← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PolRy
Thread ID: 14383 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2004-07-01
2004-07-01 03:58 | User Profile
[font=Arial]Buchanan promises his book will show how, "A cabal of neoconservatives inside and outside the administration hijacked U.S. foreign policy, beat the drums for war in Iraq, and may have ignited a 'war of civilizations' with the Islamic world that could last a generation."[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]read full article here....[url="http://http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000556757"]http://http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000556757[/url][/font]
2004-07-01 04:43 | User Profile
who gives a shit.
2004-07-01 05:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]who gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much anyone who's serious about working for real change in this country, rather than just posing as a "revolutionary," I'd say. Unlike many other people you or I might enjoy reading, Pat Buchanan has had several books at the top of the New York Time Best Seller List for months at a time. That's a little thing that equates with the ability to actually have a friggin' impact on the culture & society....And when Pat says "neo-conservative," he pretty much DOES mean the Jews, as I'm sure he will make sufficiently clear to his more open-minded and perceptive readers.
2004-07-01 17:14 | User Profile
Go, Pat, Go!
2004-07-01 17:44 | User Profile
PJB raised some questions about the jews, the jew homeland & American foreign policy in his book a Republic Not An Empire. It was pretty mild stuff, but, the jews and their shabbos goy in the media went ballistic over Buchanan's mild and indirect remarks.
Tim Russert even pretended surprise and shock at PBJ's possibly anti-semitic writings---with Pat as a guest. Russert as much as told Pat that in his business his jew bosses would not tolerate such remarks directed at the jews and the jew homeland.
I will be surprised if Pat mentions the jews directly or even indirectly...then again he might just decide to take the gloves off with the kikes...
2004-07-01 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]who gives a shit.[/QUOTE]Buchanan reaches more people than this forum. I hope those he reaches will start to change their thoughts. I give a shit.
2004-07-01 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Buchanan reaches more people than this forum. [/QUOTE]
Just how many people does this forum reach? What's the best way of knowing?
2004-07-01 19:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Just how many people does this forum reach? What's the best way of knowing?[/QUOTE]I do not know. I would like to see an informed guess.
[B]AntiYuppie[/B] [QUOTE][COLOR=Red]You seem to be one of those for whom ideological purity is more important than actually reaching people. Personally, I see more value in reaching a million people with a watered-down and nuanced message than reaching one hundred people with the unadulterated version. Perhaps it's this all or nothing, "if you ain't 100% for us you're against us" is the main reason that our side is losing on every front.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]Purists, most especially those on the religion and non-religion sides, have hurt this forum immensely. I wish I could urge restraint at times.
2004-07-01 19:41 | User Profile
Yes, but to re-rephrase Kurt's question: what does this have to do with us? The book will sell or not sell; it will be well written or not well written.
Certainly, this is a good news items. I am glad to hear this occuring. But it is hard to muster up much more of a reaction at present.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Like it or not, more people will "give a shit" about Buchanan's book than "give a shit" about this forum, VNN, Liberty Forum, and Stormfront combined. QUOTE]
2004-07-02 15:05 | User Profile
I can tell you of a few other folks who give a shit are those idiots on neo-con talk radio. While they have been decrying books they refer to as "Bush bashing" (boy, these people sound just like the Clinton defenders) they have avoided all mention of Buchanan's. The closest to a mention that I have heard was by Zio-con Michael Medved when in response to a caller who pointed out that there were people on the Right who had no use for the War for Israel and Oil like Buchanan was told that Pat was "Irrelevent". I have a feeling this book will also be a best seller and something the neo-con establishment doesn't look forward to.
2004-07-02 17:39 | User Profile
That's partly what's so frustrating listening to "conservative" talk radio, Sert.
If you're a caller expressing doubts about the war, you're either a fraudulent "seminar caller" or a liberal. Period. On Hannity and Colmes, Sean called his guests, Zinni and Tom Clancy "partisans", and revealed that backstage he told Gen. Zinni to his face, "Just admit it, you're Clinton's boy." Punk that he is, Sean crowed that they both left the set fuming immediatley after.
Of course, he never revealed that Zinni is a registered Republican who admitted to voting for Bush in 2000, and besides, served 30-some years in the Marines leading up to his 3-year posting under Clinton.
I must really be a hopeless case. I keep listening to talk radio in a vain desire to see one these hosts lambasted from the right. It's very rare to see this happen without the caller or guest being cut-off or being dismissed as a "lib".
