The ‘new new racism’: Ron Paul in America

Morgan Kennedy, Staff Illustrator

It’s no secret that the two party system, more than anything else, is designed to funnel dissent into mainstream discourse so that the U.S. can, at least on paper, preserve the trappings of a representative democracy. This paradigm is why many people were pleasantly surprised by the recent resurgence of Sen. Ron Paul in the presidential primaries. For the first time there is a candidate in the race whose stances radically differ from the norm and who appears to be a serious contender for the nomination.

One of the more interesting aspects of Ron Paul’s platform is his strict adherence to a “color-blind” racial platform, in contrast to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum’s outright racism. If donning a white hood and calling for the pacification of African Americans is called racism, Gingrich and Santorum could be said to practice “new racism,” a subtler form of discrimination that nonetheless leads to the same outcomes.

What can be made of Ron Paul’s stance, then? The first point to consider is his benefactor list. Paul has accepted donations from Don Black, the leader of Stormfront, a prominent neo-Nazi Web forum. In a recent interview, Paul refused pointblank to denounce Stormfront or Don Black. How is it that such a color-blind person could accept support from a group of white supremacists?

Paul has repeatedly emphasized that he will take contributions from anyone, regardless of their ideology. On the one hand, this makes sense. No politician is able to scrupulously examine the positions of every donor. Still, has American political discourse reached a point where it is unacceptable for Newt Gingrich to have pondered an open marriage many years ago, yet it is tolerable to build coalitions with people who, just several years earlier, were dragging blacks from the backs of their vehicles?

At first Ron Paul’s determination to treat every individual equally regardless of his or her skin color seems admirable. For all we know, he actually holds himself to this standard, and a society without racism is obviously a wonderful thing. But, as usual, the problem is history. America wasn’t created yesterday, but several centuries ago. Along the way we committed genocide — not just once, but several times — against the Native Americans, followed by ethnic cleansing to boot. Remember slavery? That happened too, as did internment of the Japanese (which amounted to internment of all Asians).

When did it end? Did it end when we wiped out 90 percent of the indigenous population? Or did it end in 1862 when we abolished slavery? Did it finally end in 2006 after the nooses were cut down from Jena High School?

No. It did not, and it will never end if we ignore it.

This is the “new new racism,” a mode of thought that ignores the simple fact that we still live in a highly racialized society.

American Nazis have learned how to exploit this new new racism. They are clean-shaven, sprouting slick tufts of hair and void of tattoos. The white hoods have been replaced by power suits. Even their rhetoric has been reworked. They are “peaceable” and “nonviolent.” In their own words, they are “not anti-black” or “anti-Jew,” but “pro-white.”

We are not fooled. We know where this language leads. It leads to pogroms and concentration camps. It has already led once to the mass murder of Jews, blacks, Catholics, gays, transgendered people, leftists, Poles, Roma and the mentally ill. Isn’t once enough?

I know that I will unconditionally reject the support of Nazis toward any of my political goals. Why does Ron Paul not know this too? My guess is that en route to developing his ideas of liberty and obtaining a medical license he never got around to opening a history book — something that I would like my president to do.

Do we have time for him to learn? If Paul is elected I will probably be fine and so will many at this school. But if you fall into any of the groups listed above that might make you a Nazi target, watch out. Ron Paul is probably not a racist, but his platform will inevitably release the shackles that tie the real racists down. It only takes one person to unlock the floodgates, let alone the President of the United States of America.

Boianov is a member of
the class of 2012.



You can contact Boian at bboianov@u.rochester.edu.

    26 Responses to “The ‘new new racism’: Ron Paul in America”

    1. viviandarkbloomquilty@gmail.com says:

      Is “New-new-racism” a form of new Newspeak, or old Newspeak?

    2. rx75 says:

      your completely off your rocker here with this “end-times” paranoia re: genocide etc. The obvious ties between the libertarian platform and white supremacists stem from the fact that the vast majority of A.A. children raised in our society are benefitting from a disproportionate allotment of welfare monies. Cut the welfare and the AA population is going to be cut in HALF within a few generations. Believe me; people would have no problem adopting the libertarian platform if our welfare class was composed of poor russian immigrants. I’m pretty sure everyone knows the truth of the situation but won’t bring it up due to the inherent ugliness.

