This week, Pat Buchanan has continued his slow, disturbing slide into the dark recesses of far right wing politics. In a column marking the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland, Buchanan caused such controversy that MSNBC pulled the column from their web site.
But let’s look at what Buchanan actually has to say. His column is a shorter version of some of the arguments he makes in his recent book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, in which he critically examines British policy towards Germany in the late 1930s, and ends up assigning much of the blame for the outbreak of World War II on Winston Churchill.
According to Buchanan, the German invasion of Poland was triggered by a dispute over Danzig, a city with a large German majority on the Polish-German border.
What Buchanan fails to mention is that Danzig was an independent state in 1939, not a part of Poland. Although Danzig wanted to re-unite with Germany, the Germans also demanded that Poland give up a corridor of territory between Germany and Danzig, cutting Poland off from access to the sea. The Poles clearly found this unacceptable in light of what had happened to Czechoslovakia that spring after the Czechs acceded to Hitlers’ territorial claims.
But Buchanan argues that the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was not a bad thing. Rather, he says, it made everyone happier. Germany annexed the Sudeten region which had a German majority. Poland annexed Teschen, which was majority Polish. Hungary annexed (in fact, invaded, occupied and extinguished the independence of the short-lived state of Carpatho-Ukraine, but don’t bother Buchanan with those facts) its “ancestral lands” in the south of Slovakia. Slovakia was now an independent nation. And the Czechs? As Buchanan puts it “they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.”
In fact, Hitler insisted that they accept German “protection” or be invaded. The “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia” was placed under the direct administration of Konstantin von Neurath, who instituted strict controls on personal liberties within the Protectorate. When the Czechs protested, 1200 protesting students were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Despite this, Hitler felt that von Neurath was not killing enough people, so he replaced him with Reinhard Heydrich in 1941.
Heydrich was a die-hard Nazi ideologue whose ultimate goal was to eliminate the Czech people and replace them with Germans. For this, he was targeted for assassination by the British secret services and the Czech resistance. In May 1942, he was killed in Prague when a grenade was thrown into his car.
The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was not a positive outcome for the Czechs, in any way. The Poles feared the same fate if they let Hitler get a foot in the door by taking some of their territory.
And yet, Buchanan argues, Hitler was not out to conquer the world:
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Buchanan’s poor grasp of German strategy comes out full force.
Hitler’s Siegfried Line was built to defend against any French attack into Germany before Germany was ready to invade France. It worked. In September 1939, the French did not even try to attack the Siegfried Line even though there were only a handful of German divisions on the French border.
Buchanan is right that Germany’s goal was invading Russia. But before this could occur, Germany had to remove Poland from the equation, secure its southern flank in the Balkans, secure its rear in France to prevent another World War 1 two-front war, conquer or at least contain Britain and secure resources in Scandinavia. Only then could Germany turn its attention to invading the Soviet Union.
Germany’s fleet was in the middle of a massive expansion in 1939. New ships were under construction that came into service over the next few years.
German two-engined bombers were built in large numbers to support German blitzkreig campaigns, not massive wars of attrition where long-range bombers would be used.
Germany offered the British peace several times because Hitler wanted to contain Britain if he could not conquer them.
Germany let a rump French state keep their colonies because Vichy France was virtually an Axis partner. Having the French administer these colonies kept the Germans from having to devote manpower and resources to the task. In addition, it divided the French and British against each other in a fratricidal war, which was a major propaganda coup for the Germans.
Hitler begged Benito Mussolini to not do a lot of things, because Mussolini tended to get himself into tight jams that Hitler had to devote resources to bailing him out of (such as the failed Italian invasions of Greece and Egypt).
All of these questions have been answered time and time again by historians and are understandable in the context of the broad strategic picture of the Second World War.
Going back to the German demands for the Danzig corridor, Buchanan never explains why these demands necessitated the invasion of Poland and division of the entire country between Hitler and Stalin.
