Pat Buchanan: The New Blacklist

Patrick J. Buchanan was fired from MSNBC yesterday, February 16th, after a four month suspension. The suspension was triggered on October 18th by Color of Change, claiming that Buchanan’s book advocated white supremacy; this was followed up by the ADL who alleged he also expounded anti-Semitic ideas. A human right campaign that defends LGBT also attacked him as a raging homophobe with “extremist ideas [that] are incredibly harmful to millions of LGBT people around the world”, which was a response to him asserting that homosexual acts are “unnatural and immoral”.

Abe Foxman attacked him, claiming he “bemoans the destruction of white Christian America” and says the Jewish population is shrinking due to the “collective decision of Jews themselves”. But why would Buchanan not bemoan the decline of Christian America, after all, he is a Christian.

Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, “so long as reason is left free to combat it.” What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.

As Buchanan points out, if his book was a collection of raging racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism then why did publish St. Martin’s collude with him? What about CNN, FOX News, C-SPAN, FOX Business News and 150 radio outlets that had him on to speak about the book, did they miss the blatant racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism? If the book is so evil, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, Ralph Nader, and black FOX radio host Charles Payne, who interviewed Pat three times, miss the obvious morally atrociousness of the book and Pat himself?

In a 2009 cover story of the Atlantic titled, “The End of White America?” professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America’s white majority. President Bill Clinton got an enormous ovation when he declared at Portland State the end of White America by 2050. Yet Pat is not allowed to touch the issue?

As for him being a homophobe and a threat to millions of LGBT worldwide, which they used as an excuse to call for his censoring, for simply stating a 2,000 year old Catholic doctrine; does that mean it is hate speech to restate traditional Catholic doctrine? I, being Catholic, hold the same views, does that mean I too deserve censor?

The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.

All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.

Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.

Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.

I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.

I stand with Pat; God bless him. He stood face-to-face with the enemies of truth for decades, never once have they been able to oust him from public discourse. Finally they have succeeded. The question now becomes, will he become simply a relic of the past or a symbol to rally around in proclaiming our inherent right to speak the truth against those who disguise themselves in the flag while blaspheming against the Bill of Rights. Hypocrites, they all are; silencing a man who spoke against their dogma.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies” – Ron Paul

Source

While I do not share your enthusiasm for the man himself (pardon me if that seems presumptuous) I do agree that his treatment by many of these organizations was as biased and foul as that which they proclaimed him guilty of.

Clearly his opinion is his own, and factually, it is also the opinion of quite a few other people as well.

I find myself to be ignorant of the specifics, but I would like to know what the 'tipping' point was insofar as him being 'fired' or whatever they're going to call it. Was it the religion-based precept of homosexuality? Was it his daring to speak about his thoughts on Jews in America or Israel? Was it the now risque notion of "white America" as opposed to just "America?"

Perhaps we will be told in the future...

But as far as his being a reprehensible person for speaking his mind... well... I think that's just either the tyranny of the majority manifesting itself; or populist pandering to the sensitivities evoked by the social engineers in the media itself.

reply to post by Maxmars


I think what really did Pat in was his race argument. But as he stated, Hua Hsu and Bill Clinton can proudly proclaim, without anyone batting an eye, that the end of White majority America is near but if Pat mentions it, he is taken out back for a PC beating. Maybe he, and all of us who think like him, need forced sensitivity training so that we do not argue with the puritanical ideologues.

Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of “Suicide of a Superpower” is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century’s end.

Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?

So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, “I don’t think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”

Just like Judge Napolitano, Pat Buchanan spoke the truth about how the world is, whether you like it or not. That is why he was fired.

In my lifetime, white European people will be a minority in the United States. They aren't reproducing, for a number of reasons. It's not racist to say it and come up with explanations as to why it's occurring.

But Pat Buchanan is a racist.

You can't cry foul for calling a racist a racist.

Shall we take a look:

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.

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?

Perhaps some of us misremember the past. But the racial, religious, cultural, social, political, and economic divides today seem greater than they seemed even in the segregation cities some of us grew up in.
Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans.

Pat Buchanan is a racist and a moron....he should be blacklisted.

Let me make a HUGE correction to Mr. Hua Hsu claim and Mr. Buchannan's repeating of that claim that Clinton glorified the "end of the white race" by 2050 - which is a gross misinterpretation on their parts.

This is what Clinton stated in that speech:

Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.

It was seen as a positive recognition of America's past greatness due to it's embracing of immigrants. America WAS regarded then as a largely 'classless' society where an immigrant, of no appreciable background, could achieve greatness through their own labor or enterprise, and grab a piece of the American dream. Compared to the old world, which had largely become a stratified society of classes, where a plebe would forever remain a lowly plebe.

So when an author writes a statement like "President Bill Clinton got an enormous ovation when he declared at Portland State the end of White America by 2050. Yet Pat is not allowed to touch the issue?" he should rightly catch flak for such a mischaracterization of what was actually said.

Patrick Joseph Buchanan

racist cheap punk. job? Nah!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Even if Pat were a racist, which I still do not believe he is, that does not warrant censorship. I could not give a damn less what your “smelly little orthodoxy” holds as right and wrong. If America is about ‘freedom’ as so many claims, then he, just like the lunatics raging against him, has the right to speak their beliefs. MSNBC does have the right to fire him if they disagree, of course, but firing someone for holding views you do not particularly favor then claim they deserve absolutely no place at the table of public discourse, is disgusting.

Pat is right in my opinion. The people are the nation and the nation is the people. America was founded by particular European stocks which defined its culture, laws, politics, and so forth, change that and you change America. Allow in mass amounts of third world people and you will have a third world nation. I do not find anything wrong or controversial in stating the obvious.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


There was no mischaracterization of what Clinton said. Does he have to come right out and declare “I am glad White America will be dead?” No… the statement he made, as you quoted, was quite easily perceptible in its tone. He proclaims that non-white immigrants will soon make up a new majority in America by 2050, which he does ecstatically, equating it with our past immigration which by no stretch of the imagination can one compare the two. Perhaps you cannot see his statement for what it was, but Pat and I can.

The point still stands; should Pat be fired for holding a wildly unpopular opinion on a rather taboo topic such as race?

I may not agree with Pat's views, I may not agree with MSNBC's views,... but one thing is clear, and that is that MSNBC is a privately-owned business and they can fire or hire anyone they like. Was I thrilled when FOX decided to cut "Freedom Watch" with Napolitano? Nope, but .... he obviously expressed views that were contrary to FOX network beliefs and they have every right to fire or hire someone if they feel that person is not representing their views the way they'd like. If you were running a company and one of your employees kept expressing to customers that the products you sell are harmful to them (true or not), would you keep that employee around for long? Probably not. It would make zero business sense. If the network feels that Pat's views are harmful to their business model, they have the right to let him go even if we think it is wrong. These are not public/taxpayer-owned networks. If they were, things would be different. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure someone will correct me, but that's how I see it.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Even if Pat were a racist, which I still do not believe he is, that does not warrant censorship. I could not give a damn less what your “smelly little orthodoxy” holds as right and wrong. If America is about ‘freedom’ as so many claims, then he, just like the lunatics raging against him, has the right to speak their beliefs. MSNBC does have the right to fire him if they disagree, of course, but firing someone for holding views you do not particularly favor then claim they deserve absolutely no place at the table of public discourse, is disgusting.

Pat is right in my opinion. The people are the nation and the nation is the people. America was founded by particular European stocks which defined its culture, laws, politics, and so forth, change that and you change America. Allow in mass amounts of third world people and you will have a third world nation. I do not find anything wrong or controversial in stating the obvious.

He can speak his views...but he is going to have to find the correct platform...like a KKK rally.

I'm all for America changing...as you said...the nation is the people...and I'm glad we got away from the founders ideas. I have no respect for the founders...I don't worship them...the best thing they gave us was the ability to change from their narrow and racist views.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


I do not disagree with you; MSNBC is a private corporation which has the right to hire or fire whoever they want. Pat understands that basic logic too. The problem he was trying to expand upon was their justification for his firing. If he were the nasty racist, anti-Semitic, homophobe as they claim he is, then why did all those other news outlets allow him on to speak? Why did the notorious liberal Ralph Nader read his book, interview him, and not deem him to be a nasty bigot? Why did a group dedicated to “strengthen Black America’s political voice” relentlessly attack him until MSNBC removed him from the airs?

It all comes back to a few groups, working mostly behind closed doors, with an agenda aimed at ousting Pat, and people like him, from public discourse. That is what angered him and me. They turned his book into one about white supremacy when no one else from the black FOX News radio host Charles Payne to Judge Andrew Napolitano to Ralph Nader saw his book as advocating such ideas. That is what the problem here is.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What you just expressed right there is what Pat and I fear. This is the nation our ancestors left to us. We have a different understanding, loyalty, and appreciation for it than most immigrants, or children of immigrants, from non-Western nations. European civilization, like Arab and Chinese civilizations, are fundamentally different and are dependent upon their native stock to continue onward the same conceptions of right and wrong, culture, law, and politics as their ancestors who built the civilizations.

Allow in mass amounts of people who never contributed to it, and who hold a different understanding of civilization, even resentment and hostility to their host civilization’s past, and the nation will be transformed into something no native wants. So why are you so surprised millions of people are angry about the mass immigration when millions of immigrants express the same views you just did in your post? It just shows how vile you are; first you proclaim your hatred for our Founding Fathers and the nation’s past, then you want us who speak against you silenced, and then you are glad America is transformed into a sort of anti-American nation.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Allow in mass amounts of third world people and you will have a third world nation. I do not find anything wrong or controversial in stating the obvious.

