<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t generally find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan on a lot of policy issues, but I have to confess that I find that he makes sense on a lot of intermediate analytical points, which I find refreshing.</p>
<p>Saw Pat hawking his latest on “Book TV”. Seemed as reasonable as you could expect a man to be. I like his journal, “The American Conservative,” as well: </p>
<p>“Fascists Under the Bed” <a href=“http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html[/url]”>http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html</a></p>
<p>Pat Buchanan is a bigoted homophobic anti-Semite.</p>
<p>Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Doesn’t make the watch any less broken.</p>
<p>I see you like using “anti-semite” as indiscriminately as others casually use “Islamo-fascist.”</p>
<p>There is a mind-set that is, clearly, capable of either one: neither is helpful or accurate.</p>
<p>Whenever someone lands a right-on comment, liberal anarchists launches counter-strikes like above.</p>
<p>Buchanan <em>is</em> an anti-Semite.</p>
<p>Shall I provide proof, in his own words? There are scores of examples.</p>
<p>BTW, I don’t use the phrase “Islamo-fascist”. That’s the mantra of your man, Bush.</p>
<p>I am referring to the comments of one -AllMusic-, not FS.</p>
<p>“Liberal anarchist”?</p>
<p>Charming.</p>
<p>America, Love it or Leave it.</p>
<p>I, like Pat Buchanan, think the administration is wrong to use the term, “Islamo-fascist.” </p>
<p>I’ve said so. I understand the reasoning for using the term–there are, as they call themselves, jihadists trying to kill us. However, jihadist describes some, not all of those we have engaged in this struggle.</p>
<p>I believe you require just such a moment of clarity, Allmusic.
I know you feel passionately about Israel and I believe you have said you are Jewish. For any good reason: it does you no good to label people you disagree with, like Pat Buchanan, as anti-Semites. </p>
<p>I’m Iranian. I utterly disagree with bombing Iran even though I oppose their government. But I do not label those who want to bomb Iran–of which their are many-- as “anti-Persian”: that is due to a moment of clarity.</p>
<p>Give it a shot.</p>
<p>FS- for one who has so many times used labels in the past, and if you like I can find them all for you, you certainly are quick to start calling people on it…</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>please do … I’m anxious to see what you come up with. </p>
<p>I await your post (but I refuse to hold my breath).</p>
<p>
I’ll check back in from time to time.</p>
<p>Well, as I read so many of your posts, the long diatribes of putting people down, and your clever way of name calling and labeling immersed in paragraphs full of intellectual pablum, often followed by telling people to go get a drink</p>
<p>I do remember the liberal and intellectual baiting ad nauseum</p>
<p>And I did notice a certain pattern when you “debate” others on this site…so my pulling up the list of labeling would be redundent, not that it can’t be done, but just not worth my time…maybe later…</p>
<p>the equating me with the KKK, now that was the most recent one…nuff said</p>
<p>I am not backing down on pulling the examples, just sorting through them is daunting</p>
<p>Why should I leave the country I love? Liberals who are cheering for any misfortunates of the US and quick to blaming the US gov’t are the ones who should leave.</p>
<p>I read somewhere maybe from a leftist professor who encouraged his students to question everything (thats ok as a quest for young students in their journey of discovery), and tear down a structure as soon as one is built.</p>
<p>Pardon me, then why do we build a house ?</p>
<p>For what’s it worth, I don’t very often agree with the man but I thought the Buchanan column that FS linked to was spot-on.</p>
<p>It’s totally unproductive to assume that because someone usually holds positions with which I disagree, that they are incapable of insightful analysis.</p>
<p>I happen to like PB also. To me seems to be very moderate. I try to catch McCloughlin Report every Friday nite on PBS. Read his book " How the Right Lost America" and haven’t had time to read his new book on immigration, but from the MR, he burns this adminstration to a crisp.</p>
<p>Iraq: Love It or Leave It.</p>
<p>I generally agree with Buchanan’s outspoken criticism of the Bush administration. However, his bigoted, homophobic anti-Semitic comments are discomfiting, to say the very least. Some samples:</p>
<p>On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Buchanan opined: “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.” (Right from the Beginning,Buchanan’s 1988 autobiography, p. 131)</p>
<p>Buchanan on affirmative action: “How, then, can the feds justify
favoring sons of Hispanics over sons of white Americans who fought in WorldWar II or Vietnam?” </p>
<p>In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan
declared: “Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our
religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.” </p>
<p>Buchanan has repeatedly used the term “sodomites,” and has
referred to gays as “the pederast proletariat.” </p>
<p>In the New York Post, Buchanan referred to a “so called
Holocaust survivors syndrome” which he described as involving"group
fantasies of martyrdom and heroics."</p>
<p>He has described Congress as “Israeli-occupied territory”.</p>
<p>AllMusic,</p>
<p>I understand that you have a natural sensitivity to Israel, as do I to Iran: but this is no excuse for intellectual laziness. </p>
<p>Throwing mud at those you disagree with only makes them dirty after you were finished soiling them–with such mud as you can scoop-n-hurl; it does not mean that they were dirty before you started heaving away. In that sport, you seem to relish the common ability to scour the internet for just the right dirt (undoubtedly out of context, as such quotes usually are, as is the one from Buchanans autobiography but in your defense, you wouldnt know that would you) to smear your honest, though potentially in error, opponent. </p>
<p>As here with Buchanan; it is enough to say you disagree, or that he is wrong–adamantly so, without making him an object of hatred in the community (which, ironically enough, is what you claim Buchanan has done in his stiff-stance on Israel).</p>
<p>In post #6 you said:
Now which scores of examples in your post above (#17) establish that Buchanan is an anti-Semite, one of the ugliest and most pejorative terms of our political climate. Why not fascist? Racist? Traitor? Hate-monger? Use them all if they are no more than the empty hate-speech of the intellectual sluggard. But know that it is the nadir of political insight to do so.</p>
<p>Allmusic, both you and CGM talk a big game, than fail to show-up when its time to put-up or shut well, you know the moral of that story.</p>
<p>Observe the same vapid tactic you employ used by your fellow poster, **CGM<a href=“post%20#10”>/b</a>:
Wanting to learn from my own mistakes–where they exist–I responded (post #11)
But having done her dirty work CGM had second thoughts about the need to back up her empty and misguided rhetoric with common honesty–a courtesy of the civilized–(post #12):
</p>
<p>Throw mud & filth, then tuck & roll in the hope that no one will notice such a shamelessness act.</p>
<p> and thats the moral of this low-watt story.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>FS, are you seriously accusing me of intellectual laziness? </p>
<p>Buchanan is a xenophobic, homophobic bigot and YES, an anti-Semite (as well as a Holocaust denier). Just so you know, using language equivalent to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as Buchanan does routinely (and in context, I might add) IS anti-Semitic. </p>
<p>"Buchanan wrote a real charming book before The Death of the West. In A Republic, Not An Empire, he denied that Adolf Hitler had any malicious intentions toward the West, let alone toward the Jews living there. He also argued that Hitler was forced into pursuing the Final Solution because of British and American intervention in the war. Buchanan’s implication, in other words, was that Hitler wasn’t really responsible for what he did.</p>
<p>Buchanan has described Hitler as a “genius” and “an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War.” </p>
<p>What feelings or beliefs would motivate a person to make such a tribute to Hitler? </p>
<p>Buchanan’s words have always implied that, if Hitler had only entertained designs on Eastern European Jews for his Final Solution, and that as long as this did not affect American interests, then America had no obligation to intervene on purely humane grounds. That’s what Buchanan’s “America First” policy is all about. </p>
<p>I can’t help from wondering: what exactly is Buchanan saying about the Holocaust?</p>
<p>Buchanan has also shown an obsessive predilection for defending accused Nazi war criminals, every one of whom somehow appear to be innocent in his eyes. </p>
<p>What rests behind a man’s passion to distinguish himself in this light?</p>
<p>During his infamous defense of John Demjanjuk, Buchanan claimed that Demjanjuk was not the guard he was alleged to be at Treblinka. Buchanan turned out to be right: Demjanjuk was a guard in a different concentration camp. </p>
<p>The non-existence of a forthcoming Buchanan apology on Demjanjuk implied that Buchanan believed that he had actually won on this issue. </p>
<p>During his defense of Demjanjuk, Buchanan made the intriguing statement that the diesel gas fumes used at Treblinka could not have killed anyone. These diesel gas fumes were used not only at Treblinka, but also at a number of other death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Jews died in these camps. If these victims did not die from diesel gas fumes, then how and why did they die? Would Buchanan be willing to expose his family members, as well as himself, to the same fumes in order to demonstrate his point?</p>
<p>During Ronald Reagan’s presidential visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, Buchanan wrote, for Reagan’s controversial speech, that the Germans buried there, who included members of SS units and Nazis who participated in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, were “victims of the Nazis just as surely as the victims in concentration camps.” </p>
<p>Fascinating.</p>
<p>Buchanan has also compared the Nazi camps with those set up by Gen. Eisenhower for German prisoners of war. This is a comparison between POWs being held because they are an enemy in war and a group of people who are liquidated because of their race. </p>
<p>Buchanan has drawn a parallel between Andrei Sakharov, the great Soviet dissident who was persecuted for, among other things, his courage in standing up for human rights in a totalitarian regime, and Arthur Rudolph, a German rocket scientist who admitted his involvement with slave labor and other atrocities of the Nazi regime. </p>
<p>Why would Buchanan do this?</p>
<p>During the Gulf War, Buchanan charged that the American intervention was caused by a Jewish conspiracy, which consisted of American Jews conspiring with the Israeli Defense Ministry. On other occasions, he has talked about the “Holocaust survivor syndrome” which, in his view, involves “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.” During these particular interpretations, he put himself in the same league with Holocaust deniers and Holocaust perpetrators by using their favorite vocabulary. </p>
<p>Holocaust deniers consistently talk about the “Jewish conspiracy,” that pathological fantasy that involves the Jewish control of the media and the banks, the Jewish assault on culture, the Jewish poisoning of the Aryan race, etc. We’ve heard this all before: in Mein Kampf and in the terminology of Nazi spokesmen who engineered Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and, yes, Treblinka. </p>
<p>What is it that possesses a man to use this vocabulary when he knows full well the ugly context in which it has already been used?</p>
<p>After being confronted about the anti-Semitic implications of his words, Buchanan has stated, several times: “I don’t retract a single word.” </p>
<p>Not a single word? Not even a single one?</p>
<p>Perhaps Buchanan’s fans can enlighten me."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=223[/url]”>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=223</a></p>
<p>Go for it, FS!</p>
<p>All I can say about the GOP coining the phrase “Islamo-fascist” is that it takes one to know one. (Darn, I just know that probably isn’t high-horse enough for FS. Babble babble blah blah. I most definitely am intelectually lazy. I blindly adore, uh, Bill Clinton. The man can do, uh, did, no wrong.)</p>