And therein lies the problem. Buchanan sees Hitler as acting from impossibly good motives. Motives that are not supported by Germany’s actions, Hitler’s stated views or any historical evidence. And this puts Buchanan moving in the direction of other pseudohistorians such as David Irving or Ernst Nolte, in the bin of discredited admirers of the Third Reich.
Buchanan isn't on some slow slide, he's right where he's always been. His white supremacy has been more overt as of late (I wonder why?) but if you look at his statements on racial matters over the years they're pretty consistent.
You are tiresomely illogical, Chris. I’ll address a few of your arguments later. It’s obvious that you haven’t read Buchanan’s book. Of course, that’s no shocker. You are nothing more than the typical neo-conservative, and your mixture of ignorance and arrogance is sickening.
Why is that some of my comments still have to await moderation?
I really don’t mean to be pushy or impatient, but why is it that some of my comments still have to await moderation?
Because we installed a new comment system on the site. I don't know the full details. My own comments on my own articles had to await moderation for a while. For some reason, I can no longer approve comments on this new system.
You seem base a lot on Hitler's decision to halt the armor advance at Dunkirk. Hitler ordered the advance halted because the terrain around Dunkirk was unsuitable for large scale armor maneuver and the British had inflicted significant losses on German armor three days before at Arras. The British Matilda II tanks were superior to anything the Germans had in terms of armor protection. Only set-piece 88mm antitank guns were capable of penetrating the Matilda II's armor. Goering pushed hard to let the Luftwaffe destroy the encircled Allied forces as they tried to cross the channel. Another important but overlooked part of the Dunkirk evacuation is that a big reason why so many British troops were able to escape is because many French units fought and died in place to stop the advancing Germans.
I’m so glad, Chris, that history is so simple and black-and-white to you. Never mind the fact that this topic is a source of debate amongst scholars. Chris Jones knows. Trust me, there are plenty of other occurances I could source, but why should I bother? You have the gall to criticize a book that you haven’t even read. Your opinion is basically just the typical absolute good vs. absolute evil simpleton opinion.
Check out this link: http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s101299.html
The author of this article has been the JoAnn B. Rothbard chair in history at Ludwig von Mises Institute, so I don’t think your simplistic analysis quite suffices. And that’s what really bothers me about crdaily. You laud a definite racist (Churchill) while condemning Buchanan and suggesting with the most sensationalist language and implications that he is a Nazi sympathizer and an admirer of the Third Reich. All the while, you haven’t even read the book.
Buchanan is a much better man than Churchill ever was, and, had the American people been smart enough to vote for him, he would have worked wonders for the U.S. And this is the thanks he gets. He’s called a racist by a UNC know-it-all.
By the way, when Buchanan ran for president in 2000, his running mate was a black woman.
I don't believe I mentioned Churchill at all in my post, except in stating the title of Buchanan's book and its thesis. Also, my review was not of Buchanan's book but of his column.
As for Dunkirk, let me pull a few books out of my considerable World War 2 related library….
Gerhard Weinberg's "A World At Arms" states that Hitler and von Rundstedt stopped the Panzer's advance because the tanks were needed for the advance to the south, because the wet terrain with many canals around Dunkirk was unfit for armored operations, and because they thought the Luftwaffe would destroy the surrounded British and French forces.
Weinberg writes that "the later suggestion that he hoped that the British might be encouraged to make peace by being allowed to get away is a fabrication."
Now let me consult another important and well-respected work: "The Battle of France 1940" by Colonel A. Goutard. In Goutard's book, he writes that Hitler thought that "Goering would foil any attempt and embarking and sink any boat that by some strange chance managed to reach the open sea." Goutard also reports that the German high command thought the ground around Dunkirk was too marshy for tank maneuvers, and that the Germans needed to save their tanks for the push to the south. Unlike Weinberg, Goutard does give brief mention of possible peace negotiations factoring into Hitler's decisions, but he makes a far stronger case for the first two factors.
After all, allowing the Luftwaffe to destroy the British Army is not the same thing as allowing it to escape. The two are in contradiction to each other.
I'm not quite sure what point your latest article is trying to make. He seems to be forgetting that Hitler declared war on the United States, not the other way around.
“I don't believe I mentioned Churchill at all in my post, except in stating the title of Buchanan's book and its thesis. Also, my review was not of Buchanan's book but of his column.”
Okay, Chris. I was obviously not just referring to you vis-à-vis Churchill. But are you going to deny that you’re a Churchill fan? And why review a column when you could review the book? The column was obviously intended to whet your appetite for his book; it wasn’t intended to be an in-depth dissertation. This is a pretty common practice of certain authors. Did you even reference the book for clarification? If you want to attack the article go ahead, but Buchanan just got back from London, “where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World,” to quote from a recent column of his. So, not everyone (even in England) holds to your stale and juvenile opinion about World War II.
Also, allow me to recommend a book that you should consider. It’s called “Dunkirk: The Patriotic Myth,” written by Nicholas Harmon. Also, Buchanan’s argument doesn’t rest entirely on Dunkirk.. His book pays close attention to World War I and its aftermath. He shows that World War II was predicted by many people. He shows that Versailles, which the allies were responsible for, set the table for Hitler, et al.. He shows that thanks to Churchill, the British basically started disarming themselves after WWI despite the incredibly harsh (but not quite crippling) peace imposed on their enemies at Versailles. He shows how the British, because of people like Churchill, snubbed the Japanese, up until right after WWI a loyal ally of the British, and insulted their pride. He argues that wars would have certainly happened (or at least one), but that they would have been relatively minor wars that shouldn’t have concerned the British. But I’m not going to go back and forth with you. You’ve got an answer for everything.
"But are you going to deny that you’re a Churchill fan?"
That man wasn't perfect (being an alcoholic and an agnostic are strikes against him). But yes, he is one of the great luminaries of western civilization.
"And why review a column when you could review the book?"
Because I have enough other stuff to read for class and write summaries of without throwing in another 544 page book.
I'm intrigued by what he says on the Anglo-Japanese alliance. Continuation of this alliance would have eventually put Britain on a course towards war with the United States. Does Buchanan think this was even a remote possibility?
“Because I have enough other stuff to read for class and write summaries of without throwing in another 544 page book.”
Boo-hoo. Then don’t bite off more than you can chew.
Buchanan talks extensively about Anglo-American relations, actually. He argues that certain Brits (such as Churchill) had a romantic vision of Americans that was not reciprocated by the Americans(Churchill’s mother was American), who didn’t see themselves as a branch of the tree of England. This romance with America (which was ethnically motivated) caused the British to act against the Japanese, even though the British really had nothing to gain from the “aliance” that the Americans were offering.
I think that's putting the emphasis on the wrong areas. Britain had far more at stake with the United States economically than she had at stake with Japan.
“You, sir, are mistaken. Have you read any books about Churchill besides the slanderous nonsense written by Buchanan? I cannot even begin to count the ways in which Churchill was one of the greatest statesmen in history. It's basically Edmund Burke, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill.”
Have you ever read any books that are critical of Churchill? Why don’t you read Buchanan’s book and prove that he slanders Churchill? If you can prove it, you can discredit Buchanan. But, despite what you neo-conservatives think, Buchanan is a highly accomplished man in every regard. He is an incredible journalist, and he always has been (he got his master’s degree in it from Columbia).
I can only imagine what you guys would say if Buchanan had said the same stuff about nonwhites that Churchill said!
I like Edmund Burke, but I’d replace Abraham Lincoln with Robert E. Lee. He was one of the only true patriots (who actually understood what patriotism was) this land has ever seen.
“I'm astonished that one who claims the title of conservatism has a hero who would defame a man who embodied conservatism his whole life.”
I don’t think Churchill “embodied conservatism.” And I’m astonished at the ignorance of the crdaily staff every day. I’m astonished that you claim to have read Buchanan’s book, “The Death of the West,” and yet you claim that he has changed his opinions! Is English your first language? His opinions haven’t changed since he turned against “free” trade!
“These days Buchanan is barely recognizably conservative. This paleoconservatism nonsense has got to stop. It is merely a cover for neo-statism whose social agenda happens to agree with the right-wing. There is little in Buchanan's agenda that is actually conservative, Burke and Buckley would stand aghast at most of what he believes.”
Well, I, quite frankly, don’t really care what Buckley would think. Burke, on the other hand, would probably agree with Buchanan much more often than he’d agree with you. But, in the end, I’m going to pull a Chris Jones: Put whatever label on me or Buchanan that you want. But, at the end of the day, your neo-conservative policies are going to ruin this country just as badly as leftists already have.
Anthony, I never considered myself a really smart or informed guy. But you guys are giving me second thoughts. You guys basically just repeat the same crap that comes out of National Review, except you put a “Christiany” spin on it. You ignore the obvious problems that free trade has caused, you ignore the problems that immigration has caused for the U.S., you ignore the problems of our imperialist foreign policy, you act morally indignant at people like Buchanan for being "racist" while lauding a definitely racist Churchill, etc. So don’t lecture me. You have nothing new to add to the conversation, you have nothing that I can’t get from a politically correct history book or the National Review. You guys completely lack originality.
And, gee, thanks for disagreeing with some of Chris’ criticism of YWC. Considering that he covertly (or overtly?) called us Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and all the other typically liberal names for us (the use of which names reveals a low intellect 99% of the time), I think the rest of the crdaily staff, with the exception of maybe Justin Crowder, either largely agree with Chris Jones, or they are cowards—because no one ever really seemed to speak up.
I don't think Robert E. Lee can really be considered a statesman for the simple reason that he had little to no involvement in the foreign relations of the Confederacy.
Actually, I know quite a bit about neo-conservatism, which is why I feel so confident referring to you and crdaily as neo-conservatives. Crdaily’s expressed foreign policy opinions, immigration approach, and free trade opinions are pretty good indicators. I suppose you never read Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong”? That’ll give you a different perspective, for sure.
Also, the name “Carolina Review” sounds eerily familiar. Maybe it’s derived from “National Review”?
I must look further into this about Churchill. I know a couple of things regarding Churchill and other races. I know he was a strong advocate of Israel as a home for the Jews. I know that he believed in respecting the autonomy of British colonies. I know he respected Africa. I know he was an officer for a period of time in India during the skirmishes there, and that he liked the foreign men in his regiment.
I hope that Chruchill was not a racist. From what I understand, in many of his speeches, when he uses the term "race" he is refering to nations or civilizations, not in terms of how we think of "white" or "black" today.
Anyway, if he was a bigot then that will take away from my view of him as a perfect person. But, of course, he wasn't perfect. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great man who defended western civilization.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance173.html
Hitler wanted the Sudetenland not only because it contained Germans but because it also contained the extensive Czechoslovak fortification system. Once the Sudetenland was under German control, so were the Czech defenses. The rest of Czechoslovakia could then be invaded at will.
In his book "Inside the Third Reich", former Nazi armaments minister Albert Speer writes that in tests after the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German siege guns in 1938 were incapable of penetrating the Czech bunkers. The taking of the Sudetenland also gave Germany most of Czechoslovakia's defensible terrain, leaving them with few places to make a stand in 1939.
***: Can you give an example of Buchanan's white supremacy? Since "you look at his statements on racial matters," you should not have much of a problem coming up with a few examples.
You're right, it's not at all difficult to find a lot of ridiculous statements from Buchanan. Taken individually they may seem relatively innocuous, but he's been at it for decades, spouting anti-minority, pro-white rhetoric while flirting with the far-right fringe of holocaust deniers and neo-nazis.
