Posted on 02/20/2006 4:50:45 PM PST by rmlew
"Dhimmitude, or dementia" – take your pick – is how commentator Lawrence Auster lamented Patrick J. Buchanan's recent lapses. Mr. Buchanan has come out against the Danes for their finger-in-the-dyke bravery in the face of Islamic bullies – and for foreign aid for Hamas for their election victory in the Palestinian Authority.
Before Hamas came to power, Buchanan had been a principled opponent of foreign aid, rightly calling it a racket and a shakedown. But Hamas, a deeply and indelibly anti-Semitic terrorist outfit, changed that. In a positively bacchanalian column, Buchanan exalts Hamas for its "sacrifice" and dedication, and mocks Israel for being "close to hysterical" over the outcome, adding that it was its behavior in the first place that elected Hamas.
To round up this orgy of immorality, Mr. Buchanan urges Americans to open the spigots and let the aid flow, provided Hamas keeps "armed resistance" against Israeli civilians to a minimum. (I foresee a follow-up column, praising Russian President Vladimir Putin for embracing Hamas.)
A careful reading of the brilliant Buchanan's oeuvre reveals that he is consistent in his inconsistencies. To dismiss him as demented or indentured is to underestimate the man's astringent mind and, I'm afraid, the sinister nature of his thinking.
I say "I'm afraid," because I admired Mr. Buchanan, even writing in this space that he was "one of the few American patriots left among the 'nattering nabobs,' a thorn in the side of the swarm of neoconservatives and their pseudo-conservative allies – Messers Limbaugh and O'Reilly – with whom he was forced to joust."
In "The cartoon wars," Mr. Buchanan is every bit as preoccupied as a neoconservative with recruiting Americans to serve a grand, national, Rousseauist purpose. This time, Jean-Jacques Bush wants us to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, most of whom are moderates, or so Mr. Buchanan insists.
Here's the rub: What Mr. Buchanan considers "moderate" is not moderate in any real sense. For these "moderates," as Mr. Buchanan attests, "all believe that to depict the face of the prophet or to ridicule him as Salman Rushdie did is a sacrilege." This is the standard of moderation Mr. Buchanan wants the free world to abide.
A standard which has been flouted with respect to the saintliest of Western icons.
Why, Christopher Hitchens subjected a nun to a coruscating critique in "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice." How on earth can we motivate for an exemption for Muhammad, peace be upon him (offering praise when he is mentioned is now mandatory)?
Muhammad's "practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions," says historian Serge Trifkovic (good luck with that, Serge):
Many commands of the Kuran and Muhammad's actions and words recorded in the Traditions are morally abhorrent and/or criminal by the standards of our time. But even in the context of 7th century Arabia they were often considered repugnant. Muhammad had to resort to "revelations" as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society.These facts, all gleaned from the Quran and the hadiths, could be construed as insulting. If Mr. Buchanan's fatwa is heeded, they'd have to be avoided.
Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one's kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion's share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties, and indulging one's sensual passions, was also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him.
Nor is the Top Dog exempt from dhimmitude. According to Mr. Buchanan, Bush ought to have followed "the lead of our best friends in the region," who denounced "the insulting content of the cartoons."
The Israelis did that? Most Americans think of them as America's "best friends in the region." But not Mr. Buchanan, who is dedicated to delegitimizing the Middle East's only true democracy – a small spot of sanity in a sea of savagery, where enlightened Western law prevails, and where Christians, Jews and their holy places are safe.
Were anyone to recommend that we follow the lead of our Israeli friends in the region, Mr. Buchanan would have a conniption, and carp about "outsourcing Middle East policy to Tel Aviv."
You see, to Blowback Buchanan, Israel – and Israel alone – is to blame for Muslim disaffection. The Israeli lobby (and the "Illuminati Jews From The Center of the Earth") has driven the Empire to war with Muslims, and alienated it from its natural allies in the region.
