Skip to comments.THE UNRAVELING OF SYKES-PICOT (Patrick J. Buchanan)
Posted on 05/28/2013 2:36:07 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
A complete mischaracterization of Pat Buchanan, who is a Catholic paleoconservative. I do realize neocons hate him.
If he ever was a Catholic paleoconservative, he long ago ceased to be. He is a neopagan, with Catholic liturgical tendencies. Have you ever heard of Eugenio Pacelli? Ask him if Buchanan is a Catholic?
By the way, Buchanan endorsed Romney. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Many conservatives endorsed Romney in the election.
Pat has been solid on the issues that matter. He has done a lot to promote our cause.
Considering that he never made any such apologies perhaps you should give up hard liquor.
He certainly did. Also affirmative action.
“This urge to spread democracy is, IMNVHO, a perversion of Christian Evangelism”
You’ve described the problem exactly.
It’s an Idol for a number of people, Democracy as the Messiah that will bring peace to the whole world.
But democracy as we practice it is a product of America’s British culture, the Magna Carta and all that, meeting the necessity for self government out in the hinterlands of North America. It developed out of the culture that grew here in the colonial era.
The idea that it can be transferred to any country on Earth is a peculiarly modern belief held by people who have no understanding of how powerful religion and culture are in shaping of societies and how they govern themselves.
Even our German cousins didn’t take to democracy when it was imposed on them after WWI. They were used to having a strong leader, and it didn’t take them long to jettison the Weimar Republic in favor of a strongman.
You have to be a real true believer to buy the idea that Islam, an even more alien environment where religion and government and culture are all one, can become a liberal democracy.
Buchanan is very much a Catholic. That fellow you are debating is full of something other than facts.
I learned long ago not to waste my time with character assassins. David Frum made a name for himself doing that, and unlike those on the Right who hailed Frum as a great conservative journalist I saw through him right from the start.
I watched the Buchanan-is-a-Nazi crowd start the game in Commentary Magazine back in the 80s. Commentary’s main Buchanan attacker was a former leader of the communist front Young People’s Socialist League named Joshua Muravchik.
Part of the game was a Catholic-Jewish fight and being neither I just watched it as an observer. One of first ‘fights’ was a Jewish demand that Catholics remove a nunnery from the grounds of one of the Nazi camps where Polish Catholics had been exterminated alongside Jews.
People who weren’t around to read the attack on Buchanan as it developed don’t know that the Buchanan haters were also attacking Ronald Reagan at the same time. They claimed that Buchanan had Reagan lay a wreath on an SS grave at Bitburg and attacked both Reagan and Buchanan for being sympathetic to Nazis.
Of course Buchanan had nothing to do with the Bitburg ceremony, memory tells me that it was Dick Darmon, but that has never stopped the Buchanan haters from repeating the same story over and over. And I never saw any apology for their smear of Reagan, who was honoring the German dead as a sign of good will to our Cold War allies.
And then there was the elderly auto worker who was charged with being a Nazi camp guard based on Soviet documents. The fact that the Israeli Supreme Court didn’t buy the accusations any more than Buchanan did gets ignored as well, but who knows, maybe they were closet Nazis. Everyone who gets in the way is a Nazi.
But the whole subject is tiresome, it’s all the same sort of smear job and facts are of little interest to the haters anyway. They have an agenda and for them the end justifies the means.
Look here. He wrote it, and he still has it web site. You think it's unfair to hold something he wrote, and he still stands behind against him? Then the marketplace of ideas has no meaning. I'm sure a modernist idea like that would appeal to Buchanan. But, unfortunately, for you and him I have the right to be against moral relativism. Sorry. Right there, in his own words. Anti-American. Anti-Catholic. Historically ignorant. Sorry, I won't be silent when he tries that.
“Well, you are talking about something else completely”
I’m talking about one of the longest running smears in the conservative movement and you just happen to be a current practitioner of the vice.
Let’s see you provide a quote to defend your accusation and then we’ll check the context.
Every time I’ve seen an accusation like the one that you are making it turns out to be something carefully snipped out of a paragraph in order to misrepresent what Buchanan has actually written.
Why would he have a smear against him and a misrepresentation of his views ON HIS OWN Web site?
You are completely illogical. Pat Buchanan's own Web site is a Jewish conspiracy against him!! Anyone who criticizes Buchanan is a liar, even if what they say is true?
Read his Web site. If you believe, like him, that the U.S. and England were the bad guys in World War II and Germany was the good guy, why don't you leave this country?
So, is Buchanan shamefully ignorant on a subject he chose to write about? Or did he deliberately LIE in a major way? Either way, it says something terrible about him. But it's hard to believe he is so woefully uneducated on a topic he writes about so much.
Before September 1, 2009, I might have believed Buchanan was a decent man, but misguided in some areas. After that, BECAUSE OF HIS OWN WORDS, I could no longer consider that a viable position. He is a malignant and anti-American person. He does not deserve your support. He is not a conservative, a paleoconservative, or any other kind of conservative.
A favorite writer of mine, Jerry Pournelle, refers to “The Egregious Frum” because of the way he treated conservatives who disagreed with him in any way.
Buchanan, the communist?
What he’s doing is downplaying the nudge that Obama’s been giving to the creation of pan-state Muslim Brotherhood rule in the region—as a rising force against Israel.
What he gets is that WWI and WWII were the same war. In WWI, we were essentially duped into fighting for the British, and French empires. Unfortunately, it wiped out entire generations, except in this country. That left us uniquely poised to enter WWII to save them and their tottering empires again, (they thought), in which, Japan having attacked us, and Germany and Italy having declared war, we wound up with little choice.
Pat always makes the sane argument, "Well, why fight alongside Stalin and the Soviets, who were if possible, far more brutal than Hitler ... and who at the beginning of the war were ALLIED with Hitler?"
Result? The British Empire and French Empires collapsed in FDR's communist-inspired post-war "democracy movement." We're still paying the price for the Europeans, whom we forced to cut loose colonies that will never be ready for democratic self-government because bankrupted by the wars, they know longer could sustain them.
Take PB cum grano salis, if you must, but listen to him. He gets it ... probably too late to our Republic any good ... but he gets it.
Thanks and you get it too. Pat is condemned because he puts America before all countries. To some, he's locked into the past against the new world order. To others, it's anti-Semitic. I say it is what is needed, defend America, not the world.
Hey, I agree aiding the Soviets was not a good idea. But did you see the article I posted. Soviets were not good guys. But neither were the Germans. In fact, Hitler and the Soviets were making common cause. They were officially allies. U.S. communists were criticizing Americans who were against Nazi Germany as imperialists. Yes, England made mistakes. Everyone did. But if someone believes the Germans were the good guys and wanted peace and the U.S. and England were the bad guys, they have a particularly warped view of history. Hitler invading Russia did not show that he was benevolent, it showed how truly crazy and destructive he was.
Hitler wanted to rid Europe of Christianity, and particularly Catholicism. Just like the EU today.
I deplore that the United States ever got into World War I. But after the Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare, it was a tough situation. I still think it would have been better to avoid WWI, but I don’t have an answer as to how the U.S. could ignore the Zimmerman Telegram, and U-boats attacks. Even Brazil declared war on Germany, just because of the submarines.
Assad needs to hire the top DC PR firm, pronto.
Wrong. This neo-con urge to spread democracy is precisely the Trotskyite doctrine of using socialism, globally, to incrementally morph into communism.
Any mention of Christianity in politics is to manipulate the support of idiots.
I don’t want a link. I want you to post the very words that you claim support your accusation.
It’s time for you produce the evidence.
At this point you have not done so. All you do is repeat your charges as if that is supposed to be sufficient.
You’re simply demanding that we accept your accusations as being true because you believe them.
If you can back up your charges then it shouldn’t be hard at all for you to produce the evidence. The ball’s in your court, boy.
Jerry Pournelle is being much too polite to the egregious Frum...
One of my friends shares your admiration for Jerry Pournelle. I wasn’t familiar with him because I never read much science fiction, but I’ve been impressed with his political writings.
I think you’re wasting your talent trying to explain PB around here, Kenny.
You’re being much to subtle for the mud chuckers. As you can see they now have him being an “anti-western neopagan modernist”. When you are confronted with ignorance that profound you have to conclude that it’s invincible and there is no point in confronting it.
They much prefer Mondale’s speechwriter to Reagan’s. They prefer repackaged Trotskyites and red diaper babies like Muravchik to a pre-Vatican II mackerel snapper like Pat.
But I enjoyed your post.
We are an adversarial society. Whatever one's POV, there will be someone agin' it. We are also, mostly for the better, a commercial society. That is, no matter one's POV and the facts, or no facts backing it up, it has to be sold to a majority of our fellow citizens.
PB, who is naturally pugnacious ... physically when younger ... an elitist ... a controversialist ...an iconoclast ... and just generally an all-around brilliant, if intellectually unfashionable, PIA ... just ain't a broad-market salable phenomenon in the marketplace of ideas.
Said marketplace, namely the Liberal MSM, has not changed PB's ideas. However, it IS a business, and they have generally figured out how to make money with him ... and for him.... as a sort of bogey-man they can use to help along their marxist agitprop.
Thank God he can use them to reach us.
Lord Palmerston. WWI was fought because Britain did not wish to share the world with Germany. And also because the Kaiser was a bit of an idiot.
PB is a sort of throwback to the 1890's, when the debate was over America becoming an international imperial power. The losing camp, in which PB would have been, maintained that a true republic cannot be an international imperial power.
Naturally, us being us, this drive toward empire was cloaked in the "spread of democracy" concept, and even further cloaked as "civilizing ..christianizing ... etc" even if we had to kill you ... as in the Phillipines.
PB is unique. I do not totally disagree with your somewhat jaundiced view of him, but would rather counsel you to relax and take the PB good with the PB bad. We disagree as to the ratio.