Should MSNBC have fired Pat Buchanan?

posted at 6:45 pm on February 17, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

MSNBC has apparently reached the end of the line with profligate pundit and one time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. This is a rather dramatic end to one segment of a long and controversial story surrounding the perennial talker, mover and shaker in American politics which many on both sides of the aisle are celebrating. But should we? The Telegraph comes to a qualified defense of Pat’s work and thinks the network has made a mistake.

It’s official: the conservative pundit and politician Pat Buchanan has been sacked from MSNBC. He got in trouble in November of last year for writing a book called Suicide of a Superpower – a vast, angry Jeremiad about the decline of America. A liberal pressure group called Color of Change decided that it was racist and started lobbying MSNBC to sack its best known Right-wing pundit. After a couple of months, the network caved and Buchanan was gone. Last night, he wrote a column giving his side of the story. He says that he’s been “blacklisted.” I think it’s simpler and sadder than that.

Read their full analysis. It’s worth a look. Pat was a regular on Morning Joe, which as most of you know I watch on a daily basis. I didn’t always agree with Pat and he clearly said and wrote some things which would rile up the masses, but he also provided a wealth of experience in American politics and government which few can manage. Joe Scarborough and his partner in crime Mika Brzezinski released the following rebuttal.

“Everyone at Morning Joe considers Pat Buchanan to be a friend and a member of the family. Even though we strongly disagree with the contents of Pat’s latest book, Mika and I believe those differences should have been debated in public. An open dialogue with Morning Joe regulars like Al Sharpton and Harold Ford, Jr. could have developed into an important debate on the future of race relations in America.

Pat himself released a statement at Human Events describing the long road which led to this confrontation. Give his own account a read for yourself. It says a lot.

For me it’s a much more difficult argument. You see, Pat reminds me, in many ways, of my father. Those who know me are aware that I’ve written of my dad many times in the past. He was a complicated fellow and frequently hard to love in the opinion of many.

My father was a skilled mechanical engineer with several patents to his credit. He was a family man and a good provider. He was also a war hero, serving on one of the “vulture squads” under General George Patton in World War 2. He received the Purple Heart and a squad commendation from the relief of Bastogne, when he was blown up by some tank shell fragments.

My dad was also an infamous…

I’m never sure what word to fill in there. My dad was a bigot by any modern standard, as was my grandfather. He hated black people. And Asians. And Jews and Mormons. (He would have hated Muslims if we’d had any around our farm country back in the day.) His opinions of women would enrage any modern feminist. In short, my Dad hated pretty much anybody who wasn’t… him. He was brought up that way. My grandfather never got over Pearl Harbor and, when I was a child, he once told me that Japanese people were the result of mad scientists’ experiments breeding Chinese people with Gorillas. Yes.. that’s the house I grew up in.

But my dad was still a smart man and had other opinions which he shared in his own community. That’s how things were in some places. The country has thankfully grown beyond that, but it doesn’t diminish the great things my father did, even for all his shortcomings.

I’m not saying Pat Buchanan is as far out on the limb as my father was. (Now dead these past twenty years and more.) But given my experience with eccentric relatives, I find myself having more than a little sympathy when he says inflammatory things and a willingness to listen when he speaks on other subjects where he has a vast pool of experience and much to offer. I don’t ask anyone to forgive Buchanan when he dives into areas which clearly seem to indicate some insensitivity, but silencing him entirely is a sin of another kind.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I find it annoying when people write that they strongly disagree with Pat Buchanan but never indicate about what. I have a number of his books and he makes statements based on known birth & immigration rates that are uncomfortable to many but what is there to strongly disagree with? The truth?

Perhaps his last book may seem to hint of white consciousness. Is that what gets so many in self-righteous turmoil: that there should be any hint of white consciousness when every other kind of color consciousness is celebrated?

In this absurd age of cowardly political correctness, he is a rare sort of historian and social commentator and his absence from any venue is to be regretted, if only for the sake of intellectual diversity – or is that the wrong kind.

Chessplayer on February 17, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Yes,

It is 2012 and we should not be entertaining racists. America has come a long way and too many people have died for this reason, to have a bigot on the air is an insult to the grave of MLK

liberal4life on February 17, 2012 at 6:51 PM

JugEars is on the air..EVERY DAY!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’m going to start defining myself as a neoconservative even though I’m not an elite or Jewish or whatever else that term might encompass, if only because Ron Paul true believers and Pat Buchanan paleoconservatives hate them so much. If Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan think of them as the enemy, neoconservatives must be doing something right.
troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 8:46 PM

You can define yourself as an egg sucking dog for all the difference it makes. I loathe Ron Paul. Buchanan is not a fave of mine. However, I can still call a spade a spade since I know the neo-cons have no use for traditionalist conservatives.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:13 PM

mountainaires on February 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Oh Oh! I’m not a Pat fan…but, I’m agreeing with some of what you say!
(I may need a check up…from the neck up!)