Thus the buddies Mr. Buchanan wants the president to bow to are "Abdullah, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Recep Erdogan of Turkey, and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan." By crowning them America's "best friends in the region," Mr. Buchanan has once again tipped his hand. He's an Arabist, not a proponent of a neutral foreign policy.
Mr. Buchanan, however, is much more than an Arabist; he's an Occidentalist – one who hates the West for its "rootless cosmopolitanism," irreligiousness, free market, and imperialism. This contempt has, I'm afraid, led Mr. Buchanan into an ideological latrine and locked him there.
After conflating the Danes with the most off-putting exemplars of free expression – Larry Flynt the pornographer, the Nazis of Skokie, and the late Robert Mapplethorpe of the bullwhip-bedecked behind – Buchanan allows that we are all entitled to be contemptuous of "the beliefs and values the Islamic faith holds dear, and for the prophet." "But if we wish to exercise our right to air [these views] in print or broadcast, we should expect to reap what we have sown."
With these obligatory lines, Mr. Buchanan discharges his duty to the West and its puny freedoms. What follows is an ode to Islam. Buchanan's paean to this faith's brute force is crucial in divining why he demands the West's capitulation, following the cartoon jihad.
Far from being revolted by the barbarians going berserk on the Muslim Street, Mr. Buchanan is awed by them, describing these Muslims glowingly, as "devout and resolute in defense of their faith." Compared to their faith-inspired savage splendor, Mr. Buchanan thinks "the milquetoast Christians of modernity," who reason in response to "sacrileges such as 'The Last Temptation of Christ,'" are "pathetic."
To understand contemporary Muslims' "devoutness," Mr. Buchanan suggests we hearken to Christianity's past. Christians were once warriors, too. Hallelujah!
To Mr. Buchanan, might is right when it comes to the faithful (although Jewish religious zealots he abhors – yet another of those consistent inconsistencies.)
Mr. Buchanan went AWOL on the West because he respects a Muslim fanatic's right (and might) to threaten scribes and illustrators more than he honors the right of these fallen pacifists to live aggression free.
In Mr. Buchanan's universe, the meek in faith are not to be blessed – or even defended – but are to be subjugated to "Blood and Soil" barbarians. Such Muslims he views as the admired faithful who deserve to inherit the earth.
Ping
Sad to say it, but Buchanan has gone over the edge IMO.
There's been some hype over the years, some of it valid and much of it not.
There's just no excuse for his latest proclivities. Sorry Pat, you left me in the dust fella.
Why doesn't little patty boy go and join Al Queda and get it over with.....what an arse, and worse, a bloody Quiseling.
buchanan is beginning to read just like charley reese. sad, but true....
Ummmm, shouldn't that be "finger-in-the-dike"?
And what is a pro Israeli person doing writing for Antiwar.com anyway? Can any decent person write for that website?
Buchanan can't even make the claim to be a realist. He is beginning to sound like one of the "striped pants boys" at the State Department circa 1925.
this author uses slimeball distortions. Example:
"In a positively bacchanalian column, Buchanan exalts Hamas for its "sacrifice" and dedication, and mocks Israel for being "close to hysterical" over the outcome"
What Buchanan said in the article:
"What will Hamas do? Hamas will accept the cut-off of aid, seek money from the Saudis and Iranians, do their best to keep the Palestinian people fed, clothed, housed and educated, and sacrifice for their people. "
"Understandably, the Israelis are close to hysterical over the landslide for Hamas "
Buchanan did not exalt Hamas for their sacrifice. He did not mock Israelis for being hysterical.
guess that all depends on who she is...
"this author uses slimeball distortions."
Well, we all know that if you disagree with Pat Buchanan it is perfectly acceptable to smear him. And if you agree with him on any topic, you should be tarred and feathered. /sarc
A "dyke" is a small levee or dam.
>>
How does a small levee or dam ride a motorcycle?
You're right...."finger in the dyke" brings up other interesting questions....LOL.
"Understandably, the Israelis are close to hysterical over the landslide for Hamas and are on a diplomatic campaign to have all donors end all aid to a Palestinian Authority dominated by Hamas.But that is not in our interests. It is not even in Israel's interest. For it has been Israel's behavior, and uncritical U.S. support for that behavior, that produced this victory for Hamas."
Mock 1. To treat with ridicule or contempt
its a gross exaggeration to claim that Buchanan was treating anyone with ridicule or contempt in the above quote.
It's simple - if you hate jews, you're A-OK with Pat.
Serge Trifkovic, must be a Breve Serb.
Serge Trifkovic, must be a Brave Serb.
If this is accurate, then it means Buchanan has the mindset of an authoritarian Brownshirt thug. This characterization is appropriate for a Nazi ideologue, not a Christian, much less an American one.
Neither, imo. Just old-fashioned Jew-hatred. It colors every one of his thoughts.
They will do what they exist to do--wage genocidal war of terror against the Jews, as best they can.
Funny how Buchanan--and you-- manage to overlook that little detail.
Srdja Trifkovic is a brave Serb. Read "The Sword of the Prophet".
I wonder what Buchanan's old boss, Richard Nixon, thought of Hamas.
Dictionary.com says that dike and dyke both mean:
1. a. An embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods.
b. Chiefly British. A low wall, often of sod, dividing or enclosing lands.
2. A barrier blocking a passage, especially for protection.
3. A raised causeway.
4. A ditch; a channel.
5. Geology. A long mass of igneous rock that cuts across the structure of adjacent rock.
In any case it was a Dutch boy in the story who put his finger in the dike, not a Danish boy.
"this author uses slimeball distortions"
You got that right, dude. Look at this gem:
"Thus the buddies Mr. Buchanan wants the president to bow to are "Abdullah, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Recep Erdogan of Turkey, and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan." By crowning them America's "best friends in the region," Mr. Buchanan has once again tipped his hand. He's an Arabist, not a proponent of a neutral foreign policy."
Wrong - Erdogan is a Turk, and Karzai is an Afghan. Neither are Arabs, or particularly fond of Arabs.
The guy defends the same kinds of people who fly hijacked airliners into buildings and blow themselves up in rooms full of kids.
No matter what Pat may have stood for at one time, he has long since fallen off the cliff and should be ignored by everyone.
Of course he will still have his sycophants who will defend him until the end of time.
I used to like them both, but now they're just crazy.
Pat's still sensitive about the uncle who died at Auschwitz.
Poor fellow's neck snapped like a twig when he fell out of the guard tower.
I've always been a fan of Pat's, especially since he will say certain things that we need to hear and even other conservaties are afraid to say. But this is one area where Pat has wandered so far off the reservation that you have to wonder if something has gone seriously wrong with him.
I don't think Pat is anti-Semitic and I think it's a liberal smear to say so.
Well said!!
If you don't like the term "anti semitic" used to describe Buchanan, how about just plain old crazy??
Somebody posts that joke on every damn Buchanan thread...
...AND IT'S STILL FUNNY!
Perhaps he might come up with some sort of Agreement
to bring Peace in our time.
Here is a trascript of the actual article.
Secularist Stupidity
& Religious Wars
By Patrick J. Buchanan
2-9-6
"What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press."
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Mohammed to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Mohammed, including a lampoon of the Prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Mohammed is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded.
The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on page one, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any Prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Mohammed doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shi'ite sector of Iraq. Innocents will pay the price of his heroism.
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view."
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow.
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States called Mohammed a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press.
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling.
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks. But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum.
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.
 |
  |
Can't believe it, but I'd like to hear his side. WND does publish Buchanan's articles.
I haven't read such an incoherent, illogical, inconsistent argument since I delved into the work of Noam Chomsky, the acclaimed linguist and academic fraud.
Buchanan-if he had any integrity or lucidity left-would have been ashamed to have his name printed on the front cover-in bolded letters above the title, no less-of such an unconvincing collection of tendentious, insipid thoughts.
The implicit suggestion that Hitler and Nazi Germany should have been allowed to trample over Poland, the politically expedient, abortive marriage of convenience with Marxist, anti-Semitic nutbar Lenora Fulani and the Independence Party, his adulatory statements about Choadsky...
If none of these actions convinced Buchananites to reassess their opinion of him, then I hope his disastrous appearance on Sean Hannity's nationally-syndicated radio program served as an epiphany.
The man sounded positively terrified.
His tremulous voice evoked images of hostages held by Islamist terror gangs in Iraq.
It was truly sickening.
I read Pat's work.
I regularly read TAC and have even submitted to it.
Care to enumerate which terrorists we're currently at war with?
What language do they speak, predominantly?
What region of the world do they hail from?
What God/prophet do they venerate?
As for her reasoning, I don't see how it can be any less persuasive than Mr. Buchanan's.
Pat's analysis of the WOT goes something like this:
A. Mohammedans have no right to kill innocent Americans or Europeans-his opinion of Israeli Jews, and their right to live in peace and security, is subject to debate
B. However, we need to address the "root causes" and "genuine grievances" of these very same terrorists
C. President Bush hasn't fully articulated who are enemy is, and how we should confront him
D. President Bush shouldn't enunciate who are enemy is, because it would inflame the ummah, which would presumably lead to a worldwide jihad that would end in our ultimate subjugation.
E. The reason we're not equipped to do battle with this resurgent Caliphate is because of a diminution of faith among Christians.
F. Therefore, we should accommodate Islamo-Nazis as much as possible-militarily, diplomatically and politically-hastening our own enslavement, the prevention of which was the rationale for accommodating the Islamic world in the first place.
Make sense to you?
Buchanan's point on Islam is the right one. We aren't at war with Islam, we at war with terrorism.
When was the last time the IRA attacked us?
WE are at war with Islamist terrrorists. Whether the prospect scares you or has not occured to you, the reality is that Islamism and Islamic terror are based on the concept of Jihad, which is one of 5 Pillars of Islam.
From the 622 CE, Islam has spread through conquestion, rape, enslavement, intimidation, and immigration.
Terrorism is simply intimidation with newer weapons. The goal remains the same: Muslims are taught to believe that the entire world will be conquered by Islam.
Buchanan's position on foreign aid to Hamas is quite sophisticated.
1. It is Carter-esque in its stupidity. The best we could hope for is an advantageous ceasefire, which would end the moment the Muslims felt more powerful. (This too comes from the Koran. Look up the conquest of the Jews of Arabia.)
2. It is at odds with Buchanan's general assertions that he opposes foreign aid. He does not actually bother to address the inconsistancy.
You have the truly odd situation of people *demanding* that a cartoon that mocks the Muslim people be reprinted, while these same "free speech" advocates remain silent over the 3 year jail sentence handed to a loony historian for verbal statements. Irving's only crime was a 17 year old statement that has hurt the feelings of many holocaust survivors.
1. The cartoons were mostly benign. The few inconsiderate ones merely reminded us of the association of violence and Islam. The Muslim world has then proved the point.
2. In its desire not to offend the Muslims, many Europeans are calling for speech codes that will prevent any assessment of the damage ISlam will cause us.
3. I don't support prison for David Irving. That said, his statements were not made to piss off Holocaust survivors. His entire body of work is meant to cast Nazi Germany as a victim.
He has worked with Nazis, communists, and Islamists in this campaign and one of its foundations is to show that the Holocaust was overstated, and besides, Jews deserved it.
4. I don't buy the a silly liberal world of moral equivalencies. These are measures meant to protect the West, and especially the birthplace of Nazism, from this disease. Likewise, showing Islam's roots and threat is a defensive measure. Unpleasent though it may be, such cartoons are useful and proper.
Welcome to the Clash of Civilizations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.