That's the goal of globalization though! Pat thinks the coming 3rd world status of the United States is a result of liberal anti-racist immigration policies of liberal politicians. He may be partially right, but the main reason the powers that be want the United States to be brought in line with the rest of the world is an equalization of labor costs and a globe full of responsible development. ie, tyranny. UN Agenda 21. The Earth can't sustain 7 billion people that live like the average middle class American. Or so they say.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm reminded of a post, in a thread not so far away, in which you stated:

You can't "prove" someone isn't racist.

(source: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

The implication is self-evident. As such I'll not attempt to "prove" P. Buchanan is not a racist if only because your standard stretches charitable markers. Instead, I have only to say that your metric neglects the cultural argument Mr. Buchanan makes. From your own source:

Americans who seek stricter immigration control have been charged with many social sins: racism, xenophobia, nativism. Yet none has sought to expel any fellow American based on color or creed. We have only sought to preserve the country we grew up in. Do not people everywhere do that, without being reviled? What motivates people who insist that America’s doors be held open wide until the European majority has disappeared?

What is their grudge against the old America that eats at their heart?

TPM likens that to either racism or "just crazy talk," neither of which I can obectively point at. Does my inability to register either the racism or craziness of that statement imply I'm a racist as well? Is it racist or crazy for someone to advocate for the sustainment & preservation of their culture, rather than be overcome by diversity which may not preserve cultural tenets that speak to personal value & belief? I would suggest that if your answer is "yes" then all major ethnicities, as well as their subdivisiions, are racist as well.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too unless are willing to acknowledge the extistence of a common theme among ethnic groups (recall that ethnicity is not one's race): it is natural that people strive to maintain their ethnicity/culture. Qualtitatively the two are synonymous.

What if I said that I think you're a racist? Could you prove that you're not?

MSNBC got tired of all the racist things that slipped out of Buchanan's mouth. He's old school racist, he boils everything down to race. "No matter how great an achievement made by a black man, he only got awarded because he's black."

Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements

• Wanted to close the borders to protect white dominance.
  
• Blamed lower test scores on minorities.
  
• Claimed Jerry Sandusky’s atrocities are because of “Homosexual marriage.”
  
• Said the Jewish population in the United States dropped in the 90s because Jews aborted all their babies.
  
• Asserted Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people including 69 teens in Norway, “may have been right.”
  
• Claimed that all great nations punish the gays.
  
• Penned “The Affirmative Action Nobel.”
  
• Argued that Poland and the United Kingdom had it coming in World War II.
  
• Dabbled in Holocaust denial.
  
• Argued Hitler was an individual of “great courage.”

The source article expands on each of those comments above. And this is only a sampling of the stupid things Buchanan has said. I like some of the things Buchanan says about keeping the government on track, but he undermines it all when he slips into that old school racism mode.

I'm glad you made this thread. This needs to be talked about here. I hate MSNBC, I never watched Pat. Now I wish I had to see what he was talking about. They did the same thing to Juan Williams and now he's got a comfy job at Fox News. They hate Fox News and republicans so much, then stop trying to take away the freedom of speech from their commentators and forcing them to leave the network to take their views over to Fox! I always hear about all of the FOX bashing well, this proves that MSNBC is worse. We don't like what you say, so you leave the network. OMG! That sounds something like FOX News would say. Get out of here and go to Fox News. Then they complain and claim they don't understand how Fox is doing so well over all the other cable networks! What hypocrites.

The difference between the Judge and these guys, is that the Judge still has the right to go back on Fox News. He still talks to Sheppard Smith all the time lately! Maybe he'll be a co-anchor for him or something.

This is a perfect example about why I am on here, "Trying to understand Liberals"

reply to post by Misoir


I agree with your stance that some groups are promoting a PC culture of anti-free-speech and that will be a destructive force. Also the balkanization is not just in the US but in some other places too. I think TPTB are allowing it for their purposes of general breakdown, but where do we draw the line between what America emerged as, the Melting Pot of Freedom, and the deliberate breakdown of the system? I agree that when so many people come from so many different places and then try to keep their native language, it will be as The Tower of Babel, where nobody understands one another. How can we be a cohesive whole when so many different cultures and languages clash?

I'm sorry but even as a moderate liberal, I have to say that Pat Buchanan is wicked smart and has some fantastic insight. I really like him and I do not think for one minute he has any ill intent or animosity.

I've seen him discuss and debate with a wide variety of people over the years - of all persuasions and political leanings. He not only firmly stands for what he believes in but he also admits when he is wrong, when conservatives are wrong, when Catholics are wrong and is generally very civil.

He is just a very intellectual person of the old school style thinking. His ideas have become out-dated and politically incorrect, it doesn't mean he's a racist or a bigot or should be removed from polite society.

Poor guy, this is no way to go out.

ETA: He was right about the pitfalls of globalization 20 years before it became a glaring issue. Maybe that's why he is being silenced.

reply to post by kosmicjack


It is strange, when I was a Liberal Pat Buchanan was the only Conservative who I could actually listen to and respectfully disagree with. That so many people are treating him this way infuriates me. All it shows is that they never actually listened to what the man had to say and what he actually did for people. You and I do not agree much, but on this issue we have some common ground.