Posted on 05/09/2002 11:54:02 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
"Volkert van der Graf, 32, is a slender, blond-haired Dutchman whose pictures reveal nothing special except perhaps a taut, ascetic look.
"But for almost a decade, friends and associates say, this quiet man and strict vegetarian has been consumed by his fight to reduce the suffering of animals reared in industrial quantities for food, fur coats or medical experiments."
Sounds like a description of St. Francis of Assisi, doesn't it? But it is not. These are the lead paragraphs in The New York Times story that describes the enviro-fanatic charged with gunning down Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn outside a TV studio this week.
What the Times does not describe is the pivotal role played by the European establishment and media in creating the climate of hysteria and hate in which a fanatic like Volkert van der Graf might feel morally justified in murdering Fortuyn.
Since Jean-Marie Le Pen carried 17 percent of the vote in the first round of the French election, it has been Hate Week across Europe. The left has gone berserk, savaging populist leaders who challenge the EU or demand tougher immigration laws.
Fortuyn, whose party was running first in some polls for the Dutch elections this month, got the full treatment. Denounced as a "dangerous man" by the Dutch finance minister, he repeatedly protested that he was being demonized. Yet, day after day, it continued. He, Le Pen and Jorge Haider of Austria were painted as extremists or neo-fascists. Europeans were admonished to unite to stop the spreading menace. In Europe's media, it is open season and the Populist Right has become a free-fire zone.
The results are now in, and the European establishment is as much to blame for this man's death as the Likudnik fanatics were for the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, whom they painted as a traitor and Nazi for his willingness to trade land for peace.
In the two weeks between the first round and the run-off of the French election, there were riots against Le Pen, he was shouted down when speaking to the European parliament and his press conference had to be canceled because of threats of disruption. And who protested these fascist tactics? Meanwhile, President Chirac was given a free pass as he trashed French tradition and refused Le Pen's challenge to debate.
The message sent by the Euromedia: The Populist Right is an illegitimate force in the New Europe and tactics that might be judged fascist if used by the right may be used against it, and absolution is available. Umberto Boss, whose Northern League is a partner in the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said Fortuyn was killed in a "climate which the left has created and continues to create throughout Europe with the help of the media aimed at demonizing all who oppose what they think."
What were the sins of Pim Fortuyn for which it was acceptable for the Dutch finance minister to brand him a "dangerous man," and for others to call him an extremist and neo-fascist? What made this liberal and open homosexual a man of the right, whom it was acceptable to vilify? Fortuyn had linked immigration to crime, called Islam a "backward" religion, and was campaigning to maintain the ethnic and cultural identity of the Dutch nation and people.
That Fortuyn had thrown off the morality of his church did not matter. His unpardonable sin that cried out to Heaven for vengeance was that he rejected the higher truths of multiculturalism.
There is a new totalitarianism afoot in the West. Unlike the Stalinist form, it does not use police-state violence to command conformity. Its method is to redefine rightist positions as evil, the product of a hate-filled or diseased mind, then read the right out of the human race. Thus, anyone who argues that immigration has become so huge it threatens national cohesion or security is a "xenophobe." Oppose racial quotas, and you are a "racist." Defend the all-male military schools like VMI and the Citadel, and you are a "sexist." Oppose homosexual marriages, and you are a "homophobe" who hates and fears homosexuals.
Scholar Paul Gottfried has called it "the dehumanization of dissent." First, you strip away an opponent's claim to decency and fair treatment by painting him as a right-wing extremist and hater, then you wash your hands of culpability when some wacko concludes he is doing the world a favor by murdering him – like they murdered Pim Fortuyn.
What is amazing to me is the way the leftist whackos do not seem to understand that the immigrants they are coddling with their multi-culturism are going to be the ones that slice their throats later.
The demonization of Pat, in '92 (by Rich Bond and the RNC), in '96 after his New Hamphire victory by the entire media/party establishment and again in '00, was downright shameful.
