So were Ed Gein, Hitler, and John Wayne Gacey.

“the only mainstream conservative in the popular media who gives a damn about whether or not Western civilization lives or dies.”

Please define “Western civilization”. And he is far from the only right wing blowhard whining about the death of Western civilization. In fact, right wing blowhards were whining about that as far back as the late 19th century. Maybe “Western civilization”, whatever it is, is stronger than they think.

“He is a traditionalist.”

He may call himself that, but many “traditions” these people speak of didn’t exist, or were negative.

“And he is not anti-black. There were many black leaders and thinkers before 1960 who were concerned about the uplift of the black race in America who did not see mandatory desegregation and federal government paternalism as the answers to their problems.”

So you support segregation and you think that blacks live off the government(strange, seeing as how whites still receive the bulk of welfare dollars, and that’s not including subsidies and special tax breaks).

Odd, since racism is usually about judging groups of people, not individuals. Perhaps you aren’t really looking.

“He nominated after all a black woman to be his running mate in 2000.”

A move which delivered his supporters over to the GOP, as it turns out,

” Nor is he particularly hostile towards race-based groups that seek the advancement of their race.”

You miss the point of those groups. They seek “advancement” to equality, not a superior position.

” In fact, he probably see their efforts as natural, and only wants whites to be able to explicitely pursue policies their own racial self-interest as well.”

Judging by all statistics, “whites” are advancing their “racial interests” quite well. Compared to Kurds in Turkey or Palestinians.

“What he is sceptical about is the idea that forcing racial groups to interact together in every sphere of life, with no regard to the preferences of the groups concerned, and with coercive governmental policies designed to enforce equality of outcome amongst the different groups, is a path that will lead to unity, harmony and national greatness.”

Please cite some examples of what you say here. Also it seems like you are saying he endorses segregation.

“True, but why are you so intolerant of these views that you seek to prevent other people from hearing them? It is not like he is not being CHALLENGED when he expresses his viewpoint on MSNBC.”

If I were allowed on MSNBC, I would bury Pat Buchanan in a debate. But I am not allowed on networks like that, because my views are far outside what is tolerated in the American media by any side. The media gives Pat and others far more freedom of speech than most of us.

“Personally, I wish he was on Fox News instead. His role on MSNBC is to shock liberals, who are too closed minded for most part to even consider his viewpoints. Fox News however is watched by conservatives who MIGHT just hear what he says and begin to question the neocon kool-aid they are being given daily.”

Unlikely. Conservatives are famous for being able to hold conflicting views without noticing.

How is Buchanan like a breath of fresh air? It stinks of hatred and passively promotes violence. Its as putrid as hate has ever been. He mixes truth with lies and opines as if he is speaking factually. I have no idea what you consider fresh air, but I think whatever you’re smelling is attracting flies.

I see no evidence that Buchanan is bigoted towards INDIVIDUALS of another race. He nominated after all a black woman to be his running mate in 2000. Nor is he particularly hostile towards race-based groups that seek the advancement of their race. In fact, he probably see their efforts as natural, and only wants whites to be able to explicitely pursue policies their own racial self-interest as well. What he is sceptical about is the idea that forcing racial groups to interact together in every sphere of life, with no regard to the preferences of the groups concerned, and with coercive governmental policies designed to enforce equality of outcome amongst the different groups, is a path that will lead to unity, harmony and national greatness.

“First Amendment…nor does it forbid the viewers of that network — or any other group of citizens — from asking the network to drop him over his long history of racist pronouncements.”

True, but why are you so intolerant of these views that you seek to prevent other people from hearing them? It is not like he is not being CHALLENGED when he expresses his viewpoint on MSNBC.

Personally, I wish he was on Fox News instead. His role on MSNBC is to shock liberals, who are too closed minded for most part to even consider his viewpoints. Fox News however is watched by conservatives who MIGHT just hear what he says and begin to question the neocon kool-aid they are being given daily.

I’ll be honest in saying you’re the first commenter to surpass Ruslan in quality of prose.

