Due to the meteoric rise of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, disagreements over his policies among white advocates and, more importantly, the collective media’s deliberate attempt to sideline him, we at European Americans United wish to explain (again) as to why a Ron Paul presidency would be in our people’s best interest.
by John Young
http://www.westernvoices.com/audio/john_young/jy20080202.mp3
(2008) Welcome to Western Voices, I’m John Young of European Americans United. My friend and fellow board member Frank Roman won’t be producing his usual pod cast today. He’s in the middle of moving; but you can rest assured that “he’ll be back.”
Today I’m going to veer from our well-beaten path of economics, ethics, race and psychology to explore the world of politics. Specifically, I’d like to speak with you a bit about why EAU, as an organization, is supporting Ron Paul.
EAU was the first European-American advocacy organization to endorse a candidate for President of the United States; and the reason we did so has a great deal to do with the underpinnings of our political advocacy, as well as the candidate we chose.
One of the problems that has plagued pro-European-American advocacy for the past sixty years is the way it has become intertwined with totalitarian ideologies. This has caused two problems. First, it has confounded their ethno-cultural message with advocacy for ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with the folk-soul of our people; and second, it has effectively removed these organizations from the political sphere because philosophical consistency requires them to eschew the democratic process.
EAU, on the other hand, supports the fundamental notion of the constitutional republic that America’s founding fathers advocated. In the political realm, then, we can most accurately be described as constitutionalists who are heavily influenced by the original intent of Madison, Jefferson, Washington and others. Of course, what we are talking about here is mainly mechanism rather than content; though our founders generously included considerable content as well. Because we support the core structure of our constitutional republic, we have no philosophical problems with actively engaging the political system as an agent of beneficial change for our people.As I’ve mentioned before, the time-tested and traditional cultural memes of a people create a beneficial environment in which that people can thrive. As originally structured, the governmental system of the United States was intended to perpetuate an environment that worked uniquely well for European-Americans by perpetuating important ideals and traditions. Many people employ historical revisionism as a way of casting America’s foundational documents in light of modern liberal notions; when, in fact, our Constitution and legal systems were a continuation of many ideas and forms that already existed in Europe — particularly England.
We can see this in the Ninth Amendment, in which we are guaranteed that facts shall be tried according to the rules of the common law. The common law, of course, was our inheritance from Britain, and bound our courts to follow stare decisis and in this way prevent large changes to our culture. Our governmental form itself, was established with an APPOINTED Senate that echoed the House of Lords that had existed since at least the 1300’s; and an elected House of Representatives, that echoed the British House of Commons that had existed since the 14th century. All of the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights weren’t new inventions of the United States, but rather hearkened back to English, Greek and Roman laws and traditions of various times. Moreover, by reserving general legislative authority over the States to their respective local governments, our founding fathers designed a system where differing community norms could co-exist with supportive governments all across the continent.
The point I am making here is that, while modern treatments of the matter cast our Constitution in light of its radical departures from tradition; it was, in fact, thoroughly grounded in European culture, history and tradition; and was specifically intended to perpetuate the traditions and cultures of our people. The fact that our Constitution has since been twisted beyond all recognition and ignored whenever expedient in order to promote special interests and subject us to social experimentation is an entirely different matter; and that’s what brings us to Ron Paul.
Dr. Ron Paul, though he is often portrayed as a big “L” Libertarian, self-identifies instead as a Constitutionalist. He brings an important understanding of the fundamentals of our Constitution to the table, especially regarding States’ rights. Dr. Paul is a very bright and very studious individual, and because his ideas all inter-relate, it can be difficult to understand the origins and goals of his ideas without proper context. As a result, his views can be misconstrued to lie anywhere between justification of hedonism and anarchy; when, in fact, they are anything but.
Dr. Paul’s most important views support the idea of sovereignty of the nation-state, States’ rights combined with a strict interpretation of the limits of the power of Congress, and monetary policy.
Right now, there is only one candidate for President belonging to a major party who specifically articulates the importance and benefit of maintaining America’s status as a sovereign nation, and that is Ron Paul. The only other major party candidate in the past several decades who has espoused views anywhere close to Dr. Paul’s in this regard is Pat Buchanan. Thus, he is the only candidate who explicitly stands against globalism; and EAU has identified globalism as public enemy #1. This is a powerful reason why we support Ron Paul. Because he believes our national sovereignty is a pre-condition for liberty, he opposes NAFTA, GATT and similar globalist trade schemes. This shouldn’t be construed to say he is a protectionist, because he has clearly stated he believes in the free trade myth. Rather, he believes in free trade in the absence of organizations like the World Trade Organization that compromise American sovereignty and freedom. EAU believes in incremental political change, though; and we are happy to at least have a candidate who supports American sovereignty unambiguously, even if he wouldn’t implement the protectionist tariffs we’d prefer.