For my part, I'll be buying a couple copies of Pat's book. And in an effort to expose it beyond his regular fan base, perhaps I'll shop it around one of the radical leftist boards I troll. In my experience, there's just (barely) enough symmetry between the two camps to sell a handful more copies, if they're made aware of it being available.
2004-07-02 18:32 | User Profile
Edward Gibbon,
I care too! However, each year it only gets worse. Those who involve themselves within the two party oligarchy, refuse to confront the fundamental nature of the struggle. Pat Buchananââ¬â¢s wing of the Republicans was the only reason to consider involvement and was the last hope; while very remote, for reform.
Remember when Joe Farah ask his WND readers if Pat should still be allowed to be published? Letââ¬â¢s state the obvious. The ONE central test for inclusion is the requirement - never criticize Israel. As you are aware, the conflict is with Zionism. An example that illustrates is the contrast between Ilana Mercer (An island of justice in the Middle East [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39242[/url] ) viewpoint with that of a Henry Makow [url]http://www.savethemales.ca/[/url]
The purity standard has always been the reason to part with publishers. Folks are simply unwilling to deal with reality and their own self interest.
Frankly it seems to be a small miracle that Pat is still permitted to be on MSNBC. If voters are unable to support and vote for Buchanan after all the runs, is it really possible to reach the walking dead?
No new essays from me until after this next fraud election. I can count on one hand the sites that have the guts to publish content that confronts the elements that have destroyed America. Since Pat cashes checks, he walks a narrow tightrope. His message in TAC is always on point. However, submissions to TAC would need to be refined to avoid the uproar that the BATR Soros article got from Salon when used by GOPusa.com
If you canââ¬â¢t write the truth, there is no point in doing essays. Just look at the direction of ââ¬Ëso calledââ¬â¢ conservative sites when the courage of a publisher is tested. Here is the question. Do any of the articles every make a difference? If the slugs that keep the ââ¬Åsystemââ¬Â on life support demand the ââ¬ËPCââ¬â¢ line, and the readers ignore any factual account that could cause them pain, whatââ¬â¢s the point?
PB has done more quality work than the rest of us combined. But very few are willing to risk being smeared with an anti-Semitic label. Not all Jews oppose the essence of the 1776 Revolution. Several understand the politics of deceit and have separated from the betrayers.
Submit a much more intensive and revolutionary approach is necessary to focus self reflection among the serfs . . .
SARTRE :thumbsup:
2004-07-02 18:50 | User Profile
Sertorius - How can you stand to watch O'Reilly and listen to Republican radio?
2004-07-02 19:23 | User Profile
EDUMAKATEDMOFO,
That's right. Every so often someone will penetrate the screener and really lands one on these clowns. And you are right. They do get dumped pretty fast right after nailing the host. Hannity is lucky that Zinni didn't knock hell out of him. He is not only highly decorated, but was severly wounded in Viet Nam. Of course what is 39 years in the Marine Corps when you can be the cream of our society-- a cutting edge neo-con talk radio host whose only skill is the ability to run one's mouth? Incidently, is the incident you mention above the one where Rush claimed Sean put Zinni in his place by asking him why he didn't speak out during the Clinton Administration? Hanniot tried to pull that on Clark and Clark looked at him and grinned and replied that he was on active duty at the time when this went on. (Kosovo) Sean got visibly mad and started to pitch a fit. When they cut to the break I could still hear him in the background bitching at Clark. It sounds like the same thing happen here.
2004-07-02 19:40 | User Profile
Ruffin,
That is a fair question. It is a dirty stinking job, but somebody has to do it! Then again, maybe I'm crazy as hell. I know these guys are.
Seriously, I find myself listening to them less and less. In the past it was primarily to see how they would spin something when they weren't lying outright. It was also to see what they would ignore. Of all the ones that I have heard the best is Medved. Not because he is honest. He is anything but honest, but it is his ability to pose as an "American patriot" while pushing the zio-con line. He really knows how to manipulate the dispensationalist crowd by having a real Zionut on like Victor Mordicai and acting like he is being skeptical and fair. He is a first rate propagandist and to his credit does field more intelligent callers, such is his confidence in his debating skills. This adroit liar is someone I will listen to on a regular basis just to study his propaganda methods. The rest are mere hacks who basically use talking points pulled from the usual suspects and are boring because of their inability to use critical thinking.