35 Comments

1. heather:

Buchanan is an Irish patriot first and foremost. He focusses on the Irish Famine and all the evil done to Ireland by the British Empire, and he ‘KNOWS’ it is still going on (and it is… in his dreams.) He doesn’t care about any other country’s Bad Guys. Nothing any British politician could ever do would be Right. And that includes Churchill.

In other words, I think the Jewish Issue is extraneous to his world view. He is really fighting the long boggy wars of the Auld Country, every day in every way throughout his life. He is Catholic because that is what the Irish are.

His dreams would be an interesting study in hate induced foolishness.

Nov 24, 2008 - 2:54 pm 2. David Thomson:

Nazism like all totalitarian ideologies was inherently going to find “traitors” to eliminate. The Jews were such inviting targets because there were so few of them living in Germany. They represented only 1/2 to 3/4 of 1% of the total population before the start of WWII. If nothing else, their insignificant numbers meant that they could be removed from society without an observable direct impact on the economy. If Jews had represented even 5% of the the total population—the Holocaust would have probably never occurred.

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:39 pm 3. tim maguire:

heather might be on to something. How else to fathom that Buchanan cannot find a “sociopathic murderer” in Hitler’s heart, but he apparently can find it in the heart of the British government.

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:46 pm 4. James:

Hi Roger,

I read once (can’t say where), that a good solution to Germany’s “Jewish” problem was letting them emigrate to the US. Supposedly, Hitler offered this, and FDR refused. It would be nice to know if that was true.

Buchanan is interesting to you because of his anti-Jewish views, but he’s not that important. Do you spend a lot of your blog space worried about David Duke?

James

Nov 24, 2008 - 5:49 pm 5. Anita Hope:

I can just imagine how Mr. Buchanan felt regarding the fact that there was a Jewish Lord Mayor in Ireland back in the last of the 50’s into the 1st of the 60’s. When it was safer to wear a STAR OF DAVID around your neck than a CROSS, Robert Briscoe and his family were well regarded in Dublin where he
served . Pat Buchanan is a strong Irish Catholic Heather, but there are other religions and he is a stmulous for the fighting that goes on in that Beautiful
Country. As an American that refuses to really take the time to read the history of the 30’s, his analysis of Adolf Hitler and his goals for “His Germany &
taking over Russia”, are as Anti Semetic as Hitler himself. One thing that he fails to accept or include is Hitler’s future plans for the Catholic’s, they were
also being rounded up but in smaller numbers and it was in Italy.
James, FDR, made a German ship loaded with Jews and other undesirables turn around, forced to return to Germany etc. It was not known till more recently in research papers. It was the SS St Louis and sailed from Hamburg to Cuba and carried a little over 950 jews and I believe one non Jew, Cuba would not accept and FDR would not let the ship that was scheduled to land in NYC, first, thus went to cuba and was forced to return to I believe Hamburg. The rest is history, if only Buchanan would really study the truth. Roger is right, as is Mr. MacConnell, he is ignorant to the truth as it was lived.

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:44 pm 6. heather:

I think, Anita, that Buchanan is a very well educated person. And so, in my mind, there is no excuse for his ignorance of the first half of the 20th century EXCEPT that he really hates the “British Empire.” Much more than he hates the Jews, although he doesn’t like Jews either. I was interested when, a few years ago, a number of conservative Jewish Americans were very hesitant to label Buchanan an anti-semite, it seems at least in part because they personally liked him. However, Buchanan is an isolationist, and is against any support for Israel, or indeed any other country other than Ireland. Really, he lives in the 1920s and 1930s, unlike so many of us who live in 2008.

I saw Buchanan, back in the day when he was on that CNN debating show with Michael Kinsley, say the most amazing thing, Kinsley’s jaw absolutely dropped and he was silent… they had been talking I believe about US intervention in the Balkans, which Buchanan was very against. Kinsley asked if he would back a US intervention in Ireland against the British occupation, and, yep, Buchanan said yes.

I wish that program was available. It was the first time I understood about Buchanan’s very weird anger against the British Empire.

I think the best solution is to adopt Roger’s: the guy is way over the horizon from merely neurotic, sliding into full fledged eccentricity.

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:20 pm 7. marymcl:

One of Buchanan’s basic premises is the widely held notion that the Treaty of Versailles was so onerous and crippling to Germany it made the rise of National Socialism inevitable. This is taken for granted by just about everyone anymore and no doubt many who abhor Buchanan’s conclusions would not dispute this so-called fact.