Likewise, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has seriously addressed the immigration issue; not just in advocating a wall, but in ending the policy of birthright citizenship that allows the children of people here illegally to automatically become citizen anchor babies that secure public assistance for their families. We have to be realistic here. I’ve read what Ron Paul has to say, and he doesn’t have an explicitly pro-European-American bone in his body that I can tell. His reasoning regarding the border, though his positions are similar to those of Pat Buchanan, is radically different. Whereas Buchanan’s thoughts are based on the necessity of a vital European-derived ethnocultural core in order to hold America together; Ron Paul’s immigration views stem, just like his views on NAFTA, from his belief that liberty can only be secured by a sovereign nation-state. Both Pat Buchanan’s views on the necessity of an ethno-cultural core AND Ron Paul’s views of the dependence of liberty on a sovereign nation state are correct. We would prefer that Ron Paul articulate both views, but he only has the latter. Nevertheless, even this latter view, especially combined with his specific policy proposals, would be an enormous step forward for our people.
In the past year, I have devoted many hours in these Western Voices podcasts explaining the importance of monetary policy, and how it is the driving force behind everything from off-shoring to illegal immigration. Our Federal Reserve system, combined with a Congress that wants to give away the store today (but pay for it tomorrow) is a recipe for a national disaster of unprecedented proportions. It is absolutely true that, entrusted to prudent hands, a fiat currency system such as ours can work perfectly well. In fact, in some respects it can work even better than a hard commodity-based currency. But for fiat money to work that well, and for the benefit of the national community, it has to be managed by responsible people. Well — our Congress has proved itself to be about as responsible as a sex addict in a brothel with a credit card, and our country is MAXED-OUT. Foreign countries are buying our debt, in effect buying our Congress, and buying our country right out from under us as the spending-addicts in Congress put their heads in the sand and refuse to even acknowledge to themselves the consequences of their own actions.
There is only ONE candidate in the current crop who sees these monetary issues, understands their importance, and has a plan to deal with them by allowing competitive private hard currencies to flourish in our land and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve. That candidate is Ron Paul, and for this reason alone he deserves the vote of any American who cares about the future. It took James Madison as our fourth President to abolish the private First Bank of the United States foisted upon us unconstitutionally by Alexander Hamilton. It took someone of the caliber of Andrew Jackson, our seventh President, to abolish the unconstitutional Second Bank of the United States. And it will require a real patriot like Ron Paul to divest us of the unconstitutional monstrosity of that private bank known as the Federal Reserve.
Foreign policy, though we haven’t addressed it much specifically as an organization, is a critical issue for the United States and our people. As a veteran with an honorable DD-214, I can sympathize with the fact that our military is subject to civilian control, and as such they are not to be held responsible for where they are sent, or for what reason. Frankly, our military should never be sent on foreign adventures that place the lives of our patriots in jeopardy unless the well-being of the United States is directly at risk. They should never have been sent to the Balkans, they should never have been sent to Somalia as an international Meals-on-Wheels program, and most assuredly shouldn’t have been sent to Iraq for the purposes of changing the form of government over there. Our military personnel are trained to kill people and break things; and they are the finest in the world at that. They sign up to put their lives in jeopardy on behalf of our country, and putting them in jeopardy for any other purpose is about as close to blasphemy can be approach within a secular context. Men and women who willingly pay the price — in blood — for OUR liberty … ought NEVER be called upon for any other purpose. To do so is a betrayal of sacred trust. The Iraq war must be brought to a close, and Ron Paul understands that fact.
Likewise, we have military bases in some 130 countries, have numerous defense partnerships and alliances, and send the money of American taxpayers willy-nilly overseas when our Constitution gives our Congress no authority to do ANY of these things. We still have troops stationed in Germany, even though World War II was over 60 years ago and the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. We still have 30,000 troops in South Korea facing the million-man Army of North Korea. We have kept Japan under our nuclear umbrella since World War II. In all of this, American taxpayers are footing the bill for the defense of foreign countries, while foreign taxpayers are relieved of that burden, putting America at a competitive disadvantage. It is a sick situation that forces the American worker to subsidize the destruction of his or her own job. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would examine these arrangements critically.
