← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 12416 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2004-02-20
2004-02-20 01:32 | User Profile
Anyone listening to Weiner-Savage today? He's going after Perle, Frum, and the neocons while plugging Pat Buchanan's new essay,
[url=http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html]**No End to War
The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.**[/url]
My opinion is Weiner knows the political winds are shifting, and ever the neocon opportunist he is, he's abandoning ship and jumping on the paleo-populist bandwagon. We'll see what happens when push comes to shove and distancing America from Israel becomes a central mandate.
Look for more of this gettin-while-the-gettin's good from other pundits in the near future, especially if something real big and real bad happens in Iraq. Any bets who else who's thrown their lot with the neocons bails next?
2004-02-20 06:45 | User Profile
What choice do media Jews [I]have[/I]?
Everybody's broke, thanks to Jewish dreams of Greater Israel and Dubya's frat buddies at Enron and WorldCom. Whoever the next President is is gonna have bad news to tell Americans on taxes and the economy for his entire term. Given that all of Savage Weiner's former guests - who helped him pimp this war - are now admitting it was all a scam and scurrying away from cameras and microphones.....how much longer can he shout [I]"Islamofascism!!" [/I] before John Q Frontporch stops paying attention to the radio and starts angrily jingling the change in his pants pocket while noticing how many more Aztec-faced moon-aliens there seem to be in the street when he walks out the front door than there were a week ago...a year ago...ten years ago? If he ever starts wondering [I]why is all of this happening[/I], Weiner will be cooked till he plumps.
For Weiner and the rest of the Clear Channel [I]Shin Bet[/I], the next few months will be a most advantageous time to suddenly remember how dead-set against illegal immigration they are & always were. Gay marriages will allovasudden turn them much purpler with rage than they ever did when Iraq was flat on the canvas and Syria looked to be the next weakling to be relieved of its lunch money. Maybe they can give away some fresh [I]Jews are GOOD for you [/I] green stamps to the rabble by reviving the ghosts of David Horowitz's campus lecture tour; or, if they're really desperate, Sean Hannity might slap on a skullcap and read excerpts from HATING WHITEY on the air to mark the anniversary of the Crown Heights pogrom.
However, if they can't shift the focus - if the stink of "World War 4" won't subside, or gets worse - [I]of course [/I] they will, to a man, turn on Bush. It's either turn on the President or turn on their Jewish paymasters. Are you kidding? This week alone, I've seen three news-teasers for PASSION stories [I]airing on different networks [/I] and they ALL led with, "Can Mel Gibson's career survive THE PASSION?" And this is maybe the biggest movie star in the [I]world[/I], mind you! What chance would an inchworm like Shep Smith stand if he uttered the word "Jews" in an Iraq-war-blowback story?
Besides, they'll be sure to spin what's actually happening - 'rats diving off a sinking ship' - into '[I]see[/I] the diversity of Jewish opinion? We are so [B]not [/B] all in this together!'
2004-02-20 07:01 | User Profile
LF's "Catamount" says Pat is supposed to be on "Savage Nation" tomorrow (Friday).
We'll see how it pans out. For some reason Weiner has professed admiration for PJB lately, ever since Pat slammed Bush's amnesty program last month.
I guess having a real name like Weiner and a stage name of "Savage" -- and a listening audience of dolts none the wiser -- is convenient when you suddenly have to be careful of your tribal heritage, and comes in handy when you want to roll yourself into an instant "paleo" to suit the political climate du jour.
What's truly hypocritical is he routinely jabs at Larry "King" Seltzer (sp?) while concealing his own identity from the audience.
2004-02-20 07:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]We'll see how it pans out. For some reason Weiner has professed admiration for PJB lately, ever since Pat slammed Bush's amnesty program last month. [/QUOTE]Trisk and Bjarni would say - just one fraud admiring another.
2004-02-20 08:02 | User Profile
Lol, he is properly referred to as "The Savage Weiner" (or Weener).
[QUOTE=Centinel]Anyone listening to Weiner-Savage today? He's going after Perle, Frum, and the neocons while plugging Pat Buchanan's new essay,
[url=http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html]**No End to War
The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.**[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-02-20 09:21 | User Profile
"Trisk and Bjarni would say - just one fraud admiring another."
Not really. I view it as one utterly shameless anti-Occidental jew embracing a fraud that has written some fine material out of expediancy.
