LR.com: National Review's Racist Rants

[SnyderShrugged]

edit: forgot link!

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo223.html

Since those Good ol boys at the neo-con National Review have been so concerned over patterns of racism, it seems that Mr. DiLorenzo decided to help them clean up their own shop some as well...

National Review’s Racist Rants

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The whole world should know by now that the neocons at National Review magazine, the War Street Journal, and elsewhere will tell any lie in pursuit of political power. Lying the nation into war with Iraq by spreading the falsehood of "weapons of mass destruction" that were supposedly headed our way was the most atrociously evil act perpetrated by the U.S government and its propaganda organs in decades, having led to the senseless death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

No one should be surprised that National Review is now engaged in a spectacular act of chutzpah, to put it mildly, by smearing Ron Paul as being insensitive on matters of race. Before anyone gives any credence to the latest smear campaign against Congressman Paul it would be useful to take a look at National Review’s own record of publications on the issue of race relations. It is not a pretty picture.

National Review’s Support of Apartheid

All during the time that the real godfather of neoconservatism, William F. Buckley, Jr., was editor, National Review editorialized in favor of the evil South African system of institutionalized discrimination against blacks known as "Apartheid." In an unsigned editorial on November 9, 1979 the magazine praised South Africa’s President Botha who it said "has earned the benefit of a doubt from responsible critics." The critics were not named, but Buckley is probably who the anonymous editorialist (probably Buckley himself) had in mind.

On February 8, 1985 Buckley praised the supposed "liberalization of the Apartheid laws under Prime Minister Botha," reminiscent of how some intellectuals used to talk about "socialism with a friendly face." Apartheid with a friendly face.

On March 28, 1985 Buckley pronounced that Botha was "widely, and properly, derided’ for suggesting that Nelson Mandela was "a political prisoner, rather than a terrorist . . . " On September 20, 1985 Buckley pontificated that "Where Mandela belongs . . . is precisely where he is: in jail." On May 23, 1986 an unsigned National Review editorial criticized those who called for the abolition, as opposed to what Buckley called the "reform" of Apartheid. He wasn’t opposed to institutionalized government discrimination against blacks as long as it was done "the right way."

Buckley waxed indignantly over the international criticism of the Botha regime in South Africa, complaining in a July 23, 1976 article about the United Nations that there is "international indignation" whenever the South African government stepped up enforcement of the Apartheid laws, but much less so when crimes are committed by "black Africans." Here Buckley was criticizing the UN’s criticisms of the brutal and murderous Apartheid suppression of the Soweto uprising against the system.

National Review’s Smears of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has stated publicly and on television that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are among his heroes for practicing peaceful, civil disobedience against government, in the true spirit of libertarianism, Buckley’s National Review expressed nothing but contempt (and worse) for Dr. King. Complaining bitterly about the King national holiday, an unsigned National Review editorial on October 28, 1983 remarked that "it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets)." Thus, if the neocons at National Review had their way, there would have been no protests against unequal treatment of blacks under the law in the 1960s.

Even worse, the editorial goes on to say that since Dr. King was supposedly such a bum and a loafer, "Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." That would be more acceptable to Buckley and his fellow neocons, says the editorial.

more at link

[Teller]

Complaining bitterly about the King national holiday' date=' an unsigned National Review editorial on October 28, 1983 remarked that "it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure.[/quote']

W-in-T-holy-F?

I dare say that VERY few of us could handle such a "leisurely" lifestyle. Absolutely asinine, and not surprising that the idiot didn't have the guts to sign it.

[SnyderShrugged]

W-in-T-holy-F?

I dare say that VERY few of us could handle such a "leisurely" lifestyle. Absolutely asinine, and not surprising that the idiot didn't have the guts to sign it.

And these werent even ghostwritten

[nonniey]

Well, if it is any consolation, their attacks on Paul appear to have come too late to save Newt or Perry or whoever they wanted over Romney.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, if it any consolation, their attacks on Paul appear to have come too late to save Newt or Perry or whoever they wanted over Romney.

dont you mean "hypocritical" attacks on Paul? LOL, just teasing, I agree with you in that, and think they are actually seeing it backfire on them some. I've even spoken to a couple of people who were pretty harsh in their neo-con hatred of Paul in the past, but are now a little miffed at the race baiting tactics they see being employed in by their own party.

Since this new attack mode has started, his intrade odds have gne up as high as 50% for Iowa.

byt enough about Paul, Lets learn more about the people who are so very concerned over his "racist past". and their previous racial opinions.

