Pat Buchanan – National-Socialist Worldview

A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh

Hadding — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:52:00 +0000

Part One: “Pursuit of Excellence” vs. Getting Along by Going Along

Part Two: Conservatism in Crisis

Why was Pat Buchanan fired from MSNBC?

Hadding — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:38:00 +0000


Pat Buchanan denounces anti-White bias while Rachel Maddow tries not to cry.

Synopsis of “A Closer Look at What Happened to Pat Buchanan”

Many have assumed that Pat Buchanan’s dismissal from MSNBC was due to leftist agitation and the prevalence of leftists within MSNBC. I argue that although Buchanan has conflicts with leftists, the real agents of his downfall are probably not leftists but Zionist Jews.

Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News a year ago. When any credit for Beck’s downfall was given, it was usually given to Color of Change, but a closer look shows that Beck was actually able to survive all the trouble that Color of Change could muster. It was only after Beck attacked the Middle-East régime-change project, when influential neocons turned against him, that patience with Beck at Fox News ended.

Buchanan was probably fired from MSNBC for roughly the same reason that got Glenn Beck fired from Fox: because he was inconvenient for the Israel-First foreign policy. Fox News canceled Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch at about the same time, many believe, for the same reason. The timing could be related to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign as well as current and future indefensible activities in U.S. foreign policy.

Cenk Uygur quotes the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, as saying that “people in Washington” make programming suggestions to MSNBC, and according to Uygur MSNBC complies with these suggestions. One day in the spring of 2011 he was called into Phil Griffin’s office where the president of MSNBC said to him: “I was just in Washington, and people in Washington tell me that they’re concerned about your tone…. Look, you’ve got to tone it down.”

This explains, not only why Buchanan and Napolitano were fired at about the same time, but also why MSNBC’s prime-time schedule was suddenly, drastically changed a short time before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, with suppression of the strong criticisms of war-propaganda that MSNBC had been airing.

The essay has been published in two parts on The Occidental Observer.

Part I

Part II

A Piece of “Revisionist History” That Some Conservatives Have Long Accepted

Hadding — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:35:00 +0000

A little while ago somebody who likes to think of himself as a conservative called me a “revisionist” — which in current U.S. “conservative” political rhetoric amounts to calling me a liar, since these people are sure that all the history ever taught to them was correct — for saying that President Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack the USA in 1941. This is an example of how the truth, when revealed, can still fail to eradicate a lie that is emotionally charged. If that “conservative” won’t take it from me, maybe he will take it from the bona fide conservative columnist Charley Reese.

How our government started war with Japan

Charley Reese

16 August 1978

Have you ever stopped to think what a bad spot you’re in when your own government deceives you?

I’m not talking about the petty lies of a self-seeking individual, but a cold, calculated policy of deliberate deception by the government as a whole.

Suppose, for example, the government tells the people it is attempting to strengthen the value of the dollar when, in fact, it is embarked on a deliberate policy of destroying the value of the dollar. What are the implications of such a deception?

Well, consider the possible motives for deception. One obvious motive is to make the deceiver look better than he would look if the truth were known. It’s probably the most common motive for the lying that individual politicians do. But another motive is to prevent the deceived person from protecting himself from harm which he could prevent if he knew the true situation. The first motive is relatively benign, based primarily on the ego and fear of the liar, but the second motive is malicious. It is based on either an intent to cause harm or on a calloused disregard for the welfare of the person being deceived.

It is not a comfortable feeling to think that people who occupy positions of power are capable of such malice or callousness toward innocent people who have done them no harm. We can accept this when we see it in foreign governments, like the Soviet Union, but it is hard to swallow when you are talking about the government of the good old U.S. of A. Yet, in human affairs, anything is possible and in trying to understand our times, we should consider all possibilities.

Have you ever stopped to think, for example, why we went to war with Japan? Pearl Harbor, of course. But Pearl Harbor, as strange as it may sound, was only the superficial reason.

Why do you suppose Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place? Obviously Japan did not believe that she could conquer and occupy the United States. By 1941, she had been fighting China for 10 years and still had not subdued that country.

No, historical research has shown that Japan was forced to fight and hoped that by knocking out most of the U.S. Fleet, she could gain the time to consolidate her position in Asia and then negotiate a peace.

Japan had gone to war with China in 1931. Japan clearly intended to dominate Asia which at that time was dominated by England, France, and Holland. Our government attempted to intervene. From the beginning of the Japanese-Chinese war, we began to apply diplomatic pressure. In April, 1939, we shifted the U.S. Fleet to the Pacific. In July, 1939, we informed Japan we would not renew a trade treaty and would continue to trade only on a day-to-day basis.