It is true that German reaction to the treaty was universally negative, to put it mildly. But as William Shirer wrote in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” the Germans had themselves imposed a far more punitive treaty on Russia at Brest Livotsk in 1918-

“It deprived Russia of a territory nearly as large as Austria-Hungary and Turkey combined, with 56 million inhabitants, or 32 per cent of her whole population; a third of her railway mileage, 73 percent of her total iron ore, 89 per cent of her total coal production; and more than 5,000 factories and industrial plants. Moreover, Russia was obliged to pay Germany an indemnity of six billion marks.”

Shirer goes on to describe the “intolerable” Treaty of Versailles -

“What was so intolerable about it? It restored Alsace-Lorraine to France, a parcel of territory to Belgium, a similar parcel in Schleswig to Denmark – after a plebescite – which Bismarck had taken from the Danes in the previous century after defeating them in war. It gave back to the Poles the lands, some of them only after a plebescite, which the Germans had taken during the partition of Poland. This was one of the stipulations which infuriated the Germans the most, not only because they resented separating East Prussia from the Fatherland by a corridor which gave Poland access to the sea, but because they despised the Poles, whom they considered an inferior race. Scarcely less infuriating to the Germans was that the treaty forced them to accept responsibility for starting the war and demanded that they turn over to the Allies Kaiser Wilhelm II and some 800 other ‘war criminals’.

Reparations were to be fixed later, but a first payment of five billion dollars in gold marks was to be paid between 1919 and 1921, and certain deliveries in kind – coal, ships, lumber, cattle, etc.- were to be made in lieu of cash reparations.

But what hurt most was that Versailles virtually disarmed Germany and thus, for the time being anyway, barred the way to German hegemony in Europe. And yet the hated Treaty of Versailles, unlike that which Germany had imposed on Russia, left the Reich geographically and economically largely intact and preserved her political unity and her potential strength as a great nation.”

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:31 pm 8. marymcl:

I hope you’ll forgive me for posting another long quotation, but while looking for the Shirer quote above (I couldn’t remember at first where I’d read it!) I found something else that seems to apply to our own time as well. This is Rebecca West writing in 1940 -

“We had been glutted for centuries with wealth and power, and in the worst war the world had yet seen we had gained a glorious victory which inflicted much pain on the defeated. The sense of guilt which is born in every man, and is willing to operate without reasonable cause, had here abundant food, and for long we had been sick with masochism. This could be seen in the strange propaganda against the Treaty of Versailles which was carried on year in year out by ordinary English people, who had never read a line of it….These people utterly ignored the work the peace treaties had done in liberating the smaller nations, monstrously exaggerated the hardships inflicted by their economic clauses, which, indeed, for the most part were completely inoperable; and, what was most remarkable, seemed utterly ungrateful for the clauses which aimed at making it impossible for Germany to repeat her attack on England and France. They had lost all sense that it is sometimes necessary to fight for one’s life; and many children born in the decade after the Great War can never have heard a word from their parents or teachers which suggested that their country had, or could have been actuated by any motive except stupid and credulous jingoism in taking up arms in 1914.”

Sound familiar?

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:54 pm 9. NRA Life Member:

Pat Buchanan seems to dig himself a deeper hole each time he opens his mouth. There was a time (when I guess I knew less about him) that I thought he and I were on the same side of many issues, but one or both of us has/have changed. Michael MacConnell has constructed a series of historically correct points that clearly refute Buchanan’s assertions regarding Hitler’s intentions. Of course, a comprehensive review of Mein Kampf would serve the same purpose.

For whatever reason(s), Hitler hated Jews. The Holocaust merely represented Himmler and Eichmann’s superior organizational abilities to achieve this sub-human goal of extermination. Buchanan can cherry pick various plans of exile to the US, Madagascar and even to the Middle East, but in my humble opinion, these options were explored because Hitler did not have the “imagination” that Himmler and Eichmann had, and thus could not imagine actually accomplishing Eine Judenrein Welt.

Back to Pat, he’s reducing himself to smaller and smaller audiences. The points made by other posters regarding him being a super-patriot for Ireland inevitably do a disservice to de Valera, Parnell and other Irish patriots who who served or even gave their lives for a Free Irish State (unless someone can show me that these gentlemen were also wasting their time gassing off about Jewish people who did them no harm and just wanted a chance to peacefully raise their families).

