Why was Pat Buchanan fired from MSNBC?

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. Andrew Napolitano was fired from Fox News 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

Brute Force and the Idea

The following appears in the U.S. Army's 1943 series of propaganda-films, Why We Fight, at 13:52 in the episode titled Prelude to War.

It says:

"Only the application of brute force used continuously and ruthlessly can bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports"

Mein Kampf - Page 189 - German Edition

The purport of the alleged quote is that Adolf Hitler trusted only in brute force. Therewith it also implies a low regard for the importance of ideas and truth, and no inclination to abide by any principle. This alleged quote implies the entire portrait of Adolf Hitler that Why We Fight presents: that he is a brutal and opportunistic criminal, that he cannot be trusted, that he must therefore be destroyed through violent means.

It is curious that in this instance it was decided to reference the "German edition" of Mein Kampf, even though the sentence is not in German but in English. There was no obvious reason to do that, since two unexpurgated English translations were available as of 1941, one of them distinctly hostile to Hitler. The implication of presenting a sentence in English but referencing it to the German edition is that the information could not be found in an English edition, but that is on its face extremely unlikely.

We can find something resembling this alleged quote in the English translation published in 1941 by Reynal and Hitchcock. Words used in the alleged quote appear in red:

Every attempt at fighting a view of life by means of force will finally fail, unless the fight against it represents the form of an attack for the sake of a new spiritual direction. Only in the struggle of two views of life with each other can the weapon of brute force, used continuously and ruthlessly, bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. New School for Social Research, p. 223]

Notice what was left out: where Hitler used the qualifier, "in the struggle of two views of life with each other," the film entirely omits this.

In the German edition of 1943, the corresponding passage does indeed appear on page 189:

Jeder Versuch, eine Weltanschauung mit Machtmitteln zu bekämpfen, scheitert am Ende, solange nicht der Kampf die Form des Angriffes für eine neue geistige Einstellung erhält. Nur im Ringen zweier Weltanschauungen miteinander vermag die Waffe der brutalen Gewalt, beharrlich und rücksichtslos eingesetzt, die Entscheidung für die von ihr unterstützte Seite herbeizuführen.[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, ed. 1943, p. 189]

The Reynal and Hitchcock edition represents the meaning of this German passage accurately, so that referencing the German edition was unnecessary. Furthermore, the words in the film match the words in that translation closely enough that it is obvious that the Reynal and Hitchcock edition was in fact the source, here as elsewhere in Why We Fight.

Why, then, does Why We Fight in this instance reference a page number in the German edition? Most likely this was done so that it would be very difficult for Americans having seen the film to check the accuracy of the quote. It is not even close to being accurate.

The words are altered in such a way that Hitler is represented as saying very nearly the opposite of what he did say. Adolf Hitler was not saying that ruthless use of force was the key to everything. What he said -- read it for yourself -- was that force by itself was ultimately impotent, that force could only prevail if it were employed in service to an idea (or geistliche Einstellung, spiritual orientation). The lack of any such idea was, he said, the reason why attempts to combat Marxism with force alone had failed. Far from being contemptuous of the idea, Hitler insists on it.*

_________________________

* The false view of Adolf Hitler as contemptuous of thinking and ideas was so successfully propagated that Friedrich Hayek, an ideological enemy of National-Socialism, felt compelled to begin chapter 12 of his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom with these words: "It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background." (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) This view of National-Socialism was not some random "common mistake"; it was a lie deliberately propagated, and unfortunately still widely believed today.

What was that thing about "a noble and unique race"?

I was reviewing Frank Capra's terrible 1943 war-propaganda series, Why We Fight, made by Frank Capra working for the United States Army (and often shown on television since then), and came across this alleged quote from Adolf Hitler:

That's from 28:52 in the episode subtitled War Comes to America. It says: 

The Germans are a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of God.

Hitler

MEIN KAMPF

The key words there are "to whom the earth was given." Obviously, this statement was supposed to lend credence to the claim that Adolf Hitler and Germany were intent on conquering the entire world (a persistent theme of Why We Fight). It is however not an accurate quote but an adaptation of a sentence from the translation of Mein Kampf published by Reynal and Hitchcock in 1941:

Both, yes, both Christian denominations regard with indifference this desecration and annihilation of a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of God.[Mein Kampf, tr.New School for Social Research, p. 728]

This Reynal and Hitchcock edition boasted of being "unexpurgated," so that readers might expect to find some statements offensive to non-Germans that were omitted in the authorized translation. Voilà! A shocking statement of intention to conquer the world, straight from Hitler himself!