2004-02-20 19:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Concerning the second point, are there any visible people out there left to call a spade a spade? If Buchanan gets all friendly with his former would-be opponents like Mr. "Savage," we certainly can't count on him to keep Ziocon perfidy in the limelight. Remember how as soon as the war began, PJB changed his tune from one of "Whose War" to "support our troops," going so far as to join the neocon jackal chorus "Boycott France!" With an "opposition" like this, one which gladly breaks bread with creatures who were once supposedly mortal enemies, maybe Joe Six-Pack is better off watching half-time show reruns.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget this little gem from The Last Ditch:
[url]http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/stopcollection_2.htm[/url]
A republic not; an empire. On PBS's "McLaughlin Group" for May 11, Patrick Buchanan said that U.S. "allies" such as France and Mexico should be forced to "pay the price" for opposing (in company with the vast majority of their people) the Empire's invasion of Iraq. In the past Buchanan has occasionally written some interesting analyses of public affairs, but I'm afraid that any would-be friend of peace and liberty who, at this late date, actually supports the man will find himself almost inextricably deep into Gullible Fool territory. [Nicholas Strakon] (May 2003)
Or this Myles Kantor piece from LRC?
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor81.html]Sock Time or Patriotism?[/url]
2004-02-20 19:38 | User Profile
Yes I get tired of the way some people around here give Buchanan a free pass on everything. Everything he does is supposed to be some kind of brilliant strategy that we lesser mortals can't figure out just yet. They defend him the way freepers defend Dubya.
2004-02-20 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Remember how as soon as the war began, PJB changed his tune from one of "Whose War" to "support our troops," going so far as to join the neocon jackal chorus "Boycott France!" With an "opposition" like this, one which gladly breaks bread with creatures who were once supposedly mortal enemies, maybe Joe Six-Pack is better off watching half-time show reruns.[/QUOTE]
Now you pissed off Okie but good :shocking:
2004-02-20 19:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]Yes I get tired of the way some people around here give Buchanan a free pass on everything.
Who does that, Kurt? Do you have a quote 'cause I have yet to see it.
They defend him the way freepers defend Dubya.[/QUOTE]
Or even better, the way VNN'ers defend Linder.
Centinel,
Has a transcript of that show ever been produced or seen? A few of us asked for it back when that thornwalker article first appeared and I have yet to see it.
2004-02-20 20:34 | User Profile
Buchanan it seems is basically self serving as his change from "free trade" to "protectionism" was based it seems mainly on a hope that the GOP would use Gepheart style working class appeals to win votes. His periodic neo-con statements on war, race and culture indicate to me that he is not to be trusted or at best that his ideology is fatally flawed. Of course he has written some very wonderful material as well and I see no problem with using such and giving it to others. It is foolish I think to assume that the good things he as written should not be complemented with a much wider range of OccidentalTraditionalist material for practical and theoretical reasons as many people and schools have much to offer the cause of national revolt.
2004-02-20 20:38 | User Profile
Perhaps. I noticed the same when I saw the show. But remember that Buchanan has a role to play on that program, and has to play it according to McGlaughlin's script. The boss wants to discuss the war on terror so Buchanan must gurgitate a certain line taking into account the present political realities. Even if Pat is not a Republican he must sometimes play the part of one on television.
I would pay more attention to what he says in his own venue, though even then there is some accuracy in what you say.
2004-02-20 20:52 | User Profile
"Quite frankly, we're going to need the help of these people in the war on terror" Anyone who even uses the term war on terror in other than an ironic sense is of very questionable credibility. To publicly use such BS neocon rhetoric is to subtly validate neocon lines of thought in the minds of one's more gullible listeners, thus making oneself a part of the problem.
"Look, in the case of Vicente Fox and in the case of France, for example, you have got to make people pay a price when they stiff you and they're supposed to be friends." If I want my friends to help me commit a crime and they refuse, then I should make them pay for "stiffing" me?!
My respect for Buchanan has now dropped precipitously. I never read much of him to begin with, so I suppose it's no great loss. I don't believe Pat is deliberately aiding the neocons, but he is aiding them when he makes statements such as quoted here. One would better serve the purposes of true conservatism by playing tiddleywinks in a corner -- though this is not to deny Pat's genuine contributions of the past.