It's okay if you disagree. I've followed Pat for around 22 years now. I've never seen a comment in context that exemplifies hatred of any group.
That being said, this article is one grand slam analysis of the sad state of affairs.
They're thinking short-term. They figure the only way to keep welfare-state benefits going is to admit as many Moslem immigrants as possible. Without those welfare-state benefits, the left loses power.
What the Times does not describe is the pivotal role played by the European establishment and media in creating the climate of hysteria and hate in which a fanatic like Volkert van der Graf might feel morally justified in murdering Fortuyn
I agree 100%, this is just what I needed to show my fellow Dutch people.
He is an anti-semite. (I am sorry about this since it damages his anti-immigration platform)
I would also suggest that you check out this letter by Lawrence Auster, a paleo-con who once supported Pat.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/666053/posts
Pat is an anti-Zionist who know openly supports Palestinian terrorism. This is the one case where he supports Muslims detroying a Western country. I wonder why. Pat spreads common anti-Semetic agit-prop: Jews control Wall Street and the media and they use it to promote Jewish/Zionist interests. Jews promote wars but don't fight them. Jews are disloyal.
Regarding Pat's recent comments that addressed the Palestinian/Israeli topic, I have stated that I thought some of them made him look like a complete moron. I have counterbalanced those comments with an interview of his where I saw him state, "Israel has a right to exist and has every right to defend itself against these senseless suicide bombings." Pat does not support the Moslem world destroying Israel, and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that feels he does.
Pat continues to Support Demjanjuk, even though the evidence that he was not Ivan the terrible shows that he was a SS guard at another camp. In his articles defending Demjanjuk, Buchanan became a revisionist by claiming that Deisel was not used to kill Jews Gypsies etc in camps.
Israel had Demjanjuk in their custody. They tried him in a trial. They let him go. Was that evidence of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism? In the only case where Demjanjuk was tried and released, Pat Buchanan's defense of him was exhonerated.
I believe I am right in saying that Pat has also challenged the figure of six million Jewish deaths during WWII. Academicly, I'm not sure that figure can be justified. Does that mean that the holacost that did occur is any less tragic? If diesel could not have been used to accomplish what it was reported to have accomplished, would that make the deaths any more acceptable? Buchanan has merely asked that events and numbers be reported accurately. And I don't even think I'd venture out onto this ground, because any comment at all along these lines is going to be used by people to rationalize that you hate Jews. I do not believe that to be the case with Buchanan. I know that I don't hate Jews and yet I do want these issues to be reported accurately.
If someone was arrested for mass murder in my town, saying he had committed 225 murders, I'd be quite pissed to find that he had only participated in 17. Yes the man would still be a beast, but I don't like being lied to.
He is an anti-semite. (I am sorry about this since it damages his anti-immigration platform) I would also suggest that you check out this letter by Lawrence Auster, a paleo-con who once supported Pat.
What we have established is that you find Pat to be an anti-Semite. Okay, I accept that. I do not find him to be an anti-Semite.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/666053/posts
No offense, but I have read so many commentaries by people who wish to cast Pat as an anti-Semite that I'm going to take a pass on this one. I may have already read it. In the spring and summer of 2000 countless of these types of articles were foisted off on us here on FreeRepublic. I read nearly every one of them and found them to be twisted and unsupportable. Person's would quote one sentence and extrapolate great meaning from it. Then you'd find the source and read it in the context of it's setting and find out that it wasn't the pointed anti-Semitic comment it appeared to be when carved out for emphasis.
If you wish to think of Pat as an anti-Semite, I support your right to do so. I don't. I am confortable with my support for Israel and defense of Jewish concerns in our nation and around the world. If I truly thought Pat was an anti-Semite I'd be willing to say it.
Pat is a marginalized commentator. If you don't like him, turn the station or throw his commentaries in the trash. He's not running for anything and has been framed as Hitler incarnate to the point that he will never be able to do anything for this nation, good or bad. You should gain comfort in that even if you can't get me to agree with you.