Of course, many people have singled out the fact that Ron Paul would stop foreign aid to Israel. Both supporters and detractors of Israel mistakenly think that curtailing our foreign aid to Israel would harm the Jewish state. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the most cogent analysis I have examined indicates that curtailing foreign aid to Israel would instead put Israel on a better footing with regard to its neighbors and long-term prospects for survival. It turns out that unlimited and uncritical support of Israel fosters an unhealthy inter-dependance that puts the people of Israel at inordinate and unnecessary risk. So the gruesome irony is that a true hater of Jews should want to keep Israel as dependent on the United States as possible. But this is not really the issue. After all, we’re Americans and not Israelis; so the impact on Israel is not our direct concern. The real issue was best articulated by George Washington when he said:
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country…”
Dr. Paul hasn’t singled out any country. Rather, he is saying that, across the board, entangling alliances put our own nation at risk. The proper role of our Federal government is to ensure the security of AMERICANS. When our government takes on the role of guaranteeing the security of some other nation, it exposes our citizenry to the ire of all of that nation’s enemies. Certainly, (and this is no secret because Osama bin Laden told us straight out), the 9/11 attacks were precipitated by our one-sided support of Israel combined with our situating military bases in Southwest Asian countries and exporting a corrosive consumerist culture against the will of the people in those areas. This is not to excuse the attacks, because they were beyond unconscionable in targeting the innocent. Nevertheless, when our government establishes strong alliances with certain countries that are in a condition of near-constant warfare; and then allows people from all sides of those conflicts to immigrate into our country with reckless abandon; it creates a circumstance in which only draconian levels of police-state surveillance can keep us safe — and maybe not even that.
The solution to the problem is not, of course, to implement Big Brother to listen in on everyone’s phone calls and copy all of their email. The solution, according to Ron Paul and George Washington, is to instead deal with the cause and break these sorts of entangling alliances. We have a choice. We can indefinitely support some nations — like South Korea, Taiwan and Israel — at the expense of others and thus incubate hatred while importing the very people who hate us. And thereby we will ultimately need a totalitarian police state in order to keep our kids from getting blown up in Pizza parlors. OR we can actually keep our precious liberty by pulling back our troops and support and actually becoming a constitutional republic again as our founding fathers envisioned rather than an empire. This country is riddled with spies, subversives and potential terrorists from dozens of countries all over the world. Many are here, and many wish us ill. They wish us ill because their cultures are being undermined by American commercial interests. They wish us ill because they see us as keeping them from realizing justice. But, mostly, they wish us ill because far too many people who had no fight with the United States have been killed with bombs and bullets bearing a label that says “Proudly made in USA.” Ron Paul is the only candidate for President whose policies are in line with those of George Washington, and would therefore preserve both our liberty AND our safety.
The final area where we support Ron Paul is more complex and entails two issues that are inter-related and can lead to a lot of misunderstanding about his advocacies. The first is one of Federal power. Dr. Paul believes that the powers of the Federal government are limited explicitly to those enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And he isn’t wrong, because that’s exactly what the Constitution says. The second is that he believes that all powers not explicitly granted the Federal government are reserved to the States or the American people. And he is right about that too, as that is exactly what the tenth amendment says.
You might recall that in the last Western Voices podcast, I described the fact that the extra-constitutional power being wielded by the Federal government created a circumstance ripe for corruption. I made a number of references demonstrating how the legalized subversion that has ensued has practically stolen our government from us and subjected us to the whims of a globalist oligarchy. Well, about 70% of the money our Federal government spends … is spent on projects and programs that lie far outside its jurisdiction. Whether these projects and programs are justified through stretching the General Welfare clause of the Constitution so far that its meaning has been perverted; or through a radical misinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause that ultimately gives the Federal Government the power to do anything it wishes … these projects and programs are unconstitutional and have led to the corruption that has destroyed the credibility of representative government. Ron Paul would end this fiasco by putting the Federal Government back into its Constitutional prison. This would, quite naturally, reduce our federal tax burden dramatically, remove the motivation for corruption, keep foreign governments from gaining control through purchasing our bonds and restore the credibility of representative government.
There are certainly areas where this would, at first blush, put traditionally-minded folks at odds with Dr. Paul. Most certainly, for example, he would cease to enforce federal drug laws. After all, a constitutional amendment was required in order to have the authority to ban alcohol — and no amendment exists conferring such authority regarding drugs — so Ron Paul would stop enforcing drug laws.
