John,

Thanks for a revealing and saddening article.  I had no idea of this background info on TAC.  Any chance that whoever holds the magazine’s purse strings might take some action in response to this?  I would hate to see this once-promising (and still often enjoyable) publication come to naught.

I would have probably said something like “Golf is not really a sport, driving the golf-cart drunk, however, is. And you, sir, should be honored that I even consider allowing you to ride with me for a few laps.”

‘an object lesson in “why WASPs are no longer running this country.” ‘

Just as William F Buckley, who derided his own father as an anti-Semite.

Fortunately, the country is changing, and it’s the philo-Semites like McConnell and their beneficiaries who are becoming the pariahs. Sorry, Scott, publishing a few articles vaguely critical of Nazi-like Zionism just doesn’t cut it, if at heart your a caste-system elitist.

RE: Chris Moore

I consider myself a philo-Semite. So if your critique of TAC is based on that issue, you and I are riding on different buses.

Great, wonderful, sad expose. Apropos of WASP Trey MacDoughall, all the MacDoughals in my family are Catholic clansmen from the West Highlands and they wear the philabeg with love and defiance.

I will cease being an anti-philo-Semite as soon as the overwhelming majority of Jews in this country withdraw their support for Israel in its current quasi-fascist incarnation, which has led to all kinds of anti-American perversions, including the Iraq war.

It’s apparent to me from everything I’ve heard McConnell say, and the kind of stories he runs, that his real ambition to establish himself as a center-right Beltway pundit on foreign policy—a golfing man’s Fareed Zakaria.

Jesus Christ!  The fact that there are people who “aspire” to be Beltway pundits and be liked by Norman Podhoretz is too much for me to bare!

A differing viewpoint:

http://bannedindc.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/scott-mcconnell-scapegoat/

Sad.

TAC started with articles that were profound and important: “Who’s War” by PJB and many others, particularly by Prof. Schroeder.

Lately, much dross.

Sad.

http://bannedindc.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/scott-mcconnell-scapegoat/

Certainly not a different viewpoint of Scott McConnell.

Many people were concerned when Ron Unz took over as the publisher of TAC. So a good question would be, how much of the “new direction” of TAC might be related to Unz?

“Any chance that whoever holds the magazine’s purse strings might take some action in response to this?”

Best of luck with that endeavour; the current publisher of TAC is Ron Unz, a stalwart neo-conservative.

Here’s the Left Conservative on the Taki/AmCon split
http://leftconservativeblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/takimag-v-amcon.html

Mr. Zmirak,
Thank you for posting this. I have been aware of Scott McConnell’s propensities ever since he stopped running our mutural friend Robert Locke, because Mr. Locke believes that Arabs, not Jews should be relocated.

Mr. Moore,
Your bias is rather clear. Anyone who does hate Jews, or at least distrust Jews and hates Israel is a traitor.
The irony is that Scott McConnell should be given a pass by you. The guy is theologically anti-Israel to the point or religious and historical revisionism in viewing Mary and Jesus as Palestinians.

Regarding American Jews, my sniveling leftist brethren were more anti-war than any other group.

Of course, I would love to hear you explain how Israel is fascist.
It is a liberal democracy with a mixed but not corporatist economy.

In Mr. Gottfried’s piece he said that TAC was “predictable”, but nothing has been more predictabe than the Taki Mag writers piling on time after time on subject after subject. 

We get it, the TakiMag staff thinks TAC has sold out to leftists.  That this argument can’t be supported even if one were to confine the discussion to the most recent issue is immaterial because Scott McConnell is allegedly a closeted liberal and that proves...?

I didn’t like the review in question for a lot of reasons, but the tone taken in that review is no different than the tone that was taken here with Justin Raimondo when he veered too far off the plantation on matters of race and ethnicity.  Raimondo has not posted here since then.  My advice to the irate TakiMag writers is to follow his example if they really have a problem with the magazine.

Uhh… Am I the only one here that believes The American Conservative is the best print publication on the Right?

I spent a better part of the afternoon with the latest issue, which I received in the mail today (which includes the Lukacs piece, and I agree, it shouldn’t have been published).

But it also includes a great and informative piece by Daniel McCarthy about both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee “style” Republicans running in Virginia.

Buchanan’s piece on Hillary’s “Middle American” coalition, and the presidential prospects for the fall is good, classic Pat (I wonder what Sam Francis would think of that phase being associated with Hillary?).

And Steve Sailer’s review of the 2nd Narnia film, now makes me want to go see it (I already saw the first, even though I generally don’t like ‘fantasy’ films, even when inspired by the great C.S. Lewis).

No one despises Norman Podhoretz more than I, I consider Buchanan (along with Ron Paul) my greatest contemporary political hero and I don’t know Zmirak, McConnell, or any of the other players involved at TAC or Takimag, other than from their work.