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2012 at 10:20 PM

My dad was also an infamous…

I’m never sure what word to fill in there. My dad was a bigot by any modern standard, as was my grandfather. He hated black people. And Asians. And Jews and Mormons.

You’ve just described half the male population born before 1920. … Thank God racism is getting eliminated more and more as the older generations die off. They contributed so much, but carried so much baggage.

portlandon on February 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

The seventies sitcom “All in the Family” was intended by its creator, Norman Lear, to mock that particular population, but the very popular show didn’t have quite the effect he intended:

Very happy about the incredible cash cow Family’s popularity was generating, series creator Norman Lear was nevertheless shocked that the bigoted right-wing Archie was becoming a working class hero to many Americans.

Mike Stivik: You know, you are totally incomprehensible.
Archie Bunker: Maybe so, but I make a lot of sense.

By the time the series concluded Archie’s prejudices had been for the most part written out. The racist who had been created to be wrong about everything was proven to be shrewdly correct in his prediction that the horrible economic policies of Jimmy Carter would lead to the election of Ronald Reagan.

Some of what Archie said back then about politics and politicians still makes a lot of sense.

AesopFan on February 17, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Did Pat Buchanan say “black people’s greed runs a world in need”?

Now that would be racist.

slickwillie2001 on February 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

+ 1

Red State State of Mind on February 17, 2012 at 10:26 PM

You can define yourself as an egg sucking dog for all the difference it makes. I loathe Ron Paul. Buchanan is not a fave of mine. However, I can still call a spade a spade since I know the neo-cons have no use for traditionalist conservatives.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:13 PM

If by ‘traditionalist conservatives’ you mean bigoted lowlifes deserving the contempt of all good men then yeah, count me in. Call me a neoconservative.

Oh, liked your little ‘call a spade a spade’ bon mot. Bet wordplay like that gets a lot of laughs around the campfire in your little circle.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Joe Scarborough and his partner in crime Mika Brzezinski released the following rebuttal.

“Everyone at Morning Joe considers Pat Buchanan to be a friend and a member of the family. Even though we strongly disagree with the contents of Pat’s latest book, Mika and I believe those differences should have been debated in public. An open dialogue with Morning Joe regulars like Al Sharpton and Harold Ford, Jr. could have developed into an important debate on the future of race relations in America.

They don’t appear to have resigned in solidarity with their friend.
Guess he wasn’t really a member of the family after all.

AesopFan on February 17, 2012 at 10:31 PM

(He would have hated Muslims if we’d had any around our farm country back in the day.)

NTTAWWT

sartana on February 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Jerry Bear on February 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Thought you usually only hang out at Stormfront, Ortsgruppenleiter. So what, you only come over to HA when certain key phrases and words are mentioned? Interesting to know ‘Pat Buchanan’ is one of them.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM

If by ‘traditionalist conservatives’ you mean bigoted lowlifes deserving the contempt of all good men then yeah, count me in. Call me a neoconservative.

Oh, liked your little ‘call a spade a spade’ bon mot. Bet wordplay like that gets a lot of laughs around the campfire in your little circle.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Typical of your ilk to deconstruct “call a spade a spade” into a search for a racist under every bed.

There’s an opening for a faux neo-con at MSNBC. Your type of puerile ranting pays in the 6 figures there. Something tells me you’d fit right in with Ed and Madcow.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:41 PM

People who think racism is a thing of the past are living in an alternate reality. Liberal racists are protected in this society; the NAACP is a good example. If an organization was created to promote the interests of whites and operated like the NAACP, there would be riots all across the nation, and cries of KKK would fill the skies. And what if there were white flash mobs attacking blacks? What would the response be? The guy in Texas who tied a black to the back of his pick-up and drug him, didn’t do it for the love of his fellow man. Racism is alive and well and is increasing. Buchanan was attacked by racists and liberals supported them. This is just status quo. Reverend Wright and his racist ilk have been attacking white America for years; did the same groups that attacked Buchanan attack them? There is a double standard in this country. Racists like Sharpton are sanctified by liberals and given a pass by conservatives (to keep the peace) and conservatives like Buchanan are vilified. This is just status quo.

