Skip to comments.Was the Holocaust Inevitable? ( Patrick J. Buchanan )
Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
click here to read article
Pat Buchanan is a piece of excrement.
Poland was ‘stabilized’ before 1941
Do you have a link for that? I'm currently scanning an 1851 English translation of Mendelsohn's work Jerusalem.
All your money are belong to us! ;-)
I second that. Sad that it’s become so rare.
Pat is insane.
Yeah if only people spoke with more freedom about International Jewish conspiracies. We’d all be so much better informed! /sarc
Through the looking glass of Hitler, WW1 is seen as a righteous war, just like WW2. That is a colossal error. WW1 was a massive waste of life that nobody should have been involved in except the AH Empire and the Serbs.
Perhaps. The odor of Zyklon-B is unmistakable.
The bitter harvest you reek of reminds me of almonds.
As wideawake noted, the posts in question are hardly the kind you want on FR:
Marvin Antelman is a conspiracy theorist who repeats all the usual anti-Semitic tropes about Jews - but with a twist! The Jews who carried out all those conspiracies were non-observant Jews - observant Jews are also victims of this vast Jewish conspiracy!
Also, Antelman markets a product he calls Tetrasilver, which completely cures AIDS. Or so he says.
By the way, Antelman has another theory about how the NIH has engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth about Tetrasilver.
European Jewish surnames did not come into popular use until Napoleon required all families to choose surnames. Before that, Jewish names were in the form [Name] son/daughter of [Father’s name] of [City]
Are those assertions false?
Since two posters have reached them independently, I think they are accurate - I was citing wideawake’s post to show that Carrie_Okie is hardly carrying out a worthwhile intellectual exercise here.
He was ruined because he hung out in Nazi Germany, supported eugenics and pled the case of a government that later declared war on the USA.
He was set to become President and then someone nabbed his kid.
Lindbergh was not involved in politics at all at the time his son was kidnapped. He was also 30 years old when his son was kidnapped and therefore ineligible for the Presidency, anyway.
He never ran for president or any other office, was never considered for nomination by any party, and his public involvement with politics began with his famous Reader's Digest article in 1939 - seven years after the kidnapping.
Politics is some ugly stuff at critical junctures in history.
What's ugly is all the fake history being manufactured by certain individuals on this thread.
I dunno what to think of Buchanan's work here, guess I'll have to read the book first.
I guess it's too much to ask for Pat to renounce being an anti-Semite.
Yawn to what? That Pat has removed all doubt about his anti-Semitism? Or that you don’t think that anti-Semitism is a bit deal?
Calling PJB an anti-semite is a tired canard.
That is, without question, the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Hitler spelled out his whole like that he thought the Germans needed lebensraum in the east.
It is true, Hitler didn't want war with France and GB, but only because he didn't want to fight a two front war. Maybe at the time he thought he'd be happy never fighting France and GB, but, could France and GB possibly have taken that chance?
Are you saying it's not true?
I used to think Pat's critics in that regard were exaggerating. But Pat has removed all doubt in my mind.
Right. Lets collect all his books & burn them.
It was especially thrown as him as he defended John Demaniuk from the canard that he was ‘ivan the terrible’ Well, John Demaniuk was not Ivan the Terrible. But those who played the ‘anti-semitism’ card, of course, did not say they were wrong.
Pat is a paleo-con, and that’s about the extent of things.
Lets also not forget that controversy sells books.
Which is where all Buchanan threads end up.
You're being quite disingenious. I guess in your mind, Pat should be able to serve up a steaming load of anti-semetic nonsense and we can't criticize him for both his anti-semitism and his piss-poor scholarship.
Clearly, he is not an anti-semite. He is not a raving supporter of Israel, I’ll give you that. But Israel is a foreign country.
Pat recently has been proving them right.
Nevertheless, Pat's decent into out and out loopiness since he ran for President has not gone unnoticed.
Thanks, but isn’t that pretty much the same as other European surnames?
I repeat: Part of the indictment is Demaniuk. And he was right on that front.
It’s not ‘loopiness’; it’s paleo-conservatism that calls for a restoration of the constitution and a limited foreign policy. I’ll echo Pat: A Republic, not an Empire.
Then we decided we can’t let this old fellow go, so we (the Justice Dept) decided he actually was someone else. Go figure how this is important to America, especially since Israel harbors its own war criminals from prosecution like Solomon Morel, who was so vicious that the Soviets suspended him!
Some of the theories being floated on this thread makes Pat look rational.
“Clearly, he is not an anti-semite. He is not a raving supporter of Israel, Ill give you that. But Israel is a foreign country.”
Scholoarly criticism? Fine.
Hysterical ad hominems? Worthless noise.
I truly believe that the rise of China and India will see a return to old school balance of power politics. Folks should stop listening to fools like Hannity who talk about "World War IV" and a "new cold war" and instead brush up on their Metternich and Kissinger.
A mulipolar world will bring a greater degree of order than the "crusader state" envisioned by the neoconservatives, whose idiotic support of a unipolar world leads to them opposing such positive developments as a European Army (why the hell are we still in Germany?). Nevertheless, the US is already too involved in international polity and economics to advocate the passive neutrality supported by the Paleocons (although Pat himself does not even go that far, I was thinking more of the Chronicles crowd).
Yes, the ringing of an alarm bell is boring.
Always the same rhythm, always the same tone.
Maybe if we poke fun at the alarm bell the fire will go out?
Rabbi Antelman (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Rabbinic Court of America) is a bit "Birchy," though he has (so far as know) never been a member and disagrees with them on some issues (for example, he demolishes one of the JBS' favorite historians, Nesta Webster). Whatever he may be, he is most assuredly not a "self-hating Jew." He is a strong Zionist and admirer of Rabbi Me'ir Kahana' (zt"l; Hy"d). He was also one of the founders of the so-alled "Sanhedrion" in Jerusalem, though he later quit out of frustration with the direction it was taking. And he absolutely detests anti-Semites.
The problem with Rabbi Antelman's work is that, because he deals almost exclusively with subversive elements and movements within Judaism, that the careless reader could walk away with the idea that these subversive ideas originated from within Judaism. As a matter of fact he says that most of the subversion that took place was from subversive chr*stians, but he is not a chr*stian and he is not writing about chr*stianity. He is writing about subversive currents in the Jewish community. In his first book he also cautions the reader against reading and then thinking "see what these Jews did" because it was centuries of chr*stian persecution of Jews that opened the latter up to victimization and exploitation by subversive elements (just as moslem persecution of Arab chr*stians opened up the latter to influence by Communism and French Freemasonry).
Rabbi Antelman should have spent more time placing the subversion of Judaism within the context of the subversion of chr*stianity in the West at that time. But since he was writing for Jews about the subversion of Judaism almost everything he writes is about subversive non-Orthodox Jews. Unfortunately, the careless reader may conclude that subversive non-Orthodox Jews invented evil.
That being said, it must be stressed that because the Jewish People are different from all other nations, because there is a difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish soul, Jews who do not pursue the Jewish purpose of learning and observing Torah are especially destructive in their influence on the world. This in no sense excuses anti-Semitism of any level, but it is a simple spiritual fact. Can you imagine how different the world would be if all those non-Orthodox Jews who have so influenced the world (for good or ill) in so many non-Torah ways had been pious and observant Jews? We might be living in the Kingdom of G-d on earth by this point. As Rabbi Lapin has said, deep within every Jew is a thirst for G-d and a desire to do something more than just merely exist. The correct answer to this yearning is Torah, but when Torah is rejected other philosophies are turned to, and the effect is much more acute than when subversive ideas are accepted by gentiles. After all, the purpose of the Jewish soul is to channel holiness into the world while non-Jewish souls then spread it about. Small wonder that Jews who reject Torah can be terribly destructive. This is based on mystical realities and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism whatsoever.
All that being said, I was very disappointed in the second volume. For one thing, he refers to Maurice Malkin many times as "Maurice Malcolm." Why? Is this an error? Is it carelessness? Or did Maurice Malkin use the name "Malcolm?" For another is the simple outlandishness of some of his claims, the most outlandish being that Adolf Hitler (mach shemo!) was conceived as part of a Sabbatian ritual on the night of Tish`ah Be'Av of 5648 (which was exactly nine months before 4/20/1889). I suppose such a thing is theoretically possible, but I doubt it. Also it seems to blame Nazism itself on those awful Jews, the source of all the evils in history (though granted, heretical Jews).
It is not for me to comment on Rabbi Antelman's Orthodoxy. So far as I know he is certainly a real Orthodox Rabbi (yadin yadin), a disciple of the late Rabbi Hutner (zt"l), and highly, if not universally, respected.
The guys sounds nuttier than squirrel poop, and nearly as nutty as Pukannon
By “in earnest”, I meant extermination of Jews by the thousands.
Do you get all your epithets from the N.Y. Times (10/10/2004 ny times review):
[This long history of residing on the fringe ended suddenly with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. In 1992, Buchanan ran a surprisingly strong campaign in the Republican presidential primaries on an explicitly ‘’anti-imperialist’’ platform — a platform that he further developed in his revisionist history, ‘’A Republic, Not an Empire.’’ ‘’When we hear phrases like ‘New World Order,’ we release the safety catches on our revolvers,’’ he wrote in one of his newspaper columns. Even if his party ultimately rejected him, it co-opted much of his program, and in 1995, a year after Republicans ascended to the majority in the House of Representatives, 190 of them voted to deny funds for American troops stationed in Bosnia. By the end of the decade, condemnations of ‘’foreign policy as social work’’ and ‘’nation building’’ had become standard in conservative boilerplate.
Buchananite foreign policy has an intellectual wing, paleoconservatism. Long before French protesters and liberal bloggers had even heard of the neoconservatives, the paleoconservatives were locked in mortal combat with them. Paleocons fought neocons over whom Ronald Reagan should appoint to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, angrily denouncing them as closet liberals — or worse, crypto-Trotskyists. Even their self-selected name, paleocon, suggests disdain for the neocons and their muscular interventionism.
Clustered around journals like Chronicles and Southern Partisan, the paleocon ranks included the syndicated columnist Sam Francis and the political theorist Paul Gottfried. Their writings have been anthologized in ‘’The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right,’’ edited by Joseph Scotchie. The paleocons explicitly hark back to Garrett, Nock and the Remnant, what they lovingly call the ‘’Old Right.’’ Like their mentor, Russell Kirk, the paleocons venerate traditional society, celebrating hierarchy, patriarchy and even the virtues of the antebellum South. They bemoan feminism, immigration and multiculturalism. A foreign policy naturally follows from these domestic views. The dismal state of American civilization so depresses them that they see no point in exporting its values abroad. Kirk announced in a 1990 lecture to the Heritage Foundation that America’s contribution to the world will be ‘’cheapness — the cheapest music, the cheapest comic books and the cheapest morality that can be provided.’’
Counterattacking, the neocons often accused the paleocons of anti-Semitism. David Frum, for instance, built this case in his 1994 book, ‘’Dead Right.’’ Indeed, this is a charge that has dogged isolationists — from Nock to Charles Lindbergh (who is elected president in Philip Roth’s new counterfactual novel, ‘’The Plot Against America’’) to Buchanan. With their pleas for ‘’America first’’ and their rejection of cosmopolitan foreign policy, they have occasionally vilified the oldest symbol of cosmopolitanism — the Jew.]
Tired? More like tiresome.
It’s tiresome to keep pointing out the man’s anti-Semitic instincts, but it is not false.
There have been various theories in some Orthodox Jewish circles that Shoah was a divine punishment of European Jews for assimilating. Is that what Antelman suggests?
Give him that!
Too bad he's not a J W Rowling, then at least his books would be entertaining and not harmful.
There actually were almost 8 times as many Jews living in the Austro-Hungarian Empire than there were in Germany.
Almost 3 times as many Jews lived in Poland as did in Germany.
On a percentage basis, as many Jews lived in the UK as in Germany.
Only 5% of Europe's Jewish population lived in Germany, a country which comprised about 15% of the European population.