That was a truly brilliant piece of analysis, and if you don’t mind, I may pass it on to a few friends. Very impressive.

Thank you

Today, American Express, Xerox. Merck (yes), and Aetna are headed by African-Americans. Tell them they are leading the nation into decline.

But Buchanan’s greatest threat is not his wild assertions (mostly recycled from 18th century English parliament debates, Klan warnings of the decline of America and the rhetoric of US senators like SC’s Cotton Ed Smith in the 1920s and NC’s Jesse Helms more recently), or his role as an apologist for white people. It’s not his network and media platform. His greatest danger is as a distraction, the opposite of Athena’s apples, but for the same purpose. His role is to focus the public vision away from the GOP’s drive for unfettered, unchecked power. He appeals to the old order, while blinding everyone to his own irrelevancy. Buchanan is a modern Falstaff, vain, bombastic, cowardly, trading fear for courage. In every situation and action that he engages, Buchanan subverts the right order and stands for absolutist rule, feudal economics, and military virtues. He is ready to use other people as a means for his own ends. He steals old, re-cycled ideas. He and other pundits have lost their ambition of critical discovery.

They never reference the amazing growth of Brasil and its rise as a world economic leader in markets and moving 31 million of impoverished masses into middle class in the last decade. They ignore the means are no longer about the old ends. Buchanan is what one Shakespearean scholar described as a “stage butt.” Take much of what he says as a jest and remember ideologically he is a thief.

ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2011 AT 12:30 AM
Hate speech is not protected speech.

@jeupucta, as several people in this thread have correctly pointed out, the United States does not have laws limiting (or even defining) “hate speech.” That’s why, for instance, Holocaust denier David Irving can be prosecuted in Europe, where there are hate speech laws, but not in America, where there aren’t.

These constitutional protections apply equally to everyone, and are part of the makings of a vibrant democracy. They’re the reason, for instance, that LGBT organizations and La Raza and other groups reviled by the extreme right can stage rallies and events to express their views, just as organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups can express theirs.

“Hate speech is not protected speech.”

Of course it is! As it must be. Otherwise the debate changes from policy and facts to whether or not something can be considered “hate” speech. And with that, freedom of speech is destroyed.

How do you not know this?

Dick Lancaster, you make assumptions that people in different regions get along with based on their regional dwelling or ideology. How do you know? Did you talk to these individuals? I don’t know if they get along with each other because it’s all based on the individual, so I won’t assume they all get along because of regional dwelling or ideology. As for your other diatribe, I cannot speak for others, but if funinsnow likes Pat Buchanan, I don’t care. If he or she identifies as an American only, I don’t care. My comment was a response to something else funinsnow typed and the lack of knowledge he or she has about India and the amount slaughters that occured there both during British colonialism and after independence among others. And your take on the CBC and James Edwards is asinine.

Also, if you read the article, there are only two organizations calling for MSNBC to fire Buchanan: Media Matters for America and Color of Change. SPLC is not on that list.

Can anyone cite Buchanan “openly” embracing “white nationalism”, or is it safe to disregard this entire libelous piece?

What on earth are you talking about? No one brought up Zionism.

Why don’t you go back to Stormfront?

Both white and black southerners get along with each other much better than southerners and northerners. In recent decades blacks everywhere have been politicized. It is that politization and not the race that causes the radical divisions you see. Your perspective is completely northern where the southern stereotypes were formed during the civil rights movement.

Southerners, white and black grew up with each other. Northerners kept their ethnic and racial groups segregated. A Wisconsin yankee who has never met a black man assumes the black man has been maltreated in the south and never once looked in his own back yard.

The segregation both north and south today is self-imposed. And it has less to do with race than it does with ideology. Find a conservative black man and see how he’s treated by “his people” as well as northern liberals. Bring him down here to Mississippi and he’ll find some pleasent white company.

However, firing Buchannan would be consistant with the left’s standard tactics–ending debate when they’re losing it.