Oracleforhire on February 17, 2012 at 10:42 PM

There’s an opening for a faux neo-con at MSNBC. Your type of puerile ranting pays in the 6 figures there. Something tells me you’d fit right in with Ed and Madcow.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Something tells me you’d fit right in with David Duke and Don Black.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Something tells me you’d fit right in with David Duke and Don Black.
troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Very trollish of you to toss out cliched responses like David Duke and whoever the other guy is. Since I don’t check under my bed each night for nasty racists I’m not familiar with him.

Besides sending a resume to your compatriots at MSNBC, you can also try the Southern Poverty Law Center. They value the sort of low brow racist paranoia that you love so much.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Besides sending a resume to your compatriots at MSNBC, you can also try the Southern Poverty Law Center. They value the sort of low brow racist paranoia that you love so much.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Yeah, I figured you’d throw out the SPLC at some point or another. Seems the SPLC is still something of a bugaboo among certain, ahem, like-minded groups. Although Morris Dees and the SPLC have lost a great deal of credibility over the years in their somewhat desperate attempts to stay relevant, they did do good work back in the 80′s–good enough for Dees to get on the hit list of Bob Matthews’ Bruder Schweigen terrorist group. And if you don’t know who Don Black is, I’m guessing you’re lying outright but if not and you really have been hiding in your parents’ basement for the last 30 years or so, I suggest you either run a search on the name (about 1 second’s worth of effort) or you can ask Ron Paul about him. I gather Ron Paul and Don Black know each other fairly well.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 11:10 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 11:10 PM

You either can’t comprehend or have a compulsion to project your dissonance onto me. I loathe Ron Paul and the entire libertarian alternative reality world. No, I am not acquainted with your Haters Hall of Fame list. Frankly it bores me as you do.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM

No, I am not acquainted with your Haters Hall of Fame list. Frankly it bores me as you do.

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Then deign not to respond to every word I write, lightweight. You give yourself away.

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Indeed, you have been sent to bore me and you are doing a bang up job at it. Your ideological cruise control and your mindless lists places you in the ranks of the intellectual underclass. Please continue, at some point you may amuse me….

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 11:29 PM

vilebody on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Just try to ignore Troyriser and his butt buddy Catmann. They are liberals in drag. They just scream racist and nazi if you disagree with them. I don’t think they have ever had an original thought or argument but they are just here to troll and espouse the liberal mob mentality.

Jerry Bear on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Read his book you foul mouthed ignoramus. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Jerry Bear on February 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I read Where The Right Went Wrong, you worthless imbecile. Read what I post below, since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Lay off the weed…………..

dmann on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Read:

Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him… Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

And just a couple years ago he wrote an article actually questioning whether Hitler wanted war.

Like I said…the dude is a fan of Hitler, and also just happens to be one of the most anti-Israel “conservatives” out there.

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I’m with you on PJB’s hatred for the state of Israel. It’s identical to the Left’s hatred for the existence of Israel, which they are never called out on.

However, the quote regarding Hitler does not make him a fan of Hitler. His argument regarding Hitler is derived from the work of John Lukacs. Lukacs is an acclaimed historian of Hungarian and partly Jewish origins. We are not talking about a David Irving. Lukacs is no fan of Hitler, he’s a Churchillian. I think PJB is all wet on his isolationist reading of American entry into WWII but he’s no “fan of Hitler”.

wraithby on February 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM

lostmotherland:

What the above points to is a strategy from which Republicans will recoil, a strategy to increase the GOP share of the white Christian vote and increase the turnout of that vote by specific appeals to social, cultural, and moral issues, and for equal justice for the emerging white minority. If the GOP is not the party of New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci and Cambridge cop James Crowley, it has no future. And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?

So?

I’m not a white supremacist by any means, any more than I’m an Asian supremacist (I’m mixed race: mostly Caucasian, part North American native, for what it is worth). Hell, the one scientific tidbit I selectively posted above had an example of Australian aboriginal genetic supremacy—in a specific area.

The fact is, nature does “different”. It doesn’t do equal.

When humans (or any other animal) move(d) to different niches, we adapted to those niches. And not only that, there’s simple genetic drift.

These adaptations are visible for you to see, not just skin color, but facial shape and the like.

But WHY would it stop there? Why would a species which uses its brain as its main method of surviving in this world, a brain that has been rapidly evolving from other hominid species (including one which we now know from DNA studies some, but not all, human races interbred with: Neanderthals: interestingly, sub-Saharan Africans did not interbreed with Neanderthals, Australian Aborigenals have the highest percentage of Neanderthal genes, and Caucasions and Mongoloids are somewhere in between)…

… to reiterate, why would a species dependent on its brain as its main distinguishing factor, rapidly evolving from other hominids, and — only some of us — interbreeding with a related hominid species …

… be identical in every mental respect, yet different physically, not just in shape and color, but also different hormonal levels (behaviorally-important example: testosterone)?