In September, 1940, we provided China with $55 million worth of aid and ordered all Americans out of Asia except for the Philippines. That same year we threatened Japan with an oil embargo, imposed a scrap iron and steel embargo on her, moved Marines onto Midway Island, passed the Selective Service Act, and began to build a two-ocean Navy.

In July, 1941, President Roosevelt halted all trade with Japan, seized all Japanese assets in the United States, and nationalized the Philippine forces. In August, 1941, Roosevelt delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to Japan.

After all of this, it was not until three months later, on November 7, that the Japanese made the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. As you can see, the U.S. government was clearly pushing Japan into war in an effort to protect French, British, and Dutch interests in the Far East. Yet during all of these preparations for war, the administration was telling the American people the opposite.

“And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I shall give you one more assurance,” Roosevelt said in a campaign speech in October 1940. “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!”

Think about that as you watch the Carter Administration “defend” the dollar.

[Source: Boca Raton News]

More recently, Pat Buchanan has weighed in. Buchanan says that Roosevelt really did not want war but was dragged into it by subordinates in his own administration. (This is a possibility not entirely to be dismissed: FDR was near the end of his life and not in good health. There is also a book [download], My Exploited Father-in-Law, by FDR’s son-in-law Curtis Dall, that makes this kind of argument.)

For some reason Buchanan doesn’t point out — although he surely knows it like the back of his hand — that Owen Lattimore, the State Department employee who blocked negotiations between the United States and Japan, was identified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1950 as a key pro-Communist influence on State Department policy. Getting the United States into war with Japan clearly benefited the USSR. Dean Acheson, whom Buchanan also names as playing a key role in forcing war between the United States and Japan — against FDR’s will, allegedly — was Lattimore’s mentor.

Buchanan seems to be trying to keep one foot in the mainstream by not talking about Communists in the FDR Administration — perhaps also with his somewhat surprising thesis that FDR really didn’t want war — and certainly that is the purpose of including a gratuitous reference to the “Rape of Nanking,” which seems to have been, at least to a considerable extent, a creation of Chinese propaganda and Hollywood studios. (You can see evidence of Hollywood’s role in creating the “Rape of Nanking” here.) Perhaps Buchanan would have dragged in the Holocaust too if he could have contrived a passable excuse. While Buchanan’s historical narrative is consistent with what Charley Reese wrote 33 years earlier, Buchanan saccharine-coats his Pearl Harbor revisionism with undue reverence for other sacred cows.

It is noteworthy that in 1941 the propaganda about “Neville Chamberlain the appeaser” was already in full swing: according to Buchanan it prevented the United States from accepting reasonable concessions from Japan lest the President be accused of “appeasement.” This form of propaganda amounts to questioning a leader’s (or a nation’s) manhood, and it has probably greatly increased the willingness of less thoughtful people to support unnecessary wars. While that kind of worry about what will be said may have pushed some politicians into war, there is evidence that Franklin Roosevelt actually wanted war, having even exerted pressure to get the European war started: this is the thesis of a book by Congressman Hamilton Fish published in 1976. Buchanan does not go as far as Fish.

Why Did Japan Attack Us?

Patrick J. Buchanan

11 December 2001

Of all the days that will “live in infamy” in American history, two stand out: Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941.

But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan’s claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. “They are not bluffing,” warned Wilson, as he capitulated. “We gave them what they should not have.”

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin’s brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was “shocked, shocked” that Japan would embark upon a course of “aggression.” Said one Japanese diplomat, “Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge.”

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan’s retreat.

Fearful of a “second Munich,” America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a “modus vivendi.” If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became “hysterical,” and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

“For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ‘It might have been.'” A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

[Source: The American Cause]

“Buchanan’s Holocaust Denial Forum”

Hadding — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:02:00 +0000

President Reagan lays a wreath at Bitburg Cemetery, Germany, 1985. Press Secretary Pat Buchanan had urged Reagan to visit the cemetery and wrote Reagan’s speech calling the German war-dead “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” Regardless of how this may have been meant, Jews did not appreciate the manifest lack of special reverence for their Holocaust Myth.

A few weeks ago one of my internet contacts pointed out to me a thread about Holocaust Revisionism on the forum at Buchanan.org, because I am well informed on the subject and might have much to contribute. I found that the posters on the forum were not very well informed and indeed there was a lot of educating that I could do there.

For the first three or four weeks, although there was much disagreement, there was almost nobody saying that I should not be allowed to say what I was saying. The only individual who expressed rage at expressions of Holocaust skepticism was a Jew, steve33, who responded with clichéd insults about trailer parks etc. that I ignored, since his demeanor discredited him much more than his insults harmed me. Interestingly, some of the posters on the forum that had been arguing against my position asked the administrator, Linda Muller, that steve33 be removed from the forum. Linda refused to do that, saying that if a Holocaust skeptic is allowed to post then somebody on the other side should be allowed to post as well, notwithstanding the irrational nature of steve33’s contributions.

