printI will be talking Pat J. Buchanan, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” flash mobs and the Occupy Wall Street “sleepover,” with Keith Alexander and Bill Rolen of The Political Cesspool. Time: 4:00 Pacific. Day: Oct. 29.
The hard left is baying for Mr. Buchanan’s blood for his recent appearance on the controversial show. Buchanan is standing his ground. He’s no Imus. Boy, is Patrick J. Buchanan refreshingly forceful.
In my prior visit with these broadcasters, I found them to be intelligent and courteous. If James Edwards and Bill Rolen were hostile to an individualist’s perspective, they did not let on. Both Bill and James addressed the arguments advanced in my book. That’s the sum-total of a good interviewer.
Ultimately it’s all about the argument. My position is that one cannot properly undermine a claim by undermining the motives, character or associations of its claimant. To undermine my book, the politically correct (left, libertarian, etc) will have to deal with its arguments (which the paleo establishment has so far conveniently skirted). The rest amounts to smear tactics, a variant of the ad hominem fallacy.
UPDATE I: ROUTE TO FREEDOM. Sorry to disappoint, but it was a terrible interview. I was handed over to a gentleman who wanted to emphasize a racial angle in the conversation, in crude terms too. I did not cope well. I think I reflect Western man’s disdain for race as an organizing principle, and for broad generalizations. Good luck with organizing modern westerners around race. I prefer to beat back the state so that individuals regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will. That’s the route to freedom.
UPDATE II: It’s just not in a civilized person’s nature to speak as though he were a negative image of Al Sharpton. Would you not agree?
UPDATE III (Oct. 31): To the kind comment below: On his MSNBC show, Al Sharpton behaves just like my host conducted himself. The white Al talked over me constantly, went with his own angle, rather than with the book’s tack, and made it virtually impossible for me to defend my perspective or speak to individualism and to the points made in my book—a grisly, gory book which glosses over nothing in terms of the color and cure for crime in SA and beyond. I’ve been re-reading sections such as “Racial Voting Coming to a Polling Station Near You.” The well-sourced, analytical points made in that section deserve to be elicited by an intelligent interviewer. The same holds for other sections.
I’m done with intellectually incurious dim bulbs who want to promote their perspective, rather than explore another. How is that edifying? And how is it civilized to railroad an invited guest? And how like Al that is.
I did listen to the interview and I noticed the interviewer kept calling you Elaina, not Ilana. I thought he was very sloppy. And yes, he kept focusing on race. I would love to hear Pat Buchanan interview you.
As I walked past a local medical something building a man came out, got in his car to leave. I arrived at the driveway at the same time he did. In courtesy I stopped to let him out before crossing the drive. He stopped, rolled down his window; and advised me that I shouldn’t be loitering around a medical facility, the police patrol it often. After maybe three attempts, I managed to get him to accept (not understand) that I was walking down the street to get to the restaurant four blocks away. He finally drove away; probably watching in his rear view mirror. I then crossed the drive and met my friend at the cafe. The next day at my Friday breakfast with liberals and conservatives I mentioned that he was black as part of the story description. I was immediately advised that the reason for his action was because blacks are constantly frightened if they see a white around a parking lot. It was all I could do not to ask him what world he was in. Liberals are racists and there’s no help for them; forget him.
After listening to the whole interview, I think you underestimate how well you made your point about individual liberty. It came across clearly to to this listener. In all fairness to the interviewer, he is not a mirror-image of the mountebank Sharpton, despite the racialist angle he emphasized. A Sharptonesque totalitarian would not have let you make your point at all. [Wrong. See comment in post.]
While the connection disruptions were quite annoying, the interview was at least somewhat informative about both the book and your classical liberal premise. Less than ideal, but definitely not a train wreck.[Very kind of you.]
Hello, I also listened to the interview, and I think that just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The poor connection that Keith had didn’t help a bit. Here is how I would have conducted the conversation (had it been me).
Ilana, here on the Cesspool, we look at the destruction of western society as having a decidedly racial component. You look at the problems from an Individualist’s viewpoint. Could you comment on how we differ?
Or something like that.
And of course, had James been on, he would have plugged your wonderful book along with the questions.
As far as the Jewish subject goes, you are one of my very favorite Jews (along with Mark Levin, Michael Levin, etc.) Unfortunately, about 75% of Jewish Americans self-identify as liberals (progressives) and do great damage to Western civilization. Wish we had MANY more like you!!!
(Gushing)
Gavrick
I see your point about the stylistic similarities with Al Sharpton, but still disagree. I don’t see the Cesspool guy as being cut from in the same totalitarian cloth as Sharpton. Yes, he was rude, boorish, unprofessional and kept trying to make his point instead of assisting you in presenting yours to the listeners. Even so, I don’t think he actually intended to prevent you from making your point (which you managed to make despite him) so much as being too fond of hearing the sound of his own voice. Sharpton would have simply shouted you down in order that you would not have been heard at all (which would have been the plan all along, naturally).
[You are being too kind; thanks.]
Despite the rudeness and unprofessionalism (which is certainly bad enough), you still managed to make your essential argument from classical liberalism. Perhaps my perception is skewed due to the fact that I am already somewhat familiar with your writings and general view of things and knew what to listen for. As I stated before, your own performance was really quite exemplary. The cesspool guy came across as an idiot. It’s certainly no way to treat a guest in any case.
A slight change to my above posting, if you don’t mind. Instead of the word “who” after the word (progressives) perhaps it would clarify my point if I used the word “and”, meaning that as a paleocon, I believe liberals (not the classical type) do great damage to Western civilization. That does not include ONLY the 75& of self-identified liberal Jews, but progressives of all sorts.
BTW, apparently the Cesspool didn’t like my comment much, either, as it was removed from their website where I made much the same point.
Hi Ilana, I also listened to the interview and think you did well. You made a very convincing case about the role of Jews (or rather lack of such role) in the demise of the Boer people in South Africa.
I think you are too aggressive vis-à-vis the TPC interviewer. He is a bit of a knucklehead (the pronunciation of “Elaina” was embarrassing!) but I don’t necessarily think he wanted to silence you or disparage you.
The technical problems are not TPC’s fault, instead the Liberty News radio station is to blame. I think the Cesspool is as disappointed as you are about the interruptions.
OK – bottom line is this: I will go ahead and buy your book now and I would never have found out about it without the promotion from TPC.
Greg,
What do you mean ‘he kept focusing on race?’ From outtakes I have read of Into The Cannibal’s Pot the author very much brings up race in her own book and the very cover showing a White woman covered with black hand prints made me think of race as well.
To the other posters here,
Mentioning lack of coverage of Ilana Mercer’s book Into The Cannibal’s Pot, between the two hosts on he Political Cesspool they mentioned the book over a dozen times. James Edwards mentioned the book quite a few times when he came on in the second hour.
What is all of the pissing about when it comes to ‘fair’ coverage? When two people are having a conversation there is supposed to be a back-and-forth of ideas put forth. When a guest is invited to a racially-motivated radio show they do already know that the subject of race WILL be brought up.