Frankly, I think it's sad that Pat has been discredited to the degree that he has. But hey what do I know. I do find it interesting to note what the detractors of Pat are willing to sign on to, but then that's another story.
12 posted on 5/10/02 11:00 AM Pacific by rmlew
Bingo.
Pat support PAlestinian use of terrorism against Israel to end the occupation. Since Pat knows damn well that Arabs consider all of Israel to be occupied, he support use of terror to destroy Israel.
Israel had Demjanjuk in their custody. They tried him in a trial. They let him go. Was that evidence of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism? In the only case where Demjanjuk was tried and released, Pat Buchanan's defense of him was exhonerated.
1. Demjanjuk was found innocent because evidence showed that he was an SS volunteer at antoher camp. He was only on trial for being "Ivan the Terrible". Since he was not guilty , and Israel could not file new charges immediately, and since Israel only could hold him for trial as Ivan the Terrible, he was let go. Israel is now trying to extradict him. Buchanan opposes this.
2. Pat has seen the evidence that Demjanjuk was a guard at another camp and still defends him.
The US DOJ just sued another Ukrainian SS volunteer.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-camp0511.story?coll=ny%2Dnynews%2Dheadlines
I am waiting for Pat to write a column in the next few weeks either defending him or calling on people to stop harassing old men.
I believe I am right in saying that Pat has also challenged the figure of six million Jewish deaths during WWII. Academicly, I'm not sure that figure can be justified.
The academically accepted figure is 5.9 million. Given that this figure ignores pregnancies, Jewish refugees killed by their neighboors, and that the Einstagruppen did not meticulously count deaths, I have no problem with the figure of 6 million.
If diesel could not have been used to accomplish what it was reported to have accomplished, would that make the deaths any more acceptable?
No, but it is a lie used by Holocaust deniers.
Buchanan has merely asked that events and numbers be reported accurately.
Snide remarks in a column do not invide academic discussion. They do give cover to neo-nazis and holocaust deniers.
I know that I don't hate Jews and yet I do want these issues to be reported accurately.
As do I.
If someone was arrested for mass murder in my town, saying he had committed 225 murders, I'd be quite pissed to find that he had only participated in 17. Yes the man would still be a beast, but I don't like being lied to.
The difference in scale between 5.2, 5.9 and 6 million, far smaller than between 17 and 225 people.
Being off by a few percent, given the poor accounting and vast scale of the crime, is not a lie.
PEople disagree over how many died at the hands of the Communists. "Conservative" estimates ar about 60 million. The Black Book of Communism holds these at 100 million. I believe the figure to by at least double that if you count forced abortions and massive undercounting of deaths by communist officials looking at starvation and disease.
If someone said the figure of 60 million or 200 million, would they be lying? I don't think so. Any mistake would probably be unintentional, although it could be uideological spin if seen in a pattern.
No offense, but I have read so many commentaries by people who wish to cast Pat as an anti-Semite that I'm going to take a pass on this one. I may have already read it. In the spring and summer of 2000 countless of these types of articles were foisted off on us here on FreeRepublic. I read nearly every one of them and found them to be twisted and unsupportable. Person's would quote one sentence and extrapolate great meaning from it. Then you'd find the source and read it in the context of it's setting and find out that it wasn't the pointed anti-Semitic comment it appeared to be when carved out for emphasis.
This was written a month ago by an anti-immigration activist who promoted Buchanan in 2000. He looked at a disturbing pattern, and also noted personal conversations.
If you wish to think of Pat as an anti-Semite, I support your right to do so. I don't. I am confortable with my support for Israel and defense of Jewish concerns in our nation and around the world. If I truly thought Pat was an anti-Semite I'd be willing to say it.
Then read the article and then check out what the ADL (not my favorite group)has to say about him.
Pat is a marginalized commentator. If you don't like him, turn the station or throw his commentaries in the trash. He's not running for anything and has been framed as Hitler incarnate to the point that he will never be able to do anything for this nation, good or bad. You should gain comfort in that even if you can't get me to agree with you.