He complains that "Old heroes like … Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King."
He says "Yes, we can. Sí, se puede.' That's Hispanic. That's the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement."
He has referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory" and compared John Demjanjuk to Jesus.
He has always shown admiration for Hitler — this is from 1977: "Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
He has stated that no Jews were killed at Treblinka because "diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody"
He said "This has been a country built, basically, by white folks"
He associates with white supremacists like Peter Brimelow, inviting him to address his American Cause conference; he has appeared at least twice on the white supremacist "Political Cesspool Radio Show"
There's a lot more, of course…
“Taken individually they may seem relatively innocuous, but he's been at it for decades, spouting anti-minority, pro-white rhetoric while flirting with the far-right fringe of holocaust deniers and neo-nazis.”
This commits a logical fallacy. 1 x 0 is just as much 0 as 6.022×10^23 x 0 is 0.
“He complains that ‘Old heroes like … Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King.’ “
So? Dr. King was for affirmative action, he was a plagiarist (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp)… his moral character is certainly questionable, and there’s no reason why he should replace one of MY great ancestors as a national hero. Look, we’ve got a road in every city named after King. We take a day off every year to celebrate a guy with whom many black leaders at the time didn’t even agree.
“He says ‘Yes, we can. Sí, se puede.’ That's Hispanic. That's the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement."
Okay…didn’t really follow that comment, but it doesn’t sound white supremacist to me.
“He has referred to Capitol Hill as ‘Israeli-occupied territory’ and compared John Demjanjuk to Jesus.”
Anyone who is ignorant of the Jewish influence in Washington is just blind. Israel pretty much dictates our foreign policy. Hopefully, under Obama, that won’t be as true as it has been. Demjanjuk is innocent. Jesus is innocent. Nevertheless, the authorities wanted blood in both cases. Use your head.
“He has always shown admiration for Hitler — this is from 1977: ‘Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.’ “
What’s wrong with this statement? He calls Hitler “racist” and “anti-Semitic” and murderous and genocidal, for Christ’s sake!
“He said ‘This has been a country built, basically, by white folks’ “
Which is true. So, now speaking the truth is evil?
“He has stated that no Jews were killed at Treblinka because ‘diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody’ “
Well, there are several problems with this line. First, it’s out of context. I really can’t comment on it until I see the context. I just looked through the internet, and all I can find on it are hit pieces. Can you provide a link to the original article, or are you just kinda believing that the ADL is right?
Second, even if I grant you that the quote stands on its own, it still doesn’t prove that Buchanan is a holocaust denier. Just because he doesn’t think that Jews were killed at Treblinka doesn’t mean that he doesn’t think that there was a holocaust. He has definitely stated recently that the holocaust happened, so this lone remark doesn’t really make your case very strong.
“He associates with white supremacists like Peter Brimelow, inviting him to address his American Cause conference; he has appeared at least twice on the white supremacist "Political Cesspool Radio Show" “
Now you’re going to have to show that Peter Brimelow is white supremacist and “Political Cesspool Radio Show” is white supremacist.
Tracy is your real name Bay Buchanan? I think Pat has a handful of positions worth supporting, like his opposition to "free trade" — but even that is rooted more in xenophobic bigotry than in any real concern for the US working class. His racism is so overt that it's hard to believe he still gets invited on the teevee shows, but I suppose the right wing pundits and politicians who are a bit more subtle in their bigotry need some cover from the lunatic fringe. Here are a few more of his zingers:
Reminiscing fondly about the pre-civil rights era: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
In the mid-60s he published FBI smears of civil rights leaders in his column in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, bragging later that he was one of "Hoover's conduits to the American people."
He praised David Duke, at one point making a joking threat to sue him for plagiarism, and suggested that the Republican Party should "take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks."