A few days ago, somebody called Andrea Freiboden who had never posted on the Revisionist thread started a thread with the theme that “Holocaust Denial” should not be discussed, because, she claimed, the Holocaust was an indisputable fact; rather, she said, more was to be accomplished by talking about “Bolshocaust Denial,” whitewashing of Communist mass-murders.

I had some criticisms of this position. In the first place, Andrea Freiboden would not explain why she believed that the Holocaust was indisputable; she simply restated the same unsupported assertions over and over. In the second place, it is unnecessary cowardice, I would say, to avoid discussing an issue on an internet forum because it supposedly wouldn’t go over well rhetorically. Finally, Bolshevism is ancient history and irrelevant — Who is overtly trying to get Americans to embrace Communism these days? — whereas the Holocaust Story is crucial to Zionism, which has everything to do with unnecessary Middle-East wars and probably the bankrupting of the US economy.

On 11 May a self-identified Jew with the username Dr. Remulak chimed in on the three-day-old Bolshocaust thread, commending Andrea Freiboden in a rather exaggerated way. Andrea had expressed hostility toward Jews, but for the Jew this was no problem; “Holocaust Denial” on the other hand, totally unacceptable.

The next day, 12 May, Buchanan.org was down for a while and when it came back up, the forum was gone.

It was rather obvious that the forum had been removed because of somebody’s reaction to my posts.

There was a third thread on which I had made some controversial remarks, not related to the Holocaust. On a thread commenting on Pat Buchanan’s essay “Jim Crow Liberalism,” I had pointed out that Buchanan was endorsing the liberal view of Jim Crow Laws, which had the rational purpose of protecting White people from various problems associated with Negroes. Endorsing liberal assumptions, I said, is longterm ideological suicide. This led into a discussion of lynching, which, I was pleased to inform a totally clueless and propaganda-saturated Canadian and Australian, was generally done in response to violent crime, not just out of racial meanness. I said that Black criminality has always been a serious problem and that due process has never been able to cope with it.

It seemed to me however that the removal of the forum was more likely due to my posts about the Holocaust, because there is a well known pattern of organized pressure being used to suppress questioning of the Holocaust Myth. For example, there is the current pressure on Facebook, which I understand has already resulted in a few Facebook users being removed.

Later I found out about Menachem Z. Rosensaft’s complaint in the New York Daily News. (Rosensaft is General Counsel of the World Jewish Congress, having been appointed in March 2009.)

It was a bad decision to take down the forum, because instead of an unmoderated forum with one thread called “Discussion about ‘the Holocaust'” with people posting on both sides of the question, and another thread with the theme, Don’t talk about the Holocaust!, and dozens of threads having no relation to the topic one way or the other, it became, in the words of the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “Buchanan’s Holocaust Denial Forum,” and, the forum having disappeared, nobody could check to see how absurd this characterization was.

It’s also too bad that the forum didn’t stay up so that people could see how Rosensaft cherrypicked the less credible statements from the thread. I think that the most egregious comments that Rosensaft quoted were from Schnapps, whose username is not without basis. Although I was by far the main revisionist on the forum, only one of those ostensibly representative statements was posted by me, the one about the Holocaust Myth being exclusively of Jewish origin, which is well supported in its original context, Professor Robert Faurisson’s 1986 essay, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss.”

Taking the forum down says, We have something to hide. Leaving it up would have left Menachem Z. Rosensaft looking ridiculous to anyone who bothered to investigate. Taking it down made Buchanan look cowardly to supporters and guilty to critics.

The complaint about the forum was nit-picking, criticism based on a silly excuse rather than a real concern. Removing the forum will not reduce the attacks on Buchanan even a little. The Jews have accumulated a long list of perceived grievances against Buchanan that is the real basis of their hostility, and removing the forum from Buchanan.org will not change that.*

It was such an irrational decision to take the forum down, seemingly based on an exaggerated momentary panic — which to me seems uncharacteristic of Buchanan — that I am inclined to think that the decision was made not by Buchanan but by the website’s owner and administrator Linda Muller. This looks like a female decision to me.

________________________________________

*What they call Buchanan’s anti-Semitism seems to be really just a lack of special reverence for the Jews on Buchanan’s part. Currently Jews are particularly irate over Buchanan’s renewed defense of John Demjanjuk, who is to be tried as a war criminal in Germany even though he has already been tried and released due to lack of evidence in Israel. It does not take a Jew-hater to say that this is beyond unreasonable; it only takes somebody without any special reverence for the Jews and their Holocaust Myth, and that is Pat Buchanan.