That wouldn’t make any sense at all, and in fact is not what happened.

This is what happened.

1.) The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2.) Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3.) The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4.) Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5.) Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6.) Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race “Colored” population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7.) IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. [Note: Think of the children of all the brilliant people you've heard about compared to their parents ... like Ronald vs. Ron Reagan, for example. --- Random] Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8.) Race Differences in Other “Life-History” Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9.) Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10.) Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.


If you’re a more visual and auditory person, you’ll find your specific argument:

Race is not a fundamental biological difference.

demolished (to an unsurprisingly-large degree of certainty) scientifically here with highly significant double-blind study data, plus some additional facts for you to chew on.

Or you can live in your imaginary world.

I happen to wish things were different than they are (in many ways), but it is what it is.

Random on February 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Pat Buchanan wrote a BS book claiming that Hitler ONLY decided to exterminate the Jews after Britain and France came to Poland’s defense.He’s a known Jew-hater. That ALONE should have gotten him sacked.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Everything he wrote in that quote is true. Why do you think we are still talking about this man today ad nauseum? Pat’s book on World War 2 is a lot of speculation about what could have happened and I found some of it self-defeating but he brings light to the fact that our involvement in WW1 directly led to the rise of Hitler. As well as the fact that we made a pact with an equally evil dictator Stalin in order to bring down Hitler. These are heresies against the simplistic good vs evil narrative that has saturated American culture since the war.

Pat’s argument that Hitler did not want war with Britain or the United States is a documented fact. He wanted war with Russia. Lebensraum. He offered Britain peace treaties repeatedly after the war began which were rejected. He repeatedly made his intentions known in his writings, speeches, and stenographers wrote down everything he said during his meetings with party officials and generals. I am not taking Buchanan’s word for it by the way. I’ve read countless WW2 history books which back up these claims.

You’ll probably read this and have the reactionary response ; “see, this proves you like Hitler!” but this is far from the truth. The actions of that terrible man has given the left all the ammunition they’ve needed to justify their quest to destroy Western Civilization.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Everyone seems to have an opinion on a book they never read. He actually argued that the Nazis didn’t start the mass exterminations until Germany started to lose the war with Russia in 1942. This is true.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Buchanan has constantly come to the defense of former Nazi Camp guards. That’s not pro-Jewish.
I was Jewish. I am now Catholic. He doesn’t represent MY Church.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Just try to ignore Troyriser and his butt buddy Catmann. They are liberals in drag. They just scream racist and nazi if you disagree with them. I don’t think they have ever had an original thought or argument but they are just here to troll and espouse the liberal mob mentality.

Jerry Bear on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Butt buddy, Jerry Bear? Liberals in drag? Man, your head goes into some strange places. Tell me, do those particular pejoratives just jump right out at you, as if those words and associations were at the forefront of your consciousness? Do you think along those lines all the time? And while we’re on the subject, I’m betting you’re the kind of guy whose closet is just filled with WWII Era collectables and memorabilia: leather German boots, leather German coats, leather gloves, those groovy officer’s hats like Rommel would wear…so tell me, when you’re all alone and have had a few beers or a few shots of schnapps, do you, you know, try them on? Check yourself out in the mirror? I’m betting you do.

As a point of fact, wasn’t Ernst Roehm, leader of the Brownshirts, the kind of manly man who really, really liked the company of other men? Do you think maybe Der Fuhrer gave Roehm a raw deal when he had Roehm and other leaders of the Brownshirts rounded up and shot, that whole ‘Night of the Long Knives’ business? I understand Hitler had a few, um, eccentricities along those lines himself. Nobody likes a hypocrite, amirite?

troyriser_gopftw on February 18, 2012 at 12:26 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM

I personally take an agnostic position when it comes to the Israel Palestine conflict. It seems to me that Israel is a sovereign nation that has the right to defend itself. We do not need to be some sort of arbiter of peace nor should we be dictating to Israel what it does with it’s borders. I also don’t believe we should treat it like a 51st state and do everything in our power to protect it. It is perfectly capable of defending itself. That being said, Pat is a bit biased towards the Palestinians.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Tell me, Jerry Bear, did you ever read the psychological profile the OSS worked up on Hitler? Very extensive dossier. Turns out Der Fuhrer was into some serious kink. I can’t describe his proclivities in detail on a family friendly site but it was bad enough to drive his much-molested niece, Geli Rabaul, to suicide.

There’s Buchanan’s ‘Great Man’ for you.

troyriser_gopftw on February 18, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Hitler may have done all that (it isn’t exactly hard to believe), but … well, the OSS was hardly a neutral source either.