Naturally, any psychologically healthy person is repelled by the drug culture and its combination of self-destructive hedonism, hopelessness and despair. Human beings pregnant with the potential for courage and nobility can be degenerated into pitiable creatures hardly recognizable as even human in any real sense. Most of us, quite understandably, would wish to impose severe punishments upon anyone who tried to provide drugs to the children in our community. And it is this last word, “community” that is the secret to understanding both Ron Paul’s advocacies and the complete vision of our founding fathers.
The Tenth Amendment states as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
James Madison pointed out the purpose of the Tenth Amendment in Federalist Number 46 when he said: “Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes.” Thomas Jefferson called the Tenth Amendment “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
And Jefferson’s concept of strict construction held sway in this country up until the War for Southern Independence, also known as the Civil War. During the war and its aftermath, the federal government ignored the 10th Amendment as it exercised direct police powers within the Southern states. But shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court re-asserted the applicability of the 10th Amendment in preventing the federal government from over-stepping its bounds under auspices of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment was dealt a crippling blow in 1939 by a Supreme Court stacked by then-President Franklin Roosevelt in order to forward his so-called “New Deal.”
Almost every power we associate with the Federal government today: the power to regulate stock trading, the power to make abortion legal in every state, the power to force employers to hire under racial quotas, the power to force a drycleaning business to pay for environmental damage, the power to ban guns, and the power to send a federal officer into your home … almost everything that the government is doing, is the direct result of the destruction of the 10th Amendment. By the time 1941 had rolled around, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone had reduced the amendment to nothing more than a truism, describing it as merely declaratory of intergovernmental relationships and as having no substantive meaning. Roosevelt’s judicial appointees had effectively destroyed what Thomas Jefferson called “the foundation of the Constitution.”
Naturally, what our founding fathers had envisioned for America and what Franklin Roosevelt envisioned were very different. Our founding fathers — Jefferson, Madison, Washington and their contemporaries — foresaw a federal government that united the several states for purposes of defense, but in which each state maintained its own customs, culture and laws as befitted the people of those states. In other words, there would be no one-size-fits-all set of laws for everyday behavior that stretched from Maine to Georgia; but rather an understanding that what worked well in Maine might not work so well for Georgia. To put it somewhat differently, our nation’s founders envisioned a world in which most of the government that affected the daily lives of citizens would spring from the organic cultures and communities of those citizens. Thus, in some states certain things would be perfectly legal that were illegal in other states as befitted the local culture.
And this is the whole secret to understanding Dr. Paul’s views regarding social issues at the federal level. Dr. Paul, like Thomas Jefferson, is a strict constructionist and a strong believer in the intent of the 10th Amendment. In a nation with Ron Paul at the helm, California may allow medical use of marijuana, whereas Maine may not; Massachusetts may allow abortion, whereas Arkansas may not. In both cases, such a decision may correctly reflect the needs of the underlying culture of those places. The results of a Ron Paul presidency should not be seen in terms of what would be allowed or prohibited in particular states, but rather in terms of the fact that states would once again reflect the needs of the organic communities of those states rather than the top-down push of a mercantile culture that ultimately serves the interests of only a handful of citizens.
Speaking of a Ron Paul presidency, we’ve heard from at least one listener that instead of supporting Ron Paul, we should instead support someone who is “mainstream” or who can “win.” As I write this, Ron Paul has six primary delegates, compared to the ONE delegate of mainstream media-darling Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul took second place in the Nevada primary, and there were entire towns in New Hampshire where Ron Paul took 35% of the vote. He has raised astonishing amounts of money, and he has made — and is continuing to make — a deep impact on this election.
But the ideas implicit in that listener’s advice deserve to be challenged, because they depend upon false premises.
The first premise is that of “mainstream.” WHO defines the mainstream? Most often, such ambiguous terms are defined in the reporting of a media establishment absolutely hostile to truth and certainly hostile to our people. We can no longer allow ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and the New York Times to define what is or isn’t “mainstream.” This is a propaganda technique intended to create self-fulfilling prophecies, and when things don’t go as planned the media masters throw a hissy fit. Back before the New Hampshire primary, every major media outlet predicted an Obama win. Hillary Clinton beat him handily, and media pundit Chris Matthews went off the deep end by accusing everyone in the metropolitan Boston region of being “racists.” This sort of terminology, such as “mainstream” is absolutely meaningless. It’s just a buzzword that appeals to the limbic mind in order to create an automated response. According to the way we look at things here at EAU, we are an absolutely mainstream organization, and Ron Paul is not only a mainstream candidate, but also the best candidate. The controlled news media, on the other hand, is run by a group of totalitarian, extremist, genocidally-minded control freaks who need to be deported.