Unfortunately, Pat's anti-semetism discredits his correct policies and predictions.
Far too many people dismiss the Death of the West by correctly pointing out that Pat is an anti-Semite.
Ron
PS. I am not anti-Buchanan. I think he is wrong on foreign affairs and trade. His anti-semetism does him a disservice.
In October 2000 I actually participated in a debate at Columbia where I promoted Pat. To do so, I had to take on (and ended up destroying the corrupt structure of) the Columbia Political Union. After numerous calls and letters to the school paper administrators etc, I got Scott McConnell to threaten the university.
As a Jewish son and grandson of Holocaust and Communist survuivors, I made a real impact. However, the weight of evidence later presented to me about Pat is incontrovertable.
Sounds pretty much like the Jodie Foster/John Hinckley, Jr./Ronald Reagan scenario.
Regarding Pat's recent comments that addressed the Palestinian/Israeli topic, I have stated that I thought some of them made him look like a complete
moron. I have counterbalanced those comments with an interview of his where I saw him state, "Israel has a right to exist and has every right to defend
itself against these senseless suicide bombings." Pat does not support the Moslem world destroying Israel, and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that feels he does.
Pat support PAlestinian use of terrorism against Israel to end the occupation. Since Pat knows damn well that Arabs consider all of Israel to be occupied, he support use of terror to destroy Israel.
Could you please provide a source for your comment here. I know what I saw and heard Pat say on television with my own eyes and ears. It completely refutes your assertion.
Israel had Demjanjuk in their custody. They tried him in a trial. They let him go. Was that evidence of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism? In the only case where
Demjanjuk was tried and released, Pat Buchanan's defense of him was exhonerated.
1. Demjanjuk was found innocent because evidence showed that he was an SS volunteer at antoher camp. He was only on trial for being "Ivan the Terrible". Since he was not guilty , and Israel could not file new charges immediately, and since Israel only could hold him for trial as Ivan the Terrible, he was let go. Israel is now trying to extradict him. Buchanan opposes this.
A number of years ago people were convinced that Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible. Now they're coinvinced of something else. Buchanan was right last time. He seems to think he's right this time.
2. Pat has seen the evidence that Demjanjuk was a guard at another camp and still defends him.
Look, in this nation we believe in innocense until proven guilty. As far as I am concerned Demjanjuk is innocent. To those who make charges against him, he's as guilty as can be. So I guess at this point Pat says one thing and they say another. Does that make Pat wrong simply because people are now making claims just like the last time? Sorry, I'm not buying it. What makes this time any more special than the last time when Demjanjuk was incarcerated and deported to sit in an Israeli jail for months or years until he was proven innocent of the charges?
The US DOJ just sued another Ukrainian SS volunteer.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-camp0511.story?coll=ny%2Dnynews%2Dheadlines
I am waiting for Pat to write a column in the next few weeks either defending him or calling on people to stop harassing old men.
Listen to you. You don't know if these people are innocent or not, but you state that the US has just sued another Ukranian SS volunteer. No, if anything they have just made assertions that someone used to be a Ukranian SS volunteer. Nobody has been convicted. The evidence isn't even public. What if Pat does stand up and defend this person? What if this person is proven innocent of these charges? I'm not defending the old SS here, but it has been 67 years. Is it possible these folks are innocent? Evidently not in your mind. But then it was a slam dunk on Demjanjuk for being Ivan the Terrible too wasn't it.
I believe I am right in saying that Pat has also challenged the figure of six million Jewish deaths during WWII. Academicly, I'm not sure that figure can be justified.
The academically accepted figure is 5.9 million. Given that this figure ignores pregnancies, Jewish refugees killed by their neighboors, and that the Einstagruppen did not meticulously count deaths, I have no problem with the figure of 6 million.
I have no problem with it either. But then I'm not Pat Buchanan and I'm not sure what data he has to justify his comments. I do not judge people to be holocaust deniers because they may differ with historical figures or claims.