As I read these posts it appears to me that funinsnow is an American of Indian descent. The critics chastizing him for supporting Buchannan who they feel is bigoted against funinsnow’s “people” is more a refection on his critics (or her critics). It seems to incense these critics that funinsnow would identify as an American rather than a first generation Indian. It is not funinsnow’s attitude but his critics that illustrate the Balcanization of this country.

With regards to author Leah Nelson’s take on James Edwards, she seems to be making a point herself when she says, ” Edwards, to be sure, does seem to make a point of keeping himself away from the lowest dregs of the extreme right. The “Cesspool” host is a rising star of the white nationalist movement because he’s articulate and equally at ease in a television studio, behind a radio microphone, or standing in front of a crowd. Edwards carefully avoids using crudely derogatory language. Though he allies himself with hate group leaders who call black people “niggers,” he doesn’t drop the N-bomb himself. Instead he speaks in the more or less polished code of a suit-and-tie racist, calling blacks “heathen savages,” “subhumans,” and “black animals,” exclusively in the context of discussing violent black-on-white crime.”

Well, this is what the left has been doing for decades. And from many of the posts from the leftists here, it seems to be a successful strategy. We can dress up the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and brush their teeth, but they’re still racists.

No, wait. Only whites can be racist. Hear that, funinsnow? You’re off the hook on that one.

The First Amendment prohibits government censorship. It doesn’t give Pat Buchanan a right to a coveted slot on a national network, nor does it forbid the viewers of that network — or any other group of citizens — from asking the network to drop him over his long history of racist pronouncements.

The Right’s hostile reaction to this basic exercise of consumer rights shows how little they actually care for free-market principles.

The only question that I have is how all of these people who always hated Jews and Catholics in general and Irish Catholics in particular. Irish Protestants such as Ian Paisley were somehow all right. Now so are Irish Catholics and even Italians as long as they hate the real enemy, which is blacks, Arabs, Muslims in general, and Mexicans. The question is, how many centuries will it take for you to turn into human beings?

My comment appeared after yours, but was sent in (but not posted) before yours was visible. Hence, the misunderstandings. I did not write in response to your original comment b/c I had not even seen it. Hence, I had not called you anti-intellectual. I did not — at the time — yet know you existed.

The above list in the essay offered by the author is a hit piece replete with ad hominems of guilt by non-association. You think the SPLC really cares that Buchanan went on a radio show they find offensive in order to sell his book? Their own person went on a radio show way more offensive! Mark Potok went on the Jim Giles show! That guy called for GENOCIDE of Jew, aron! I kid you not. And Mark Potok of the SPLC still went on his show.

Now I know the SPLC fans will explain how different it supposedly is. Because Potok is all about Tikkun Olam or some nonsense. But can you understand why I’m not buying that, and I don’t care what radio show Buchanan was on or what guests were there before or after?

This shouldn’t be about the radio show’s other guests. It should be about Buchanan, and when it is guilt by non-association, it usually means they and their funders just don’t like the guy.

By the way, raise your hand if you think Buchanan ACTUALLY wrote any of his work. Now, raise your middle finger and point it at Buchanan. Trust me, you’ll feel better instantly.

Diane failed point out the fact the Patty’s issues are those he and his radical right wing buddies have created on FOX, Limpball, and all the other treasonous and degenerate radio and tv programs they are allowed to poison our airwaves with. Don’t anyone dare tell me they have not had their air time to screw with the minds of the weak willies who are mad because they are not getting a big enough piece of the capitalist pie and need to cast blame on someone. Immigrants, blacks, women….any target will do. I say, send Buchanan back to the country of his choice that suits his temprament, say Russia, China, or Uganda or Sudan. He’ll fit right in.

You’re right. It was a character smear (schmear, if you will). I misunderstood your reference, and was so appalled by what I thought you had said that I lost my decorum. For that, you have my apologies.

However, I stand by everything I said after that.

(Also, your grasp of Yinglish is leagues above mine. And for that, I am quite jealous.)