I suppose it’s part of the cost of having the First Amendment. There’s also going to be some pseudo-intellectual nutcase who knows just enough to seem lucid.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:03 pm 10. heather:

marymcl, I completely love Rebecca West and am in the process of collecting more of her writings. Where did you find that paragraph? Gosh, she was so SMART!

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:09 pm 11. heather:

AND nralife member: I didn’t say that Buchanan’s Irish problem is based on fact, reality, etc. either.

Altho, I had a history teacher once, who refused to accept any paper on Irish History because he said (quite rightly) that little island just too much history for anyone to stand.

Stories. Buchanan lives within stories.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:13 pm 12. Barry Dauphin:

Very OT

Did anyone see the 24 portrayal of a French cheese-eating surrender monkey UN official? Pure comic delight.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:51 pm 13. Gary Rosen:

It is beyond me why anyone even pays attention to any of the bleatings issuing from Buchanan’s mouth – he is a fraud and a world-class loser. He affects a “tough guy” image but in reality he is a pampered Little Lord Fauntleroy whose daddy put him through Yale and who has never created, accomplished, or been responsible for anything of value in his life.

The “pineapple” of his career was his pathetic run for the Presidency in 2000. Beset by the megalomaniacal delusion that he could win 10% of the vote and ride the federal funds gravy train for the rest of his life, he used underhanded means to hijack the nomination of what had been a significant third party movement. But he ended up scrapping it out for a fractional percentage of the vote with te kookaboos of the “Natural Law Party”.

Given all this, it is only natural that he hates Jews. Antisemitism is the hobbyhorse of nitwits, misf*cks and losers who can’t own up to their own failures and shortcomings, so they blame it all on the Jooos. He makes a ludicrous and thoroughly dishonest claim that the Allies, not the Nazis, were responsible for the Holocaust because they fought Hitler. That is easily disproven by the fact that Kristalnacht took place only six weeks after Munich. QED, case closed – if only Pat’s piehole would follow suit! As for his suggestion that Poland was responsible for starting WWII, that is like blaming Megan’s Law on Megan. I’m not really surprised, though, that Buchanan takes his ethical cues from NAMBLA.

Nov 25, 2008 - 12:31 am 14. David Thomson:

John Maynard Keyes did much damage with his foolish argument that the Western allies victimized the Germans with their financial demands. His book, the Economic Consequences of the Peace, resulted in particularly guilt tripping the citizens of Great Britain while encouraging the Germans to feel sorry for themselves. Keynes was unintentionally one of the most destructive thinkers of the 20th Century. Needless to add, his economic theories have also caused enormous suffering.

Germany was mostly responsible for starting WWI. Wilhelm II naively gave Austrian-Hungarian officials a blank check in their dealings with the Serbs after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. These idiots decided to invade Serbia—and the dominoes began to fall. Soon thereafter, the German military persuaded the Emperor to approve their invasion of neutral Belgium and the worldwide horror was inevitable.

Nov 25, 2008 - 1:14 am 15. Newcomb Carlton:

Gary Rosen: Buchanan didn’t go to Yale, but to Georgetown, and then to Columbia for a journalism degree.

Nov 25, 2008 - 5:04 am 16. hermie:

Journalism degree eh?…Well, that explains it.

If it wasn’t going to be the Jews, it was going to be some other group that Hitler would’ve focused on as the ’cause’ of Germany’s woes. It could’ve been the gypsies, or Polish immigrants, or homosexuals.. who also were persecuted and imprisoned in work camps.

But the Jews were the most visible, and thus the most vunerable. I do blame FDR for his lack of compassion regarding Jewish refugees, and his not speaking out forcfully regarding what was going on in pre-war Germany regarding Jews and other political ‘undesirables’.

Nov 25, 2008 - 6:36 am 17. Don Kenner:

What is interesting to me is that after Buchanan’s anti-immigrant speech in Houston some years ago (Molly Ivans said it probably sounded better in the original German) he was essentially persona non grata outside of the far-right. But his virulent anti-Israel views have bought him a space in the MSM. Just as Ron Paul was given favorable coverage by the MSM because he opposed the Iraq war, so too is Buchanan given a seat at the MSM table because of his hatred of Israel.