If diesel could not have been used to accomplish what it was reported to have accomplished, would that make the deaths any more acceptable?
No, but it is a lie used by Holocaust deniers.
Is it a lie? The claim was made that people were gassed with diesel fumes? Is that possible? I don't know. I'm not sure what the byproduct of burnt diesel is. I don't think it's carbon monoxide. This isn't my arguement to make. There does seem to be some question about it. Therefore I'm not going to buy into the claim that Buchanan is seeking to deny anything that truly happened.
Buchanan has merely asked that events and numbers be reported accurately.
Snide remarks in a column do not invide academic discussion. They do give cover to neo-nazis and holocaust deniers.
Excuse me, but questioning if facts and figures are accurate or not, is not snide. Once again, this is not proof that someone is a holocaust denier or that they are trying to provide cover for anyone. Sure am glad you aren't the DA in my home town.
You've stated several times that Buchanan may not be this or that, but people who are guilty of this or that do exactly what Buchanan is doing. Well that would open up the case files of every defense attorney in the world, as they all question facts and figures.
I know that I don't hate Jews and yet I do want these issues to be reported accurately.
As do I.
Then I'm not exactly sure why you need to think Buchanan is an anti-Semite or a holocaust denier. I still do not think he is either one. I don't think you have provided evidence that he is either one. I see a lot of conjecture and damnation for things that have never been proven in a court of law, but I don't see real evidence.
If someone was arrested for mass murder in my town, saying he had committed 225 murders, I'd be quite pissed to find that he had only participated in
17. Yes the man would still be a beast, but I don't like being lied to.
The difference in scale between 5.2, 5.9 and 6 million, far smaller than between 17 and 225 people.
Well, I wasn't trying to make an exact numerical model. I was trying to show that it is important whether the truth is told or not. I am not exactly sure how many Jews were killed in WWII, but I'm not denying it was 5.9 or 6 million. The important thing to me is that German leadership ordered the rounding up of the Jews, their property was confiscated, they were placed into concentration camps and enslaved, experamented on and killed. If it was 1 million, 2 million or 6 million it's still a human tragedy to me.
Being off by a few percent, given the poor accounting and vast scale of the crime, is not a lie.
To be honest I have never delved into the exact number, or how it was derived. I've never in my life questioned or found reason to assess it's validity. If it is six million fine. If it is much less, it doesn't make it less of a disasterous event to me. If it was less, then at some point someone must've made a concious decision to fudge the figures. That would be a lie. But then I'm not privy to Buchanan's data. And frankly I don't care, other than that I would be more than happy to find that fewer Jews died. Six million is a terrible number to think of, when you think of people dying.
PEople disagree over how many died at the hands of the Communists. "Conservative" estimates ar about 60 million. The Black Book of Communism holds these at 100 million. I believe the figure to by at least double that if you count forced abortions and massive undercounting of deaths by communist officials looking at starvation and disease.
Well, the account that I hve heard has been in the region of 20 million. Chairman Mao supposedly killed up to 50 million Chinese, but I don't know who pegged that figure either. Give or take fifty million, it doesn't make that much difference to me other than to hope that less people suffered than was reported.
If someone said the figure of 60 million or 200 million, would they be lying? I don't think so. Any mistake would probably be unintentional, although it could be uideological spin if seen in a pattern.
Well, I do think that these circumstances there are generally people who have a pretty accurate idea of how many actually died. But I'm glad you brought up Russia. It will allow me to make an arguement that would have offended you with regard to European Jews. The population of Russia today is around 150 million. I find it quite hard to believe that 100 million could have been executed in the early part of the 20th century. I'm not sure the population base was large enough to have supplied that many casualties. When the 6 million figure has been bandied about on this forum, I sometimes have the same question with regard to how many Jews were actually in Europe in the 1940s. Once again, the exact number isn't important to me, but I believe it could be a valid question for historians.
No offense, but I have read so many commentaries by people who wish to cast Pat as an anti-Semite that I'm going to take a pass on this one. I may have
already read it. In the spring and summer of 2000 countless of these types of articles were foisted off on us here on FreeRepublic. I read nearly every one
of them and found them to be twisted and unsupportable. Person's would quote one sentence and extrapolate great meaning from it. Then you'd find the
source and read it in the context of it's setting and find out that it wasn't the pointed anti-Semitic comment it appeared to be when carved out for
emphasis.
This was written a month ago by an anti-immigration activist who promoted Buchanan in 2000. He looked at a disturbing pattern, and also noted personal conversations.
Well, like I said earlier, if you wish to think that Pat is an anti-Semite, that's your right. I do not believe him to be. I have spent time with Pat. I've seen him treat hispanics, whites, blacks and Jews with respect. One day in particular he was feeling terrible. During an hour and a half I saw him at his worst. During that time he was as courteous as he could have possibly been. He didn't lose his cool once. And he never showed the slightest hint of holding any animus towards anyone.
If you wish to think of Pat as an anti-Semite, I support your right to do so. I don't. I am confortable with my support for Israel and defense of Jewish concerns in our nation and around the world. If I truly thought Pat was an anti-Semite I'd be willing to say it. Then read the article and then check out what the ADL (not my favorite group)has to say about him.
Pat is a marginalized commentator. If you don't like him, turn the station or throw his commentaries in the trash. He's not running for anything and has
been framed as Hitler incarnate to the point that he will never be able to do anything for this nation, good or bad. You should gain comfort in that even if
you can't get me to agree with you.
Unfortunately, Pat's anti-semetism discredits his correct policies and predictions.
Once again, it's your right to feel this way. I could never make that statement. As far as I am concerned it's the farthest thing from the truth.
Far too many people dismiss the Death of the West by correctly pointing out that Pat is an anti-Semite.
Well let me see. You had Bill Bennet, Jim Nicholson and a few others on television saying that Pat was the next Hitler. I wonder where anyone would get that idea... Frankly that was the last straw from the Republican party for me.
And for the record, Pat is not an anti-Semite. Your opinion is that Pat is an anti-Semite. I've followed him for 22 years. He is not an anti-Semite.
Ron
PS. I am not anti-Buchanan. I think he is wrong on foreign affairs and trade.
The reason he is not wrong on foreign trade is that corporate international trade compromises this nation in ways that damages our sovereignty. Capitalism is a great thing when persued within a nation. If you try to carry on trade internationally by the rules of the closed market, you'll sooner or later wind up compromising the sovereignty of the individual state to the will of the collective states.
His anti-semetism does him a disservice.
Once again, Pat is not an anti-Semite. Your slander of him does him and you a disservice.
In October 2000 I actually participated in a debate at Columbia where I promoted Pat. To do so, I had to take on (and ended up destroying the corrupt structure of) the Columbia Political Union. After numerous calls and letters to the school paper administrators etc, I got Scott McConnell to threaten the university.
As a Jewish son and grandson of Holocaust and Communist survuivors, I made a real impact. However, the weight of evidence later presented to me about Pat is incontrovertable.
Once again, it is incontrovertable to you. Pat is not an anti-Semite. Now matter how many times you can pack that statement into an article, it is not true. It is intellectually dishonest in that you have not provided anything of substance other than your own flawed logic to justify your stance on this. The Demjanjuk example was key. Israel had him in their custody. They couldn't convict. They let him go. Nobody is going to buy that Israel knew he was another SS agent and Israel simply neglected to file charges in a timely fashion. Yet you do.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I completely disagree with your assessment. The sad thing is, Buchanan isn't even worth the vitriolic charges you have leveled at him. The man is through as a political mover and shaker in this nation, yet people still can't let go.
I must have debated fifty people like you in the spring and summer of 2000. Every time it boiled down to Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite because... well, just because. I guess I could get angry about it. Instead it just makes me sad. What a waste of time.
16 posted on 5/10/02 5:43 PM Pacific by rmlew
Go Pat Go!!!
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.