He denounced the idea that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?"
"The central objection to the present flood of illegals is that they are not English- speaking white people from Western Europe, they are Spanish- speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean."
First off, ***, can I assume by your not responding to my previous post that you are willing to concede the points that I made?
“Tracy is your real name Bay Buchanan? I think Pat has a handful of positions worth supporting, like his opposition to "free trade" — but even that is rooted more in xenophobic bigotry than in any real concern for the US working class.”
Yes, *** hole, my real name is Bay Buchanan. Because Bay Buchanan would definitely waste her time with a numbskull like you. It’s pretty remarkable that you would ask that question considering that you’re not even willing to give your opponents a name to call you.
And your claim that Buchanan doesn’t have “any real concern for the US working class” is absolutely preposterous. What you interpret as “xenophobic” is actually just Buchanan’s traditionalist Catholicism which holds that you ought to love your compatriots more than you are to love foreigners. But I guess Catholicism is a “racist” religion. Also, his opposition to unregulated capitalism even within the USA is further proof that he truly cares about the working class.
“Reminiscing fondly about the pre-civil rights era: ‘There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.’”
If you think about it, this is actually a pro-black position, at least in the opinion of Malcolm X. White liberals such as yourself basically want blacks to live in a paternalistic society in which they are admitted to (and encouraged to attend) our intellectual institutions even when they’re not qualified, in which blacks are given untold billions of the taxpayers’ money while they are continuously prompted to hate their benefactors, in which their culture is dictated by corporate America and politically correct Hollywood, and the list goes on and on. They are never encouraged to practice self-determination. They are told what they should aspire to be. And, of course, this is necessary if we are going to integrate them. I so respect blacks as human beings that I don’t want to presume to tell them what their culture should look like. And they’d be happier if they’d just make their own without our input.
“In the mid-60s he published FBI smears of civil rights leaders in his column in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, bragging later that he was one of ‘Hoover's conduits to the American people.’”
What’s wrong with this? As long as it was done legally (and it appears that it was), then why can’t the American people see what the FBI has discovered? Also, I like J. Edgar Hoover.
Continued…
Continued:
“He praised David Duke, at one point making a joking threat to sue him for plagiarism, and suggested that the Republican Party should ‘take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.’”
Well, first off, just because he “praised” (whatever that means…) David Duke doesn’t necessarily mean that he agrees with Duke on everything. You need to explain this one a little better. Once again, a liberal doesn’t think that he has to defend his claims…
As far as “look[ing] at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriat[ing] those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks” is concerned, again, what’s wrong with that? Do you support reverse discrimination against whites? Oh, that’s right. You’re a liberal. Of course you do. If you have a problem with race-based discrimination against nonwhites, then why don’t you have a problem with race-based discrimination against whites? Obviously, you’ve imbibed the culture of white guilt. Have fun hating yourself.
“He denounced the idea that ‘white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.’ He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the ‘Boer Republic’: ‘Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?’”
Well, is it “inherently wrong?” I mean, look at South Africa. For awhile South Africa was making “progress” (as it is defined by white patrons like you). According to the U.N. Human Development Index, it was making progress as a nation. Ever since blacks took over, however, their rape rate is one of the highest in the world, their AIDS rate is one of the highest in the world, and race-based discrimination against whites is an epidemic. The country is falling apart. If we judge the world by your white liberal standards, then clearly life in South Africa was better when it is run by whites than when it is run by blacks.
continued:
Also, it is true that our founding fathers had no intention of allowing whites to be ruled by anyone else in their own country. America was originally intended for free white people. If you think that that is evil, then you need to disown the founding fathers completely and destroy the society that they constructed.
