A Closer Look at What Happened to Pat Buchanan: Part II

Hadding Scott

Rachel Maddow: Trying not to cry during interview with Pat Buchanan

Criticism of Zionist Projects Not a Problem at MSNBC

Having found defenders on the left, Buchanan started working for MSNBC in July 2002, the ADL’s disapproval notwithstanding. Criticism of Israel-First foreign policy never seemed to be a problem for him there. James Kirchick, a harsh critic, complains in the Columbia Journalism Review:

The very same “left” which Buchanan decries today as unwilling to hear his voice was more than happy to lap up his commentary in one crucial realm: foreign policy. [James Kirchick, “Pat Buchanan and His Enablers,” Columbia Journalism Review, 23 February 2011]

On Buchanan and Press, MSNBC’s imitation of CNN’s Crossfire, both the rightwing Buchanan and the leftwing Bill Press agreed that the United States should not attack Iraq. Opposition to Zionist or pro-Zionist aggression seems to have been more or less the established view at MSNBC when Buchanan started there.

In addition to Pat Buchanan and Press, MSNBC’s Phil Donahue and Chris Matthews were dishing out skepticism of the justifications for war on a regular basis. Since the current president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, was the producer of Hardball with Chris Matthews during its strongest anti-war period, and since Griffin was also a longtime personal friend of Keith Olbermann’s from the 1980s when they both worked at CNN, it would appear that Griffin does not have any objection to airing anti-war commentary.


Shortly before the invasion of Iraq in early 2003 — for some unknown reason — MSNBC suddenly made a drastic change in its prime-time schedule that brought the channel’s programming more into line with the course of action that the government was about to pursue. Chris Matthews, moved to an inferior time-slot where his tone was much more subdued. Phil Donahue, gone. In time, however, Griffin’s friend Keith Olbermann (a Unitarian of German ethnicity) became as strong a critic of Middle-East warmongering as Phil Donahue, whose former time-slot he occupied, had ever been.

Increasing Political Correctness at MSNBC?

One theory about Buchanan’s departure from MSNBC is that it was the result of a leftward shift in the range of political expression deemed acceptable at the station. Brian Stelter, writing in the New York Times on 16 February 2012, notes that when Buchanan was hired at MSNBC in 2002 the channel called itself “fiercely independent” and had no clear political tilt, but that the channel has increasingly tilted to the left in recent years, causing Buchanan to appear out of place.

This shift to the left was initiated by Phil Griffin, who became president of MSNBC in 2005. Griffin initiated a publicity campaign called “Lean Forward” that seems to be designed to solidify MSNBC’s image as a leftist channel. The campaign features spots directed by Spike Lee. One features Al Sharpton vaguely attacking the Republican Party. The general theme of “Lean Forward” seems to be optimism about the future of the United States on a multiracial basis.

Griffin seems to be trying to copy Fox News’ accomplishment in developing a cultlike viewership: “I’m impressed with how they’ve created a following…So I tip my hat to Fox.” That might mean excluding anything that would displease the defined audience:We’re niche. We exist on a media landscape where you can get so much. We’ve carved out an area that’s smart, that’s really thoughtful, that really wants depth, not breadth….” (Mediaite, 25 July 2011) So, MSNBC now, more than in the past, caters to a “niche” that regards itself as smarter than the rest and is not interested in “breadth.” MSNBC thus shed its former eclecticism and became more like a leftist version of Fox News.

Practical manifestations of “Lean Forward” presumably affected programming decisions, like hiring a very overt butch lesbian as a political analyst in 2008, and making loose-cannon Black agitator Al Sharpton the host of his own show in 2011.

While doctrinaire leftist “lean forward” zealotry had taken charge at MSNBC, Buchanan stayed the same, which may have made the tenability of his position there questionable. At least that’s one theory.

Why this shift would have taken so long to affect Buchanan’s position is hard to say. Buchanan was hardly politically correct on racial or sexual issues before Suicide of a Superpower. In his acceptance-speech for the presidential nomination of the Reform Party in 1996, Buchanan advocated that Affirmative Action be abolished. In 2008 Buchanan defended Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that Barack Obama’s being Black had contributed to his political prominence. In 2009 he criticized the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court as Affirmative Action and discrimination against White males, so forcefully that he brought Rachel Maddow to the verge of tears.

Friction with other personalities at MSNBC

Phil Griffin’s star and favorite at MSNBC happens to be butch lesbian Rachel Maddow.

On 16 July  2009, Rachel Maddow had Buchanan on her show to discuss a column that he had written about what the Republican position on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor should be.

Buchanan called Sotomayor an underqualified beneficiary of Affirmative Action, which he described as discrimination against White males. Fundamentally Buchanan was arguing for meritocracy, but he advocated that the Republican Party should cultivate the support of White people by representing their interests in the matter.  In response to Maddow’s imputation that the overwhelming prevalence of White men on the Supreme Courth must be the result of racial discrimination, he stated that this was because White people had created the United States. Maddow seemed on the verge of crying when she said, “I think that by advocating that the Republican Party try to stir up racial animus among White voters you’re dating yourself.” She told him that he was “living in the 1950s.” Buchanan said that the Republican Party “ought to defend the legitimate rights of White working-class folks.”

Maddow admits to having some Jewish ancestry and is classified by Jew or Not Jew as “barely a Jew.” She does not seem to be very critical of the ways in which news about Israel is generally reported. In regard to Operation Cast Lead her statements were entirely kosher and uncritical (making her a target of some criticism in the leftist blogosphere). This contrasts sharply with Buchanan’s description of Gaza as a giant concentration camp, which got him intense expressions of hostility from, e.g., Michael Savage ( Weiner). Where Rachel Maddow repeated the Israeli government’s claim that nine Israeli citizens had been killed by rockets from Gaza, Buchanan said that the little rockets hadn’t killed anybody. Where Maddow was Israel-friendly, Buchanan condemned.

Since Griffin’s star, Maddow, is a very overt lesbian, it is conceivable that Buchanan’s opposition to normalizing homosexuality had special importance in his demise at MSNBC, although as in other matters, this is nothing new with him.

In Summer 2011 Al Sharpton was brought onto MSNBC as the host of PoliticsNation, after the acrimonious departure of Cenk Uygur. These days Sharpton is a judas-goat to the Black population of the United States, used to convince them that further non-White immigration is something that they should support, even though it is clearly going to be ruinous for them. In August 2011 Buchanan accidentally knocked a chip off Al Sharpton’s shoulder by referring to Barack Obama as “your boy.” To a political left that prides itself on verbal sensitivity, this seemed unbelievably gauche.

While MSNBC’s straight, non-Jewish, and White personalities lamented Buchanan’s dismissal — Chris Matthews said, “I miss him already,” while  Joe Scarborough, and Mika Brzezinski publicly stated that they “strongly disagree” with their employer’s decision — Rachel Maddow seems to have kept mum. Likewise Al Sharpton.

Friction with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton, members of cherished minorities, may have been a factor in Buchanan’s dismissal. Even while criticism of Israel-Firstism has a home on the doctrinaire left, not going along with the Black agenda and condemnation of perversion do not.

If we accept as convincing Liz Trotta’s tirade on Fox News about Buchanan’s dismissal, that it was because MSNBC had become “close to being a Communist network,” then we have to look for which people at MSNBC agitated for Buchanan’s downfall, since certainly not everybody there agreed with it.

But increasing leftism at MSNBC may not be the reason why Buchanan was dismissed. If Phil Griffin was trying to make MSNBC into a leftist version of Fox News, it remains the case that Fox News also has its “man they love to hate” in Alan Colmes. A certain amount of conflict is necessary to keep things interesting. Since Buchanan is more direct and honest than most conservatives, he makes a better devil than most, from a leftist perspective. A counter-argument to this could be that Buchanan had to go because he was too successful in defeating leftist views, but this is mitigated by the fact that leftists and conservatives alike generally tend to regard the arguments of the other side as invalid, so that each side always feels that it won. For example, the same argument between Maddow and Buchanan can be found on YouTube with titles like, “Rachel Maddow smacks down Racist Pat Buchanan,” whereas on RonPaulForums it was, “Pat Buchanan eviscerates Rachel Maddow on Affirmative Action.”

The fact that Buchanan was in ideological conflict with others at MSNBC is not a new fact, nor is the conflict obviously starker than a few years ago, nor, given that Phil Griffin was to some extent using Fox News as his model, does eliminating MSNBC’s devil’s advocate (or God’s advocate, in this case) seem to make sense as a programming decision.

“People in Washington”

Buchanan’s dismissal may not have had anything to do with leftism.

A significant public agitation for Buchanan’s dismissal from MSNBC commenced in May 2009 when the new counsel to the World Jewish Congress, Menachem Z. Rosensaft, complained that there were expressions of Holocaust-skepticism (featuring me) on the forum at Buchanan.org. The issue of the forum was obviously not the real grievance against Buchanan, since the forum had only one thread on that topic, with comments going both ways, with no statements from Buchanan himself and strict neutrality by the administrator, Linda Muller. Rosensaft was conjuring a real tempest in a teapot. Obviously the long list of other Jewish, and especially Zionist, grievances against Buchanan, including at that time his renewed defense of John Demjanjuk, were much more of a factor than a single thread on a forum. Rosensaft’s agitation caused a big enough scare that the forum at Buchanan.org was completely removed for some months, and was eventually brought back only with strict control of content. It is probably fair to say that Media Matters and Color of Change, given so much prominence in discussions of Buchanan’s downfall, are pipsqueaks compared to the World Jewish Congress. Yet even this did not get Buchanan fired – at least not for well over two years.

While Zionists were certainly no friends to Pat Buchanan, they may have found a way to affect him other than through public agitations and letter-wrting campaigns.

Cenk Uygur, the “Young Turk” who hosted PoliticsNation for a time and departed in July 2011 on bad terms with MSNBC, says that  “people in Washington” have a say in MSNBC’s programming decisions, and that this input from Washington completely overrides considerations such as popularity of a show or a personality. News-organizations are effectively in bed with the government, somewhat by necessity, because in order to report the news they need access that the government can deny them.

According to Uygur, one day in the spring of 2011 he was called into Phil Griffin’s office where the president of MSNBC said to him: “I was just in Washington, and people in Washington tell me that they’re concerned about your tone….  Look, you’ve got to tone it down.”

Uygur’s revelation explains much. It explains why in 2003 MSNBC suddenly, just before the invasion of Iraq, changed its primetime schedule, eliminating the anti-war Phil Donahue and moving the anti-war Chris Matthews to a slot where his ratings were significantly reduced, while bringing on warmongers Michael Savage and Joe Scarborough. In retrospect it is obvious: there was going to be a war and somebody in the government sent word that MSNBC would have to get with the program or it would have difficulty getting access and information.

Of course ultimately we know whose agenda has been dominating the Executive Branch of the United States, who has been behind these Middle-East wars, and who therefore the “people in Washington” are. With Barack Obama, no less than with George W. Bush, the most influential “people in Washington” seem to be Zionist Jews. The reason for Pat Buchanan’s dismissal from MSNBC thus may have had little to do with his complaints about demographic changes in the United States and everything to do with the fact that Buchanan was inconvenient for the “people in Washington” — for the Israel-Firsters and the foreign policy that they intend to pursue.

With that, we can regard the cancellation of  Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch by Fox News at about the same time (after Napolitano alluded to the hidden unity of the two major political parties and endorsed Ron Paul for president) as having the same explanation, just as the Israel-Firsters and their agenda were the real explanation for the dismissal of Glenn Beck.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

86 Comments to "A Closer Look at What Happened to Pat Buchanan: Part II"

  1. March 25, 2012 - 3:28 am | Permalink

    @Sam: It’s all really the same issue. All of that crookedness was perpetrated specifically to prevent the nomination of Ron Paul.

  2. Sam's Gravatar Sam
    March 19, 2012 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

    I believe the reason Andrew Napolitano lost his show was not his support for Raul Paul. I believe it was because he questioned the validity of free elections in the U.S.. I believe they are rigged. So no amount of organizing will do a bit of good. They’ll just change the votes to whatever they like.

  3. Anty ep's Gravatar Anty ep
    March 14, 2012 - 8:56 am | Permalink

    A radio license is very expensive. The barriers to entry involved in that scale of capital formation are big enough to support if not require public corporate ownership as Hadding suggested. While the usual libertarian reply is that the answer then is less regulation of capital formation thus lowering barriers to entry, deregulation in practice tends to favor established market players though often not the dominant player. And those players will compete bit within a narrow range of proven formulae
    and not experiment. Counterintuitively then, more competition in a more accessible and deregulated market can lead to more content nlandishment in the area of media not less.

    Also we know that NPR is overstaffed by Jews but I listen a lot and there is more antizionist viewpoint expressed there than on corporate radio by a longshot.

    Capitalism does not favor the white race. It favors Jews. Let’s get the fog out of our brains on this point. Libertarianism is a fantasy, every government today runs a mixed economy, some group will benefit, and experience teaches in the Anglo American type less regulated usury finance driven economy Jews tend to flourish.

  4. March 11, 2012 - 9:34 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Concern-trolling is such a useful concept. Lots of it around.

  5. March 11, 2012 - 9:31 pm | Permalink


    I believe I answered that objection in my discussion of the vetting process. You or your proxies won’t be getting a license, nor will I or mine.

    I won’t be getting a broadcast license because I don’t have the financial resources, but John Stokes had one, and the FCC didn’t take it away.

  6. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 11, 2012 - 6:51 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: “speculative opinion” is all anyone, bar the perpetrators, can have. It doesn’t make it illegitimate. Besides, belief in the government’s conspiracy theory polls quite low.

  7. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 11, 2012 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: I believe I answered that objection in my discussion of the vetting process. You or your proxies won’t be getting a license, nor will I or mine.

    And Rush Limbaugh, well he just doesn’t anger enough of the right people, evidently.

  8. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 11, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Hadding Scott talks about 9/11 “basic facts” ( his speculative opinion) :

    I am not a great enthusiast for this, beyond the basic fact that al-Qaeda doesn’t exist and therefore had nothing to do with it, and that some Israelis apparently had foreknowledge.

    Why get into these kind of discussions? Even here it is counter productive. Should we not be trying to mainstream our best arguments and dropping the counter productive ones.

  9. March 11, 2012 - 11:41 am | Permalink

    I think the usual way for pressure-groups in the United States to try to get a program off the air, if complaining directly to the station-management does no good, is to go to the advertisers. That’s what Color of Change did to Glenn Beck’s Fox News show, with limited success since it only forced him to find new advertisers. Of course any organized and motivated group can play that game, and probably have some success at it, to the extent that they can make the advertiser’s association with the show embarrassing.

    Somebody forwarded to me a petition to try to get the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the air but I don’t expect that to go anywhere.

  10. March 11, 2012 - 8:34 am | Permalink


    These days arguably racism is what blasphemy might have been then.

    It’s up to you to show an example of a station getting into trouble with the FCC for racial or anti-Jewish commentary. I don’t think it’s happened. American Dissident Voices was on various radio stations from 1991 until sometime after 2003 and nobody lost a license over it.

  11. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 10, 2012 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: Isn’t there quite enough self- censorship going on already, without commenters worrying about their impact on the host’s site? Isn’t it a tad presumptuous to imagine one’s comments affecting the career of an unrelated party?

  12. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 10, 2012 - 10:54 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: I’d set it’s not the m.o. of the FCC that has changed, but what is considered objectionable. These days arguably racism is what blasphemy might have been then.

