Edit: Paul said that some of his newsletters were ghost written, so that explains some of the more "politically incorrect" statements.
What? No.
The articles were signed under Paul's name in an 8 page monthly newsletter he published, selling it for $50 a year. Even if he managed to not read the few thousand words a month he was shilling, he is fully responsible for the contents of them.
Entirely incidentally, it's long been known that
Lew Rockwell was involved in the writing. The association between the two has been entirely open, although Rockwell has denied writing the articles at times. Rockwell was openly advocating a race based strategy to unite libertarians and paleoconservatives. Notably the group they founded has been frequently described as
promoting neo-Confederate views.The racist material was fairly consistent and widely known. Notably the
Heritage Front - an openly neo-Nazi group that disbanded after it's members paralysed a Tamil man - included the letter on a list of public racialists.
Wayback link to the archived page.Just looking at some of the worst of those you linked;
October 1992 gives advice on how to get away with shooting "youths" who are taking part in the "hip-hop" trend of carjacking, ending with the phrase "the animals are coming."
January 1993 has a piece on "The Disappearing White Majority" which reads exactly like BNP style racial shit stirring, complete with the ending call to "save your own children".
The July 1993 edition (not on your page, but archived
here by an anti-extremist group active in the early days of the web) is one of the most quoted. Notably this section;
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.
The statistics there, recycled in the August 1993 edition, appear to be fiction created by
Jared Taylor, a white supremacist author. They simply don't exist elsewhere. To get those kinds of numbers you need to deliberately manipulate the data
along these lines, ignoring re-offenders and pretending each individual crime represents a unique criminal black man.
Criminologists estimate that seventy percent of all crimes are committed by just seven percent of the offenders (12): a small bunch of repeat offenders who commit the vast majority of crimes. Since blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, if seventy percent of these were committed by seven percent of the black offenders, this would mean that at most there were perhaps 390,000 individual black offenders that year (13). In a population of 29.3 million over the age of twelve, this would represent no more than 1.3 percent of the black population that committed a violent crime in 2002. Since fewer than half of these would have chosen a non-Hispanic white victim (as noted previously), this means that less than seven-tenths of one percent of the black population would have victimized a white person in 2002: hardly the kind of fact that would warrant white fear of blacks as a group.
Now as for Paul being a racist... that isn't something I'd say. You can't prove what he is thinking and it derails the conversation. Instead I'd say
what he said was unacceptable.I can understand why he published it though. His newsletter was targeted at the late 80's and early 90's pseudo-libertarian right. That movement includes lots of really nasty groups, including many neo-confederates, white supremacist and militia types. He worked closely with these sorts of groups, if only because they overlapped with his part of the political spectrum. He would have known the language, the dog whistles and red meat those groups thrive on. He openly worked with similar individuals and groups, including hard-right Christian reconstructionists - eg,
Gary North who was a staffer for him in Congress and came out with the perfect summary of why the reconstructionists loved the libertarians;
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
The fact is that Paul has often has made statements that fit such a hard Christian audience. Take his stand on the separation of church and state, or his language over abortion and gay marriage. That's because today he needs the support of the religious right to survive in the modern Republican party. In the 90's he relied on the support of the NWO conspiracy theorists and (usually racially) reactionary anti-government groups.
FAKEEDIT: Welp, serves me right for digging up my research from the 2007 primaries. Have another
two links. 
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 881631 times)