But there is a problem. The translators of the Reynal and Hitchcock edition were a committee assembled at the New School for Social Research, a leftist institution that had received a large number of refugees from Germany and where there was presumably very little sympathy for Hitler's ideas. It seems therefore a good idea to verify the accuracy of the translation.

When you go to the German text of Mein Kampf, you find this:

Beide, jawohl, beide christliche Konfessionen sehen dieser Entweihung und Zerstörung eines durch Gottes Gnade der Erde gegebenen edlen und einzigartigen Lebewesens gleichgültig zu.

The word for earth there is in the dative case, der Erde, which would normally be translated as to the earth or for the earth. It is impossible for a competent translator to make out of this "to whom the Earth was given," since that would require die Erde, nominative case. The Reynal and Hitchcock translation has inverted the relationship between the thing given and the recipient of the thing.  James Murphy's translation, published in March 1939, rendered the sentence as follows:

The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace. [Mein Kampf, tr. Murphy, p. 429]

But really, Edgar Dugdale's abridgement, the first English rendering of Mein Kampf, the authorized translation from 1933, was already perfectly good on this point:

The two Christian churches are looking on this pollution and destruction of a noble and unique existence, granted by God's grace to this earth, with indifferent eyes. [Adolf Hitler, My Struggle, tr. Dugdale, p. 225]

The notion (which I have seen propagated on television) that the New School's committee of translators was somehow more honest and more accurate in representing what Adolf Hitler said turns out to have been quite wrong, even compared to Edgar Dugdale's authorized translation. 

I found a sentence with a similar concatenation of words in F. G. Klopstock's prose summary of his Messiah, which Hitler probably read:

Jetzt blickt der Versöhner auf die Schaaren der Heiligen umher, die das Kreuz umgeben. Er verweilt am längsten bei den Seelen des zukünftigen menschlichen Geschlechts. Es war jetzt einer der großen Zeitpunkten gekommen, in welchen viel edlere Seelen der Erde gegeben werden. [Klopstock, Messias (zehnter Gesang)]

(Now the Conciliator glances around at the throngs of the holy that surround the cross. He dwells longest on the souls of the future human generation. One of the great moments in time had now arrived in which much nobler souls are given to the earth.)

While using a similar construction and some of the same words, Hitler replaces "much nobler souls" with "noble and unique life-essence" to describe the German folk, avoiding comparisons to other peoples in this context. The resonance between Hitler's phrasing and Klopstock's is very strong, and the meaning of der Erde gegeben is the same in both. The resonance is confirmed with Hitler's use of "by the grace of God." He seems to be implying, perhaps subconsciously, an identification of the German people with the perpetuators of Jesus' mission in the world -- but he avoids saying that.*

To summarize, when we track down this alleged quote used in Why We Fight about how Hitler supposedly regards the Germans as entitled to rule the world, we find that it is a misrepresentation compounded (which is typical of alleged quotes appearing in Why We Fight), and that the original statement by Adolf Hitler, correctly understood, did not in any way support the notion that the film was trying to convey.

 ___________________________

* According to the Table Talk, Hitler did not believe that Jesus was a Jew, although possibly a mischling. For his idealism Hitler regarded Jesus as most likely a son of one of the Gaulish veterans of the Roman Army settled by the Romans in Galilee. "Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews." Hitler makes the interesting, and seemingly valid, point that the Jews would not have turned over one of their own to be tried by a Roman court.

Welcome to the Banana Republic

It is confirmed that vote tallies unfavorable to Mitt Romney were nullified in Maine's Republican primary. Similar fraud was reported in several other states.

The legitimacy of the Government of the United States rests on the honesty of the electoral process. The Republican Party is one of the two gatekeepers to power on the national level; its corruption is not a private concern. If this corruption is not punished then the Federal Government will have lost its legitimacy. 

Ron Paul's campaign calls itself "the Ron Paul Revolution." In some ways it really does represent a revolution, a complete change of direction, especially in foreign policy, and the Israel-First establishment is hellbent on preventing that. I will not go so far as President John F. Kennedy, who said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," since the military power of the government is so great that any civilian would be a fool to challenge it in that manner, but I do expect that there will be a stark decline in respect, not only for the government itself but for the rule of law, if these electoral frauds are not vigorously prosecuted. 

If these frauds had been committed to keep a Black from being elected, we would surely see prosecutions. But when it is only White people that are being cheated of self-government, no corrective action is likely to be taken. An attorney friend of mine comments: "You have to get federal prosecutors to do it. That would be a very career-ending idea -- if not sooner then later." Therefore, unless there happens to be a federal prosecutor who is a self-sacrificing idealist, there will be no attempt by the Government of the United States to save itself from the erosion of its own legitimacy.