That said, I’m willing to give McConnell and co. the benefit of the doubt, given the consistent quality, and more important, RELEVANCY, of the subjects consistently covered in the pages of TAC.

It seems to me that National Review is basically worthless, save the occasional piece by John Derbyshire. TAC is overall, a great and invaluable magazine for those of the paleo/traditionalist/libertarian persuasion, despite the occasional questionable piece, like Lukac’s recent contribution.

I think most of the folks complaining would be sad to see TAC go, if they were to ever close up shop, and might not realize just what kind of unique treasure the Right had until it was gone.

Jack

P.S. Do you know how great it is, working in talk radio, to be able to steer Republican-leaning listeners away from National Review and The Weekly Standard, and encourage them to pick up TAC, which they can do at any Barnes & Noble or Books-a-Million? It’s not a hard sell based on the name of the magazine alone - and is an invaluable re-education for many casual conservatives.

Great post and very informative. I stopped reading TAC years ago, it seemed predictable and mainstream, now I know why.

Ron Lewenberg,

I have read your post several times, now, and can’t make heads or tails of it. At first,
I thought you were accusing Chris Moore of being an anti-semite, an Israel-hater, and as a result
a traitor(?), which seems to be an enormous jump in logic. Are you regurgitating cliff
notes from the AIPAC meeting that is ongoing in Washington as we speak?

I will assume that you mean what you are saying when you accuse Chris of being a traitor. I certainly don’t like
anti-semites, but I’m willing to grant that an anti-semite who was willing to die for the US
on the field of battle could be a patriot. Did it ever occur to you that probably every European
writer before John Milton, including Shakespeare, could fairly be characterized as an
anti-semite? Would you be willing to grant that the fact that Shakespeare wrote a series of
plays glorifying English history that are unrivaled in the annals of literature perhaps might
allow Shakespeare to be an English patriot, in spite of his virulent anti-semitism?

Your comment that love of Israel is required of Chris to qualify as a patriot gave me quite a
laugh as well.

But then your post utterly confuses, when you include the following incomprehensible sentence:
“The irony is that Scott McConnell should be given a pass by you. The guy is theologically
anti-Israel to the point or(sic) religious and historical revisionism in viewing Mary and Jesus
as Palestinians.” Despite the fact that Chris was actually criticizing Scott McConnell, you
credit him as giving the guy a pass. After this I think I kind of follow you --you are saying
with condemnation that McConnell isanti-Israel, which in your book is a crime nothing short
of being unpatriotic.

Then, you write this monstrosity:
“Regarding American Jews, my sniveling leftist brethren were more anti-war than any other
group.” Here I can’t figure out if you are yourself a dash anti-semitic, calling American Jews
“my sniveling leftist brethren” or calling Chris Moore a leftist brethren-- if it is the latter,
you perhaps know that brethren is actually the plural, so unless all of us are included here,
this sentence is grammatically in error. Given the education of most of the posters here,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are calling Jews “sniveling
leftist brethren,” thereby identifying yourself as a right-wing anti-semite and thus not a
patriot (by your own definition of the word). Am I correct?

Finally, anyone who has actually been to Israel knows, that if it isn’t a fascist state, it is
a virulently exclusionary, ethno-centric state. I don’t have to bore you with an account of my Israeli tour guide’s
colorful descriptions of Jerusalem’s native inhabitants. Suffice it to say that if I, a Christian,
wanted to emigrate to Israel, despite the fact that my country gives that country almost 4
billion a year, I would be forbid from doing so on account of my religion and ethnicity. What
other Western Democracy excludes people on such a basis? I’ll grant you that Israel has
some democratic characteristics, but Israel is at base a nation based on birthright (interestingly
the name of the program which sponsors young American jews to visit the state), not
equality and liberty for all of the people, which are the tenets of modern Western democracy.

Madrid,

Thanks for bringing up Israel and anti-semitism again. We often overlook this small country in the middle-east.

I’ll assume you are thanking me in earnest and say, No problemo, Pablo!

I’ll give Zmirak free golf lessons anytime!

Madrid,

I guess that I did not make myself clear. Or perhaps this is proof of the aphorism that people read what they want something to have said, not necessarily what was written.
Either way, you misunderstood virtually everything I wrote.

“I have read your post several times, now, and can’t make heads or tails of it. At first,
I thought you were accusing Chris Moore of being an anti-semite, an Israel-hater, and as a result
a traitor(?), which seems to be an enormous jump in logic.”

You still are reading heads for tails. Mr. Moore seems to beleive that anyone who supports Israel is a traitor.