It would be wrong to ignore Buchanan’s Catholicism as a contributing factor in his Weltanshaung. Like so many pre-Vatican II right wing Catholics Buchanan is certain there is something pestiferous about those Zionists (Jews). His views on Israel dovetail nicely with the post-Vatican II left wing Catholic hostility to Israel that permeates the American, European, and Holy Land Catholic Churches.

Mea culpa: I’m Catholic, too. I lost track of how many times (in Church) I’ve heard 9-11 blamed on Israel. It’s in the Koolaid.

Nov 25, 2008 - 7:03 am 18. marymcl:

Heather –

The Rebecca West quote is from “Black Lamb and Grey Falcon”. It’s a doorstop of a book but well worth reading. She took a trip through Yugoslavia in 1937 and the book is an account of her journey. But it also has a great deal of history and commentary on the state of Europe at that time. The paragraph I quoted is from the epilogue (pg 1122!)

Cheers!

Nov 25, 2008 - 7:13 am 19. George T:

To understand Buchanan, you need to think in terms of oppositional defiant syndrome. In the Nixon White House he decided that US Mideast policy was too deferential to Israel (I don’t agree but it is not a indefensible position) and later he enjoyed calling AIPAC allies the “Amen Chorus” a phrase he used about 1000 times on the McLaughlin Group.

Then, he took up the John Demianiuk case. Turns out he was right. And the Supreme Court of Israel agreed with him. Abe Rosenthal, Marty Peretz and others who were embarrassed by the outcome of that case then declared in the immediate aftermath that it was then official that Pat Buchanan was an antisemite and by implication, anybody who disputed their assessment was also an antisemite. Kinda like of a Jewish papal bull.

After that Buchanan just got more oppositional. Petty stuff like using “thousands” instead of “millions” when talking about the Holocaust which is not technically incorrect–you can get to 6-8 million using thousands but it is probably intentionally provocative and undeniably annoying.

My assessment of his behavior (shared by friends and family who know him socially and professionally) is that Buchanan fundamentally rejects the notion that the Holocaust has created a position from which self-appointed spokesmen can make ex cathedra that are universally binding. Defying that perceived false authority is the real kick for Buchanan–plus it helps sell books.

I think he has been a jerk but I reject the notion that there is deeper malice. He thinks he is the victim of an abuse of moral authority.

The manner in which the doctrine of Buchanan’s antisemitism became official reminds me of Hillaire Belloc’s (speaking of likely antisemites) comment on the media attention to the Dreyfus affair: the average European man on the street was not surprised to read that the French high command was bigoted and corrupt, what surprised him was the realization of how many newspapers seemed to be owned by Jews. The rather pointless post-Demianiuk media blast against Buchanan has the same feel. Why continue that? Why bother?

Nov 25, 2008 - 8:12 am 20. David Thomson:

“If it wasn’t going to be the Jews, it was going to be some other group..”

The group would have to be very small for two major reasons:

1.) It would have to be too small to effectively fight back.
2.) Its removal from the general society would not severely harm the greater economy.

The historian Rodney Stark has said the Inquisition ended once the persecutors ran out of “useless” people to eliminate—and started to remove those deemed economically value. Nobody cared, for instance, if the inquisitors burned alive a crazy and useless woman. They, however, immediately complained if the victim was highly skilled and not easily replaceable.

Nov 25, 2008 - 9:33 am 21. Markus:

When thinking about “the Good War,” always remember that it led directly to the enslavement of half of Europe by Stalin, and indirectly to the rise of communism in China, Korea and Vietnam. Remember also that hardly anyone saw the events of 1989 coming, and everyone was pretty much dug in for a struggle against communism lasting for centuries.

Encouraging the emigration of Jews from Germany was official Nazi policy until October 1941. As this linked article from the U.S. Holocaust Museum points out, Jewish the problem was not Nazi unwillingness to let Jews go, but the refusal to England and America to accept sufficient numbers of them:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005468

It’s impossible to know what the fate of European Jewry would be had England not given a war guarantee to Poland. No one knows if the right-wing Polish government would have then been willing to negotiate the return of Danzig in exchange for German protection from Stalin and their historic Russian enemy. Of course, once war was inevitable, there were a lot more Jews in Poland than in Germany, and their horrific fate was sealed.

