Featured Articles

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

/87 Comments/in , /by

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. Read more

A Closer Look at What Happened to Pat Buchanan, Part 1

/166 Comments/in , , , /by

Pat Buchanan has not appeared on MSNBC since October, when he began promoting his book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? He expressed concern about “the end of white America” and the shrinking of the “European and Christian core of our country.” In January 2012 MSNBC’s president Phil Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.”

Following his dismissal from MSNBC, Buchanan named what he regards as the provocateurs of his downfall (see “The New Blacklist”). Buchanan blames “an incessant clamor from the left,” itemizing the Black-advocacy group Color of Change, Media Matters, and an unnamed LGBT group. After them, at the end of the list, Buchanan adds, “On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on.” Likewise  Congressman Tom Tancredo: “MSNBC’s decision to dismiss Pat Buchanan shows the depths to which the mainstream media has caved to far-left pressure groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Council of La Raza, Color of Change and Media Matters. There can be no doubt that these smear operations were responsible for Buchanan’s dismissal.”

I disagree with this, the prevalent view. I argue that what many people think were the causes of Pat Buchanan’s dismissal probably were not. What really hurt Buchanan was probably not the horde of angry enemies circling the walls of MSNBC and blowing trumpets, not the ADL, not Media Matters, not even Color of Change or the LGBT group. While the public is disposed to equate making noise with exerting influence, the decision of an executive in an office need not have been influenced by any of that in the slightest. I suggest that the decision to fire Buchanan from MSNBC may have been based on a consideration that is relatively or even completely obscure to the general public. Read more

Alan Dershowitz: Policing Jewish Opponents of a War with Iran

/123 Comments/in , , /by

Israel Firster and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz addresses soldiers wounded fighting in Iraq.

Jews have always policed their own—a basic element of any successful group and a central idea behind the cultural group selection model of Judaism. A good example is the drama playing out now on the attempt to police Jews who are critical of Israel’s desire for a war with Iran. Media Matters, the leftist news organization whose main goal has been to attack Fox News, has hired MJ Rosenberg, the former AIPAC operative who is now a prominent critic of Israel, to beef up its foreign policy coverage. Rosenberg commits the sin of using the phrase “Israel Firster” to refer to people like Alan Dershowitz and the Israel Lobby generally. (Rosenberg did not invent this label. As discussed here, the phrase had been used long before by Wilmot Robertson, David Duke, and the Vanguard News Network.) As Rosenberg has noted, saying that AIPAC has dual loyalty is giving them credit for one more loyalty than they actually have.

Rosenberg’s argument bears quoting:

Right now, there is only one interest group in the United States that absolutely opposes any diplomacy to avoid war with Iran and which insists that the United States expressly state (as it has) that war with Iran is definitely “on the table.”

In fact, that interest group, AIPAC, actually got Congress to pass a bill, which President Obama signed, that bans any diplomacy with Iran without express approval of four Congressional committees in advance — as if AIPAC will ever let that happen.

Just read this AIPAC-drafted language that is now law:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.-No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

(d) WAIVER.-The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

Frankly, this makes me sick. Banning diplomacy almost guarantees war with Iran, a war that must not be fought.

I oppose war with Iran unless Iran attacks the United States directly. Period.

I do not want America to be dragged into a war that Netanyahu provokes and which the United States would then be dragged into. I favor diplomacy, unconditional diplomacy, with all issues on the table.

Another very ominous sign is that the Congressional forces advocating war have now settled on a weaker criterion for war—that Iran simply possess “the scientific knowledge and industrial means to build a nuclear bomb,” not necessarily actually build one or even intend to build one (LATimes: “Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance“). As Philip Giraldi, writing at Council for the National Interest, notes: “There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they chose to do so, making Iran far from unique but for its persistence as a thorn in the side of Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States.” The LATimes article notes that 38 senators also signed a resolution that the Obama administration not pursue containment of Iran, a policy that leaves a military strike the only realistic option. The pressure on Obama is intense, especialy with all the Republican candidates except Ron Paul eager to flog him for not doing enough for

Read more

Black Racial Privilege and White Displacement in Education in the New South Africa

/111 Comments/in , , /by

The old South African educational system was racist. The new system is now also racist just that now Whites are the group that are subject to racial discrimination. The new South Africa does not judge on merit, but on your race…. so the more things change, the more they stay the same.

If you wish to read a good overall view of education and race in South Africa, see the South African Institute of Race Relations.

There are multiple levels of racial bias in the educational system. Let’s begin with the one that is a hangover from the old apartheid system. Education in SA starts in the mother tongue and then before high school it switches over to English or Afrikaans. Thus native English or Afrikaans speakers have an advantage over non-English speakers. Thus to compensate , on a racial basis, even if all your education has been in English you are given a number of extra marks when you take exams.

This means that a bright Indian student can achieve or exceed 100% after the racial adjustments have been made. The adjustments can be substantial and are made on a proportional basis to your marks received.  According to the newspaper reports, the adjustment is limited to about 10%, but this is substantial when competing for places. Read more

The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Ernst Jünger

/130 Comments/in , /by

Ernst Jünger, 1895-1998

Early in 1927 the Austrian poet Hugo von Hofmannsthal made a famous address to students at the University of Munich. He alluded to and deplored the historical separation in German society between the intellectual and political sphere, between “life” and “mind”. He deplored that German writing in the past had functioned in a vacuum and was “not truly representative nor did it establish a tradition” and was symptomatic of a crisis in civilization which had lost contact with life. In response, he referred to the “legions of seekers” throughout the country who were striving for the reestablishment of faith and tradition and whose aim was not freedom but “allegiance”. He concluded: “The process of which I am speaking is nothing less than a conservative revolution on such a scale as the history of Europe has never known.

Comparing this with the present day situation, when paleoconservative leaders like Paul Gottfried feel lucky to sell a thousand copies of a book, German conservatism was experiencing a period of unparalleled cultural, intellectual, and spiritual vitality as measured by literary engagement. Large numbers of conservative revolutionary political philosophers formed political clubs and organizations and swamped the periodical market with their pamphlets full of semi-political, semi-philosophical jargon. They found access to the “respectable” public, and became the heralds of conservative revolution. They represented an intelligentsia that had the ear of the people, in contrast to the leftist intelligentsia which was considered “Western” and “alien” by most. Read more

Armageddon Approaches

/650 Comments/in , /by

“An Israeli attack on Iran would create a disaster.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski

“The entire lake will become a killing field…the Gulf will run red with American blood.” — Military specialist Mark Gaffney.

Bombing Iran could be the final nail in the coffin of America—a decaying and morally bankrupt superpower where torture has been normalized and where the President is now free to kill anyone he chooses, anywhere in the world, who he happens to suspect is a terrorist.

Right now, Iran appears to be the object of universal detestation, at least among those who control the mainstream media and who are anxious to persuade the easily duped masses that Iran is a major threat to civilization. Read more

A Dangerous Method

/256 Comments/in , /by

David Cronenberg’s latest movie gives us his view of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his pupil, Carl Jung, and even more centrally it tells the story of the affair between Jung and his patient, Sabina Spielrein.  It is set in Vienna in the early years of the 20th century.

The battle between Freud and Jung is fairly well known.  Jung was the heir apparent of the psychoanalytic dynasty founded by Freud.  But he began to go astray because Freud demanded a strictly sexual explanation for all neurosis.  Jung wanted to incorporate more; he rejected the orthodoxy.

For Freud everything boiled down to sex.  All conflicts in the psyche were rooted in early sexual experiences.  Jung challenged this core concept, telling Sabina that there must be “another hinge to the universe.”  In the words of Sabina, Jung did not want his patients to simply understand why they were the way they were but to become whom they might have been.

Jung is an idealist but Freud sees him as a threat to psychoanalysis because of what he considers his mysticism and mumbo-jumbo.   He dismisses Jung’s approach as simply replacing one delusion with another.  You then have to ask yourself why he chose Jung to carry on his work.  The usual explanation is because he needed a non-Jew to cross the bridge to the European society in which he lived, as the world of psychoanalysis was understood at the time to be Jewish.  Read more