intelligence" presented for invading Iraq was inaccurate, misleading, and devastatingly bogus. Iraq had nothing to do with the terror and horrors of 9/11!

I do not condone war. But there is a time to stand and defend oneself, our country and our people. That stand is against any threat whether it be internal or external--anything or anyone that is a threat to our sovereignty.

As far as the newsletters are concerned, to me it is of no consequence. Why? Because in the arena of politics and politico punditry, it becomes a "win the election at any cost" scenario. Mudslinging is part of the whole nasty process, but that does not justify it in any way. May the powers of the Universe have mercy on you if you have any faults--real or perceived!

Dr. Paul was hardly given any serious attention until support began to burgeon and his fund raising was showing some serious growth. Once he became even the slightest possible threat to the status quo candidates, he became a target. Much as what happened to Mike Huckabee.

Ron Paul voted NO on many social issues because, constitutionally, the Federal government has no mandate to interfere in those issues reserved to the States and/or the people.

Personally, I do not agree with everything Dr. Paul says. But, as Acharya says, because we can disagree, engage in meaningful dialogue, and thereby come to compromises, agreements, or simply agreeing to disagree is far more essential to our sovereign welfare than trying to deal with volatile, emotionally charged vitriolic spewings that do little to bring us together.

Please forgive me if my diatribe is too lengthy.



asoka said...

J.L. King,

Yes, I certainly recognize that Mr. Paul's votes are votes based on principle. But perhaps not so much in defense of the Constitution as from an ideological stance that "the less government the better".

This tendency fosters a political environment conducive to anarchism (a good thing!), in other words, toward more liberty and freedom, more voluntary cooperation and collaboration, and less coercion.

From Wikipedia:

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2] (the state) and support its elimination.

1. Anarchy Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary

2. Malatesta, Errico, Towards Anarchism.

3. "Anarchism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006

4. "Anarchism". The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable."

Ron Paul can be seen as a positive ally in the struggle toward the creation of a positive, visionary, anarchism, in terms of promoting less coercion. Through his votes he is certainly proposing less and less government.

Acharya S said...

Thanks for the continued thoughtful posts, asoka. And nice job with the Greek! I'm impressed!

I don't pretend to be an expert on Constitutional law or even what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but in my observation, they seem to have been interested in promoting the least amount of governmental interference in daily human life possible. In that regard, I wholeheartedly concur with them. In fact, I love them, and I consider their mission and output (the Constitution) to be "divinely inspired," if I may be so indulged.


Anonymous said...

Of course Dr. Paul would certainly agree to pose with or sign autographs when approached. Not a problem. But in the CNN interview concerning racist remarks printed in a newletter he edited years ago, his defense was weak; considering his Photo-Op with Stormfront, many could draw the wrong conclusions.

Dismissing the individuals responsible was correct, but more importantly what did he do to rectify the situation. The incendiary material was/is still out there! How about having printed a retraction?

Just saying it was "many, many years ago..." changes nothing that was in print without a clarification. Perhaps he is NOT racist, but many people of goodwill may find it hard to believe that after viewing
the CNN interview.

DPB said...

One of the great contemporary writers and commentators, Justin Raimondo of, has done a masterful job of digging through the muck of the coordinated smear against Ron Paul. I have known Justin for about 30 years and highly respect his integrity and abilities as an investigative reporter. To get the real story on the attempt to smear Ron Paul, (it won't work) read Justin's article at:

Acharya S said...


I've fixed your link here:

Campaign to Smear Ron Paul

mgurney said...

I'm a supporter of Ron Paul but that support has been seriously weakened by the nature of his claim the newsletters were not written or reviewed by him. Although this may be true it weakens the value of his current weekly “Paul’s Texas Straight Talk” which I’ve been reading for sometime.

When I read them now I question whether I am actually getting his thoughts on the matter or some public-relations firm or staff members and whether he has even proofed them.

In either case Mr. Paul was in a catch22. If he admitted those newsletters were actually penned by him he’d be damned…so damage control may have won out….which “truth” causes the lesser degree of damage?

Unfortunately with today’s marketing and public-relations firms packaging of candidates and elected officials we can not really be certain what the hell we are getting. The sad truth is the front person isn’t really the critical player anymore but all the advisors, image makers, and other baggage that come behind them. I don’t expect perfection of a person, but I do expect realism and honesty. But maybe in today’s world even that may be too much to expect.

mgurney said...

It’s interesting to read here comments of separating our politics from spirituality or our daily lives. I am reminded of something I read a while back in the “Conversation of God” material. It was something along the lines of;
“Your politics is your spirituality in action…it represents all that you think you know about who you are and who God is. You can no more separate the events of your lives than you can separate your big toe as something independent from the rest of your body”

Anonymous said...

--Richard Cotten

"Equality" is word poison used to promote the "We are all equal, so therefore we should all join together under a One World Government" propaganda.

We are not equal. The Races are not equal. The Religions are not equal. No two human beings are "equal" so therefore your coveted and precious "equal rights" is what has gotten us all into this mess.