Hitler’s anti-Semitism was a stupid, irrational, and, yes, evil prejudice. The solution to any “Jewish Problem” that existed in the Weimar Republic was tolerance and acceptance of the majority of Jews who were patriotic Germans (many of whom had fought in WWI), and emigration of the rest: communists to the new workers paradise in the East, the rest to the USA or other countries, and to Palestine. Had Hitler been a constructive German nationalist, he would have been an ardent Zionist as well.

Pat Buchanan, in fact, actually helped turn me into a Zionist. I used to be fairly anti-Israel: Jews have no problems living as a minority in New York City, I reasoned, why couldn’t they have the same attitude vis-a-vis Tel Aviv? I had swallowed hook, line and sinker the anti-nationalist BS peddled by liberals and, to a lesser extent, neocons, that ethnicity and nationalism are hopeless anachronisms, that the idea that the more people living in close quarters have in common the better they get along was a rationalization for racism, that cultural traditions and traditional values are inherently oppressive, blah,blah, blah. Then, came school of life education: moving to a 21st century multicultural dystopia, traveling to other countries for the first time in years, marrying a person of another race, and, YES, reading people like Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow, and other writers at The American Conservative, TakiMag, and VDARE. I came to understand that ethnic and cultural differences are REAL, negotiable but always present. Also, nationalism is not a bad thing, unless it involves EMPIRE, that is, the subjugation of other nations and peoples. Buchanan helped me understand all of these COUNTERCULTURAL ideas, and once I did this, it was a short step towards looking at Israel and saying: Jews are a people, Jews have a right to a nation of their own, Jews have a right to defend and secure the future of their nation and its people. Jews even have the right to put the future of their own people above that of other peoples, just as I have a right to care a wee bit more about my own family’s well-being than I care about the well-being of my next door neighbor.

I don’t know why Buchanan is more sympathetic to the old European empires, and their final gasps in places like Rhodesia, than he is to Israel. Maybe anger that American and Jewish national interests are always assumed to be identical, or maybe he just doesn’t like Jews. Anyway, it’s an inconsistency in relation to his defense of nationalism.

Nov 25, 2008 - 9:43 am 22. Markus:

Three quick addendum (I know, I should get my own blog):

1. The Good War, in addition to spreading communism, also led to Islamization of western Europe, which began in the sixties in response to lack of workers, due to the World War II casualties and paucity of children born during the war years.

2. I’m not condoning the pre-1941 emmigration tax which the Australian Conservative editorial and Holocaust Museum article I linked to point out. It’s just not the same as the Holocaust itself.

3. One other possible reason for Buchanan’s anti-Jewish prejudice: one too many ACLU lawyers trying to get kids to sing “Frosty the Snowman” instead of Handel’s Messiah in public school choirs across the country. I’d tell Buchanan, first, the enemy is militant secularism, not Judaism, and second, Jewish neocons should be given credit for being much, much, more respectful of traditional gentile religious values than Jewish (and non-Jewish) liberals.

Nov 25, 2008 - 11:01 am 23. heather:

marymcl: Thanks for the info re West. Reading aloud helps separate the sheep from the goats as they say, and Rebecca West is a very good writer. Her collection, “The Meaning of Treason” is priceless. On the spy, Guy Burgess, she says:
“Sometimes in a home for children unhappily not like other children, there is a small boy who always catches the visitor’s eye. The brooding darkness of the child’s face lights up with such an enchanting smile, his response to strangers is so quick and gay, he has such a quaint turn of phrase. Surely, the visitor says, there cannot be anything very much wrong with this delightful little boy. Well, yes there is. It unfortunately happens that, wherever he goes, fire breaks out. By constant watching it has been established that the only toy he cares for is a box of matches; and up the houses and barns and hayricks go, in crackling flames….”
(pp257)

Nov 25, 2008 - 12:20 pm 24. BMoon:

Buchanan’s revisionism isn’t really so bad when you consider the small ridiculous number of adherents to that theory, and that the vast majority of people believe another, bigger, more dangerous lie – that the Holocaust was just the result of a crazed megalomaniac and then plead temporary insanity for the German people. Goldhagen forever put to rest this foolish myth in Hitler’s Willing Executioners where he documents that Anti-Semitsm was a long-standing, viral, deep sentiment amongst the majority of the German population, simply given vent through Hitler. The German people, from the unions to the universities, from the youth to the bankers, to the media and the culturebots, they all willingly, even enthusiastically participated in the Holocaust. It was their main political objective. WWll was a sideshow in their minds.