Random on February 18, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Random on February 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Are you unable to link? Is it truly necessary to reproduce old Jared Taylor American Renaissance articles in toto on HA? And you are aware that Taylor is closely associated with Willis Carto, right? You did know that, right?

troyriser_gopftw on February 18, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Everyone seems to have an opinion on a book they never read. He actually argued that the Nazis didn’t start the mass exterminations until Germany started to lose the war with Russia in 1942. This is true.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Very cute. The “mass exterminations”, according to you, didn’t begin until 1942. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Jews and other persecuted groups had been killed well before that time, starting as early as the mid-30s. All very well to claim they didn’t get super-efficient at it until they fired up the furnaces, but those concentration camps were a known part of the “Final Solution” before the United States even entered the war.

As to your response directly to me, if you can’t see Buchanan’s words as significant praise from a man who feels admiration, then you don’t want to see it.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

I personally take an agnostic position when it comes to the Israel Palestine conflict.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Surprise surprise, coming from a defender of Buchanan.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM

…well, the OSS was hardly a neutral source either.

Random on February 18, 2012 at 12:52 AM

When it came to assessing an enemy leader’s psychological makeup in a life-and-death global struggle, I would imagine the OSS experts who put the profile together went to great lengths to avoid prejudice in the summary. Lives depended on getting it as right as humanly possible. You must know this.

Stop defending Adolf effing Hitler. Stop posting American Renaissance screeds on HA. This isn’t that kind of place.

troyriser_gopftw on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Like I said, some of his arguments are a lot of woulda coulda shoulda which I found futile. History happened the way it did and we can’t change that but Hitler, Stalin, and the Unnecessary War pissed off more people than persuading them to take an non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Buchanan has been a beacon of good and reason within the conservative movement whether you agree with everything he says or not.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I’m sorry, the title of the book is

“Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War”

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Buchanan has been a beacon of good and reason within the conservative movement whether you agree with everything he says or not.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I guess that’s why William F. Buckley effectively told him to f**k off years ago.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM

“When it came to assessing an enemy leader’s psychological makeup in a life-and-death global struggle, I would imagine the OSS experts who put the profile together went to great lengths to avoid prejudice in the summary.”

Sure. For private consumption.

And probably, Hitler was personally very abusive. That would hardly be surprising.

“Are you unable to link?”

I can actually. That’s why I put links in the comment.

And your ad hominem is nonsense. I didn’t link to Jared Taylor anyway. I linked to scientific research.

The fact that even Jared-F’n-Taylor can figure out some things you don’t seem able to does not increase my confidence in you.

Random on February 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Buckley’s purge of paleoconservatives was a surrendering to the dogma of the left and a scourge on the conservative movement with the replacement of reckless big government neoconservatism as the GOPs dominant ideology.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

And by the way, I had no idea who Willis Carto is.

I’m not involved with the white nationalist movement. I’m interested in science (and history) and understanding reality — in pretty much any topic; and anthropology is an interesting one for me considering I’m human.

Random on February 18, 2012 at 1:36 AM

My condolences for the loss of your father, Jazz. May he rest in peace.

But with all due respect for your justifiable grief–and your justifiable pride in your dad’s genius and service to our country–Pat isn’t being “silenced.” He isn’t being thrown in jail for what he said or wrote. He merely lost a paying gig which he never deserved in the first place.

And I can’t imagine any insight he has to offer that is so indispensable that it’s worth putting up with his Holocaust revisionism. There are plenty of other sources for such insight that don’t require one to always be on guard for the inevitable sucker punch, or wondering to what degree those insights are poisoned by his malice.

Ed Snyder on February 18, 2012 at 2:39 AM

Buckley’s purge of paleoconservatives was a surrendering to the dogma of the left and a scourge on the conservative movement with the replacement of reckless big government neoconservatism as the GOPs dominant ideology.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Another bitter paleocon.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Jerry Bear on February 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Not sure what your problem with Toby riser is. You comments lent themselves to thinking you’re not just a bigot, but a real honest to G-d racist.

smoothsailing on February 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Troy Riser that is.

smoothsailing on February 18, 2012 at 3:18 AM

smoothsailing on February 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Please enlighten me, specifically, what it was I said that is ‘racist’.

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 3:43 AM

Can anyone recommend some reading that addresses Buckley, his relationship with the Paleocons and the purge of the Birchers. Having not been alive during this period, and knowing next to nothing about the Birchers, I’ve been curious about this topic. I would imagine his autobiography would be a decent place to start. Cancel My Own Damn Subscription is it?