2004-02-20 20:55 | User Profile
Now Angler is treading dangerously close to earning Okie's wrath :lol:
You see, one step forward and two steps back is a great strategy that has never worked :bash:
2004-02-20 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Anyone who even uses the term war on terror in other than an ironic sense is of very questionable credibility. [/QUOTE]
Yep. Same thing goes for those "weapons of mass destruction", now "WMDs". Christ, have any of us ever heard a REAL PERSON, not some Semite local-anchor or goofy blonde newsette, use such a phrase? I haven't. Dresden was obliterated without WMD's.
2004-02-20 21:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]This doesn't make him an "enemy" of ours, it just makes him unreliable as a spokesman, much less a leader, for anything resembling Nationalism or Paleoconservatism.[/QUOTE]
And again I reiterate that no one here is promoting him as such. That misnomer is simply a strawman crafted by those who, for whatever personal reasons I don't pretend to know, detest Buchanan. I can only laugh when I read those kinds of comments here considering that this board would not be in existence and we who established it wouldn't have come to know each other if it wasn't for Patrick Buchanan.
My simple and only point regarding Buchanan is this: the man is not the Messiah of paleo-conservatism or white nationalism. He's done some great things and been inconsistent on others. He's human and has held a very publicly prominent position in mainstream media for years, from where he has helped thousands of us come to where we are now. The bottom line is that I don't see any profit in denouncing the man for every least little inconsistency and cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. When you do that all you do is risk driving away those coming down the same road we once did as younger men. We need to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us and build our movement and ideology responsibly, not simply slashing and burning down everything like some kind of nihilist.
2004-02-21 04:35 | User Profile
My simple and only point regarding Buchanan is this: the man is not the Messiah of paleo-conservatism or white nationalism.
Now ya tell me. :lol:
I guess I just don't see the need anymore for Pat Buchanan, or any "media types" who mince words.
I have no respect for White people who haven't "woken up" yet. There is no excuse. The internet has been around for years now. Computers aren't all that expensive (and there's always the computer at your local library, though some un-PC sites may be blocked). You don't have to get all your info from jewsmedia anymore. The [url=http://www.regmeister.net/pearson/pearson.htm]truth[/url] is out there.
Of course, maybe they just don't want to wake up. Which is understandable.
2004-02-21 06:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]His periodic neo-con statements on war, race and culture indicate to me that he is not to be trusted or at best that his ideology is fatally flawed. Of course he has written some very wonderful material as well and I see no problem with using such and giving it to others.
You're getting soft on us Bjarni. That's hanging out with Americans who can't even spell, let alone read, Pareto will do to you.
They're going to have to send you back to WN reeducation camp.
It is foolish I think to assume that the good things he as written should not be complemented with a much wider range of OccidentalTraditionalist material for practical and theoretical reasons as many people and schools have much to offer the cause of national revolt.[/QUOTE] Com'mon, is that the best you do? No Buchanan's work are heresy - they must be burned!
2004-02-21 06:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Now you pissed off Okie but good :shocking:[/QUOTE]:yawn:
2004-02-21 21:56 | User Profile
That's true, John. Looking back at my previous post on this thread, it seems that I came off sounding harder on Buchanan than I'd intended. One thing I'll say for Pat is that he names Israel, and that's at least as effective as naming the Jew in many or most instances. I believe this because it was issues related to Israel -- specifically, the attack on the USS Liberty and the persecution of the Palestinian refugees -- that led to my own awakening regarding the wider problem of Organized Jewry. While I can't give Pat the credit for my personal awakening, his willingness to shine light on US-Israel entanglement has undoubtedly done much good, regardless of whatever mistakes he might be making today.
BTW: Welcome to the board!
2004-02-22 05:05 | User Profile
There are two things that need to be addressed.
First is that Michael Savage is a lying, Christian manipulating, wishing he was a white nationalist, israeli loving, hide behind the American flag Khazan- COWARD. He calls everyone NAZIS that point out the real owners of the media and then proceeds to defame these people as mentally insane for even suggesting such a thing. He is only helping the Khazan establishment to deflect attacks opon themselves to the mexican problem on the border.
It is the traditional smoke and mirrors trick they use and the joe six-pack of america bites on it every time.
He is the point man for their " I'm a white guy just like you politics" and the average white guy will swallow it hook line and [B]SINKER[/B] every time. Always remember he is the [B][U]ENEMY[/U][/B] and everything he does is for his race's well being, not the white race or the country as a whole.
Look how he now embraces Pat Buchanan and acts like I'm just one of you guys too.
Not a self loving inbreed that has a hidden agenda with every word he speaks on the radio. He would sleep with his own mother if he thought it would help his Israeli agenda.
Second is that Pat Buchanan is a small life raft of white nationalism in a sea of Khazan shit. He has to do battle with serious heavy hitters in poitics and the Khazan media every day. He is the man that has opened the eyes of millions of white men and woman to search out the truth behind the power in our government.
Try to give him a small break when he must run up to that line between them and us, because I have never seen him jump completely across. Although there have been a few times I saw him stick a hand or foot across to back off the Khazan dogs. This does not mean he has flipped over on us, only that he must lose a small battle to win the greatest war ever waged between the civilazation of real men and beast.
In pat's world he is surrounded by enemies and must always question the real motives of anyone that wants to help him. He knows the pressure must be enormus for any of his friends to flip over on him and denounce him for his beliefs.This is a hard and heavy price to pay for our meager support given to him.
What has any of us done to spread the knowledge of white nationalism and white pride in and of the United States of America. I know that I quietly talk to anyone that will listen about the present problems in our country and express the desire to fix them in the best ways possible for the white race to survive and prosper in this country. I do not hate any other race, although I do love mine before any other. I will not sit back and allow its destruction from within to happen. It is our own peoples responsability to educate our own race and to do so without always being in fear of our enemies. [I][B]Confidence Breeds Confidence [/B] [/I] and that is really what our race needs today.
Not a bunch of defeatists always saying how we are all doomed and with no real world solutions to real world problems. Its easy to kill the messenger, but some day try too be the messenger and not just some unhappy Inter-net jockey. Our people need every one of you.
2004-02-22 18:27 | User Profile
BBB:
I find much truth in what you have to say about Savage. His rabid Jewishness and Zionism make it impossible for me to listen. He's too commercially obnoxious for my taste.
Still, he is the only one using the language he uses. He calls gays "deviants". He say GW Bush "lacks gonads" when he talks about gay marriage. Only Imus and his cohorts come close to this imagery, and never on a regular basis.
As is so often the case over the centuries, Jews capitalize on a power vaccuum created by irresponsible or corrupt Gentiles.
2004-02-22 20:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I agree that we need people like Buchanan in the mass media. The fact of the matter is, people judge the validity of a view based on whether the source is labelled "mainstream" or "fringe." They won't dare move along the "fringe" path until somebody the mass media machine approves of or tolerates puts them in that direction. For many people here and on other boards, that individual is Pat Buchanan.
Like he was of course for us at Free Republic.
I don't blame Buchanan at all for being subtle, for toning down his rhetoric, and for saying "neocon" and "Amen Corner" instead of Jew. I attack him for going against his own professed principles even when there is no need to do so, such as his 180 degree turn on the issue of Gulf War II once the war actually began. Just as I don't understand people like Linder who consider Buchanan to be one of his greatest enemies, I don't understand people on this board who chose to defend the indefensible in Buchanan either. I wish people would just agree that PJB is deeply flawed but nevertheless one of the most useful people to our cause and move on.[/QUOTE] Well I've never really thought I tried to defend the indefensible in Buchanan at all, although I have realized the criticisms I've written about Buchanan have tended to be more acerbic elsewhere than on this board, where maybe I lean the other way a little bit out of balance. I tend sometimes to lack your masterful way of summarizing things.
Overall though I thought I argued very insistently with Triskelion pretty much the position you are advocating, and Triskelion for all intents and purposes completely rejected it. Then he, like Bjarni and some others here, gets mad when you compare and contrast his position to that of Linder and VNN. When he was here I was always trying to mollify him regarding this. Eventually one tires of this though. His abject rejection of anything good in Buchanan or Buchananism seems to me to completely fly in the face of the seemingly moderate drift of the material he writes.
I see a real contradiction between what the man does and what he seems to want to say. Which is why I understand what he says a little differently now.
2004-02-23 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] I don't blame Buchanan at all for being subtle, for toning down his rhetoric, and for saying "neocon" and "Amen Corner" instead of Jew. I attack him for going against his own professed principles even when there is no need to do so, such as his 180 degree turn on the issue of Gulf War II once the war actually began.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Buchanan was following the example of the America First movement, which closed up shop after Pearl Harbor was attacked. I'm sure that many in AF felt that Roosevelt had goaded the Japanese into attacking. However, no matter how the war started, they felt duty-bound to support their country.
Of course, they could have supported their country by working for a negotiated peace and the impeachment of FDR.
2004-02-23 09:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]That's true, John. Looking back at my previous post on this thread, it seems that I came off sounding harder on Buchanan than I'd intended. One thing I'll say for Pat is that he names Israel, and that's at least as effective as naming the Jew in many or most instances. I believe this because it was issues related to Israel -- specifically, the attack on the USS Liberty and the persecution of the Palestinian refugees -- that led to my own awakening regarding the wider problem of Organized Jewry. While I can't give Pat the credit for my personal awakening, his willingness to shine light on US-Israel entanglement has undoubtedly done much good, regardless of whatever mistakes he might be making today.
BTW: Welcome to the board![/QUOTE]
Ditto on PJB naming Israel.
I think that PJB goes as far as he can and still stay on televison. While I'd like to hear him actually say ITZ, I won't second guess his decision not to do so at this point.
I supported PJB in the past couple elections, but I have to say that his choice of a Negress for a running mate really turned me off, although she certainly was a good one and worthy of our respect. However, we're putting forth a national defense, and we have to play by the same rules of all ethnic parties, in particular unabashedly advancing people of our own ethnicity for political office. PJB's choice was an unmistakable rejection of that fundamental principle, and so although I retain much admiration for him I can't support him in anything political moving forward, barring of course an express change of heart on that point.
Our problems are too pressing to pull our punches anymore. PJB does well to keep citicism of IZZYLAND on the mainstream media, but I agree with others on this thread that we're getting to the point where this will no longer suffice.
Walter
2004-02-23 11:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]But until I see him writing columns for The Weekly Standard or see the "LETS ROLE" Freepers singing his praises, I still see PJB as more "us" than "them."
I get the feeling as long us you see Pat more like "us" the Trisks will see us more like "them". That is, as soon as they realize we are not going to be fundamentally changed.
Bjarni Tyrdal has stated that while he doesn't consider Buchanan to be a white nationalist (and has implied that even his paleoconservatism and populism are opportunistic), PJB nevertheless serves a useful purpose. He's been saying that recently. I'm not sure though Bjarni is as knowledgable and opinionated in general on the American scene as Trisk.
Triskelion seemed to say that same thing, at the very least he has said that Buchanan and paleos are useful in pointing out many of the symptoms of multiracialism even though they shy away from a full diagnosis, much less a treatment.
I don't know. Dig up where Trisk ever said anything good about Buchanan. And I tried all sorts of tactics of course. Specifically for this instance, I tried comparing Buchanan and Buchananism to the right wing (popular, populist whatever - I forget now, maybe it was volkspartie) party in Denmark (which Trisk sees utility in). Trisk also rejected that completely.
I think that you're reacting more to Tyrdal and Ostergard's rhetoric than the substance of what they say, which actually seems to mirror what almost everyone else on this board (myself included) has to say about Buchanan and the more "mainstream" paleos.[/QUOTE]
Tyrdal yes - the polemics IMO start to overshadow everything else. V.O., though no. Because I engaged in extended dialectics with him on his threads and what he was saying.
V.O. true, says an awful lot we agree with. But really no one, (except the occasional rban) on this board doesn't.
True, I have great admiration for Trisk's intelligence and insight. But that also means he must understand the implications of what his positions and statements are.
2004-02-25 15:46 | User Profile
The worst thing about Savage (after his transparent "I'm an Angry White Male" act) had got to be his accent.
Personally, I'd rather listen to the Lee Press-on Nails Black Women's Orchestra playing the chalkboard than listen to that.
I'm sure you NY'ers are used to it by now, but it leaves me desperately jabbing at the "off" button on the radio.
2004-02-25 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I think that PJB goes as far as he can and still stay on televison. While I'd like to hear him actually say ITZ, I won't second guess his decision not to do so at this point. [/QUOTE]
The furthest I have heard PJB go was on Meet the Press after he had been trashed by William Safire, his old colleague. I will paraphrase PJB:
"Tim, sometimes supporters of Israel are accused of putting their loyalty to Israel ahead of their loyalty to America. In Mr. Safire's case, it's true."
I also liked his line in the current TAC: "The problem with neo-conservatives is not that they are Jewish, it is that they are not conservative."
I think that Buchanan senses that his is often being "baited". He instead prefers to wait for the attack, and then counter.