This fact is so vital to understand today as Cinamon Stillwell correctly mentions in the attached article about the coalition forming once again against the Jews under the guise of “Anti-Zionism.” Guess who…again?

Gos help us.

Nov 25, 2008 - 12:33 pm 25. BMoon:

Buchanan’s revisionism isn’t really so bad when you consider the small ridiculous number of adherents to that theory, and that the vast majority of people believe another, bigger, more dangerous lie – that the Holocaust was just the result of a crazed megalomaniac and then plead temporary insanity for the German people. Goldhagen forever put to rest this foolish myth in Hitler’s Willing Executioners where he documents that Anti-Semitsm was a long-standing, viral, deep sentiment amongst the majority of the German population, simply given vent through Hitler. The German people, from the unions to the universities, from the youth to the bankers, to the media and the culturebots, they all willingly, even enthusiastically participated in the Holocaust. It was their main political objective. WWll was a sideshow in their minds.

This fact is so vital to understand today as Cinamon Stillwell correctly mentions in the attached article about the coalition forming once again against the Jews under the guise of “Anti-Zionism.” Guess who…again?

God help us.

Nov 25, 2008 - 12:33 pm 26. marymcl:

Re-reading this thread today made me think of an old joke.

An American tourist in Ireland spends an afternoon in a pub, hoping to get to know the locals. He strikes up a conversation with one fellow, which goes along fine for a while and then the Irishman asks, “So what’s your name, man?”

The American answers, “Cohen.”

“Cohen? What sort of a name is that?”

The Yank takes a deep breath and says, “It’s a Jewish name.”

“Well of course it is, man, what I’m asking is are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?”

Nov 25, 2008 - 7:09 pm 27. Gary Rosen:

“Pat Buchanan, in fact, actually helped turn me into a Zionist.”

Yes, and the Allies were responsible for the Holocaust. The quoted remark is ludicrous enough on its own without recalling that “markus” compares Israel to Nazi Germany (he will deny it but of course he will be lying). One thing you can count in a post from “markus” – almost everything he says is a flat-out lie, enriched by his ignorance and sophistry.

Like when he says WWII “led directly to the enslavement of half of Europe by Stalin” the exact opposite is true – it was the failure of the West to stop Hitler in the ’30s that led to this war which was imperative for the survival of Western civilization. By the time the US entered the war *all* of Europe was enslaved by Hitler and we had little choice by then but to ally ourselves with the Soviets to stop his rapacious, genocidal war machine. If we had stood up earlier with the Eastern European republics that the West abandoned they would have formed a bulwark against Russian expansionism.

Use Occam’s razor. “markus” and Buchanan spew out yards of bullshit explaining why WWII was a bad idea but it is really quite simple:

1) The Nazis murdered half the Jews in Europe but were stopped from murdering all of them by the Allies

2) “markus” and Buchanan hate Jews

3) Therefore they think WWII was a bad idea. QED.

You know, “markus”, it really looks quite stupid when you try to pretend you are sympathetic to Jews and Israel and then insinuate the old “dual loyalty” canard. Not to mention blaming Jews for suppressing “The Messiah”. By the way I’m Jewish and have sung “The Messiah” so you can take that one and shove it. But then logic has never been your strong suit. As for your mindless parroting of Buchanan’s drivel about Poland and Danzig, I can only repeat what I said before – blaming WWII on Poland is like blaming Megan’s Law on Megan. And you, like Buchanan, get your ethics from NAMBLA.

But “markus” was right about one thing, inadvertently no doubt, when he says that the Germans allowed Jewish emigration until 1941 (though they were already murdering Jews by the hundreds of thousands on the Eastern Front). What he conceals is that the reason the Germans changed this policy was to toady to their Arab allies in the crucial North African theater. It is well-documented that at this time Hitler was in close council with the Mufti of Jerusalem, the leader of the Palestinians who later went on to found the PLO. So it was not the Allies who were responsible for the Holocaust as “markus” and Buchanan would like you to think, but the Arabs and Palestinians.

Nov 26, 2008 - 1:32 am 28. marymcl:

It’s exraordinary, isn’t it, the way the Nazi/Arab intersection has been largely ignored over the years? And all in the spirit of fairness of course. They might not be able to make a light bulb, but the Arabs, on behalf of “Palestine” (which I sometimes think we should refer to as “the Anti-Semitic Entity”) have waged one successful war of words after another.