From what I understand, there were many negative aspects about Birchers, yet they were a major force working against the conspiratorial, Anarcho-Communist Left. There seems to have been a vacuum created with their expulsion from polite discussion. There doesn’t seem to have been anyone whose taken their place in keeping tabs on the advances of the Left through our institutions- Horowitz and Discover the Networks, and then Glenn Beck for a bit, and now increasingly Breitbart and Big Government. But there were decades, it seems, where the Left advanced their lines unnoticed and unopposed.

I’ve perused Paleocon sites, and read articles by Paleocon pundits which I’d been linked to from other sites and found much of worth in their writing, yet also too many ideas which push me away. Blatant anti-Semitism, outright racism( which has come to offend my sensibilities less and less again over the past three years) and strict Isolationism. Yet I see an understanding of America as a distinct and separate entity and a knowledge of its history and appreciation of its traditions that I don’t find in mainstream Conservative discussion. Not to mention, the Paleocons are the only ones that have resisted the almost complete takeover of the Right by the Neoconservatives and Neoconservative ideology.

sartana on February 18, 2012 at 4:18 AM

I really don’t understand why people get so up in arms about the idea of racial differences, or that races often separate themselves (there is an interesting interview of Muhammad Ali discussing this). People are comfortable with the familiar, those with whom they have commonalities, whether those commonalities are appearance, traditions, similar beliefs, or myriad other variables. Most, if not all, countries have racial majorities and minorities–it is an undeniable fact that America has a white majority. It seems logically inconsistent that the same people who think that South Africa needed to change its political structure for a black majority think that people like Buchanan should shut up about his views on race.

America is remarkable in that even as people historically divided into groups (Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.), they have traditionally been able to share a vision and set of values of what America should be. The irony of the effort to get rid of racism (which is never defined by those who use the term–deliberately so, I suspect) is there seems to be more focus on race than ever before. The difference in the rules of discussion now is that whites seem to feel obligated to argue vociferously that there are no differences between races, while other races seem to take pride in those differences.

DrMagnolias on February 18, 2012 at 5:49 AM

A liberal pressure group called Color of Change decided that it was racist

I do not know exactly what was in this book, but I do know the accusations of racism/bigotry are hurled about so often that I have become a complete skeptic when I hear it once again, (the whole “boy that cried wolf” thing). There seems to be too many people these days that think they have the powers of Carnac the Magnificent, and know exactly what is the minds and hearts of the rest of us. And from what I can see, more times than not, these charges are based on so little, if any, “evidence”. So for now, I’m believing… there is no wolf.

lynncgb on February 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

sartana on February 18, 2012 at 4:18 AM

Books re: Buckley and the Birchers:

George Nash “the Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945″

Jeffrey Hart, “The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times”

By Lee Edwards, “William F. Buckley Jr.
The Maker of a Movement”

wraithby on February 18, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Buchanan has sort of painted himself into a corner. Its going to take a while for the paint to dry which will give him a chance to think about some things. DD

Darvin Dowdy on February 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

MSNBC has shot itself in the foot: it has proved conclusively that it lives in a liberal, Washington-insider echo chamber and that it will not tolerate any dissent from the DNC party line.

Pat Buchanan most always offered a contrary commentary which made their other pundits work harder to make their point. In the process, Pat took controversial and politically-incorrect stands which others could characterize as “racist,” “anti-Semitic.” etc.

On occasion, Buchanan picked up and argued the Conservative point of view, but I always laughed when the PBS liberals disingenuously used him as the authority representing Conservatives: this is no more true of Pat Buchanan than it is of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche.

In fact, I rarely agreed with Pat Buchanan…especially recently. But he made the political discussions more interesting. MSNBC is now stuck with presenting a boring left-wing monotone which we’ve all heard before.

landlines on February 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM

America is remarkable in that even as people historically divided into groups (Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.), they have traditionally been able to share a vision and set of values of what America should be. The irony of the effort to get rid of racism (which is never defined by those who use the term–deliberately so, I suspect) is there seems to be more focus on race than ever before. The difference in the rules of discussion now is that whites seem to feel obligated to argue vociferously that there are no differences between races, while other races seem to take pride in those differences.

DrMagnolias on February 18, 2012 at 5:49 AM

I think you’re really onto something here. The constant insertion of a racial context into every issue seems to me to be the “New Racism”: the people who do this are most definitely rabid, divisive, prejudiced Racists.

landlines on February 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM

sartana on February 18, 2012 at 4:18 AM

I’d like to find a book concerning this issue but here’s a good article from a paleo-con site that concentrates on immigration. They have a few former National Review writers that Buckley purged in his quest to make conservatives politically correct.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/william-f-buckley-jr-rip-sort-of

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Okay so the 12 people and a basset hound that actually watch MSNBC are sure gonna miss Pat

HatfieldMcCoy on February 18, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I predicted when Obama was elected we’d see the ‘rise of the black man’ to the exclusion of almost everything else. Pat Buchanan is gone because the bigots and racist are black.