The second premise is that we should vote for whoever is likely to win.
Ultimately, only one candidate can win the presidency. Once the election is over, everyone else is an also-ran because there are no prizes for second or third place. Quick, without looking, can you tell me who took third place in the Democratic primary in 1992? All most history books show is that Bill Clinton won that primary and went on to win the election. The point I am making here is that, using the logic of supporting the likely winner would ultimately result in most cases in supporting bad candidates.
It is only when the American people stop acting like a bunch of sleep-walkers obeying the commands of the talking heads on TV that we will make the progress we need in this country. I was speaking with a Republican a few days ago who told me he was going to vote for McCain because he was the only candidate who could beat Hillary. I asked him about the way McCain had obstructed conservative federal judges, opposed tax cuts and constructed an amnesty for illegal aliens. It was almost surreal as he repeated the same line again with almost the same inflection he had received from a talking head I had overheard the day before.
The logic that we hear, mainly from Republican talk-show hosts, is that we should pick the lesser or two evils. Ask yourself something. Who employs these talk show hosts? Who controls whether or not they stay on the air? For WHOM are they working? Is it you? Of course not. Let’s get down to brass tacks: this is the same tired and fallacious logic the American people have been fed year after year, and every year things get worse instead of better. Government gets bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more interventionist and more dangerous while our people are becoming increasingly marginalized. It’s time to get a clue, and realize that repeating the exact same behavior again and again, but expecting a different result is nothing short of insanity. Reject the insanity, because maybe it works for some small subset of people, but it doesn’t — and never has — worked for our people.
Sure, many of our people are asleep at the switch, but we can move as many votes as humanly possible — votes of thinking, patriotic people — away from the McCains and Clintons of the world. The last two Presidential elections were won with margins of less than 1%, and Ron Paul is consistently gaining between 4% and 15% of votes — enough to turn an election; though I have high hopes he’ll do even better on Super Tuesday. But even if he doesn’t, people who are voting for him on the basis of issues that are important to us are changing the outcome of EVERY SINGLE PRIMARY. This is enough to force these issues onto the public stage and raise the awareness of even more of our people through a well-funded nationwide campaign.
Think about it. The votes that Ron Paul received in Florida would have been enough to keep Giuliani in the race. The votes that Ron Paul received in New Hampshire made the difference between whether McCain or Romney won. And now, with only four candidates remaining headed into Super Tuesday, the votes he is gaining because he is enunciating issues that are important to thinking people will make the other candidates take notice. These votes are NOT thrown away. Dr. Paul is receiving more votes than anybody who has raised these important issues has ever received, because more of our people are awakening to the fact that something is seriously wrong in our country; and the more votes and assistance he receives, the more people will be awakened. It is impossible to overstate the importance of moving this effort forward.
Let’s be honest. When is the last time ANY American President referred to the United States as a republic? The answer is John F. Kennedy, before many people listening to me were even born. What was the party of the last President to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? What was the party of the President who invoked the New World Order? What was the party of the President who brought us the largest budget and trade deficits in history? It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Republicans are just a political party. They are just one gang seeking to gain access to a spoils system in competition against another gang. The Republican and Democratic parties are just giant corporations that seek power, nothing more. And they do and say whatever they must to attain it.
Republicans have been fooling Americans, especially white Americans, for decades. They talk the conservative talk, but walk the liberal walk. The only true conservative running for the Presidency right now is Ron Paul. He’s the only one who actually opposes the federal government stealing your paycheck every week in order to send it to the bastard factories in Newark.
Right now, then, the focus of our activism is supporting Ron Paul’s campaign. This campaign has millions of dollars behind it, and it is pushing issues of crucial importance to the wellbeing of our people. By putting our efforts behind Dr. Paul, we get to leverage millions of dollars in advertising and organization in an unambiguously positive engagement of the system.
Right now, every member of EAU should be supporting Ron Paul in some way: meet-up groups, precinct leaders, sign holding, signing up as a delegate or contributing money. Ron Paul is raising national awareness about extremely important issues regarding the freedom of our children and it is our job to help him get the word out. Go to Ron Paul’s website today at www.ronpaul2008.com and get active. Get involved. Meet people, talk to them. Recruit them. But most of all, move this candidacy forward. This is an important opportunity for us to bring a subset of our own agenda into the public eye, and wasting it would be unconscionable.
You have your orders, now get busy.
This has been John Young of European Americans United, thank you for joining me again today.