“Are you regurgitating cliff
notes from the AIPAC meeting that is ongoing in Washington as we speak?”
I have no time for those liberals

“ I certainly don’t like
anti-semites, but I’m willing to grant that an anti-semite who was willing to die for the US
on the field of battle could be a patriot.”
I agree. Sadly some people oppose any action, which might help Israel, regardless of American national interest.

“Did it ever occur to you that probably every European
writer before John Milton, including Shakespeare, could fairly be characterized as an
anti-semite? “
Many probably were but it has never bothered me. My knowledge of Christian Medieval literature is largely limited to Norse Sagas, Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, the Decameron, The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, and Song of Roland.

“Would you be willing to grant that the fact that Shakespeare wrote a series of
plays glorifying English history that are unrivaled in the annals of literature perhaps might
allow Shakespeare to be an English patriot, in spite of his virulent anti-semitism? “
You are creating a straw-man arguement to counter an accusation, I never made.

“Your comment that love of Israel is required of Chris to qualify as a patriot gave me quite a
laugh as well. “
Your complete misunderstanding of the positions of myself and Mr. Moore left me concerned.

“But then your post utterly confuses, when you include the following incomprehensible sentence:
“The irony is that Scott McConnell should be given a pass by you. The guy is theologically
anti-Israel to the point or(sic) religious and historical revisionism in viewing Mary and Jesus
as Palestinians.” Despite the fact that Chris was actually criticizing Scott McConnell, you
credit him as giving the guy a pass. After this I think I kind of follow you --you are saying
with condemnation that McConnell isanti-Israel, which in your book is a crime nothing short
of being unpatriotic. “

This really should have given you pause since it is illogical.
Mr. Moore dislikes Jews and Israel, but attacked Mr. McConnell for failing to be anti-Israel. Mr. McConnell hates Israel. Therefore I
suggested that Moore give McConnell a pass.

“Here I can’t figure out if you are yourself a dash anti-semitic, calling American Jews
“my sniveling leftist brethren” or calling Chris Moore a leftist brethren-- if it is the latter,
you perhaps know that brethren is actually the plural, so unless all of us are included here,
this sentence is grammatically in error.”

This could be read incorrectly, but not by someone who read what I wrote previously and elsewhere.
I am Jewish. My bretheren and co-religionists, who are leftists or liberals are snivling.

“Given the education of most of the posters here,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are calling Jews “sniveling
leftist brethren,” thereby identifying yourself as a right-wing anti-semite and thus not a
patriot (by your own definition of the word). Am I correct? “

Like Messr McConnell, Buchanan, and Locke I went to Columbia University. Admittedly, I did poorly in Freshman writting, although this was a due to me refusal to follow MLA PC revisions of the English language.
I am, however, quite concerned with your poor reading comprehension skills.
When particularly angry and/or confused by a post, I like to come back to it. Hence, I chose to give your reply a few hours before responding. My orriginal missive was far less polite.

“Finally, anyone who has actually been to Israel knows, that if it isn’t a fascist state, it is
a virulently exclusionary, ethno-centric state. “
Switzerland and Mexico are ethnocentric states, but no one would call them “fascist”. I find that most people call Israel “fascist” either show their utter ignorance of the term, or care not a whit for its meaning, but mearly use the term to attach Israel. That self-proclaimed conservatives would follow Fannonite tactics speaks poorly of them.

“I don’t have to bore you with an account of my Israeli tour guide’s
colorful descriptions of Jerusalem’s native inhabitants.”
I think that we would disagree about who is native to what.

“Suffice it to say that if I, a Christian,
wanted to emigrate to Israel, despite the fact that my country gives that country almost 4
billion a year, I would be forbid from doing so on account of my religion and ethnicity.”

The unfortunate US aide to Israel does not mean that ISrael should cease to exist.

“What
other Western Democracy excludes people on such a basis? “

Switzerland and Iceland comes to mind. Heck if the people were listened to, most European countries would resume their old immigration policies.

“I’ll grant you that Israel has
some democratic characteristics, but Israel is at base a nation based on birthright (interestingly
the name of the program which sponsors young American jews to visit the state), not
equality and liberty for all of the people, which are the tenets of modern Western democracy. “

For the most part, all Israeli citizens are equal under the law.
Your issue is with non-citizens.
And considering our treatment America’s First Peoples, you don’t have much of a claim, unless you wish to indict America.

You’re not alone, Jack. If there’s a more interesting magazine than TAC, I’d like to hear about it.

Hey, let me tell you a story about how this one guy in my office stabbed this other guy in the back!  No, on second thought I guess I won’t, because why would our own office politics be of interest to anyone outside of the office?  What everyone outside of my office cares about is what we produce: its quality, the authenticity of our claims about it, and its relevance.

These stories about office intrigues and betrayals--paleocons by neocons, paleocons by paleolibs, paleolibs by paleocons, paleocons by paleocons--are of interest outside of the magazine offices in only one way I can think of: to remind everyone why paleoconservatism never succeeded, and why it will probably always be a movement of beautiful, and as we see here not-so-beautiful, losers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Israel is a racist resticted democracy like the American South was for 200 years and like South Africa. It has a fairly free press and free speech for it’s Jewish citizens, but half the population has minimal civl rights or no civil rights or political rights.

Bill Stearns - You’re right. No doubt, TAC is arguably the best mainstream (I’m excluding Chronicles, a favorite of mine, which has decidedly been marketed to academics and intellectuals) publication on the American Right since early National Review or even The American Mercury.

As a paleo, the “movement” (for lack of a bettet term) seems intent on breaking my heart - whether it’s the paleolibertarians eventual treatment of Buchanan a decade ago, or some of the paleoconservatives recent harsh treatment of the currently, more high profile (thanks to Ron Paul) libertarians.

The heartbreak continues - I have considered TAC the best Right-wing publication for some time, and also, just last week I praised Takimag to the hilt on my blog:

http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/05/30/why-i-love-takis-magazine/

Now they seem to be turning on each other, once again. So silly…

Does anyone else realize that we all belong to a very small club and agree on much more than not?

It is always sad to see conservatives who should know better behave more like catty women than honorable (and practical) men (and women).

Jack

@Jack Hunter

I agree with you, TAC is great. Not always, but mostly. Why badmouth the one real right non-PC, non-theocratic output for one bad review? You know, we can just disagree on what we disagree and agree upon which we agree. Ask your parents—or your wife.

Can’t people from the real Right just focus for once? Join together for the common purpose of reclaiming the Right. That’s the business we’re in: to stop taxing, to limit mass immigration and prevent idiosyncratic wars.

Inter-paleo infights are not helping.

Now, I’m not a Lukacs-expert (nor do I aspire to be), but even browsing his name on Google gives you a good impression where he stands: US-Britain-Churchill all good, nationalism-Hitler-Germans all evil—Can’t say, I disagree with the Hitler = evil part. Clearly, this man wasn’t going to write a favorable review about a book named “Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary war”, which tries to change the worldview he held for most of his life.

So what?

Pat is a great man, he’s not going to be intimidated by a bad review from Lukacs. I bet that Pat was expecting lots and lots of bad reviews, because he knew that what he wrote would stir things up. Pat probably didn’t give a damn.

The real Right will never go anywhere, if they don’t learn to cooperate and take a beating without directly striking back in anger. So, they likened Pat to Irving—isn’t that what people always do when they disagree these days, likening people with other views to Nazi’s? Both the defamer and defamed shouldn’t offend or feel offended. It’s childish, it’s immature and it suggests paleos are not ready to lead.

Say, what you want about those damn neocons, but at least they work together. Succesfully and they stick together when the going gets tough. Did you see Doug Feith turning the blame on the Pod-people? Maybe, there’s a sociobiological reason why Rightists always turn on each other, too much testosterone or something. I’ve seen it in several countries, the Right keeps infighting, while the Left fights the Right together. No wonder we’re losing.

Stop the stupid blamegame.

I’ve only seen McConnell once, at a debate on the Iraq War a few years ago, where he gave
me a dirty look when I asked a question that was definately “red meat” oriented, on whether
the Iraq War served America’s interests, to which he responded with a pained look on his face.

Later, I read articles in TAC favorable to George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy as Midwestern Populist
anti-imperialists and isolationists.

I had a gut feeling he was a closet liberal, and your article confirmed it.

Maciano,

“non-theocratic”

So there is a theocratic paleo-rightist publication of note? I have yet to see it.

I agree with Jack. It is time for a truce. There are real issues involved here, but perhaps there is a better way to go about discussing them.

While the Right is infighting, just look at what that nice new-boy-on-the-block Jamie Kirchik just wrote about Pat’s new book: “From Pitchfork Pat to Brownshirt Buchanan”

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/06/04/allow-me.aspx

This fullblown idiot, who made headlines with RP’s old newsletters, just hit out again. I’d say join forces with TAC and give this little piggy a good old wedgy.

“The stories (McConnell) really treasures are pieces by leftish Jews that skewer Israeli policies.”

Philip Weiss writes the articles for TAC concerning Israel and American ME policy.  I believe that Weiss is doing great and courageous work. 

Dr. Zmirak, what are your feelings regarding Weiss’ articles?

I’m glad that John Z is hitting back. We need push back against those who smear other conservatives. It is not acceptable. Of course, those who agree with the smears, think any kind of push back is beyond the pale. After all , smear jobs are so much more successful when no one disagrees.

Kirchik is a slime ball. Did he receive his journalistic training from the SPLC School of Neo-Marxist Smear Jobs? His work bears a striking resemblance. Morris Dees must be very proud.

Justin Raimondo when he veered too far off the plantation on matters of race and ethnicity.  Raimondo has not posted here since then.

Perhaps if Raimondo had taken some time to become acquainted with some basic facts he would not have made such a fool of himself or elicited such a negative reaction.

@Red

What bothers me most is that Kirchik isn’t saying anything at all. His critique is no critique at all, it’s the same dumb blather you read a no-think blogs like Little Green Footballs and Hot Air.

No arguments, no counterfacts, no insights, no sign of schooling, no ideas, no understanding, nothing serious at all. It’s just good (Churchill), bad (Hitler) and ugly (Chamberlain) all the time, every time. It’s pathetic, really.

Ron:

I am sorry I attacked your post. I don’t like the tendency to accuse a person of anti-semitism
any time they write something that might be a little offensive to Jews. I had just seen McCain and
Obama’s speeches at AIPAC, in which both basically swore allegiance to a foreign country. For those
of us, like me, who have no stake in Israel, it is very upsetting to see future leaders entangling
my country into a blank-check commitment, that is probably not be in my country’s best interest. I hope
you understand that most people don’t hate Israel per se, here-- they simply don’t like the way in which
its representatives here have contorted US foreign policy in ways that some of us think are
against our vital interests.

I am just finishing Buchanan’s book, and if you have read the book-- and I wonder if John Zmirak and
others like Paul Gottfried have actually finished it yet? (?) or if they are simply assuming they
know its thesis based on their knowledge of what he has written in previous books like A Republic
Not an Empire. I understand perfectly why AmCon asked John Lukacs to review the book, and anyone
who reads it to the end will also see why.

The last third of the book is an attack on Lukacs’s canonization of Churchill as the greatest Western
leader in history. I am at work right now and don’t have the book in front of me, but Buchanan shows, contrary to
the hagiographic image of Churchill that we get here in the US, that Churchill was extremely inconsistent
in his leadership from the beginning of WWI through to the end of WWI, when he basically consigned
100 million Eastern Europeans to Stalinist slavery. For me, what was most edifying in the book was Buchanan’s
pointing out the contradiction between what Churchill’s policy with regard to Poland was before the war
and at the war’s close. In the spring and summer of 39, Churchill was the primary supporter of a hair-
trigger agreement with Poland that committed Britain to defend Poland from Nazi invasion, even though
Britain had no military capacity to actually come to Poland’s defense. In Europe they had about 4
divisions, and so the British guarantee led Poland to play tough with Nazi negotiators at the same time
that Britain had nothing to back the guarantee up with. What Buchanan shows is that in 39, Churchill thought
Poland so important for Britain that he was willing to support giving it a blank-check commitment, in
spite of the fact that Poland itself was an unstable dictatorship, that refused to even discuss with
Germany the plight of the Germans in Danzig, which the British government wanted to see returned
to Germany.

At the war’s close, when Churchill was PM, however, he thought Poland so unimportant, so trivial to
European security that he basically gave it to Stalin, who had already begun putting all of Polish
intellectuals, priests, the managerial class in camps. In other words, Churchill knew what would happen
to these people, people who had fought more heroically against tyranny than anyone else in Europe, and he
consigned them to living hell, while 6 years earlier supporting Chamberlain’s giving them unrealistic
expectations about Britain’s commitment to their survival. At the end of the war,
Churchill went around publicly praising Stalin as the Man of Steel, even though Stalin seemed to have
only contempt for Churchill and treated any agreement he made with the PM
as toilet paper months after he had signed it.

Buchanan is a first-class historian-- coming at this from a leftist perspective, I was surprised at what
an unconventional, rigorous mind Buchanan has. He has no shibboleths; he is not a hero-worshiper. I am
interested in the paleo right, because I think in the long run, middle America will not subscribe to
the kind of socialism that I have seen work extremely well in the European countries, France, Italy,
and Spain, in which I have lived.

Despite some of my differences with Buchanan on some domestic policies, I wish to God the man were running
for president this time. He understands what I consistently teach to my students, which is that great powers
last when they avoid conflict. They often fail, in spite of the fact that they seem to win on the
battlefield. The classic example is Spain during the 30 years war-- Spain won battle after battle
during the first 20 years of that war, but by 1640, she had rebellions in both Portugal and Catalunya, and
she was utterly bankrupt.

Back to Lukacs and Buchanan-- given that Buchanan’s book is an attack on Lukacs and a defense
of George Kennan’s diplomacy, it strikes me that AmCon wanted to give Lukacs, the famous historian,
a chance to respond, and let the fireworks explode. Entirely predictable for any magazine to
create controversy-- what is more alarming to me is to see AmCon’s allies at Takimag making such a big
deal over it. So you disagree with the decision, but if you actually read to the end of Buchanan’s book,
it seems entirely predictable that they would give Lukacs a chance to respond. My only quibble is
with Lukacs himself, who should have had the honesty to admit from the first sentence of his review, that
Buchanan’s book constituted an attack on his own portrayal of Churchill as the greatest war leader
Britain had known since Henry V.

@Matra

During the whole Raimondo/race back-and-forth, a friend confided to me that the whole thing was embarassing. I agreed - and I was not embarassed in the least by Raimondo, who was by no means the “fool” if there was one amongst the rabble.

In fact, it’s always struck me that it’s to Raimondo’s credit that he supported both Pat Buchanan - unconditionally - despite Justin’s possible aversion to much of Pat’s “Death of the West” scenarios - AND supported Ron Paul - uncondtionally - even when Paul made the very un-libertarian suggestion that the U.S. should restrict immigration from “rogue” nations (which we should).

It seems to me that Justin “gets it,” the big picture, that is. I can’t think of any other paleo figure who went full bore for both Buchanan and Paul to the extent that Raimondo did.

Justin, who I disagree with on much, is no fool, although I’m not sure the same can be said about many of his critics.

Jack

@Jack

We all know Justin is smart that’s why his ignorant comments were so appalling.

I don’t care about the median IQ levels of each race but Justin’s attempt to refute the entire history of IQ testing by referring to Obama’s intelligence was so lame and embarrassing I assumed he was just posing. His posts were so poorly argued, especially when compared to his columns on foreign policy, that he must have given most readers here the impression that he was just showing off his PC moral superiority and completely uninterested in a serious debate. Indeed, his posts on race could easily have been pasted from Commentary, The Weekly Standard or The New Republic.

@Marta

Good point. I took your comment wrong. Perhaps I was being a bit too reflexive myself.

My apologies.

Jack

One other point I wanted to make about this Lukacs-Buchanan business. I can certainly understand why they
asked Lukacs to review the book-- as I said above, the last 3rd of Buchanan’s book is a direct refutation
of Lukacs’s hagiographic thesis about Churchill, and they obviously were interested in a response. However,
once Lukacs displayed the complete intellectual dishonesty of not revealing that Buchanan’s main adversarial
interlocutor was Lukacs himsef, the editors should have intervened and suggested he do so.

Similarly, when he started comparing Buchanan to a holocaust denier, they should have done the same thing.
This was the main f--up that they did. And Ill say this about it-- Buchanan’s book is not about the
Holocaust, and to the extent that he does mention death camps and the destruction of European Jewry,
there is not even the faintest whiff of denial in the book. Irving’s most recent books, as I understand,
have been precisely about the Holocaust. Similarly, Buchanan never depicts Hitler as anything other than he
was, a barbaric savage. His main point is to knock Churchill down a peg-- and his reasons are obvious
towards the end-- the cult of Winston Churchill has meant trouble for the US, especially its ability to
figure out its own vital interests.

In this respect, the book is from the realist school of Mearsheimer in that Buchanan seems to be saying
that Britain during the period from 1914 to 1945 was confused about what its vital national interests were.
It is obvious that currently, the US government suffers from similar confusion.

Bravo, Madrid. If the editors at TAC had had the discretion and good taste to delete the Irving reference, I would not have complained about them running the review. Disagree with PJB all you want--my own review will contain significant disagreements. But character assassination is quite another thing. We shouldn’t put up with it in any form.

As to the articles which criticize specific Israeli policies--I have no problem with them, per se. I was simply noting that they took up a disproportionate amount of airspace, and suggested a yawning disinterest on the editors’ parts in more fundamental, domestic issues--or a lack of sympathy with genuine conservative stances.

Paleoconservatives fight even more than libertarians do, and they’re fewer. I didn’t think that possible, but it appears to be the case.

Madrid,

I cannot speak to Buchanan’s last book as I have not finished it. However, he has made many historical errors and fallacious judgements in his articles surrounding the book.

Having candidates speak in front of any lobby is distasteful. Still, as Dan Kurtzner showed today, Obama was lying and plaing the AIPAC liberals for the idiots they are.

Regarding Churchill and Poland, you are missing some information. The UK did not stand alone against Germany in 1939. There was an expenctation that the UK would support the French invasion. The French, hobbled by fears from WW1 and communist aid to the Nazis, were unable to attack Germany.

In 1944, Churchill could do nothing for Poland. FDR sold Poland out and the UK was tired of war. Churchill was voted out of office by the British, who were delusional in their dreams of peace in 1945. Churchill was in no position to threaten war to liberate Poland.

Given that my father and both sets of grandparents are Polish Jews who survived the Nazis and Communists, I care quite a bit about this.

Dear RonL,
First of all, I am very glad your relatives survived that horrible war and persecution, in which 1/4 of Poles died (Jews disproportionately, of course). As I will say when I write more fully about the book, the key assertion Buchanan makes about Poland is that it would have been much wiser for the Polish leadership to have become minor, subjugated allies of the Germans in an anti-Soviet war, than to risk war based on empty British and French promises--and become a slave state destined for extermination (the Germans’ plan) or atheist totalitarianism (the Soviet plan, enacted). I don’t know that the Jewish population would have been any better off in that scenario, however. And in the long run… every Slav would have become a slave. More later on this, but again, my sympathy for your family’s suffering. Poland as a whole was a martyred nation in the 20th century, along with Ukraine, China, Cambodia… the list goes on and on.

Ron:

I know that Britain was not the only country to give Poland the blank-check guarantee.

Buchanan’s book is however about Britain, not France or any other country.

He uses Britain as a case in point for what not to do if you are a great power. The
main point in the book is that it was not in Britain’s national interest to give an iron-clad
commitment to Poland which it had no ability to fulfill. The commitment not only made Britain look
like a paper tiger, but more seriously, it caused the Polish government to act in completely
irrational ways, telling the Nazis to go to hell when they tried to negotiate the return of the
Danzig.

Buchanan, correctly in my view, compares it to the US giving a guarantee to some Soviet satellite state
that we would intervene and save them in 1968 when they rebelled against the Soviets.

Thankfully the US did not give such guarantees, which it also would not have been able to fulfill, and which would have caused its own destruction if had tried to fulfill (and probably the destruction of the rest of the world).

Buchanan’s thesis, which is a very interesting one-- one that I am still thinking about, is
that by making such commitments again and again to its supposed allies, Britain’s leaders helped to destroy
the British empire. His further case is that Churchill was involved in everyone of these
decisions.

RonL:
“In 1944 Churchill could do nothing for Poland”.

In 1939 he couldn’t do anything for them either.  What does that tell you?

For me, the evidence is fairly clear. The Poles should have negotiated with the Germans over Danzig and the Corridor rather than believe the Brits could save them from an otherwise imminent German attack.  That was the issue, wasn’t it?

So why didn’t they? Check the German White Paper. It shows--from Polish documents--how FDR and the Americans were pushing the Poles and the Brits to stand up to Hitler and refuse to negotiate, ‘cause the good ole USA would eventually enter the war (that would surely ensue) and everyone would live happily ever after.

Doesn’t that make you feel better?

The problem with the Buchanan thesis, such as I have read it in his columns and from posters, is that Poland had no reason to trust that Germany was going to stop. In fact the Poles, like everyone else in the summer of 1939, had seen what Germany did to Czechoslovakia and Austria.

The Germans wanted far more than just Danzig, or even all of Poland that once was part of the German Empire. 

Buchanan seems to think that Hitlers past behavior and none too well hidden intentions were irrelevant. That isn’t realpolitick. It is blindness.

And to look at Britain alone and ignore the French is silly. This isn’t history but deconstruction.

Ron L,

Can you blame Hitler for wanting back what was once part of the German Empire ?  Britain and France made the mistake of creating Poland from Russian, Austrian, and Prussian territory.  What did they expect, that an entire nation would just allow themselves to be blatantly insulted after suffering injury ?  The British and Revolutionary ‘French’ over-played their hands at Versailles and then carelessly meddled in the process by which the insane treaty was being corrected (because it was their baby), hence causing another war unnecessarily.

The Anglo-American Establishment has consciously attempted to dissolve all Eurasian politico-economic consolidation pursuant to their own hegemonic domination of an international market of smaller states unable to compete.  They have framed the cause as one of lofty principles and goodness against sheer horrors and evil, but I suspect this was done chiefly for reasons of utility, as it was they who instigated most wars.  They are doing the same thing with the Middle East, but the crass materialism unleashed by their former successes have dulled their would-be cannon-fodder’s necessary sense of purpose.  In fin, the behemoth created by the Milner-Rhodes Round Table Groups and sustained by the Fed and usurious international banking is finally meeting its doom at the hands of nature, which it attempted to defy through artificially expanding itself, like some gluttonous swine due for heart failure.  For the Truth endures through all, but lies are cheap; they cannot last because they are only shadows.

Charles,
So, what’s your point? That Hitler’s cause was just, or had he won he would have spared us the ignoble rule of the Anglo-American imperialists and their Hebraic financiers? Come on, emerge from the shadows and tell us the truth.

Charles,

You seem to forget the manipulations of the German Reich. Look up the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans recreated Poland well before the Allies. The only change with the Paris Treaty was the borders and the fact that Poland would actually be free.

However, using your position that revanchism is worthwhile, then I suppose the Soviet invasion of Poland, the Baltic Republics, Bessarabia, and Finland was perfectly good?

And if Mexico invades the US, you are fine with it?

Sorry, but peace treaties have meaning. And any possible excuse, whether nationalism or revanchism, lost all meaning when they invaded the rump Czeck Republic.

Kevin,

My point is simply that the British and the United States had a hand in creating the problem and were punished by it.  They instigated a problem, it exploded in their faces, and so they created a new problem to deal with it.  I am not defending Hitler or saying who should have won the Second World War, since I believe it was little more than a terrible tragedy caused by Versailles Treaty when the wrong side won the First World War.  The Second World War should have been avoided in the first place and was merely an extension of the horrors of the First.  Both were divine punishments for revolutionary perfidy.  As such, I do believe that we are due for another war, perhaps to end the pattern.

I am merely defending the thesis of Mr Buchanan as I understand it, that Churchill’s war-mongering was largely responsible for creating an unnecessary war.  As an aside, I posit that avaricious imperialistic meddling ineluctably catches up with its practitioners, whether these be English, American, or German.

Ron L,

I do not believe that revanchism or irredentism is worthwhile as a general principle, though I do believe that some rightful territories should be returned to those who have legitimate claims to them on principle.  I would see a return of former Spanish territory to Mexico as a just correction of illegitimate theft.  Conversely, the Soviet invasions of Poland, the Baltic Republics, Bessarabia, and Finland were unjust according to just war principles, since the Soviet Union was an illegitimate revolutionary government that had no claim to any territory.  If a restored Tsardom was to re-claim that which is its rightful possession, I would support it.

I care about legitimate Authority and the Reign of Christ the King.  Christendom, legitimate by the grace of God through Divine Providence, was illegitimately taken away through the treason of madmen.  Therefore, legitimate sovereignties, still de jure despite the de facto situation, render such crimes of territorial theft null and void of legal force.

Charles,
“...since I believe it was little more than a terrible tragedy caused by Versailles Treaty when the wrong side won the First World War...”

I think that too simplified an interpretation of a very complex historical record. While, Churchill and Roosevelt did some very terrible things in the build-up, conduct and at the conclusion of the war, one must be careful in refraining from an argument that sounds alarmingly like moral equivalence.

Charles,

Why was the Nazi Germany not an illegitimate revolutionary regime? It was not a restored monarchy, far from it. The Nazis were socialists who hated the nobility.

Also, how is post revolutionary Mexico not a revolutionary regime different from the dictatorship of Antonia Lopez de Santa Ana?

Ron L wrote, “Why was the Nazi Germany not an illegitimate revolutionary regime? It was not a restored monarchy, far from it. The Nazis were socialists who hated the nobility.”

I never stated that the Nazis were a legitimate regime, only that one could hardly blame German nationalists for wanting back what was once (to their minds) theirs.  I hate National Socialism and completely agree with your assessment of it :  The Nazis were a bunch of totalitarian, anti-Catholic socialists who reigned over their false state to the detriment of traditional German regionalism, the nobility, and the monarchy.  Then again, I hate the Prussian monarchy and German Empire, but at least they, unlike the Nazis, had an argument.

“Also, how is post revolutionary Mexico not a revolutionary regime different from the dictatorship of Antonia Lopez de Santa Ana?”

It is that and, in a just world, would be returned to a Carlist Spanish monarchy.  However, its annexation by the ‘Republic of Texas’ and the United States federal government is a step in the wrong direction, away from restoration of sovereign rights.

Charles,
Why wasn’t Nazi Germany a legitimate regime? Didn’t the Nazis come to power legally?

Charles,

You wrote:
“Conversely, the Soviet invasions of Poland, the Baltic Republics, Bessarabia, and Finland were unjust according to just war principles, since the Soviet Union was an illegitimate revolutionary government that had no claim to any territory. “

In other words, you are judging the validity of a claim based on the nature of the regime. So why were claims by the USSR illegitimate but those of Nazi Germany legitimate.

Moreover, why was the French desire to retake Alsace and Lorraine wrong?

It seems to me that sovereignty for you depends on your care for the regime.

I don’t think you should blame Unz.  Word on the street is that Scott McConnell wanted to drop Fred Reed after he spoke at American Renaissance, but Unz intervened in Reed’s defense.

Speaking of whether Nazi Germany was legitimate or not brings up the problem of officially ending WWII.

It was the legitimate govt of Germany that surrendered in May 1945—the so-called Doenitz govt.

The present govt of Germany is not a legal continution.

Consequently, there has never been a Treaty to end the Second World War.

We must observe the legalities.