LizardLips on February 18, 2012 at 6:28 PM

It’s no surprise that MSNBC would sack Buchanan. The only people that would be surprised were living in a dream world.

Another bitter paleocon.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Quite to the contrary Madison. I watched what Taki called “the Little Frummer Boy” as he attempted to read out the Paleos. They’re a pretty tough lot, and all they was laugh at Frum (and your sort). When Goldberg tried to come to Frum’s defense, they took him apart and utterly embarrassed him. Frum never recovered from the intellectual blow, and Goldberg has been floating around trying to pretend he makes sense every now and then, only to reveal his shallow intellect still remains. In other words Madison, they laughed they laughed at shallow morons like yourself.

I’ve seen your sort for years. You revealed your own shallowness over in the Green Room when I put up a link to to the Paul articles you called so racist when I clicked yours and it didn’t work. Your knee jerk insult revealed you for the fake you are.

If you would get out some, you’d see that we have Arabists among GOP administrations that make Buchanan look quite moderate when it comes to Israel. That would presuppose, however, that you are eben slightly interested in truth. Seeing your responses here and in the green room to anyone that disagrees with you, I’d say that you aren’t any different than the run of the mill loony leftist. You can’t debate, so you insult.

Quartermaster on February 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I don’t ask anyone to forgive Buchanan when he dives into areas which clearly seem to indicate some insensitivity, but silencing him entirely is a sin of another kind.

“Some insensitivity”?

“Silencing him”?

“A sin”?

My browser must have taken me to the wrong blog.

Buchanan is as much a bigot as Shaw’s father was, only he limits his bigotry to one religious group. That’s why William Buckley (rightly) kicked him out of National Review.

It’s funny how all of a sudden a blogger for Hot Air declares that a private employer firing an employee is “silencing” that employee. It’s also funny how a supposedly “silenced” former employee got paid for publishing a Human Events column whining about the alleged injustices to which alleged “blacklisters” submitted him.

As Shaw would no doubt point out with clearer thinking or under different circumstances (e.g., if it weren’t MSNBC that did the firing), Buchanan still has every right to voice his opinions, despicable as they may be. But what he doesn’t have in an unalienable right to have someone pay him to do so.

bgoldman on February 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Good job linking to VDare, a site known for publishing articles written by self-identified “white nationalists”.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

They’re a pretty tough lot, and all they was laugh at Frum (and your sort).

Quartermaster on February 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I ridicule Frum on a regular basis. Your own sort have one big problem with your fetish for spitting the word “neocon”, like it’s a profanity: Neoconservatism is a huge ideology, with many different “sorts”. Your attempt to peg them as all the same indicates your own high level of bulls**t.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Oh the horror of reading differing opinions that contradict left wing dogma!

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Oh the horror of reading differing opinions that contradict left wing dogma!

Jerry Bear on February 18, 2012 at 11:52 PM

So now you’re actually admonishing others for not wanting to read the articles of self-identified white supremacists? Awesome. Noted for future conversations.

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 12:35 AM

It’s MSNBC’s call. I happen to agree with it.

J.E. Dyer on February 19, 2012 at 2:16 AM

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 12:35 AM

.

At least have an open mind about it. The first thing that comes to mind when you hear ‘white nationalist’ is ‘Nazi’ but nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to vdare. Nationalism used to be a synonym of patriotism. Must we forever treat all nationalists as If they support the ‘national socialist German worker’s Party’?I

Jerry Bear on February 19, 2012 at 5:31 AM

The first thing that comes to mind when you hear ‘white nationalist’ is ‘Nazi’ but nothing could be further from the truth…

Jerry Bear on February 19, 2012 at 5:31 AM

WOW.

Thanks for even more conclusive evidence. You enjoy your tribute videos to Robert Matthews and David Lane, buddy. Also be sure to enlighten us about how the Holocaust didn’t happen.

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

“Thanks for even more conclusive evidence. You enjoy your tribute videos to Robert Matthews and David Lane, buddy. Also be sure to enlighten us about how the Holocaust didn’t happen.”

As I said above, I’m no part of the white nationalist movement. I think the whole concept is kind of silly. I actually believe in and am not bothered by biological diversity. I get flack for pointing out evidence that humans are actually different than each other, and that groups of humans have differences from other groups of humans, but to me this is as a result of scientific curiosity and general curiosity about what’s going on, not believing my particular (mixed) race is the best race and “the way things ought to be”.