[NavyDave]

The good ole boys on Team Donkey and associated media were far worse when it came to Socialists starving their people to death under Stalin, etc with one reporter saying, "To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs." They also supported Apartheid until it became unfashionable to not do so.

Those confederate flags representing people at their State Capitols were raised by Democrats in the 60s, 70s and 80s and it took the Grim Reaper to finally remove a former KKK member from the Democrats ranks, cough Senator Byrd.

It was democrats that used the FBI to attempt to smear MLK with accusations of adultery to shut him up.

Senator LB Johnson (democrat) later President blocked Presidents Eisenhower Voting Rights act.

And it took the GOP for the voting rights act to pass.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not calling them racist, but seems to me that the Rockewllians (DiLorenzo in particular) have an unhealthy fascination w/ the South.

how does this relate to National Review again?

[ACW]

Whoa, you can predit the future? I swear the timing on the posts is screwy

My point is I'm not sure the Rockwellians are the best to be pointing this out.

[ACW]

Not calling them racist, but seems to me that the Rockewllians (DiLorenzo in particular) have an unhealthy fascination w/ the South.

EDIT: I'm a Cato/Reason-type libertarian anyway :whoknows:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Funny that this is coming from Lew Rockwell, as he's probably the one who wrote the racist articles in Paul's newsletter. And as bad as these from National Review are, they don't even begin to approach the level of filth that were in Paul's newsletters. Sorry SnyderShrugged. I think Paul is great for America in general and the GOP specifically, but this is weak sauce here.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So how does pointing out that another publication has racist tendencies explain the newsletters that Paul published under his name?

A couple of choices here as it would seem to me:

1) Paul isn't a racist and didn't know about what was being written which shows that he had a poorly managed a newsletter that bore his name, allowing racist rants to be published and distributed in his publication without sourcing the material....and therefore needs to be seen as someone who has very poor managerial and over-sight skills.

2) Paul isn't a racist and doesn't know who wrote the articles and isn't willing to find out, which shows that he isn't someone who looks to hold others accountable even when what they said was published under his banner.

3) Paul isn't a racist and does know who wrote the articles and isn't willing to throw that person(s) under the bus, which shows that he favors cronyism and the good ol' boys.

4) Paul is a racist, and those are his views, and he either a) wrote those articles or didn't write but approved of them being written.

If there are other scenarios I missed someone please point them out, but from where I sit this looks bad no matter which is accurate.

[Jumbo]

I don't see Paul as racist in any way by his words or affect or overt conduct or any credibly repeated covert conduct. I see this could be a matter of questioning his intelligence and judgment just at a fundamental level of being involved in any way with these events back then and how he (his people) handle the topic now. That's really, all this stuff of racism whether about him or his critics notwithstanding, a pertinent topic. This, as GF indicates, could just slide off of course even if it has weight just as similar things have done with past candidates.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Yeah I don't think Paul is racist. I just don't like how he's responded to all of this. I wish he would call out who wrote those things (Lew Rockwell) and denounce him. This whole, "I don't know who wrote them" nonsense is just dumb.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah I don't think Paul is racist. I just don't like how he's responded to all of this. I wish he would call out who wrote those things (Lew Rockwell) and denounce him. This whole, "I don't know who wrote them" nonsense is just dumb.

For the record, I'm not certain it was Rockwell, It may be him as many have assumed, but I think unfortunately, Rothbard may be the culprit.

Be that as it may, I take your point and ACW's point from earlier as something to think on (something I didnt really do in my glee at showing that the editors of a publication accusing racism are totally ignoring the racism that came out of their publication).

My reason for posting the article was more to show that those that live in glass houses shouldnt be taken seriously when they throw stones. But on your point, if it was Rockwell that did it, then I was doing something just as silly by posting the article/

Lesson learned in that regard.

[Thiebear]

Ron Paul writes for National Review? SS ( I didn't mean for you to go on a mission after that one post).

[ACW]

For the record, I'm not certain it was Rockwell, It may be him as many have assumed, but I think unfortunately, Rothbard may be the culprit.

Be that as it may, I take your point and ACW's point from earlier as something to think on (something I didnt really do in my glee at showing that the editors of a publication accusing racism are totally ignoring the racism that came out of their publication).

My reason for posting the article was more to show that those that live in glass houses shouldnt be taken seriously when they throw stones. But on your point, if it was Rockwell that did it, then I was doing something just as silly by posting the article/

Lesson learned in that regard.

All good points. Your original point is valid. All cool :grouphug: And Rothbard? I'd heard it might me Lew; never heard it posited that it might be Murray.