Marcus, your concern may be academic.  The logical consequence of removing B from the statement “A is not B so war is avoidable” will likely be lost on the sheeple and sycophants.  That concern is typical for my biggest beef with conservatism: we do not adequately consider our audience.  We need a sexy package for the ultra-right platform.  Not that Ron Paul isn’t hot.....

As Pat quoted Lady Astor, Hitler was born at Versailles.

What seems to be missed - it infected the Hannitized, Limbautomized right first, but also the various factions of libertarianism, is what is important is THE TRUTH.

Did our actions in some ways enable Hitler, from the rejection of Wilson’s points to British guarantees for Poland?

There is this tendency both ways.  Someone who would be under Mexican rule today says he prefers the Articles of Confederation.  Rothbard suggests the revolutionary war could have been fought by a resistance only (with the same result).  That the Union and Confederacy would eventually reunite.  This is usually wrong as it projects things linearly, and assumes everything else would have happened the same way except for the one event.

This is the converse of Pat’s book which is a diagnosis.  A trace back through events to find the series of causes.  And at any point something could have changed.  By the time Europe recanted the Versailles spell, the demon had already been summoned.  They assumed recanting their past evil would fix the present.  It didn’t.  We must not summon it in the first place.

History and the present is the sum of every tiny event - butterfly effect like - which has preceded the particular moment.  There are Hitlers in the USA.  Many want one to gain power as long as they fight islamo-fascists or provide “free” health care.

Buchanan’s book is a condemnation of those in DC who would repeat history.  Both by shredding the constitution and the Magna Charta so Herr Chancellor could get on with fixing things, and by ignoring the “blowback” and the ordinary problems like expense from the ends of our empire.  If we didn’t have a military diaspora, wouldn’t fuel be less expensive?

Marcus’s analysis, though perhaps not formally incorrect, is nevertheless too nuanced and depends on too much hair-splitting for the real world to take notice.  Pat’s books is an act of monumental political folly, whatever its merit (the fact that his thesis is absurd makes matters worse).  I have already had on-the-fence friends and colleagues, academics, tell me that the origins of opposition to Iraq are the America First, Hitler-apologists of yore.  Pat’s book makes it much harder to make a conservative case against the neo-cons, for it goes a long way toward vindicating their biggest libel, namely, that there was an analogy between Hussein and Hitler.  It radicalizes the anti-war position and adds another layer to an already overly complicated position that is neither mainstream GOP nor leftists.  This book is Wlm. Kristol’s dream come true.  How can anyone not see that - again, politically, in the real world?

For those who want a window into the America First circle of the 1930’s, see Louis Auschincloss, hardly a Jacobin, “America First” published in Skinny Island.

Ditto Joe. I consider what I repeat to be the
‘repeatables’. We are conceptual creatures & as such
we pause at the conceptual level especially prior to
important activity. At that pause or conceptual level,
we are filled-in mostly by our culture via our upbringing
& society.

So politics is of course also personal. My upbringing
(& society, if only nominally today in that society) values
for example in journalism and so in the ongoing social
narrative as well, both truth (not verisimilitude) and
freedom of speech (not sly censorhsip.) HOWEVER other
people’s upbringing and culture in the same society,
values the narrative and/or ‘their narrative’ as being
sacred & thus above and peremptory of truth, & the
freedom-that-occurs in life within freedom’s obviously
rather narrow parameters of possibility. Not that we need
to elevate truth or freedom as values, they rather are
natural (perhaps *also super-natural depending on your faith)
givens or realities.

What to do when a culture in one society, and so their
instructions or guidance at the conceptual level closer
than conscious thought per se and their narrative. Differs
profoundly from the surrounding or larger culture &
society which places the natural realities of both truth &
freedom higher than the other culture’s sacred narrative which
values themselves as first and foremost!

If that minority culture is also culturally driven to control
the exoteric narrative etc. in that larger society via the
media in behalf of supporting its own differing and esoteric
cultural narrative and its own paradigm i.e. themselves. What
is the larger society to do without seeming to abuse or insult
those who are in fact covertly with their machinations profoundly
hurting (i.e. ATTACKING in their own way) the larger society?

If you’re being covertly eaten alive slowly is one allowed to
protest even if ‘offends’ the dining culture?

Sure we need this important question and questions like it
posed by a sexy spoke person, but who? And will be they be eaten?

Marcus:

Your dead on. The only reason I am a traditional conservative today is because of Pat Buchanan.

As a kid, I greatly admired Pat. I was raised in an evangelical home. My family was drawn to his hard-line on the culture war. But I also respected his “America First” economic policy, as well his stance on non-interventionism.

Unfortunately, throughout my college years I flirted with neoconservatism. I suppose I was steered down that path by my knee jerk reaction to 9/11, along with the influence of Fox News and the Sean Hannity types, as well as the instruction I received from a neocon history professor. In those days, I thought Pat had lost his way somewhere. Little did I know, I had lost mine.

It was only after college that I pursued the qualms I harbored for Bush, the Republicans, and the War in Iraq. I could no longer rationalize away my disappointments with the establishment and the lies they had fed me. I resolved to find answers, but I did not know who to turn to. I looked to the most conservative person I could think of at the time: Pat Buchanan. I read everyone of his articles on neo-conservatism. Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” opened up my eyes. The lights turned on. I was home again.

Shorty thereafter, I subscribed to The American Conservative. Currently, I am in law school and hope to practice constitutional law and advance the cause of paleoconservatism (I think it’s still alive, despite Paul Gottfried’s thesis to the contrary—because neither he or I are dead yet!). And I have Pat Buchanan to thank in large part for my political journey.

After this incident with Scott McConnell, however, I contemplating whether or not I should renew my subscription to the magazine. My subscription is now upwards of four years old. It will be a hard decision for me.

God Bless.

Buchanan says that WW2 cost Britain her Empire.  He’s probably right.  Lukacs says this was no reason for Britain not to go to war.  I think he’s right too.

As a British subscriber to AmCon, living in London, I probably have a different perspective from most of you.  Buchanan tends to be technically right on issues, yet miss the big picture.  For instance he condemned the Danish cartoons for insulting 1.5 billion Muslims, a dangerous and foolish thing to do, and condemned the US govt for not condemning the cartoons harshly enough.  OK, it’s arguably in the US’s interest to side with Islam against Denmark.  But he seems to have no appreciation of the importance of free speech to our civilisation, or of the natural ties of affection between Denmark, the USA and the rest of the West - what Huntington calls ‘civilisational rallying’.  Likewise his view that Britain was wrong to fight Nazi Germany - from the point of view of British self interest that’s correct, but it completely misses the larger issues at stake.

In any case, I don’t subscribe to AmCon for a single monolithic party-line point of view.  If I wanted that I wouldn’t have dropped my sub to The Economist.

I will say though that Lukacs’ comparing Buchanan to Irving was a low blow, and unsubstantiated.  Irving is an admirer of Hitler; Buchanan doesn’t admire Hitler any more than he admires Islam.  He just doesn’t think Britain should have fought Hitler then, and he doesn’t think America should oppose Islam now.

Mr. Newman:

It depends on what you mean by opposing Islam.  In my view, the greatest danger Islam presents is through mass immigration, and Buchanan has long opposed mass immigration.  In fact, Buchanan wrote a book on the dangers posed by non-Western immigration to the Western world, particularly Europe, “Death of the West.” If you haven’t already read it, you will want to.

Thanks Tom - yes I have read “Death of the West”, and thought it was excellent.  In fact the good bits of Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” seemed to be taken directly from DotW.

I agree that in practical terms, preservation of western civilisation requires restricting non-western immigration, as advocated by Buchanan, and Buchananite policies would generally have the practical effect of preventing Islamisation of the West.  This contrasts with ostensibly anti-Islamist Neocon policies which have had the practical effect of greatly accelerating Islamisation.

Condemning those Danish cartoonists still stuck in my craw, though.  Europe is in a really bad way now, and we need all the support we can get.

BTW in British parlance I’m Dr Newman, since I have a PhD.  >:)

Many of the ‘controversial’ claims in Buchanan’s book are not as controversial as some may think. It’s widely accepted, for instance, that Britain’s support for sanctions against Italy (for invading Ethiopia) helped push Mussolini into Hitler’s arms. It was felt, however, that this was a necessary price to pay. The fascist bloc had to be stopped—in Ethiopia, in Manchuria, and in Spain.

Yet there was no fascist bloc when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Italy was on better terms with Britain than with Germany, as was Japan. Conversely, Germany had closer relations with Nationalist China than with Japan. As for fascist Spain, it was never a true ally of Germany, to Hitler’s consternation.

By acting the way we did, we created the ‘fascist bloc’ that had hitherto existed only in leftist propaganda.

I agree that Pat hasn’t discredited anti-war conservatism (although WWII being an unnecessary war is going to be a hard sell and shouldn’t be the centerpiece of the modern conservative anti-war movement).

But I seriously doubt that ONE piece is going to cause many people to end their subscription to TAC.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been LESS than a dozen cancellations over it, despite what some people are saying.

In fact, I have been meaning to subscribe to it for some time and now feel compelled to do so as a protest against all this TAC bashing.

It was one review, and Takimag harping on it incessantly may well hurt American Conservative, a magazine that you rightly claim is still very much associated with Pat. That would be a bad thing. TAC is the best paleo magazine out there and deserves continued support.

I agree with Pat, not McConnel on World War II, but I would think that even Pat doesn’t see this as an act of heresy that makes TAC fit for the scrap bin.

Daniel

PS- I also disagree that Pat Buchanan is more relevant than Ron Paul because Paul is associated with libertarianism.

Dr. Newman,

The best strategy for combatting Islam is to prevent Moslem immigration to the West, and to minimize Western intervention in the Moslem world, which is both ineffective and serves to radicalize more Moslems, including those already in the West.  Of course, the neocons advocate the opposite, and the neocon strategy has served to weaken the West.

Canadian is right.  “Fascism” was not a monolithic threat until the anti-fascist League of Nations liberals turned it into one.  Churchill understood this, and it is too bad he wasn’t in power during the time he could have saved the Stresa Front.  That was one instance where he was right but wasn’t in a position to do anything about it.

The sainted Lukacs himself said,in several of his books, that Hitler later dismissed much of what he wrote in Mein Kampf. Many of PJB’s critics seem to be wedded to the idea that AH was a uniquely Satanic figure compared to,say, Stalin(or indeed any other historical figure) and use Mein kampf to justify this opinion. In doing so they they fail to give due recognition to his later cooperation with Zionists and his well-recognized willingness to come to an agreement with Poland over Danzig-an effort that was obviously undermined by the British open-ended guarantee.

You don’t have to be an apologist for AH to think that a way might have been found for the vile, unspeakable carnage and civilizational destruction of the Second World War to have been significantly ameliorated, if not entirely avoided.

You wonder what will happen to TAC as more and more of Pat’s friends discontinue patronage? It was right around the time of Buckley’s villainous libel of Pat that NR became a whited sepulchre, utterly boring to boot. Now Scott, a socially inept B+ mind, has done the same. Except that in this instance, TAC has had the look and feel of The Nation, manque, for quite some time time without any of the literary aspirations. What will happen is that the doors of TAC will soon close on the treasonous clerks. I give it 2 to 3 years at most.

The neo-cons’ war has been, is and looks like it will
always be, since that is their culture, to attack &
weaken the West under any guise or rouse possible.

In my opinion their culture is and has always been
inevitably, even understandably the numero Uno anti-Christ or
anti-Christian ideology and the mother of all
internationalisms with them of course in their narrative,
riding herd over the nations. Perhaps Islam is a close
if clumsy second enemy by comparison. These are just the facts
but facts too make up the truth in its fullness.

Sure something can be true in a Faulknerian sense, a
truth of the heart, in some derivative of truth. But
something is fully true in this regard if it is both
true & actual.

Anything at all the neo-cons want (put on a blindfold) &
simply reverse it and that is what would be good for
Christians and for culture of the West and its residents.

I might have gotten here eventually without Pat, but I got here much quicker because of him. I expect most self-identified paleos are similar.

Other than the below-the-belt shot of comparing Pat to Irving, I don’t understand why people have such a problem with this review. I subscribe to Pat’s view, and to the TAC, but I don’t see why countervailing opinions can’t be expressed in the TAC on such a controversial issue. WWII is considered this country’s high water mark by many, many people after all. It shouldn’t simply be assumed that all paleos or paleo-leaning persons agree with Pat’s view of things. We aren’t just some closed circle here.

And not only that, but we should be able to engage those with whom we disagree. Debate is the activity of a healthy mind. I would think that most of us have left Objectivism behind and can disagree with our brothers sometimes without excommunicating them out of our lives.

And this applies especially to those of you who claim you’re canceling your subscription over this. The positive value of TAC is surely greater than the negative of this review. Sheesh…

Tom Piatak:
“The best strategy for combatting Islam is to prevent Moslem immigration to the West, and to minimize Western intervention in the Moslem world, which is both ineffective and serves to radicalize more Moslems, including those already in the West.  Of course, the neocons advocate the opposite, and the neocon strategy has served to weaken the West. “

Yes, I agree entirely with all three points.

The only way to beat the neocons in the ideological war is to challenge them and their sacred cows head on. 

We have the neocon crowd going on a cruise, openly calling for Nazi like policies to be instated in Europe against muslims:

Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America’s swashbuckling neocons

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ship-of-fools-johann-hari-sets-sail-with-americas-swashbuckling-neocons-457074.html

They’re attacking liberalism’s sacred cow, and the muslims’ only protection, head on.  That’s how they do it: that’s how they rule America (witness Obama’s groveling at AIPAC’s feet last week). 

They make a controversial stance, and then defend it viciously, and gradually the status quo for what is politically acceptable changes: the red line is pushed back.

That is what Buchanan has done against the neocons, and is continuing to do, and for that he should be applauded.

Marcus is right, and McConnell is wrong.

The message of Pat’s book is that WWII was a continuation of WWI. And WWI was a war to preserve
and extend the British Empire. And that the current so-called “war against terrorism"---which
compares itself to the WWII “War against Facism”, is repeating the mistakes of WWI/WWII, and will
not only bleed America, but create even worse conflicts later on.

Pat even calls WWI-WWII, the “thirty years war"…

It is like McConnell attacks the book, and he didn’t even read it.

I’ve always suspected that McConnell is a McGovern Liberal, that’s what I always thought. His defense of his decision to publish this silly and misleading review by L sort of proves it.

Buchanan’s book certainly hurts McConnell in his cosmo circles. There’s no doubt about that.

There’s a cosmopolitan/provincial divide that runs through all political ideologies.
Certainly the writers and editors of magazine like Chronicles are unabashed “provos” but because
they exist in “fly-over country”, they tend to be ignored on the coasts (unless the cosmos wish
to bash TRI). The same divide is there in libertarian circles as Justin Raimondo’s latest article
on Takimag points out. The Cato Institute is based in D.C., its rivals the Randolph Bourne and
Von Mieses institutes are not.

We see this divide even in paleo circles as well. Like it or not, Scott and Pat are connected to
the in-crowd in New York, D.C, Boston, LA, etc. Pat’s brave enough to take on the powers that be
when it comes to War in Iraq and his interpretation of World War II. The problem is, he’s also
taken positions on issues related to the war like Gitmo or warrentless surveliance that are
baffling in the sense that what we have here is an expansion of government power due to the war.
Yet going back to Pat’s days with the Nixon Administration, he’s never had a problem with this.
I think it’s due in large part to his authoritarian sensibilities but also because, being from
Washington D.C., he’s not going to take an anti-government view that someone in, say, Boise, Idaho, might.

Likewise, Scott McConnell is man of New York and he wants the views of TAC to have credibility
with New York intellecutals along with the D.C. power brokers. Otherwise TAC would be no different than say,
The New American. There’s nothing wrong with The New American. The powers that be just don’t
read it because it’s seen as a publication of the John Birch Society and the JBS is tainted by
its past radicalism even though today much of what is said by the JBS is also said
by Ron Paul.

This is the tension that will always exist, between the provos and their more populist views
(which don’t have a problem with Pat poking holes in the haiography of The Good War) and the
cosmos who fear such views make them unreadable and irrelevent on the island. Like it or not,
with Scott in charge and being who he is (golf lover or not), this is the direction TAC is
going. Now you can cancel your subscription (and if you do I recommend you put your money where
your mouth is and at least subscribe to Chronicles or the New American instead) and TAC may very well
go under. But ask yourself what have you accomplished in so doing. Pat started this magazine so
that his traditional conservatism had an outlet in cosmo world that had become dominated by
neocons, even publications like Human Events for example which was started in 1944 by veterans
of the American First movement. TAC was going to be the one publication that wasn’t going to
tow the party line which by that measure alone made it interesting. If you kill it, then the
views which we share will have no outlet in the place where the powers that be exist.

Now you can sit there and like the peasants of old and demand we storm the landlord’s castle,
but elites you will always have. Even Sam Francis admitted this. The answer is what kind of elite
do you want. After all, our own Taki is as much part of the elite as anyone. He’s in with the
jet set, otherwise they wouldn’t invite him to their parties. And yet John Zmirak doen’t complain
about Taki’s yacht, just Scott McConnell’s golf game. We may not like the review TAC gave of
Pat’s book, and I will agree that I would have never allowed any line that compared Buchanan
to David Irving, intended or not. But on the overall whole, I have found TAC a worthy read and
an important read on the balance of all the articles published and the authors that it employs.
Have we not forgotten that Scott was kicked out of the neocon New York Post because he refused
to be mau-maued by the PR tribalists in New York?

Like it or not we are a diverse crowd and we will not always agree on the issues or the history
or the zeitgesit. I myself think Pat makes some important points about the history of
World War II, but you can’t tell someone who lost a comrade during the war or saw their home
destroyed during the London Blitz their sacrifices were in vain. That they died in a useless
war. So what are we to do then? Dismantle all the monuments? Etch out the names of the dead on
all the memorials? Plow up the cemetary on Normandy Beach and turn it over to developers
because it was pointless? People still remember Ronald Reagan’s speech at Normandy during the 40th anniversary of D-Day. What do you think the reactions would have been if Reagan spoke about how this should have
never have happen because the British stupidly gave a security guarantee to the Polish they
should never have gave? Maybe so, but that would have been quite irrelevent to the
“boys at Point du Hoc” and would not have gone over well. Pat makes an old Irish and
German-Catholic argument about how the world forgot the evils of Stalinism and he’s right.
But the German revanchism that Hitler and the Nazis were promoting was just as dangerous a
doctrine. If you believe, as Hitler and the Nazis did, that all Germans should live as one,
then what’s to stop some Mexican leader from saying the same thing hmm? In fact some do believe
this and Mexican governments, through its meddlesome consulates in the U.S. have acted like
this in immigration cases and voter ID issues. And how is the belief that certain races can be
purified and uplifted by extermination and enslavement of other races? Then would also have to
justify the equally odious tribal barbarity we often find in Africa, the Armenian genocide and
Indonesia’s treatment of East Timor.

Now that being said, I find Pat Buchanan to be stalwart fighter for America First because he
truly believes that all policy from governmental, to economic, to social and military, should
benefit those citizens on our own soil who pay the taxes and die in the wars. His example has
inspired millions and millions have been inspired by his words and writings. But that doesn’t
mean he’s infallible. None of us are. We critque and express our opinions and debate.
But to demonize and character assassinate (especially John Luckas) on top of that leads us down
a dark path of ideological conformity we must avoid. Otherwise we’re no different than those we
are in opposition to.

The problem with TAC is its boring and not conservative enough. I’d have canceled my subscription over TAC’s assault on Buchanan but I’ve already did so.

Conservatives don’t have to agree on everything. Just stop trying to suck up to the Liberal MSM by calling fellow conservatives Nazi, racists,anti-semites

Sean,

I agree that anyone who reads Takimag should subscribe to Chronicles, which is a wonderful magazine.

As for the Lukacs review, it would not have attracted notice if it had been published in National Review, the New Republic, or the Weekly Standard.  Those magazines have a long history of attacking Buchanan.  The reason it has attracted notice is because it was published in a magazine that Buchanan helped to found. 

And I think that Lukacs’ slyly comparing Buchanan to David Irving, and openly questioning his honesty, is inexcusable.  There is no question but that Lukacs has antagonized many traditionalist conservatives with that review.

I realize that comparing Buchanan
to David Irving is meant to be a terrible insult however if you actually were to read David Irving, especially his “Hitler’s War” and “Churchill’s War” you would find him to be a top-notch historian of WWII and so to be compared to him as an historian would actually be high praise.

You might distinguish between what’s merely a minimalist “anti-war right,” that’s to say
people who thought the Iraq War and ventures like it are ill-conceived, mistaken, or wrong,
and a more maximalist paleoconservative or paleolibertarian “anti-war” right whose opposition
to the present state of the country and its role in the world goes far beyond that.

Pat’s book isn’t going to hurt the first group.  Why should it? Buchanan’s not the only antiwar
conservative. And it’s not like intelligent people can’t separate out his views on one or two
historical events from discussion of current issues.  It won’t hurt the second group either,
but that’s because the maximalists don’t have much of a following and aren’t likely to get one,
unless things get really bad. 

I read the “American Conservative” not because some of its writers also work for Fleming or
Rockwell, but in spite of that.  I suspect at least some of the readers of Takimag feel the
same way about your site.  It’s refreshing not to have a party line that everyone’s expected
to follow, and not to be hammered on the head with the same view over and over again.

When I read John Lukacs’ review, I formed an impression that he has lost it, and is now only “settling” scores rather than conducting scholership or serious writing. Consider the two last sentences of his review:

“But there is a fatal contradiction in Buchanan’s thesis: Hitler’s regime - including, one may think its expansion - was evil, but warring against him was unnecessary and wrong. Either thesis may be argued, but not both.”

But both thesis can be argued because they do not contradict each other. There are a lot of rulers and regimes who are evil; but that doesn’t mean that it is necessary to war on them. If so, we would have 20 wars going on AT ALL TIMES. Better to let the evil rulers, even expansionary ones bleed themselves to death against someone else, like, er, Stalin and the Soviet Union. That was PJB’s point, but poor Lukacs might be going senile so he missed it.

Leave it to Sean Scallon to write by far the most interesting analysis of the Buchanan/Lukacs/McConnell controversy I have seen yet.  Bravo!

“Are we now supposed to embrace the idea the real Hitler was not a great problem either?”

No, you’re supposed to embrace the idea that blundering, incompetent elites and graspers spoiling for huge chunks of Europe made irresponsible, treacherous decisions that resulted in massive human carnage, just as blundering, incompetent elites and graspers spoiling for huge chunks of the Middle East made irresponsible, treacherous decisions that resulted in massive human carnage in the ongoing Iraq war and “war on terror.”

Establishing just such a consciousness will make anti-war conservatives more relevant than ever.

McConnell is spending too much time estranged from Buchanan and Taki, sipping kosher wine and chatting golf and Israel at Unz’s cocktail parties to know what is best for Christians and anti-war conservatives these days. He should issue a mea-culpa and be done with it; instead he’s burrowing ever deeper into the realm of Neocon double-dealing and triple-talk.

PS: The internet is increasingly making the opinions of the intelligentsia in Washington, Boston, NY et al irrelevant. 

It is exposing them as the pseudo-intellectual, fraudulent patriot, internationalist globalization peddlers and money-grubbers that they really are.

The internet, and wave of the future, screams populism. The “elites” who have led America and Western civilization into a suicidal cul-de-sac, are soon going to be ushered into irrelevance. And almost no one will shed a tear when they’re gone.

Chris Moore. Please tell me about these Unz cocktail parties. I have been working at The American Conservative for a long time now and have never heard about them. Where are they? How do I get in?

I guess my boss, despite a tough golf schedule to keep, manages to fly to California for them. Do you suppose he does this weekly or bi-weekly? I’m asking an expert.

“You might distinguish between what’s merely a minimalist “anti-war right,” that’s to say
people who thought the Iraq War and ventures like it are ill-conceived, mistaken, or wrong,
and a more maximalist paleoconservative or paleolibertarian “anti-war” right whose opposition
to the present state of the country and its role in the world goes far beyond that.”

Great observation AL. I have wondered myself if this might not be a battle between factions such as you outline above that is behind some of this rancor. From the start, there has seemed to be something below the surface, something unsaid, going on here. To me, TAC seems to have become more respectable “realist” right on foreign policy, not committed non-interventionist. More Hagel than Paul. WWII is a bit of a surrogate for this distinction.

Thank you Mr. Hales for your comments. I too, agree with Red that were more subtle
splits on foreign policy along a Hagel/Paul divide.

I second Hales. Scallon nailed it.

Jack

“Chris Moore. Please tell me about these Unz cocktail parties...I’m asking an expert.”

I was speaking metaphorically. A child should have been be able to comprehend that. I know McConnell and Unz sign your checks, but don’t be so obviously servile and naive. It’s unbecoming of someone who fancies himself a journalist.

There is one seminal figure of the American Right - Patrick J. Buchanan!.... the bill kristols, michael medveds, david frums of the world can’t garner enough spit to shine his boots!....

Unfortunately, the vast majority of U.S. males who are combat veterans define their masculinity with their service records, and their non-combat veteran sons define theirs vicariously through their dads’.  Admitting to themselves that any war in which they or dad fought was unnecessary or based on lies is tantamount to shaving off their pubic hair.  ‘t ain’t gonna happen.  The denial is even worse with those who were maimed.

TAC definitely needs to be sexed up.  As today is the 55th anniversary of the frying of the Rosenbergs, I suggest that the next issue of TAC proclaim this happy event with a banner headline.  It’s time for the magazine to fight back against the real enemies of Christendom, and it isn’t the Muslims; after all, Hollywood isn’t located in Tehran or Baghdad.  TAC should remind its readers that the same people who enabled the Bolshevik Revolution and gave our precious atom bomb secrets to communist Russia also enabled the fascist neocons. It’s time for TAC to get scrappy, as Mr. Buchanan has reminded us he was in his youth.  If innocents are hurt, well, they’re just collateral damage.  Right, Ms. Albright?

Happy 55th aniversary: It’s time to fry a few more traitors who put another country first.