If anything, I like variety. Aesthetically. In friendships. Romantically. Sexually. Etc. In pretty much any area of life, but dark roast coffee which I’m drinking now, I like variety and differences and find them interesting.

So while I reject white nationalism as unrealistic, unnecessary, and undesirable — we live in a multi-ethnic society and technology will only make that more the case as people travel cheaply and communicate readily … heck, I was just thinking that the nicest and finest and smartest family I know are Persian, Iranian nationals — I also reject your red herrings and other attacks on Jerry Bear.

Jerry Bear did not, for example, deny the Holocause happened, and you throwing in all of these cheap shots undermines whatever points you think you’re trying to make (and aren’t).

Random on February 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

*Holocaust

Random on February 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Random on February 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I’m not sure what your point was. Simply put, I am familiar with the “white nationalist” movement. It is the latest name for white supremacy. It’s the Klan. It’s the Aryan Nations. It’s The Order. It’s the people behind Stormfront and Resist. Anyone who tries to claim it’s a rational movement is highly, highly suspect in my eyes.

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

My point is Jerry Bear didn’t deny the holocaust and that cheap, greatly exaggerated, shot undermines the points you’re trying to make. It makes him look reasonable and you look unreasonable. Sure, we’ve all done that, but since you have what you feel is a very strong position, you shouldn’t need to.

Simply put, I am familiar with the “white nationalist” movement. It is the latest name for white supremacy. It’s the Klan. It’s the Aryan Nations. It’s The Order.

Anyway, while I don’t support any of those things as political or religious movements, some of the things they believe are factual, however distasteful their policy positions may be. I believe we should deal in facts and not be afraid of them.

An important force in conservative politics (providing much of the intellectual framework for welfare reform, for example, and now with much to say on education reform) is Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve [abridged audiobook on YouTube and well worth listening to]. The fact that some people with nefarious motives might believe some of the evidence presented by Murray and Herrnstein neither makes the two of them white nationalists (they aren’t) or the white nationlists wrong about the underlying facts on those specific points (for the most part, they aren’t — unfortunately).

You paint with too broad of a brush.

Random on February 19, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Random on February 19, 2012 at 8:03 PM

JB defended white nationalism, which does claim the Holocaust did not occur.

You could well also argue that some of the things communists believe are factual, however distasteful their policy positions may be. You could apply that to just about any political movement out there. Claiming that they get at least one thing right doesn’t give them any credibility, and your impassioned insistence seems less intended to cover all viewpoints, and more to defend their specific outlook. If so, you’re defending Nazism, because there is barely any daylight between them and White Nationalists. There’s no more of a gap then there is between the “Socialist Worker’s Party” and the Communists.

You’re using a brush with no paint on it. Either you are ignorant of what White Nationalism really is, or you’re sympathetic enough to them to continue to treat them as a rational faction. Do you apply that same objectivity to a Stalinist sect?

MadisonConservative on February 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM

“Do you apply that same objectivity to a Stalinist sect?”

If a Stalinist website had a link to a quality scientific study, the results of which made sense and were in line with what one with reasonable intelligence and objectivity would predict assuming a basic understanding of reality, and in line with the other research in the field, I wouldn’t throw out an red herring guilt by association and start shouting that the person wants people shot fleeing East Berlin at the now non-defunctant checkpoint Charlie.

I’d engage them on the error of their ways. It may not persuade them, but would be fact-based for those watching.

It’s like if I’m arguing with a Democrat from Alabama about extending unemployment benefits: “You’re a member of a party that wants to cut up little unborn children at the behest of their parents!” is true … and abhorent to me … but not a strong argument in that case. And several Republicans support that also, and some Democrats oppose it.

Realistically, killing a healthy unborn child is worse, probably, than slavery, which most white nationalists don’t even call for. Slavery still allows for the possibility of positive experiences including children and a family, getting to know God if that’s your thing, and even escape and fleeing to freedom and safety. Abortion, for obvious reasons, cuts off even that much from a person.

So, objectively, I believe Democrats to be more harmful and immoral than the majority of white nationalists. Yet we still engage them on the facts and the merits.

Random on February 19, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Random on February 19, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I disagree with you about many things, but I am on board with you about this. It seems so many people are afraid to examine ideas because of ideology–they become dogma, something that cannot be questioned–and they resort to name-calling and efforts to silence. Jefferson said, “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Would that it were so.

DrMagnolias on February 19, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Girlfriend: “You forgot to bring home the milk!”
Boyfriend: “You remember that time you made out with John, you slut?”
Comment: Not very helpful.

Random on February 19, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2