      • livefromthe856 says:

        it is not “disproportionate” is based on proportions and if we are talking about total numbers whites exceed blacks and russian immigrants do not make up the welfare class so stop bringing in would-be’s and focus on the matter at hand lastly using AA for African-Americans is subtle racism you are racist but you dont know it AA could easily mean Alcohol Anonymous, which first came to my mind because i happen to live in places where there are a lot of AAs and AAs so anyone on this site for future knowledge when chiefseth@gmail.com says AA he might be trying to say Alcohol Anonymous people and not African-Americans

    3. wwwwwmn says:

      test

    4. josephle2k@yahoo.com says:

      The argument is sometimes made that because of past injury, racial or otherwise, even hundreds of years ago, privileges and special favors are fair compensation needed to make up for past injustices.

      The problem is, those who must pay are not themselves guilty parties, and making up for some earlier injustice merely discriminates against another group. This only exacerbates hostilities between groups and ends up working against the desired goal.

      Falsely and loudly accusing someone of racism or anti-Semitism if the person is not in agreement with reparations is the worst form of bigotry. Such hypocrisy has destroyed a lot of people’s reputations and lives and does great harm to any effort to bring people together voluntarily.

      If reparations are available, it’s hardly a surprise that the line of eager recipients grows quickly. Even those who don’t qualify under the rules get in line. Many times those demanding reparations were never personally injured.

      The result is that undeserving recipients demand financial benefits for something they did not suffer from people who had nothing to do with the injustice. It doesn’t sound very fair to me.

      Behavior quickly changes when government benefits are offered. The mere offer of financial giveaways to victims of hurricanes, for example, invites every manner of public corruption; it creates a moral hazard as well.

      Government financial programs also benefit financial and business interests the same way. It’s not only the welfare poor who line up for benefits, whether after a natural disaster or during a financial crisis.

      Government force, illegally and illogically used to stop all discrimination, results in a multiplicity of unintended consequences, altered behavior, and fraud…

    5. lyrexhg@lycos.com says:

      shae is saying that if a child molester donates money to Ron Paul, Ron Paul becomes evil. Obviously this is not true. The writer needs to be skinned alive and burned. There is no excuse for what it does. skin it, burn it. The nigger is from princeton NJ. Kill the entire group. all the professors and financiers. this is a pure evil nigger.

    6. lyrexhg@lycos.com says:

      the thing is, these creatures are purely evil. that is the issue. They condemn the innocent for things the innocent do not do? the penalty is severe. There is no limit. there is no excuse. They are pure evil things. there is nothing honest or good in them, the defend evil and condemn innoncence. That is the purity of their persons and there is no need for mercy with such people. Pure liars, pure hypocrites. There is not a desire in these creature to be reasonable or honest. none. never have i seen it and never will they ever show such things. There is no cause or reason to ever have forgiveness of these purely evil people. WQho are the racists? they are right here, the liars. They are totally in favour of lying for evil’s sake, and this is above any crime they wish to outline on any racist real or imagined. They themselves are racist and worse than this, they are purely selfish liars.

    7. snow.paul@gmail.com says:

      A rehash of the same Ron Paul attacks made by the Main Stream Media. Missing? Any policy of Ron Paul’s that will encourage racism. No discussion of policies of Ron Paul that attack the application of current law today to oppress the poor and oppress minorities today.

      People that should support Ron Paul? Those that know someone in prison for a non-violent drug related crime. Those that know someone on death row (nearly all poor minorities). Those that are fighting and dying in undeclared wars to serve the odd ideological goals and/or corporate interests of the very rich. Those that want to vote for someone who opposed SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and TPP before it became obvious you have to oppose them to get elected. You don’t want them replaced with the next set of letters when we are not looking? Again, support Ron Paul.

      Seriously, this is a CAMPUS newsletter. Think for yourself. These issues are deeper and more complex than just taking the raw sewage from the MSM and dumping it into your opinion piece.

      • Matt says:

        The author’s opinion is myopic drivel. As an alumnus it is very disappointing to see a student at U of R write this nonsensical opinion. Maybe the author will write a more acute opinion in the future when not “rushed”. Let us hope.

        RON PAUL 2012

    8. 1234 says:

      Just a thought… if you don’t agree with someone, isn’t it a good thing to accept their donation (when living in a world where taking the money is not forcibly tied to doing what they may desire you to do with it)? That way, you will prevent them from spending it on things you don’t agree with?



    Comment...

    Login / Register

    Social

    Facebook Twitter RSS Email