There is a pattern often seen in banana republics, for example in Guatemala in March 1982, when a presidential election was universally denounced as fraudulent -- the latest in a series of fraudulent elections -- with the result that the sham democracy was overthrown and replaced by a military junta led by Efraín Ríos-Montt. We may see that pattern repeated in the United States during our lifetimes.

A Struggle of Worldwide Importance

Already in the early 1920s, Alfred Rosenberg complains that various political persuasions accused National-Socialism of being the extreme antithesis of whatever they themselves happened to be: capitalist according communists, communist according to capitalists. We still see this today. This kind of distortion has the convenient feature that it avoids the recognition that there could be such thing as serious political thinking not rooted in the  Enlightenment.

Rosenberg's claim that the National-Socialist struggle has become a worldwide struggle may be an allusion to Mussolini, who had come to power about three months prior to this essay. The Beer-Hall Putsch (8-9 November 1923), an imitation of the March on Rome, was attempted slightly more than a year after Mussolini's takeover and about nine months after this essay, but the attempt to duplicate the Fascists' rise through force and intimidation failed. Rosenberg thus turns out to have been completely correct when he said in this essay that the strength of National-Socialism was in the idea itself.

Despite what Rosenberg wrote at the time, it seems that Italian Fascism was influencing the course of the German struggle during 1923 much more than the reverse. This influence was of course curtailed after it produced a disastrous result: thereafter the NSDAP would use only lawful methods to come to power.

In 1934 and 1935, with the NSDAP in power, it would become necessary to play down the worldwide influence of National-Socialism that Rosenberg emphasized in 1923.

National-Socialism in the Global Struggle

Alfred Rosenberg

Völkischer Beobachter, 27 January 1923

(Translation by Hadding Scott, 2012)

The same has happened to National-Socialism as to every great new thought: unnoticed at first, then combated by all powers of a dissolute age with defamation, scorn, and violence, it nonetheless grew into an avalanche. Enraged, all the parties and personages that have lived on the deception of the German people look on and see themselves more and more unmasked. Clueless and terrified the charred shapes of the old national life stand there and fail to comprehend the new spirit of the German future. Calcified in heart and brain, they are completely unprepared to think the thought: that all must somehow be at fault for Germany's misfortune; that one must sense that, today, the impossible can, must, and will be possible, and the irreconcilable be reconciled.

And thus all that is awakening supports the new popular uprising, the existence of which already proves today that the hour of German freedom someday will strike. For, in it, life has become what alone is able to beget life: faith, spirit of sacrifice [Opfersinn], and unlimited will to struggle for a great idea.

This unerring energy has in the course of years yielded its fruits. The opponents of the new people's movement had to argue against it in spite of themselves [wider Willen]; the scales fell from the eyes of many questioners from all camps, and the struggle of global powers and worldviews suddenly appeared to them in a completely different light than previously. Ever more thorough essays appeared in the various newspapers that attempted an analysis of the growing giant. At the same time however came the defamation-campaign. One side called National-Socialism big-capitalist, monarchist, and reactionary; another saw in it a variety of Communism; the third designated it as Bavarian separatism; the fourth as an extreme unitarist movement. Meanwhile National-Socialism had answered only one question: what is of use to the entire productive German people, and what accords with its nature? – without regard for top and bottom, right and left.

If old forms shatter and the times become ripe for a rebirth of the soul [seelische Neugeburt], then all lying and defamation, indeed even all honest and sincere opposition, is in vain. The new form [Gestalt] grows and pushes aside or crushes whatever stands in its way.

Many in Germany struggle against us; many get excited about “putsches” or “planned assassinations” etc. But only very few know that National-Socialism for today's world is much more dangerous than a putsch. It is the herald of a new age for all Europe, for the White Race everywhere.

The German struggle in turn has become a global struggle, even if nothing broader guides the German National-Socialists than unlimited love for the German people.

Thus we gather during one of the most difficult hours of the German people, in order to testify to our invincible faith in this people and to vow to apply all our strength for its resurrection from shame and humiliation.

The final victory is certainly ours.

Our Weapon, The Truth

I wrote an essay that has now been published by The Occidental Observer. The outline is as follows:

1. Some White racialists seem to regard honesty as an impediment. This is a wrong attitude.

   
   

2. While propaganda such as the system uses is beyond our means, counter-propaganda, the disputation of the system's propaganda, is within our means.

   
   

3. By appealing to reason, we cannot win over the masses, but we can win over the rational minority that does not follow the crowd.

   
   

4. Our appeal will be smaller when we progress beyond counter-propaganda to the presentation of a new worldview. This means that our cause is destined to have an inner circle of completely enlightened people, and an outer circle of people that reject the system's propaganda but have not accomplished a revolution in thinking.

   
   

5. Radical social change is accomplished by militant minorities. The majority merely waits to see what happens. We can form our own militant minority by convincing thinking and idealistic people that our way of thinking is correct.

   
   

6. In order to cultivate this elite, we have to be careful in our rhetoric.

   
   

You can read the whole essay on The Occidental Observer. 

Radio Enoch: A British Nationalist Clandestine Broadcaster of the 1970s

This unlicensed "right-wing wireless" station broadcast in 1978-1979, and even attracted the attention of newspapers. 

A front-page article from The Observer, 18 March 1979

Click here to listen.

Like The Voice of Tomorrow in the USA, Radio Enoch's programs were very well done, passable as professional broadcasting, except that the speakers on Radio Enoch all spoke in a West-Midlands accent rather than what used to be the standard BBC pronunciation.

The station of course was named after Enoch Powell, a conservative politician from the West Midlands best known for his Rivers of Blood speech in opposition to continued non-White immigration. 

The broadcast includes discussion of the following:

1. Immigration of Hindus and Muslims creates problems with food in public schools.

2. Rhodesia: the situation is unstable because of conflict among "tribes," among whom the White Man had been the source of order and stability.

3. The need to curb the power of trade unions (discussion followed by anti-union song).

4. Praise of anti-Communist dictator Augusto Pinochet.

5. Complaint about opposition to nuclear power by ecologists, merging into a counter-accusation about overpopulation: "People are the pollutants."

I love the quality of the broadcast, and the material is interesting, better than anything that we get from "conservative" media today -- but that isn't saying much. The ideology presented by Radio Enoch is quite flawed.

Critique

Radio Enoch on Race

Radio Enoch and The Voice of Tomorrow are both explicitly concerned with race, but while The Voice of Tomorrow focuses entirely on race, Radio Enoch calls itself "right-wing" and puts race on the same footing as some other issues. Radio Enoch seems to have been perhaps even more concerned about labor unions than about race. 

Also, the way Radio Enoch discusses race is not as direct as the discussion on The Voice of Tomorrow. Radio Enoch doesn't confront the listener with the worst aspects of multiracialism and ask, "Whatcha gonna do, Whitey?" (Which was more or less Enoch Powell's approach in the powerful Rivers of Blood speech.) Instead they have a woman bemoaning the complications of arranging school-lunches for Hindus and Muslims. Between these two clandestine political broadcasters you can discern the difference between conservative racism (such as it was in the 1970s) and race-radicalism.

Radio Enoch on Jews

The most telling moment comes in the interview with "a well known personality from southeast Africa" when the personality says that we need "to understand who our real enemies are." In other words, we have apparent enemies, and real enemies, somebody pulling the strings behind them.

The interviewer asks, "Whom do you believe them to be?"

The well-known personality responds: "Well they could be a conglomerate of the Marxists, Internationalists, and people who seek to govern through the medium of greed and power."

That is not a straight answer. A real, straightforward answer from a man that  knows "who our real enemies are" does not begin with "Well they could be." Apparently the listeners are supposed to decipher his circumlocution to figure out that he means Jews. Our real enemies are, you know -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- reptilians perhaps. It's questionable how many people are really getting the point there.

Radio Enoch on Labor-Unions

The hostility of "true conservatism"  toward organized labor was, I think, probably self-defeating.

Unionized British laborers mass-demonstrated in support of Enoch Powell.

Right-wing anti-unionism may have harmed the anti-immigration cause in Britain, since much of the groundswell of support for Enoch Powell's anti-immigration stance came from unionized White laborers, e.g. dockers and meat-porters. This kind of internal contradiction is the weakness of national-liberalism, in contrast to national-socialism.  

The Slide into Kosher Conservatism

When the Jewish problem is never stated clearly, and when multiracialism is presented in terms of difficulties of implementation rather than as something unwanted in itself, and when it's all mixed with anti-Marxism and anti-unionism, the possibility of gradually pushing racial concerns out of conservative discourse entirely is obvious. With Jews gaining a foothold in "conservative" media during and since the 197os (and being all-too-eagerly received), that is what has happened. We have reached the point now that so-called conservatives  will even accuse someone of being un-conservative if he tries to raise one of these neglected topics.