HEY PAT BUCHANAN-

Reaganite Republican ^ | 02 April 2015 | Reaganite Republican

[Sam Gamgee]

At best Pat is a populist, in the vein of Jennings Byrant. He might be a social conservative, but that is basically where his conservatism stops.

[ek_hornbeck]

Totally clueless on Israel

Admitting that Israel's security and strategic interests in the Middle East are not necessarily 100% congruent with ours, and saying that we rather than the Israeli government should decide our mideast policy is "cluelessness"?

[Sam Gamgee]

Because they killed 200 of our marines. End of story.

[Sam Gamgee]

LOL. Sure Hitler loving Buchanan.

[ek_hornbeck]

Mao was as responsible for American deaths in Vietnam (since he was funding/arming the Viet Cong) as the Ayatollah Khomeini was for American deaths in Lebanon at the hands of Hizbollah, so again, why was Nixon's negotiation with Mao OK but any dealings with Iran are not? If anything, the latter was worse, because with Iran today, we're not dealing with Ayatollah Khomeini, whereas Nixon was dealing directly with Mao, as opposed to a less psychopathic successor.

I agree that Obama isn't the right person to negotiate with Iran (or with any other country, friend or foe), but that's a separate issue from whether it can or should be done.

[riverdawg]

” ... if Nixon can sit down and negotiate with a monster like Chairman Mao ...”

Nixon’s gambit with China was part of a larger strategy to weaken the Soviet Union. Would a successful conclusion to negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program (whatever that might mean) weaken Russia? Only if it were credible and lowered world oil prices. But, I don’t believe an “agreement” with Iran would have credibility in Israel, Saudi Arabia, or in the world oil market.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Buchanan holds these positions for one and only one reason: his monomaniacal, irrational, fanatical hatred of Jews and Israel.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I have yet to hear a good rebuttal from the neoconservatives of the following point that Pat Buchanan makes: if Nixon can sit down and negotiate with a monster like Chairman Mao (who had the death of millions on his hands, and, indirectly in Vietnam, the death of tens of thousands of Americans) and Reagan can negotatiate with leaders of what he rightly called the Evil Empire, what is intrinsically treasonous about negotiating with Iran? How is Iran so much more dangerous than Communist China or the USSR, and are we really supposed to believe that Mao Tse Tung was somehow so much more reasonable and friendly towards us than Hassan Rouhani?

But I thought that all conservatives, "neo" or "palaeo," considered the talks with Mao and the USSR to be a betrayal of conservative principals.

IMHO the "reasonableness" of these talks has only been adopted lately by "palaeos" because they hate Israel and sympathize with its enemies.

[Zionist Conspirator]

That just about covers it. I’ve never understood the Buchanan hatred among conservatives. William F. Buckley once wrote that Buchanan is more of a prophet than a politician, and if the country is to be saved, it will be along the lines laid down by Buchanan.

By allowing Israel to be destroyed?

Yes sir, as long as Israel exists "Blacks and Hispanics" will defile our white motherland, but the minute Israel is no more suddenly the world will shatter into a "planet of peoples" with real racial integrity. [/sarcasm]

[Olog-hai]

Well, if funding Hamas and Hezbollah and their attacks on Israel is “nothing”, I wonder what he calls “something”? He is effectively defending Obama here.

[Sam Gamgee]

I think what Nixon did was a huge mistake and we should never have opened relations with China. We are now reaping the whirlwind because of it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Admitting that Israel's security and strategic interests in the Middle East are not necessarily 100% congruent with ours, and saying that we rather than the Israeli government should decide our mideast policy is "cluelessness"?

You "palaeos" don't believe in an objective G-d or an objective moral code that applies to everyone everywhere. Your ultimate ideology, "national anarchism," admits that it rejects the very concept of universals.

You believe the world should be filled with ethnically pure homelands, each with its own unique "truth" that applies to it and it alone. And obviously Jews are your bete noire because they represent something objective and universal, something that applies to everyone everywhere. One reason Jew-haters have always identified Judaism with bolshevism is that the latter claimed that all local beliefs and traditions would have to give way to a universal "scientific" truth. Your conservatism isn't based on anything objective. It is based on the philosophy of leftist "national liberation" terrorists: "deze are de wayz of our pipples."

Not long ago we had a miserable little Nazi on this board ("Philip Freneau") who was constantly attacking dispensationalism. Now strictly speaking I have no dog in a fight among chrstian beliefs, but it was obvious that he was not your ordinary anti-dispensationalist with his absurd claims that Jerusalem at the time of J*sus was morally depraved and that its society was based on the worldview of the American Civil Liberties Union. He and I got into it one day (he assumed that I was Jewish even though I told him that I wasn't, which means that he was basically accusing me of lying) and he said he wanted the Jews to drop their "chosenness" and "join the human race." But then in practically the next sentence he attacked them for "race-mixing" and attacking white racial integrity. In other words, the miserable little hypocrite wanted Jews to "join the human race" so that white people (and presumably everyone else as well) could leave it!

Yes, Jewish national integrity has a metaphysical basis (and necessity) that no other ethnic group has because they are the chosen people. If "aryans" were the chosen people then their national integrity would have to be preserved, but "aryans" were not chosen. Neither were Blacks, "Hispanics," Dravidians, or anyone else. One G-d, one chosen people, one Holy Land. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Homosexuality is wrong for one reason and one reason only: it is forbidden by the Jewish G-d Who created the universe. It has nothing to do with European genes and chromosomes creating an "organic culture" based on a uniquely European worldview. And anyone who says this is an atheist, however "right wing" or "pro-traditional morality" he may be. The ground and basis of morality is the One True G-d, not subjective local ethno-cultural customs.

Sam Francis-ite atheists who support tradition out of some bizarre non-theistic philosophy about "organic cultural integrity" are the curse of the conservative movement. You may support the victims of homosexual fascist bullying, but you miss the entire point of resisting that bullying, which is submission to the One True G-d of Israel, not some Evola-esque "perenial philosophy."

I know I'm taking up a great deal of time and saying an awful lot and that it's going to do absolutely no good to someone who thinks that German Catholics should identify more with German Protestants than with Filipino Catholics (yes, I remember your remark about religion being "merely one aspect of culture"). But I have had it. Conservatives need to fight back against evil with G-d, not with European nationalism or enlightenment notions of "freedom." The totalitarian reaction against the people of Indiana has me absolutely rubbed raw, and now I have to be reminded that our side is still full of non-Theists who miss the whole point of conservatism and morality. And I'm d@rn mad.

I know your kind well. And the fact that you claim to be on my side (or the Left's claim to be on my side regarding anti-Semitism) doesn't mean a thing to me. I have a lifelong obsession with the One True G-d. After a lifetime of searching and misery I found the Truth. It's hard enough to put up with people who "know" chrstianity is true because the "new testament" says so or because it's "the American religion." I'm sure not going to pull any punches with regard to Sam Francis atheists.

One final bit of advice: read my tag line. I mean every freaking word of it.

[Reaganite Republican]

You’re talking about Victor Yanukovych as a ‘democratically elected’ leader who was ‘overthrown violently’?

Ever since 2004 I think it was -when the Russians started poisoning Ukr politicians who wouldn’t be lapdogs of the Kremlin- the Ukrainian elections are rigged for Moscow’s candidate- that’s no free and fair election, not until recently

And he wasn’t ‘overthrown violently’- nobody touched him, he ran away like a little b*&ch, and his (Russian?) snipers are the ones who introduced violence to the Maidan

[mac_truck]

The 2010 elections in Ukraine were monitored and certified by western observers as being free and fair. Yanukovitch was democratically elected. This fact is not in dispute.

Furthermore, the notion that the President of Ukraine wasn't violently and unconstitutionally overthrown last year is absurd to even the casual observer and quite easily disproved despite the concerted effort by western media to distort and/or bury the evidence.

What IS in dispute today is exactly who the Maidan snipers were working for when they shot down both police and Maidan rioters on the morning of February 18th 2014. The current Kiev government has stonewalled attempts to get at the truth.

The International Advisory Panel of the Council of Europe recently released its report on the Maidan Sniper investigation which concluded.

The Panel considered that the investigations lacked practical independence. The investigations were also ineffective or a number of reasons: the resources of the Prosecutor’s General Office (PGO) allocated to the Maidan investigations were “wholly inadequate”; there was a lack of continuity in the leadership of the PGO investigations and the allocation of investigative work was inefficient. Moreover, the unco-operative attitude on the part of the Ministry of Interior and of the State Security Service of Ukraine had a negative impact on the investigation. The Panel cites the example of the investigation of the alleged involvement of Berkut officers as illustrating a lack of co-operation and obstruction by the Ministry of Interior, “which seriously impeded progress in this key investigation”.

My advice is that you do some homework on the issue of Ukraine and whether or not its in the interest of the United States to support unconstitutional regime change in Europe.

[rmlew]

Iran has promised to destroy America. A few months ago they chanted “Death to America” in their parliament. Either Buchanan is senile or he is a dual loyalist, whose primary loyalty is his ideology leaving scant space in his heart for the safety and survival of America.

[Pelham]

bookmark