Ron Paul: Stand Tall For Middle America

“Terrible,” “tricky” and “a phony”: Who was the incorrigible racist who thus described Martin Luther King Jr.? Was it the unknown author of the politically improper newsletters published under Rep. Ron Paul’s name during the 1980s and 1990s?

Not quite. Those were the words of the nation’s most engaging first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy.

Audio recordings of Mrs. Kennedy’s historic 1964 conversations on life with John F. Kennedy were released in September of 2011. Conducted with the late historian Arthur Schlesinger—and delivered in her hallmark dulcet lilt and exquisite diction—the exchanges reveal Jackie as a dazzling conversationalist, and a forceful, thoughtful persona. This Jacky O held a low opinion of MLK, the man America has since deified, and was unafraid to say as much.

There were many reasons not racist for which to dislike MLK, not least of them was the man’s dalliance with communists. “His associations with communists” is why Jacky’s husband, hero of Chris Matthews’ latest book, ordered the wiretaps on King. Mrs. Kennedy’s brother-in-law, Robert Kennedy—recounts Patrick J. Buchanan in his towering “Suicide of a Superpower”—”saw to it that the FBI carried out the order.” Among his other endearing qualities, the not-so enchanting Martin Luther King had “declared that the Goldwater campaign bore ‘dangerous signs of Hitlerism.”

Indisputably, MLK set the tone for “assailing America as irredeemably racist” forever after. Other brothers have built on MLK’s work to sculpt careers as professional race hustlers.

Faithful to this legacy, the media monolith has been fulminating over the reference in the Ron Paul newsletters to African American men as the instigators of the L.A. riots. The “Ron-Paul-Report” quote that has caused consternation is this: “The criminals who terrorized our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.” Wikipedia all but seconds this characterization, writing that the “disturbances were concentrated in South Central Los Angeles, which was primarily composed of African American and Hispanic residents.”

The reality, as detailed in this writer’s book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is that young, white, and poor Americans are more likely than any other age group to be well represented among the reported victims of hate crimes. (They are also disproportionately victimized by the racial-spoils system of affirmative action across American universities, in corporations and government.)

On the other hand, as revealed by investigations conducted by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCV) and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), blacks “are less likely than both whites and Hispanics to be targeted for reasons of racial hatred.”

In fact, “A significantly higher percentage of victims of violent racial hatred say their attackers were black. Nine out of 10 of them identify their race as the reason blacks targeted them.” More materially, “The number of black hate crime victims was so small—as in statistically insignificant—that it precluded analysis of the race of persons who victimized them.”

Courtesy of “Suicide of a Superpower” come the FBI’s crime figures for 2007: “Blacks committed 433,934 violent crimes against whites, eight times as many as the 55,685 that whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black-on-white, with 14,000 assaults on white women by African American males in 2007. Not one case of white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.” (Page 243.)

Yet, to listen to the media kibitz about the long-gone Ron Paul newsletters, you’d think that being maligned is more hateful than being maimed or murdered. Rather than have that honest conversation about race commanded by Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder, mainstream media prefers to make a mockery out of real racial hatred. Thus, although black-on-white crime is more common than the reverse, “Whitey” is invariably—and by default—viewed as the chief repository of racial malice.

Look, whoever wrote the controversial Ron Paul monthly newsletters during the 1980s and 1990s used language that is impolite, impolitic, cruel and crass. For this, Ron Paul might wish to express his misgivings—even apologize, although he has disavowed the letter and spirit of these bygone screeds.

However, the presidential contender has a chance here to show he can lead; to get off his knees, quit groveling, and strike a pose against the racial ramrodding Anglo-Americans have been subjected to ever since. Dr. Paul walked headlong into the political quicksand. He can, however, still do an about face.

By rising against—and rejecting—the racial tyranny that prohibits rational discourse about race, Ron Paul stands to earn the undying loyalty of most Americans, bar the traitors at the top.

Paul should stand tall for Middle Americans, who’ve been cursed collectively with the racist Mark of Cain.