Nov 26, 2008 - 8:06 am 29. John Galt:

Is Pat an anti-semite? As a former fan (1980’s mostly), I have some thoughts.

He is clearly a contrarian, as stated by an earlier poster. I also think he grew up viewing his Irish “tribe” as a victim of other tribes (ie the English and the wealthy DC elites). Over time, he identified with the supposed “victimhood” of the Arabs which helped him to form an intellectual and emotionally-based pro-Arabist view of the world.

I speculate that he resents the Jewish tribe for: 1) denying his pro-Arabist arguments and mistreating his brothers in victimhood; 2) having more liberal, (ie elitist) political views; 3) having political sway on the national scene at the expense of his ego; 4) trying to trump the romantic victimhood of the Irish; and 5) not inviting him to some DC cocktail parties.

I think he desperately wants to remain relevant, but feels impeded by Jewish liberals and neo-cons. The result over the past 20+ years is that he has become more provocative as he sees the American public becoming more skeptical of his Arabist sympathies. It helps increase his profile when certain cable shows invite him as their “conservative” because he strongly resents GWB’s support for Israel.

So, is he an anti-semite or not? I suspect that he views himself as a proud tribal warrior more than anything else. He doesn’t hate Jews, he hates the opposition.

IMHO, he’s a pawn who did well by the Gipper, but sold out conservatism after that. He is an intellectually corrupt tool for the liberal media to bash GWB. If Obama is less hostile to Israel than many of us suspect, he will be the fool they trot out to make the “conservative” argument.

Pat’s happy. People are paying attention to him and he’s raking in the big bucks that (in his mind) he has always richly deserved.

Nov 26, 2008 - 8:26 am 30. Markus:

The dishonesty, ignorance and illogic of “Gary” is pretty obvious to anyone else who reads our posts side by side. I could reiterate but why bother? I’ll respond to anyone else.

I looked at some of his old posts on other sites, he’s actually quite clever and funny when replying to CFudd as he calls him, why is he such an obnoxious, humourless putz when responding to me?

Nov 26, 2008 - 9:20 am 31. Scott:

Marymcl…recall also the heavy reparations that Prussia/Germany imposed on France in 1871.The German complaints about crushing reparations ring very hollow:it was the onset of the Great Depression that destroyed the German economy and opened the door for the Nazis…and even then(late 1932)the Nazis had begun to ebb(but were saved by some cynical politicians who thought that they could control Hitler..)

Nov 27, 2008 - 7:21 am 32. marymcl:

Sadly the cycle continues – since the 60’s and the advent of social studies (is that an exquisitely apt name for it or what?) high schools students don’t learn much history except by way of what they absorb through the MSM. In other words, movies and the commentary of the actors and directors on DVDs.

I can’t remember where, exactly (Remains of the Day?) but Anthony Hopkins recites the usual chapter and verse about the unfairness of Versailles as if it were Gospel. On one of the LOTR discs, Peter Jackson calls WWI a stupid war that should never have happened, and in the very next breath extols WWII as one that had to be fought “no matter how anti-war you are”. I find the last especially ironic, almost bitterly so – Tolkien and Hitler were opposing combatants at the Somme, and I don’t think either man survived with any doubts about what he’d been fighting for.

Nov 27, 2008 - 10:02 am 33. Gary Rosen:

“Then, he took up the John Demianiuk case. Turns out he was right.”

No he wasn’t. It was never proven whether or not Demjanjuk was the alleged concentration camp villain “Ivan the Terrible”, but it *was* proven beyond any doubt that he had lied about his service to the Nazis when he entered the country and therefore gained his citizenship under false pretenses.

This is particularly hypocritical for Buchanan who is puports to be so xenophobically anti-immigrant. Apparently his “nuanced” view on illegal immigration is zero tolerance and immediate deportation – unless he thinks that someway, somewhere, somehow you might have murdered some innocent Jewish men, women and children. Then he wants to roll out the welcome wagon with a brass band.

Nov 27, 2008 - 10:19 am 34. Gary Rosen:

oops, “purports”, not “puports” – Roger, when are you going to get preview?

Nov 27, 2008 - 10:21 am 35. marymcl:

I’d like to second the preview request (all over the site please) and also maybe upgrade a little so we can blockquote, italicize, etc.
I discovered with my Shirer quote above that setting up a post on another page and pasting it in doesn’t carry over the finer features.

And Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Nov 27, 2008 - 10:43 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: