Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ten Worst U.S. Purveyors of Antisemitism, #6: Patrick Buchanan
Pajamas Media ^ | 01/07/2014 | P. David Hornik

Posted on 01/07/2014 6:49:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind

PJ-Buchanan-1

Here’s Pat Buchanan in 1990, not long before the First Iraq War:

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.

Here he is in 2004:

[N]eoconservatives…Perle and Wolfowitz and Wurmser and the others, working with Netanyahu, had an agenda for war with Iraq that was going nowhere.

9/11 happens, and they put this agenda before a president, who in my judgment was untutored, as his father was not. Reagan would not have done this. I don’t think his father would have done this.

They captured Rumsfeld, and they captured Cheney, and I think they captured the president….

Also in 2004:

Who would benefit from these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America—save oil? … Who would benefit from a “war of civilizations” with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon?

In 2008:

Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into a war with Iran….

And here he is on December 11, 2013:

One wonders if Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress have considered the backlash worldwide should they succeed in scuttling Geneva and putting this nation on the fast track to another Mideast war Israel and Saudi Arabia may want but America does not.

In psychological terms, this is called obsession. In ideological terms, it’s called antisemitism. It casts Jews as a uniquely powerful, malign, manipulative group.

Sprinkled through Buchanan’s writings one can find derisive references to the non-Israelis and non-Jews who were hawks on Iraq in the 1990s, or on Iraq in the 2000s, or are hawks on Iran today—Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, William Bennett, the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, and Trent Franks are a few.

In Buchanan’s telling they are all in thrall to Israel, the source of all evil and the only threat to America emanating from the Middle East. No one, not even a president, a defense secretary, can think for himself; anyone who has ever been a hawk on any of those three issues has never had a valid argument but has instead been corralled by the Jewish lust for war.

Nothing has ever made Buchanan think otherwise. Not 9/11; not Iran’s 2011 attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a Washington restaurant; not its ongoing record of anti-American terror; not its whole parliament joining in “Death to America” chants on November 3, 2013; not its continuing work on ICBMs; not dire warnings on its nuclear progress by groups like the IAEA and the ISIS (in the Jews’ pocket?); not statements by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei like “our people say ‘Death to America,’ and this is like saying ‘I seek God’s refuge from the accursed Satan….’”

Not the fact that the U.S.-led coalition for the First Iraq War included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Oman, the UAR, Qatar, Pakistan…all members of the “amen corner”? Not the fact that American Jews are mostly left-liberal doves and 70 percent of them opposed the Second Iraq War. Not the fact that Ariel Sharon advised George Bush against that war.

But Pat Buchanan’s type of antisemitism has never been trumped by facts.

PJ-Buchanan-2

It is not a good sign when someone seems to need moral tutoring about Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Jews, and makes statements that are perilously close to, or actually cross, the boundary of the legitimate.

Back in 1977 Buchanan wrote in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat:

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.

Great courage, extraordinary gifts, genius. Although Buchanan also mentions some negative traits, that has the clear ring of admiration—profound admiration—for the Führer; while it is “the statesmen” who evoke Buchanan’s real animosity.

In 1990 Buchanan penned a New York Post column passionately defending war criminal John Demjanjuk (acquitted in Israel on a technicality in 1993, convicted in Germany in 2011). From Hitler-admiration it is not a huge psychological leap to Holocaust denial, and Buchanan engaged in it here, writing derisively about the Treblinka death camp that “diesel engines do not emit enough carbon dioxide to kill anybody” and saying Holocaust survivors had “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.”

Then there was Buchanan’s 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, which claimed that Hitler did not want World War II and it was really Britain that brought it about.

From such a mindset it is, again, not a big leap to statements such as this one in 2007:

If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population.

Could it be that those thirteen were engaged citizens who made good impressions on the voters of their respective states? Not for Buchanan, who again sees sinister “power” at play. Up with Hitler, down with Jews.PJ-Buchanan-3

In 1991 William F. Buckley wrote: “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.” Unfortunately, Buchanan’s antisemitism has not been enough to put him beyond the bounds of decency. Unlike cruder characters such as David Duke or Gordon Duff, Buchanan writes well and knows how to use antisemitism to tweak sensibilities and provoke within a veneer of serious analysis.

So Buchanan, despite losing his gig at MSNBC, remains a star of the airwaves and the internet to this day. Though shunned by much of the conservative camp, his “Jews are dragging us into war” rants continue to run on major sites like World Net Daily and Townhall. But make no mistake: Patrick Buchanan is a significant voice of antisemitism.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antisemitism; iran; israel; kkk; lebanon; msnbc; patbuchanan; patbuchananhatesjews; patrickbuchanan; pitchforkpat; skinheadsonfr; syria
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 01/07/2014 6:49:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

1) On many of his points you cannot call him a liar.

2) He wrote a book on how we could have avoided WW2. Hard to believe we had that much control.

3) His choice for ‘running mate’ in the Reform Party(2000?). A communist. It tells me that he’s in it for the publicity-shock value.

Still he is a voice that should be heard.


2 posted on 01/07/2014 6:57:46 AM PST by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Who would benefit from a “war of civilizations” with Islam?

It's not a 'war of civilizations', it's a war WITH civilization.................

3 posted on 01/07/2014 6:59:15 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He’s a vile man. William F. Buckley actually wrote the definitive work about Buchanan’s anti-Semitism. He compares Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and concludes that Sobran is psychologically obsessed with Jews, and also hates Israel, but is not technically an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is.


4 posted on 01/07/2014 7:00:03 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

OK This is wrong...

Buchanan is more of an ‘isolationist’ who thinks the USA should not be poking its head into the business of every country on the planet, including Israel, but that does NOT make him an “anti-semite”

He is not a jew-hater any more than he is a muslim hatrer or anythign else.

He just disagrees that the USA has a policy to interfere in other countries (all of them, not just israel, and he has been consistent in that belief for decades)

I am not saying I AGREE with him, I think the USA has National Interests in helping to protect Israel, that he does not see. I just disagree with that making him an ‘anti-jew’ (which is what anti-semite means)


5 posted on 01/07/2014 7:00:43 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sorry, but Buchanan opposing the Neocon obsession for perpetual U.S. war in the ME does not make Buchanan an anti-Semite.

I am not familiar with the author, but I suspect his attack on Buchanan has a lot to do with the author’s agreement with Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, William Bennett, the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, Trent Franks, John McCain, etc., etc. in never-ending involvement in wars in that part of the world.

Instead of the author’s obsession with tarring Buchanan for not wanting to get involved in ME wars, how about the author directing a little attention to the internal rot in our country? Buchanan has been fighting that, particularly the mass importation of bottom feeders to our country by our leftist immigration policy. Which policy is supported by several of the persons that the author names as opposed to Buchanan.


6 posted on 01/07/2014 7:02:06 AM PST by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Hitler and Himmler photo is too much.

It detracts from the author’s point and undermines his objectivity.


7 posted on 01/07/2014 7:03:46 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Being an isolationist does not make one an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is an anti-Semite.


8 posted on 01/07/2014 7:04:01 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He was right with regards to the persecution of Demanjuk. A former Red Army soldier whose only choice was either cooperate with the Nazis, or face death at their hands.

The Germans went after Demanjuk, only because they were so anxious to try to tell the world that it wasn’t only Germans that participated in the Holocaust.


9 posted on 01/07/2014 7:04:30 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And there certainly are Jews who hold Israel in even more contempt than Buchanan does.

I do think he does fall too much though for the “International Jew Finance Rules the World” garbage, though.


10 posted on 01/07/2014 7:06:36 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
Buchanan offers a point of view, and while I do not agree with all of them I do agree with most.

Besides, it bothers me when our side employs the same censorship by name calling tactics of the left.

11 posted on 01/07/2014 7:06:49 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
He’s a vile man. William F. Buckley actually wrote the definitive work about Buchanan’s anti-Semitism. He compares Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and concludes that Sobran is psychologically obsessed with Jews, and also hates Israel, but is not technically an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is.

I read Buckley's essay, and as best I can recall it concluded BJP was guilty of nothing more than insensitivity.

Sobran's case, Buckley apparently concluded, was different and Buckley kicked him off the NR staff.

12 posted on 01/07/2014 7:10:13 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I just ignore those who spew vile neo-Nazi crap. Such a person wouldn’t last long on FR for sure.


13 posted on 01/07/2014 7:13:46 AM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: skeeter; babble-on
I think this is the book of which you speak:



Here is one of the Editorial Reviews ( via Amazon ):

From Publishers Weekly This volume reprints Buckley's lengthy, genteel, circuitous National Review essay, in which he reached the pained conclusion that his fellow conservative Patrick Buchanan, the reactionary former presidential candidate, is anti-Semitic .

In the same piece, Buckley levels charges of anti-Semitism at his friend and fellow conservative, syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran, and at left-liberal Gore Vidal, who asserted in a Nation article that American Jews have twin loyalties. Further, Buckley exonerates of charges of anti-Semitism the Dartmouth Review, which in a 1988 article compared Dartmouth's Jewish president, James Freedman, to Adolf Hitler, and which once ran a Nazi slogan on its masthead. Also included is Sobran's indignant, defiant rebuttal, as well as letters to the National Review, praising or condemning Buckley's essay, by Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, A. M. Rosenthal, Robert Novak and others. Buckley's rejoinders to the letters and an afterword round out this colloquy.
14 posted on 01/07/2014 7:14:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
. . . statements that are perilously close to, or actually cross, the boundary of the legitimate.

The Ten Worst U.S. Free Speech Opponents, #6 ?

I recall when liberals and Rockefeller Republicans called us Goldwater supporters Purveyors of Hate because we dared to disagree with them.

15 posted on 01/07/2014 7:21:28 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I guess I recollect wrongly - it was a long time ago.


16 posted on 01/07/2014 7:21:34 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Pat told it as he saw it. On the facts he was right but on some of his conclusion he goofed bigtime.

Pat was a fine Republican in the eyes of the establishment until he ran for president. Then suddenly he was an isolationist and an anti Semite.

Pat did nothing compared to a bottle of urine in a New York museum or the constant war against Christianity by the ACLU.

Pat is effective and speaks honestly to many Americans.

17 posted on 01/07/2014 7:25:05 AM PST by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; babble-on
From a 1991 book review in the NYT:

Mr. Buckley resists the simple conclusion that Mr. Buchanan is an anti-Semite. His own formulation is more carefully hedged, and the care with which it has been formulated is indicated in the fact that he repeats it four times: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament."

18 posted on 01/07/2014 7:26:09 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
it bothers me when our side employs the same censorship by name calling tactics of the left

Yep. If you criticize Obama, many on the left will call you a racist. If you criticize Israel, many on the right will call you antisemitic.

19 posted on 01/07/2014 7:27:32 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have always found that any criticism of jews, criticism of blacks, etc. no matter how well reasoned and accurate is either anti-semitism or racism.


20 posted on 01/07/2014 7:32:04 AM PST by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson