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

Obama at AIPAC

/412 Comments/in /by

Obama is clearly dragging his heels on Iran. What the NYTimes called Obama’s “defensive speech” at AIPAC today reiterated US commitment to diplomacy and sanctions, while at the same time emphasizing his record of strong support for Israel. But it’s not going to be enough to please his masters. The Lobby wants the US to go to war and they don’t seem to want to wait even until after the election to get it. Obama, doubtless thinking of the disastrous effects on the economy and therefore his chances in the election, would at least prefer to wait. Perhaps I’m naive, but I believe him when he says he doesn’t want to preside over yet more dead and wounded Americans returning from the Middle East.

In any case, there is little reason to think that Obama can withstand the pressure. Remember last year, when he offended the Lobby by talking about the 1967 borders: It quickly became apparent that the US could not pressure Israel on the settlements or anything else:

Tensions have been high between Obama and Netanyahu for over two years, but Israel hasn’t changed its behavior at all, indeed announcing 1500 more housing units in East Jerusalem timed to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit. … By 2012, it will likely be obvious that Obama’s remarks haven’t really changed things for Israel, with the result that Jews will continue to focus on their domestic agenda of supporting White dispossession via funding and supporting the Democratic Party as the party of ethnic grievance and multiculturalism, maybe with a slight decline from the ~80% of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008. It is possible that defection of some Jews (combined with somewhat less enthusiasm by Jewish donors and Jews in the media) could influence the 2012 election in close states like Florida and thereby have a major effect on the outcome. See “Obama Offends the Lobby,” 5/21/2011)

As the Guardian noted, the response was tepid:

The audience didn’t love the speech. The president was met with respectful applause. But many Aipac delegates and supporters must now be hoping that Netanyahu can get more out of Obama when they meet at the White House tomorrow.

This of course is a grand opening for the Republicans, foreshadowed by sparring between Liz Cheney representing the Republicans and Jane Harmon defending the Obama Administration. In his speech, Obama mentioned the expected pro-war comments by Republican presidential candidates who will be speaking in the coming days. The usual competition for the approval of the Israel Lobby. Read more

The execrable Tim Wise is at it again.

/128 Comments/in /by

There’s an interview with the execrable Tim Wise at Truthout. (TOO articles on Wise:  Mark Green: My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise; “Tim Wise Hates White People”: see also here and here.) The interview is not really worth reading. The only thing that stuck out was his claim that Whites identify more with other Whites rather than non-Whites in a similar economic situation “because they have been subjected to intense racial propaganda for generations”—a ridiculous claim given the clear thrust of media messages for the last 50 years pounding in White racial guilt 24/7. Without getting into an academic analysis—implicit Whiteness and all that, maybe Whites have noticed that every other ethnic group is organized to the hilt and has a strong racial/ethnic identity and a sense of racial/ethnic interests. Maybe Wise should ask why Jews do not vote along social class lines but rather vote along with non-Whites, overwhelmingly for Democrats.

What’s really interesting is the comment section—dominated by people who reject this poison. One argument comes through again and again: Why should White countries and only White countries have a moral imperative to admit millions of non-Whites so that they become a minority?  It’s not just the US, but every White country and only White countries. It’s an unanswerable argument.

And how does Tim Wise’s Jewish identity influence his fervent desire that Whites be a minority?

People like Wise can continue to spew their poison, but as long as Internet sites have comment sections, at least they will at least get an earful. Leaving comments is certainly a low cost, high reward form of White activism. Join the fun!

The Solutrean Hypothesis

/46 Comments/in /by

The Solutrean hypothesis of the first peoples to inhabit North America is getting positively respectable to the point that the Washington Post has deigned to publish a longish article on the topic (“Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago“). The occasion is the publication of a book by Dennis Stanford, an anthropologist at  the Smithsonian Institute and main academic advocate for the hypothesis (Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture). The basic idea is that settlers from Southern Europe managed to get to the East Coast of North America around 22,000 years ago, making them the first Americans by about 7000 years.  The hypothesis is based on finding several stone tools dated from 16000-22000 years ago that resemble tools found at European sites of the same age.

The hypothesis is certainly not nailed down yet. “Stanford acknowledges that his evidence is scant. He calls the Solutrean hypothesis ‘a skeletal idea.’” 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