On another note, why can’t whites be in charge of historically white nations? There is currently not a white nation in the world where it is socially acceptable for whites to believe that their country should remain white. On the other hand, Asians do believe that their nations should remain Asian, blacks do believe that their nations should remain black, Hispanics believe that their nations should remain Hispanic, Israelis believes that Israel should remain Jewish. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly natural and understandable. The problem is that whites are not given the same treatment. We are expected to cede power to every minority group that crosses our borders. The biggest source of what you would call “racism” stems indeed from whites, but it’s nevertheless racism that’s directed against whites.
Dear Tracy, keep your words out of my mouth. I'm not a "liberal" and I'm not conceding anything. If you feel compelled to parse Buchanan's words in such a way as to magically render him free of bigotry, that's your prerogative — but I'm certainly not going to waste my time taking you seriously as you do so. The CR folks are fond of pointing out logical fallacies, maybe they can help you with your arguments.
“I’m not conceding anything”
Well, if you’re not conceding anything, then you’re not doing a very good job defending your position. I’m sorry, but you can’t just provide a bunch of quotes and assume that I have the same anti-white opinions that you have. Your quotes only make Buchanan a bad guy if you have certain liberal or neo-conservative values, such as paternalism towards blacks, unconditional support of Israel, an immigration policy that will fundamentally change the nature of our country, a phobia of whites asserting their interests (even though you probably support nonwhites asserting theirs), etc. The reason you can’t argue with me is because I can guarantee you that you won’t find many intellectual opponents such as myself. You’re not used to whites who are sick and tired of apologizing for how “racist” and evil they are. You’re even less used to whites who vocally assert their interests and rights. But you can’t argue against it, because to do so, you’d make yourself a hypocrite.
“If you feel compelled to parse Buchanan’s words in such a way as to magically render him free of bigotry, that’s your prerogative — but I’m certainly not going to waste my time taking you seriously as you do so.”
Well, if you are so intellectually lazy as to provide quotes and magically expect to make a strong argument, then that’s your prerogative. At least I make an argument. All you do is visit Wikipedia and Buchanan hate sites and copy & paste. And, as an intellectual, I am supposed to take you seriously?
“The CR folks are fond of pointing out logical fallacies, maybe they can help you with your arguments.”
You committed a logical fallacy. Period. You can’t say, “Well, so-and-so said only one thing that resembles white supremacy, but since Buchanan said 50 things that resemble [in a liberal’s mind, anyway] white supremacy, he must actually be a white supremacist.” You have to provide proof that he’s a white supremacist. And you can’t do it by randomly adding unsystematic quotes together, that, when taken individually, don’t prove a damned thing. Maybe the CR folks can help you START arguing.. You haven’t made an argument yet, only accusations and assertions.
In what sense did Lee's disapproval of slavery make him a hero? He may have held that opinion, but he did nothing to uphold it. He did concede in writing that slavery was a "moral and political evil" — but he owned slaves himself, and thought abolitionists to be evil for interfering with the "spiritual liberty" of the slave owner. In the famous 1856 letter to his wife he is making the case that slavery is a natural, god-given institution, perhaps worse for the slave owner than for the slave, and one that would come to a natural end at a time and manner of god's choosing. I see nothing heroic here, just a confused man painting himself as a victim:
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
In what sense did Lee's disapproval of slavery make him a hero? He may have held that opinion, but he did nothing to uphold it. He did concede in writing that slavery was a "moral and political evil" — but he owned slaves himself, and thought abolitionists to be evil for interfering with the "spiritual liberty" of the slave owner. In the famous 1856 letter to his wife he is making the case that slavery is a natural, god-given institution, perhaps worse for the slave owner than for the slave, and one that would come to a natural end at a time and manner of god's choosing. I see nothing heroic here, just a confused man painting himself as a victim:
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
Buchanan is on MSNBC . . . n'ough said.
"Yeah, right on brah" — Good thing he's on MSNBC, at least somebody is willing to educate the rabid left. Here is one example of HUNDREDS! Come again, jlcrowde, n'ough said?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-38675044…
Wow. Who knew criticizing der fuhrer would be so controversial?