    Bottom line, I’m happy to be proved wrong in my jaundiced view of the actual institutional settings, and would welcome any new entrant to the broadcast media with a racial realism charter, overt or covert as the case may be.

  13. March 10, 2012 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: It wasn’t any “drive-by comment.” It was an in-depth discussion.

  14. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 10, 2012 - 5:19 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: So you’re saying it did not , could not, would not matter what you said on his site. After doing the damage with a driveby comment on Buchanan.Org., you think it was inevitable that Buchanan was going to be fired because he was not supporting Israel. Buchanan had more than enough stacked up against him. A Nationalist who was not on an ego trip would have taken a much ‘closer look’ at what was needful, when commenting on the site of a precious mainstream white advocate.

  15. March 10, 2012 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Trackback seems to miss a lot of stuff. I didn’t even know that Iraq-War.ru was still active.


    The Phora

    Reporter’s Notebook

  16. Neville's Gravatar Neville
    March 10, 2012 - 10:00 am | Permalink

    Pat Bucanan is a “Catholic” & so therefore a wacko.

    In the MSM saying anything that is not 100% supportive of Israel , Jews & America’s total support of same is a career death sentence for any would be patriot.

    Questioning or pointing out lies is “hateful” & Antisemitic & not acceptable in MSM .

    Juden Uber Alles is the way to go just like all those gullible Americans Christian & others.

    Pat had like others to learn the “Orwellian” speak language that requires a code & the hint interpretation ability of an intellectual.

    BTW — Pat wrote a wonderful book I recommend — Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”
    How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

    Alas Pat sailed too close to the wind & had to be “put out to pasture ” our own MSM only allows sanitized “pap” to keep dumbed down Americans under control.


  17. March 10, 2012 - 9:29 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Long ago the FCC took a little more interest in whether the content of broadcasts was in the public interest, and apparently they deemed that Baker’s alleged cancer-cures were not in the public interest. (Such people ended up broadcasting from stations on the other side of the Mexican border.) Standards are much looser today; in recent years it is even allowed to use foul language at certain times of day that at one time would have brought trouble from the FCC. The fact that you have to go back so many decades for an example proves that it isn’t really an issue now.

  18. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 10, 2012 - 7:37 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: A very strange sort of “patriot”, our Obama. One who has felt the need to preside over such a spy network that GWB looks almost libertarian by comparison.

  19. March 10, 2012 - 12:04 am | Permalink


    Luckily, internet has avoided extensive regulation in the Western sphere, though SOPA and PIPA show the fight’s on, and it’s a caged, no-rules bout.

    Hopefully some pro-White person is saving all T.O.O. articles somewhere outside of the internet. Even paper copies would probably be a good idea. Just in case.

    There is such an amazing, indispensable treasure of information on this site. Even the comments are full of great information and ideas and… a spirit. The human interactions. White people coming together because they care about White people.

  20. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 11:55 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: FCC, because of its gatekeeper role, is extremely susceptible to politicization. And that was the case right back to its inception. You can see how Mr. Baker fared way back when, and so the list goes on.

    Luckily, internet has avoided extensive regulation in the Western sphere, though SOPA and PIPA show the fight’s on, and it’s a caged, no-rules bout.

  21. March 9, 2012 - 2:38 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: The National Alliance’s weekly program ran for many years on WRNO Worldwide, which was owned by Joe Costello, and also lasted many years on KRVN and WWVA, 50kW clear-channel stations that covered huge areas at night.

    The government is not a factor in whether stations will air unpopular views. It all really depends on the attitude of the owner(s) and in turn how tenuous the ownership’s financial situation is. Where the ownership is a diverse group of investors and the station was bought on a loan, the chance of getting controversial material aired on that station is extremely slim.

    I heard April Gaede recently refer to a radio-station owner in Kalispell that criticized Jews on a regular basis lost his station. When I looked into it, I found that what happened was that the owner of station KGEZ, John Stokes, got sued for libel and lost, and had to sell the station because of that. The FCC had nothing to do with it. Let’s not assume that the system is stacked against us more than it is.

  22. March 9, 2012 - 9:30 am | Permalink


    Historically, the scenario didn’t play out as you seem to suggest.

    There seems to be disagreement about that.

  23. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 6:46 am | Permalink

    Countless thousands of pages of legislation (grist to mill for the Talmudic lawyers) haven’t stopped Washington being comprehensively taken over, and whomever owns that town owns the media regulator, and can subvert any number of rules (the “living” Constitution, anyone?).

  24. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 6:35 am | Permalink

    Order is good, but centrally-planned order is just one order than dominates all others. The omniscient leader who directs for their own good. Now that’s religion!

  25. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 6:32 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Historically, the scenario didn’t play out as you seem to suggest. And “most people” is neither here nor there as an appeal to authority, indeed this amorphous entity still believes in the Holocaust.

  26. March 9, 2012 - 6:15 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Without regulation the broadcast bands would be totally cluttered with lots of mutual interference the way CB radio used to be. I know it’s your religion to say that deregulation is always better but most human beings prefer some order. If operation of broadcast stations must be limited then it’s better that ownership of large numbers by a few entities not be allowed.

  27. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 5:32 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    ” That’s deregulation of station-ownership at work.”

    No, that’s what happens when the State claims as its own all spectrum, an incontrovertible fact, and sells bandwidth-usage to private interests. I’m for the disbanding of the FCC entirely (radio was without any oversight in its glory years, till ’27) and opening up the ether to all and sundry. NS media-moguls, too.

    The profit-maximizing aspect is not the problem, as Zionist-friendly public broadcasters around the world show (and cost taxpayers a fortune, to boot). It’s the oligopolistic nature of the constrained market. The actual technical costs of broadcasting have never been lower, it’s the license the barrier-to-entry.

    On propaganda in the public sector, might I suggest PBS, BBC, CBC and the ABC, the latter with a new Jewish president of the board, just for starters.

  28. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 9, 2012 - 5:18 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Alice – The way I would set into contexdt the anger about 9/11 of the American people, would be in terms of how much easier it would have been to shape a foreign agenda (Just link it to the anger).

    I supported the war back then. Sounds like you did too. Chances are neither of us were as wide awake as we are now. Chances are we haven’t got around to examining all the narratives we were bought into at the time.

    This time around the situation becomes an interesting study of the extent, and the constraints, on Israeli power in American politics. In a way Obama is preventing a good reading of this quantity, because it’s hard to say what extent he himself is the reason the war hasn’t happened.
    What we can see though is the modus operendi of applying unrelenting pressure in increasinging dimensions (e.g. we can expect to be resensitized to the potential of nuclear weapons to make humans extinct, and about how the Iraq war didn’t actually go so badly after all.
    It’s one of their insights that in relation to human institutions, structures and cultural preferences, nothing can withstand consistent pressure. Everything can be knocked down.
    So in the absense of a determined opposition they’ll get their war eventually. If Obama wins the election, and he turns out hard to break, they might have to wait 4 years for it. The other possible way they can be thwarted would be if Iran itself judges that Israel will eventually get its way, meaning they will eventually bebombed back into the stoneage, and decides the only way to prevent this is by going nuclear.
    Which would of course be ironic.
    I don’t personally like the idea of a nuclear Iran, but the argument that just have a couple of nukes would cause iran to suddely turn totally suicidal and irrational and actually use them, is a joke. It’s not even superficially plausible.

  29. March 9, 2012 - 4:09 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: >blockquote>Of course, because self-censorship to avoid such a contingency kicks in. I think you’re assuming a lot.

    In the first place, withdrawal of advertising, such as was brought about against Glen Beck’s Fox News show, is a much bigger concern than the remote possibility of having a license withdrawn.

    The main reason why radio stations generally run a lot of bland content these days is that they are owned by giant stock corporations like Clear Channel that used debt to buy them. There is no personality of an owner-operator involved. Whereas an owner-operator would be more likely to use the station for expressing his own concerns, when a stock-corporation owns a station it’s all about maximizing profits and thus keeping the stockholders from suing management. That’s your capitalist system at work. That’s deregulation of station-ownership at work.

    There would probably be a lot more variety and independence of expression in broadcasting if the number of broadcast stations that any entity could own were strongly limited.

  30. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 12:35 am | Permalink

    Hadding Scott:
    “Even if MSNBC were a broadcast station I think it’s very unusual for a station to lose its license.”

    Of course, because self-censorship to avoid such a contingency kicks in. In any sort of hypothetical skirmish between the licensor and licensee that were played out in the public arena, the stock price is going south in a hurry, possibly setting up a proxy battle for control. Maybe stockholders might prefer a more “tractable” senior management or owner, or their bankers might ask for more collateral, in view of the sagging share price.

    Plus there’s always the selection bias of the licence-awarding in the first place. I’d say anyone called Trenchant or Hadding Scott or anyone within six degrees of separation from same could forget about it. Only safe hands need apply, thanks very much.

  31. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2012 - 12:07 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Fair enough.

  32. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 8, 2012 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

    @Rich Pearson:

    Again, you are going out of your way to attack me when I haven’t addressed you or commented on anything you have written in ages. I believe you are simply interested in the drama of online battles. Please find someone else to play with. My posts are quite straight forward, quite honest and quite consistent. If you are trying to build an online life, please find others. Otherwise, you will comply with the wishes of the editors to avoid personal attacks.

  33. March 8, 2012 - 11:14 pm | Permalink


    Still, a war with Iran, as per Hadding Scott, is something MSM absolutely yearns for, and I think he’s right in identifying this as the proximate reason for the axing of Buchanan.

    I stopped just short of saying that. There is a lot of other dirty business going on, plus a Republican presidential candidate whose suppression is vital for the continuation of Israel-First foreign policy.

    Buchanan’s last appearance on MSNBC was 22 October 2011, two days after Qaddaffi was murdered.

  34. March 8, 2012 - 10:58 pm | Permalink


    Administrations come and go, and so can be criticised, but government stays, and any broadcaster that seriously took upon itself to push back government power could find problems with its license.

    I am not sure that this is much of an issue for a cable channel like MSNBC. (Even if MSNBC were a broadcast station I think it’s very unusual for a station to lose its license. I think they would have to do something egregious like not maintain the proper broadcast hours or cause interference to other stations, although I’ve known a local AM station to splatter all over the band year after year and get no discipline from the FCC.)

    There are other motives involved, like the need for a news organization to get cooperation from the government in the form of access and information.

    It may also be relevant that Phil Griffin apparently had to answer to Brian Roberts and Jeff Zucker, who are Jews. I don’t know how much independence Griffin has from them.

  35. March 8, 2012 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

    @Rich Pearson:

    The only thing you are leaving out is the 9/11 revisionism aspects of this.

    I am not a great enthusiast for this, beyond the basic fact that al-Qaeda doesn’t exist and therefore had nothing to do with it, and that some Israelis apparently had foreknowledge. I do not accept the controlled demolition claim.

  36. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 8, 2012 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    @Rich Pearson:
    Yes, I agree that 9/11 counts as one of the issues where it was crucial that MSM be on the same page. The stakes were much, much higher than any war in some distant theatre, given the heinous nature of the crime.

    Still, a war with Iran, as per Hadding Scott, is something MSM absolutely yearns for, and I think he’s right in identifying this as the proximate reason for the axing of Buchanan.

  37. March 8, 2012 - 10:02 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    “@Kullervo: Liberal societies like the USA are generally less free in practice than in theory, if for no other reason than because money accumulates in the hands of a few and gives them more power than others. Those with less power end up being de facto less free.”

    This statement is exactly why I say that the left/right or liberal/conservative labels are meaningless. The message here is that the USA is a Liberal Society. This implies that there is a strong “left” influence, which would mean less disparity in income distribution, and strong national social programs such as universal health care. Conservatives, on the other hand, are supposed to be tied to big business interests and small government. They are accused of being Nazis or Fascists. A cursory view of NS Germany of Fascist Italy would show that there was a strong government presence in all aspects of life, including strong laws protecting workers.
    Do either the Republocrats or Demicans fit those paradigms?

    As for complaints about civil rights, the real issue is not whether “visible minorities” have equal rights, but whether they have special rights. If I’m all for equal rights for all citizens doesn’t that mean that my white kids will have the same amount of state support for post secondary education as Negroes and Mexicans have?

  38. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 8, 2012 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Given that the government originally arrogated to itself ownership and control of the airwaves via the FCC, and sells a limited number of broadcast licenses (hence costly), media and government form a sometimes fractious, but essentially stable marriage. I think the Hadding Scott piece is a good examination of how that can work.

    Administrations come and go, and so can be criticised, but government stays, and any broadcaster that seriously took upon itself to push back government power could find problems with its license. And then you’d have to imagine that the bankers to the licensee would also have a say in its programming, as well as the stockholders. They might be not happy to risk everything in a fight with the FCC or some other agency, even if the licensee is.

  39. March 8, 2012 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott

    I should perhaps write a third part but I feel that I’ve said enough about this.

    Please, write a third article. I’m very familiar with this history, but you are mentioning details that I did not know or had forgotten. I was especially impressed by your mention of Cenk Uygur and the great Jesse Ventura. The only thing you are leaving out is the 9/11 revisionism aspects of this. Ventura certainly has been one of the most famous 9/11 revisionists, and in many ways, the purging of anti-Iraq war media voices was necessary to distract Americans with another war lest people had time to think about what actually happened on 9/11. The run up to the Iraq invasion happened at the same time as the “Jersey Girls” were pushing for a 9/11 investigation and helped to supress any dissent with war fervor. Napolitano’s show twice suggested 9/11 was a “false flag” in the months leading up to him getting fired; surely that was a part of it.


    You can be a real jerk in your presentation

    Here I was thinking I was toning it down lol. It’s a generational thing – I came of age at the dawn of the internet revolution in communications, and unlike many older Americans, have spent far more time online than in front of the television. Most internet forums I participate in have no expectation that everyone is supposed to be on “the same side” and the idea that many posters here seem to have – that TOO should be a cooperative back-scratching “everybody get along and be positive” forum – is virtually a foreign concept. The fact that some posters will be openly hostile, and that many more will be “trolls” is a given in my experience.

    Now I’m not going to say anyone should be burning flags, but contra-Hadding, I’m fine with deception. Trenchant said recently that when he discovered “Holocaust” revisionism, he expected that “any day” people would “wise up” and things would change. He was disappointed when he realized that most people are either dumb, or simply unconcerned about truth. Post 9/11, for me, that has been a very bitter pill to swallow, but a decade later I’ve accepted it. Truth and honor are good within the ingroup, but when fighting pests, insects, and outsiders, honor and truth are a liability, not an asset. Unfortunately, there are high-quality Whites, and low-quality Whites, and telling the low-quality Whites what they want to hear, truth be damned, seems like a necessary evil to me. Deceiveing the outgroup is just good strategy.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t bother attacking “Someday” because he’s usually pretty upfront about being pro-Israel, just like I appreciate Rehmat, because he never poses as “one of us” but is a proud, open Muslim. It’s the deceptive types that Jason Speaks that I constantly harp on, because he’s the infiltrator, and judging from his reception, doing a great job of fooling many.

    @admin hope this posts, still having trouble.

  40. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 8, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @Vlad Writes:
    You are quite right to point out the meaninglessness of so many words today. I do not want to conserve this culture or government. I am, however, a conservative. I want to conserve the best of our people, our heritage, our tradition. As an American that means that this experiment in democracy need not end. Only require radical attention and repair. As Americans, we can rightly be credited with an open-mindedness, a willingness to try something new , a system that offered new opportunities to millions. We are also a pragmatic people. We must admit that we have gone to far and return to a republic composed of citizens who are capable of the self-restraint and moral sense which is a prerequisite for a decent life without oppressive control.

    No white American has the answer. We should try to see where and how we can work together on the issues that affect all of our lives. Ron Paul is doing wonders to reawaken the very concepts of liberty that we most need to hear. It is, in my opinion, is is self-indulgent to reject well-meaning whites who are out there fighting at least one small aspect of the problem.

    We are a long way from any clear agreement on how best to tackle the mess we are in. We can only begin where we are. It is a systemic problem. Every battle helps.

  41. March 8, 2012 - 5:08 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: I already answered this definitively. At this point you are just harassing me.

  42. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 8, 2012 - 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Scott, are you seriously saying that it never occurred to you that what you were saying on Buchanan’s site could weaken his position at MSNBC? Buchanan may well have been dropped to protect Israel, not for warning about demographics mean for white countries. But that does not mean the association with revisionism – per your contribution – did not hand the Israel First crowd a weapon to use against him.

  43. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    March 8, 2012 - 2:23 pm | Permalink

    @Rich Pearson: You can be a real jerk in your presentation but I do agree that conservatism lost, and that their is nothing left to conserve. We should be the ones burning the flag these days, and dodging military service – wouldn’t want to take a shower with those guys now!

  44. March 8, 2012 - 10:47 am | Permalink

    Jesse Ventura: MSNBC tried to shut me up.

    Ventura says that his show on MSNBC lasted only a short time because he was anti-war, which apparently had not been understood when he was hired (several months after the invasion of Iraq had commenced). Ventura’s show was originally supposed to be nightly, but was made weekly instead.

    He points out that Phil Donahue’s show was the highest-rated on MSNBC when it was canceled three weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

  45. March 8, 2012 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    @Rehmat: It seems absurd (even though Buchanan suggests it himself) to say that the ADL was a major factor in Buchanan’s dismissal given that they have already been after him since 1990, and that he was hired by MSNBC when that vendetta was already ten years old. I think it’s slightly more credible to say that MSNBC’s need to maintain internal harmony with butch lesbian employees might have something to do with it, and way more credible to say that Buchanan was dismissed because this is a critical and difficult period for Israel-First foreign policy, Ron Paul’s presidential campaign being one aspect of that critical and difficult period.

  46. March 8, 2012 - 9:20 am | Permalink

    Pro-Israel Jewish groups are celebrating MSNBC’s firing of its political analyst, Pat J. Buchanan, on February 16, 2012 after four months of suspension. Pat was associated with the MSNBC for almost ten years. His downfall began with the publication of his book, ‘Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2015?‘ last year.

    The powerful Israel lobby group, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) censored Pat Buchanan for the last two decades. In October 2011 – Abraham Foxman, national director ADL wrote a letter to Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, urging the network to stop giving Buchanan “legitimacy and credibility” by providing a platform for him as analyst – as “he continues to openly express anti-Semitic, racist and anti-immigration views“.

    Even under suspension, Buchanan could not shut his mouth. In November 2011 article he called GOP a war party, praised Rep. Ron Paul and claimed that Tehran is not pursuing nuclear bomb – and that an US or Israeli attack on Iran will be disastrous for both the US and its allies in the region.

    Pat Buchanan (born 1938) was GOP presidential contender in 1992, 1996 – and contested 2000 election on Reform Party ticket. As a White House official during Ronald Reagan presidency, Buchanan was blasted by Jewish groups for advising the President to visit German military cementery at Bitburg (1985). “The only one defending the trip was Pat Buchanan, saying, we cannot give the perception of President being subjected to Jewish pressure,” said Elie Wiesel.

    Pat Buchanan is not friend of Muslims. He is a Catholic White nationalist Islamophobe. In 2010, Jewish groups praised Pat Buchanan for blasting Jewish billionaire Mayor of New York city, Michael Bloomberg, for his support for the construction of the Muslim Community Center a few blocks away from the so-called ‘Ground Zero’. Pat wrote on his personal website: “The issue here is the appaling insensitivity, if not calculated insult, of erecting a mosque, two blocks from a World Trade Center, where 3,000 Americans (in reality 2,864 including 35 Muslims and no Jew) were massacred by Islamic fanatics whose Muslim religion was integral to their identity and mission“.

    Interestingly, in a 2010 interview, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who claims Jewish family roots, said that Israel was behind the 9/11 terrorism.

    The ADL in its latest report issued on February 28 – has called Pat Buchanan, “Uunrepentant Bigot, Racist and Anti-Semite“.

    “Now that he has lost his position as a paid commentator at MSNBC, Pat Buchanan is trying to portray himself as an innocent victim of a campaign to discredit him,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. ”But if one looks at his long record of racism and anti-Semitism, it becomes clear that Buchanan is really the victim of his own, cumulative bigotry. Thanks in large part to the Internet and his many books and columns, Buchanan’s bigoted views are no longer hidden from view,” wrote Abraham Foxman, national director ADL.

    ADL has selected some of the following Buchanan’s statements in the past to prove its point.

    “Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you” – in column ‘A Phony Crisis – and a Real One’, July 15, 2008.

    “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at….” The McLaughlin Group, February 2, 2007.

    “Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.” – ‘Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq’, 2005.

    “Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.” – ‘Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq’, 2005.

    “Israel is in an existential crisis. It can wall itself off and annex what it wants on the West Bank, and leave Palestinians in tiny truncated, nonviable bantustans that will become the spawning pools of terror. Or it can give the Palestinians what Oslo, Camp David, Taba and the ‘roadmap’ promised; a homeland, a nation and a state of their own. Israel is free to choose. But American needs a Middle East policy made in the USA, not in Tel Aviv, or at AIPAC or AEI.” – ‘Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency’, 2004.

    Well, Buchanan, my friend, even though you banned me on your website for defending the construction of Muslim Community Center near WTC – I must say you do sound like a Jew hater under the Hate Law!!

  47. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    March 8, 2012 - 3:56 am | Permalink

    Part I was rather useful in a way how it broke down what had really taken place.
    A fair number of Pat’s supporters may not be familiar with the back story.
    Side note: his frictions with Judaic character assassins were nearly three decades in duration. From quips about ‘hairy-chested nazi hunters’ to advocacy for the benefit of elderly ‘war criminals’ about to be deported to face a communist firing squad.
    Buchanan could be compared to the proverbial pebble in the shoe of these control freaks who ever true to the habits of their bolshevik ancestors never met a speech they weren’t itching to run through a kosher filter and/or censor.

  48. March 8, 2012 - 3:15 am | Permalink

    Actually I shouldn’t say don’t comment, but the fact is that nobody is going to be interested in every article published anywhere. I thought this was a rather important topic and that the popular understanding of what had happened was probably wrong.

  49. March 8, 2012 - 3:11 am | Permalink

    @Jarvis Dingle-Daden: Somebody earlier suggested, unlike you, in earnest, that I should perhaps write a third part but I feel that I’ve said enough about this. If it’s not interesting to you then don’t read it and don’t comment on it.

  50. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    March 8, 2012 - 2:41 am | Permalink

    @ Hadding Scott

    Could there be troisième partie in the pipeline ? LOL
    I simply didn’t realize ol’ Patsy and that tragic joke of a network where he used to provide paid commentary warranted so much keyboard tapping.
    What does MSNBC whale like Chrissy Mathews get on a good day in terms of viewership, couple hundred thousand ?
    There were more cars (mostly German) parked outside my house on the day of next door neighbor Mrs.Trotsky’s granddaughter’s bat mitzvah.

  51. March 8, 2012 - 1:01 am | Permalink

    From what I remember watching Pat Buchanan on MSNBC years ago, and also confirmed here in this article, is that he is… real.

    He is a real, intelligent White man. Again, I haven’t read his books, and I don’t know his thoughts or position on every subject. But my general impression of Pat is that he is a real, honest person in a business (news media) that includes a lot of phonies.

    Even when he complained in his trademark tone, it wasn’t annoying — it was like he was letting the sunlight into a dark room. It was refreshing and real.

    I had some liberal views at that time in my life, but Pat’s presence was undeniably interesting, and I never doubted his sincerity or intelligence.

    (On a related note, I stopped watching before Rachel Maddow got her own show. I don’t like her for obvious reasons — she supports nonsense and her appearance, voice, and lesbianism are offensive to me. We’re all sinners, but she doesn’t acknowledge her sinful behavior, and she promotes and tries to normalize it to millions of Americans.)

    Thanks to Mr. Scott for the article.

  52. Rich Pearson's Gravatar Rich Pearson
    March 8, 2012 - 12:31 am | Permalink

    Whoever said it months ago was right – why is it that the blog of an evolutionary psychologist attracts so many religious fanatics? We have posters who feel the need to discuss the spiritual dangers of masturbation and whether or not Europeans are the “True Jews.” How about a little science? The West “lost its way” in the 1800s, because we embraced modernism and presumably, the germ theory of disease?

    @Hadding Scott says

    Control of mass-media more or less amounts to control of public opinion

    The technological advancement of mass electronic communication beat the religious nuts like a redheaded stepchild. Anyone working on building a TV network? That would be more useful than ten thousand posts about ancient Hebrew mythology.

    We can see the problem right here on the blog – evidently, the religious nuts are simply unaware of what “Hasbara” means, and how it operates on the internet. Any time one of the non-religious posters points out the obvious, textbook Hasbara posters, we get attacked for being mean. This is the internet people, not the Rotary Club. If you can’t stand the heat…

    Plus, why is anyone wasting their time being “conservative” anymore? What is left to “conserve?” You LOST. Deal with it. Jews (atheist, non religious Jews, btw) openly mock you with TV shows like “Good Christian Bitches” and you don’t even have the ability to start a boycott. The hyper-leftists of reddit and colorofchange have successfully boycotted the advertisers of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to at least contribute to a backlash against them.

    Meanwhile, posters on TOO are blabbering about “Khazars” “Jesus” and jerking off. We can’t even call the foreign state of Israel an “enemy” without the Hasbarats – and their goyim suckers – raising holy hell that we are being “unfair” by calling them out as Jews.

    The current video on TOO is Jon Stuart Liebowitz, a Jew employee of Jew Viacom, mocking the Christian conservative Republicans for kissing Israel’s ass more than the Israelis themselves.

    No wonder we’re losing.

    @admin just wondering if this will post.

  53. March 7, 2012 - 11:21 pm | Permalink

    @Kullervo: Liberal societies like the USA are generally less free in practice than in theory, if for no other reason than because money accumulates in the hands of a few and gives them more power than others. Those with less power end up being de facto less free.

    Control of mass-media more or less amounts to control of public opinion, which more or less means control of the electoral process. So, mass-media control the government, in the long term, but it appears that sometimes government may exert some pressure on mass-media for the sake of perpetuating the possession of the government by the faction that currently holds it. Whether it’s media putting exerting influence over government or vice-versa, what is really behind it is the perceived interest of some particular group of people, Zionist Jews above all others in the case of the 20th and 21st century USA.

  54. Kullervo's Gravatar Kullervo
    March 7, 2012 - 10:57 pm | Permalink

    I thought the author brought up an interesting broader point about political science–the concept of media control via denial of access by the government. Does this mean that the concept of a free and critical media is a myth? Does a capitalistic and corporate society automatically entail a mass media which is a handmaiden to government interests, so that most any capitalistic state collapses into a pseudo facism such as we have?

  55. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 7, 2012 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Once you know that “Someday” is a Jew you understand his “concerns”.

  56. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 7, 2012 - 8:03 pm | Permalink

    @ Someday:
    Holocaust Revisionism is still germane to contemporary politics. Once people figure out the deliberate distortions, then they become interested in the means by which such distortions have been maintained. Then they end up here, or in similar fora.

  57. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    March 7, 2012 - 6:02 pm | Permalink


    Well they could make Good Catholic Bitches starring Roman Catholic lesbian Rachel Maddow. LOL. The Jews wouldn’t have to make it up either.

    I’m really waiting to see if Buchanan fights back?

    His new book has flown off the shelves, and I haven’t seen anyone discounting it either, which isn’t what usually happens to Buchanan’s books. They always have been discounted in the past—20% to 40%. “Suicide of a Superpower” was recently published in paperback too.

    I’m waiting to see if Buchanan fights back & does something serious. Or is this just another move in his history of King Tut moves. Maybe, Pat thinks he can take it with him?

  58. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 7, 2012 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    Interesting notions, but sometimes I think that we forget that the entire corruption deal depends on some concurrence on our part. I agree with much that has been written and said about the ill effects that Jews have had on our entire people. But they are not all-powerful.

    It was the honest blood lust and desire for revenge that George Bush shared with the American people. We were mad, and someone was going to get hurt. All the blather on TV, in Congress, was just more meaningless garble that is Washington’s main contribution to life. This is what the neocons took advantage of. We know it now, we have no real problem with Iran or the Iranian people and we will not go to war, or there will be hell to pay. The true evil of modern life in America is the extent to which we have learned to live in the duality. We are most in need of a return to reality.

    We wanted revenge, and we had it, within weeks of the invasion, with very few casualties. It was the delusional notion of nation building the got slipped into the deal that cost so much tragedy.

  59. March 7, 2012 - 5:12 pm | Permalink


    Why give them a pretext by discussing that subject there . Did it not occur to you it would be used to damage Buchanan? Buchanan being on MSNBC to talk about the demographic ellipse of whites was important.

    Why should it occur to me if it didn’t occur to Linda Muller who was administering and moderating? Rosensaft’s complaint was completely unexpected. Ultimately I don’t think the WJC’s complaining was what got Buchanan fired at all: more than two years passed with no effect. The Ron Paul campaign and current Middle-East policy seem to be the real reasons.

    Telling the truth, as you see it, about WW2 can be done on many sites.

    I entered into a discussion that was already occurring, and that was expressly allowed. I would not boorishly try to introduce a subject where people in general seemed to be uncomfortable with it.

    I could (but I won’t) tell you the name of another celebrity that has a more or less identical discussion-thread on his own forum, but hasn’t come under any criticism for it, because he isn’t already a target the way Buchanan was.

    You seem to advocate a really paranoid kind of self-censorship. There’s a time to be prudent but to adapt that as a general posture seems to me crippling.

  60. March 7, 2012 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: I will also point out that leftists, the kinds of people that generally populate MSNBC, seem to have somewhat more of an open mind about historical revisionism than so-called conservatives.


    From my article Christopher Hitchens, Crypto-Revisionist:

    I have it on good authority, from somebody who was at a dinner with Hitchens, that in the mid-1990s he was indeed expressing disbelief in the gas-chamber story as Edward J. Epstein later alleged.

    Epstein at the time brought it to the attention of Hitchens’ boss at The Nation, obviously trying to have Hitchens censored or barred from publication. For some reason the editor, Victor Saul Navasky, was unconcerned, probably because Hitchens had solid credentials as an anti-racist, Jew-friendly leftist. Hitchens’ Holohoax skepticism only became public in 1999 because of a dispute with another Jewish journalist, at which point Epstein pitched in to harm Hitchens. The ADL responded by attacking Hitchens’ reputation, but stopped short of an all-out effort to ruin him, again, probably because Hitchens shares a large part of the ADL’s agenda, in the area of anti-racism.

  61. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 7, 2012 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

    A significant public agitation for Buchanan’s dismissal from MSNBC commenced in May 2009 when the new counsel to the World Jewish Congress, Menachem Z. Rosensaft, complained that there were expressions of Holocaust-skepticism (featuring me) on the forum at Buchanan.org. […] Rosensaft’s agitation caused a big enough scare that the forum at Buchanan.org was completely removed for some months, and was eventually brought back only with strict control of content. It is probably fair to say that Media Matters and Color of Change, given so much prominence in discussions of Buchanan’s downfall, are pipsqueaks compared to the World Jewish Congress. Yet even this did not get Buchanan fired – at least not for well over two years.

    By your own account it was seized on by powerful forces intent on removing Buchanan. Why give them a pretext by discussing that subject there . Did it not occur to you it would be used to damage Buchanan? Buchanan being on MSNBC to talk about the demographic ellipse of whites was important. Telling the truth, as you see it, about WW2 can be done on many sites

  62. March 7, 2012 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: I explained that the complaint about that thread on Buchanan.org, which I did not start, was a tempest in a teapot, and obviously a pretext rather than real issue. That should be clear to anybody that knows the facts and thinks it through.

    I generally am proud of telling the truth, and I don’t think your opinion is going to change my attitude there.

  63. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 7, 2012 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

    The reason for Pat Buchanan’s dismissal from MSNBC thus may have had little to do with his complaints about demographic changes in the United States and everything to do with the fact that Buchanan was inconvenient for the “people in Washington” — for the Israel-Firsters and the foreign policy that they intend to pursue.

    The post seems to say Buchanan’s complaining about the demographic ellipse of whites was thought acceptable for broadcasting in the mainstream, and had nothing to do with him being fired. Hadding Scott thinks it was talking about Israel that got Buchanan fired, but we are also told about the author’s own contribution.

    Scott should not be proud of his Holocaust skepticism debate at Buchanan.org., by Scott’s own account it drew heavy fire on Buchanan. The last mainstream media voice with a nationalist view on vital demographic issues – gone. The goal is to win whites over to the cause of nationalism. I don’t see the point of associating valuable white advocates with WW2 revisionism debates.

  64. March 7, 2012 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Very enlightening. This is commented on and linked at
    the Ex-Army Blog.

  65. Anty Ep's Gravatar Anty Ep
    March 7, 2012 - 12:55 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    There were officials in the ranks who opposed war on Iraq from high to low. on the eve of war Brent Scowcroft gave them voice with a high profile editorial in the Wall St Journal. Indeed a lot of cfr–trilateralist types thought the war on Iraq was zionist lunacy. Such as Jew Kissinger who reprised his old loyal-court-jew role by giving it some mild opposition. And yet it transpired and when the bombs started falling everybody clammed up. There also came a thorough firing of old CIA hands who opposed the neocons under DCI Porter Goss.

    There were circles of opposition to Zionism in the armed forces and likely there still are. The Navy has been known for producing the occasional officer who appreciates the jewish problem and if you are a naval officer who has not heard of the “USS LIBERTY” then you are an ignorant dumbass. Nevertheless if any officer in the navy gets out of line too far he gets spanked viz John Sharpe.

    Academically you have had outbursts of the theme “American interests are not Zionist interests” not only from academics who have been successfully persecuted like our friend Kevin MacDonald, but also from higher profile names like Mearsheimer and Walt.

    You have had a left-right tango of anti-zionist editorial issuing from such like as Cockburn’s website or antiwar.com, from the occasional crossover conversation like American Conservative’s interview of Ralph Nader. But this is all somewhat sporadic, somewhat un-sustained, and not in any way organized such like as would or could oppose AIPAC. There needs to be an ANTI-AIPAC superpac. One that will harvest money from we Myrmidons of the anti-jew struggle but also prepare the way for some big money that wants to push back Jewish interest.

    What money out there that wants to push back Jewish interest? Use your imagination. The answeres are obvious. For example has anybody noticed the growth of Russia Tv on the internet or cable? They’re already occupying a mildly critical editorial slant in this direction. And if there was an American PAC type organizational product that was well organized, well staffed, and effective in fighting zionist influence on American foreign policy, then believe me it would fetch some big donations. Yes they might be from competing national interests from outside the US but is that necessarily a bad thing? So long as its legal how can it harm us or the cause.

    An idea whose time has come. if we dont build it someone else will. Look the Jews have already tried to stake out that ground with their “J Street” thing. The time is ripe for a gentile organized, gentile lead, effective, efficient, organization for fighting Zionist influence on American foreign policy. Perhaps it would have to use liberal-democratic memes; perhaps it would have to be officially nonracist, but there is a niche to be had here for a gentile operated anti-zionist organization that gains national prominence. So far I do not see that it has been built which is why I am mentionging this.

    Seems to me that david Duke uses an excellent editorial tone to lead an organization like that but he might be a better featured speaker than organizational leader.

    Just throwing a new idea out there folks

  66. March 7, 2012 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

    @Mr Curious:

    I bet they are all redneck, white nationalist heterosexuals from Alabama too.

    In Hollywood? If this isn’t trolling, it ought to be.

  67. HarryO's Gravatar HarryO
    March 7, 2012 - 11:02 am | Permalink

    @Mr Curious:

    Heh, heh. You are either heavily medicated…or DEFINITELY need to be.

  68. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    March 7, 2012 - 9:29 am | Permalink

    @Mr Curious: Obviously, jews are counted as white when it is convenient to pad the statistics, as in “too many white men this or that”.

  69. Mr Curious's Gravatar Mr Curious
    March 7, 2012 - 8:56 am | Permalink

    Was watching some news reports about the oscars (I wouldn’t watch the nauseating schmaltzfest itself) recently. Both of the reporters (on different channels) drew attention to 93% of the committee being white and 77% being male.

    As they originate outside of Europe, I expect that the 93% does not include Jews. This proves to all those crackpot anti-semitic conspiracy theorists on this site that Hollywood isn’t run by Jews, nor are the oscars politically motivated nonsense awarding the most over-rated sentimental clown since Shakespeare (Spielberg) awards for making whatever disgustingly twee, dinosaur-fancying, alien-fancying, horse-fancying garbage the Hollywood studios provides him with billions of pounds for. Really great films like Fight Club always win lots of oscars, don’t they?

    Example of PC interference: At every level of education in Britain Shakespeare is compulsory. Not infinitely better playwrights like Shaw, Wilde or Jonson. No a man who wrote ‘A midsummer Night’s Dream’ – a piece of excrement so disgustingly twee even Spielberg could have written it.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong that Jews are part of that 7% non-white category as the reporters didn’t clarify. That 77% male is disgusting too. I bet they are all redneck, white nationalist heterosexuals from Alabama too.

    That’s really funny calling your male voice choir ‘Only Men Aloud’. I have to admit that joke might have been funny about 7 YEARS EARLIER with Girls Aloud. Though I suppose it’s an improvement on most of the rest of your culture, which is only 7 CENTURIES behind. Everywhere else in the world gave up taking male voice choir music seriously about 70 YEARS ago. Though if most of the women near me looked loke yours, I’d be inclined to practice homosexuality too.

  70. March 7, 2012 - 6:58 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Clearing the decks as part of the build up to a war on Iran. Parallels with the shifts just before the war on Iraq. Makes sense.

    That’s a possibility that suggests itself, but I stopped short of actually saying that myself, because there are lots of other related things going on, like the Republican presidential primaries where one candidate is absolutely in accord with Buchanan on foreign policy and, if elected, would leave the State of Israel to stand or fall on its own. And there is plenty of other egregious meddling. When the U.S. government is doing things like assassinating its own citizens overseas and overthrowing foreign governments, these popular critics of foreign policy like Buchanan, Beck, and Napolitano become extraordinarily inconvenient.

    Glenn Beck and Andrew Napolitano on the Awlaki assassination.

  71. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 7, 2012 - 5:57 am | Permalink

    “Not that he is a friend of White America, but that he recoils from the reality that his country as he sees it, has been taken over by a foreign power. ”

    Obama’s a natural, a political animal who made a Faustian pact with Jewish Chicago machine at the very outset of his career. That’s when he had his epiphany, surely?

  72. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 7, 2012 - 4:37 am | Permalink

    Clearing the decks as part of the build up to a war on Iran. Parallels with the shifts just before the war on Iraq. Makes sense. Good article.
    What is different this time around seems to be much more resistence within the ranks of the CIA and Pentagan. An article by someone about this might be very interesting. Without evidence, the basic reasoning is that the subversion of the US political system by Israel with the help of the Jewish Lobby, is something that is being done in broad daylight. Even though the media don’t get to know about it, many of the people at the CIA and Pentagon must see it very clearly. They may not be able to speak out about it…maybe not even within their own departments. But two things. They are patriots and they have a sense of duty to the nation.
    I wonder whether they are at the stage of forming quiet networks of woken up people in the services, or if it is still unspoken glints in the eye.
    The other wild card is Obama. I believe in Obama . Not that he is a friend of White America, but that he recoils from the reality that his country as he sees it, has been taken over by a foreign power. I think he’s a patriot. I also think he’s hard as nails and basically resents Netanyahu for making a fool of him earlier, and just for that reason alone he’s going to try his best to deny to him what he wants.

  73. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 7, 2012 - 4:11 am | Permalink

    @blue rose: blue rose, I must agree with you on the current state of politcal talk media. When one finishes listening to people like Hannity, O’Reilly, Matthews , Maddow and the rest, you have the sense of knowing that someones been talking in your ears, but haven’t the slightest idea about what. It’s such shallow B.S. that misrepresents almost every topic.

  74. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 7, 2012 - 4:03 am | Permalink

    The vile leftist Racheal Maddow never did answer the question about the lack of objectivity towards the Firemen. As for her constantly saying Buchanan is dating himself, she was working with dates also, when she kept talking about the Supreme Courts past nominations of exclusively white males. So what, the nation was 99 percent white then. This is the present, and affirmative action was discriminating against white men who had to pass the same test everyone else did. It’s wrong, and the left knows it, but will defend it to the end.

  75. Wiggy's Gravatar Wiggy
    March 7, 2012 - 3:13 am | Permalink

    Madcow is Jewish, as are most of Liberal talk radio, and more than half of ‘neo-con’ talk radio. Wiener is also Jewish, and is the most conservative, then pushes the Israel angle. Howard Stern (total perv).
    Lets remember Alen Ginsberg (homosexual and perv), who wanted to say *uck on the radio in 1958, standing up for ‘free-speech’ and all. But this is old news.

  76. fender's Gravatar fender
    March 7, 2012 - 2:28 am | Permalink

    Rachel Maddow is the definitive modern White womyn: smug, resentful, and histrionic…concerned about “justice,” “civil rights,” “progress,” and all the other shallow nonsense her otherwise empty head was filled with during her time in this country’s degree factories.

    High school vs. today:

    A wonderful visual argument against modernity. Girl enters college a cute, natural-looking blonde, exits college an inauthentic, Judaic-looking teenage boy.

  77. HarryO's Gravatar HarryO
    March 7, 2012 - 1:24 am | Permalink

    Never watch MSNBC (PB notwithstanding). First time I’ve ever viewed Rachel Maddow. How laughably desperate she appeared, finally lapsing into puking leftist newspeak – most amusing. As for Pat, he was beyond excellent. I cannot recall seeing heretofore a more lucid, forceful, erudite and stalwart argumentation. The adjectives could go on. I have NEVER witnessed on television such a candid, affirmed and reaffirmed defense of Whites by any personage of any kind as was done here. He not only succeeded in rendering Maddow a pathetic creature on her own show but more deeply, for my thinking, exposed any similar milquetoast attempt by others (putatively conservative) for the pusillanimous trash that it has always been. Though it is true that Pat has not EXACTLY enunciated a thorough WN position (leaving it to the readers of TOO to define such for themselves), if ever he had done so, clearly he would never have been as prominent on the national scene for so long a time. Further, I couldn’t but feel an affection for him as I watched Pat so passionately and intelligently press his case with no hint of abatement. This speaks to my own longing for stout hearts who will neither ever apologize nor retreat for mere expediency’s sake. With that my paean is at an end, with a final tip of the hat to Patrick J. Buchanan

  78. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 7, 2012 - 1:13 am | Permalink

    Yeah, BBC, mouthpiece of the government, and its puppeteers. The message is micro-managed when it’s crucial. This documentary deals with one such event, when the stakes were indeed very high. goo.gl/rS6z4

    Makes me think of another, well-choreographed news event of great import.☺

  79. March 7, 2012 - 12:20 am | Permalink


    The producer of the tv show Good Christian Bitches is a homosexual Jew named Darren Star. (He also produced the popular tv series Sex and the City.)

    Apparently the name of the show is not softened in some other countries — it will still air as Good Christian Bitches and not GCB.

  80. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    March 6, 2012 - 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Buchanan’s book, “The Suicide of a Superpower” is a pretty depressing book, albeit about what you would expect with the decline of this country going full speed ahead. How can a white nationalist “love” America at this point?

  81. March 6, 2012 - 10:29 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: VDH’s interpretation is smug, superficial, and self-congratulatory. Really odious.

    If the reason why MSNBC fired Buchanan had been the election of Obama, it seems that they should have done it a few years ago. The agitation by the World Jewish Congress in early 2009 gave a perfect excuse to fire Buchanan, if they had already been disposed to do that.

  82. Mahound's Gravatar Mahound
    March 6, 2012 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    There is a simpler explanation as to why he was fired. The left and the organized jewry can accept conservative views, even racial realist type of views on their shows, but they have no answer against the Mantra! That is to say that there is no defense for deliberately making an ethnic group in their own homeland since that, by UN’s definition, would constitute to genocide.

    When Pat started talking about the fact that whites will end up a minority with current policies and that this has consequences, well that was when he no longer could be part of the national debate.

    The Mantra works, their is no defense against it.

  83. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 6, 2012 - 9:51 pm | Permalink

    The very same “left” which Buchanan decries today as unwilling to hear his voice was more than happy to lap up his commentary in one crucial realm: foreign policy. [James Kirchick, “Pat Buchanan and His Enablers,” Columbia Journalism Review, 23 February 2011]

    Victor Davis Hanson [Buchanan Was No Longer Useful? – By Victor Davis Hanson February 21, 2012] thinks this support from the left was the big reason Buchanan was hired by and stayed on at MSNBC, and this politic helps explain his departure, re my comment on Part I of this series.

  84. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    March 6, 2012 - 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Will you be writing about ‘GOOD CHRISTIAN BITCHES’?
    It debuted this week……….

    2 Jews [of course] are ‘behind’ it
    Oh..they softened the name to GCB

  85. Wiggy's Gravatar Wiggy
    March 6, 2012 - 9:10 pm | Permalink

    If the wheels really come off in a few years, it won’t matter. Everything Ron Paul said will have come true, everything Buchanan said will have come true. What happens to open radio is the only issue left, and the internet. It seems to be ending rather quickly though.

    And BBC is totally biased, although maybe more interesting, but totally left-wing etc….

  86. blue rose's Gravatar blue rose
    March 6, 2012 - 6:22 pm | Permalink

    After having sampled the personalities on the mainstream news (Hannity, O’Reilly, Scarborough, Phil Donohue, Chris Matthews, Rachael Meadows, Combs however it’s spelled), I never saw such phoniness and propaganda in my life. And they gave that Muslim Turk Cenk Uygur another new show recently. That was the last straw – giving a Muslim a talk show. There simply is nothing intelligent in the American obsolete news. Everything is pathological, ideological ‘in the box’ lies and propaganda, left or right. The BBC was the only place I could get a bit of objective news.

    Buchanan was the only one I had any use for, but it always bothered me his was a lonely, uphill battle, so I never really watched MSNBC at all. I still don’t. I can’t stand it. But Buchanan was refreshing while it lasted.

Comments are closed.