was Buckley wrong?

yes.

How many here have actually read David Irving’s “Chuchill’s War”, “Hilter’s War”, “The Trail of the Grey Fox (Rommel Biography)” or “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich”?  I read the first three before the notorious Holocaust-denial libel trial (which Irving lost) and I read the Goebbels biography after. I found these histories to be of outstanding scholarship, because of Irving’s extensive reliance on actual documents. As to the numbers of people rounded up and killed by the Nazis, Irving said that had not been the subject of his work and he had not studied it.

Irving has been demonized, precisely because of his impeccable scholarship, as an example to those who might even dream of challenging the official WWII story.

Unsurprisingly, Kirchick’s piece is both vicious and stupid.

The funniest part is when he attacks Buchanan because his father “was a fan” of Franco. You know, the Franco Buckley called “an authentic national hero”.  Someone should explain to Jamie why conservatives weren’t “fans” of the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War.

If only Kirchick would have written a review. This is nothing, it’s like a gossip column. (The word column is inflated here.)

“his father was a fan of General Franco and Joseph McCarthy who told his sons they should be proud to be the descendants of Mississippi Confederates.”

Oh the scandal! Pat’s Dad like McCarthy as did almost all conservatives of the era? Outrageous! He said they should be proud of their ancestors. The nerve of him. (As opposed to what, flagellating yourself for your ancestors or pissing on their grave?)

Kirchick is a circus clown. He isn’t even a good smear artist.

FYI: Kirchik has now become an esteemed commentator for the rabidly neocon New York
Post. This is a telling example of how little wiggle room exists between K’s
version of the Jewish victimological Left and the neocon zombie community. Yet I
doubt TNR or the Weekly Standard will rethink its hostile relation to the inadequately
pro-Zionist American Conservative. One invective against Pat does not an ally make.

I recently came across the term “political Islam” and googled it to see how many results would come back: 597,000.

After reading this post and the first two comments, I googled the term “political Judaism”: 1,160 results.

I would consider Pat Buchanan an anti-Semite if one includes political Judaism as part and parcel of Judaism (and would put myself in the same category). On the other hand, if one distinguishes individual Jews from political Judaism and defines anti-Semitism as racism against those of Jewish blood, Buchanan (and myself) are most definitely NOT anti-Semitic.

No wonder the Neocons and Neolibs have studiously attempted (largely successfully) to conflate political Judaism with religious and ethnic Judaism: it allows them to categorize those opposed to a large component of their agenda as “anti-Semites.”

What is political Islam? The imposition of Sharia, for example.

What is “political Judaism”? It is the Jewish equivelent of “political Islam” and would include such concepts as the imposition of Zionism towards a goal of Noahidism. 

What is “political Christianity”? Western civilization.

Well, TAC accomplished their mission, to suck up to the Liberal MSM.

Buckley did the same ting in 1992, he stabbed Pat in the back to keep his NYT buddies happy.

Mr. Moore,

Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish state in Israel.
It is established. Get over it.

Christians are Noahides, according to the Mimonidies and Rashi, the two last authoritative Rabbis to rule on the subject. That is to say that Christians follow the Laws of Noah. you can get into heaven too.

Any other delusions?

“Christians are Noahides, according to the Mimonidies and Rashi”

In other words, chattel, according to Rev. Ted Pike:

COMING JEWISH ‘UTOPIA’ RULED BY NOAHIDE LAWS
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/comingjewishutopia.html

All of this proves the obvious futility of anyone associated with the Right trying to win
friends and influence people on the left. Such infantile gestures should be left to NR and
the Weekly Standard, publications which only the most obvious low-grade morons or
hirelings would mistake for products of the conservative or classical liberal mind.

Christians should not be offended when Jews make the gesture of calling us “Noahides"--that is, gentiles who are bound by the universal human law rather than Jewish revelation. Their only alternative (short of conversion) is to consider us “idolaters” (another term that some Jewish writers have historically used). What should one expect from followers of a religion which… excuse me… DISPUTES the central assertions of the Christian one? For many centuries, we called the Jews “deicides.” Now we are more tactful, and ask that God open their eyes to the Redemption which has already come to them.

Of course, some people draw political implications from the “Noachide” idea--namely, that we gentiles exist to serve the Chosen People. Again, that’s a logical inference to draw from an acceptance of the Old Testament but not the New. We shouldn’t blame Jews for holding it. In fact, we should respect their intellectual consistency.

(P.S. Notice how Christians who lose their faith almost NEVER convert to Judaism? Not a lot of convert Noachides out there....)

It IS a trifle rich to see practicing Christians, like Rev. Hagee, asserting Noachide doctrines--including the notion that Jesus was NOT the Messiah.

And he calls Catholics apostates....

Mr. Moore,

Posting something from Reverand Pike no more proves your case than quote Der Strumer.

Noahides are not chattel but gentiles who live up to the 7 laws of Noah, which are genuinely applicable to everyone.

On the other hand, Israelites as a people are bound by the 613 laws of the Torah. We are a nation of servants/slaves to God.

Had you come to Shavous services at an Orthodox Temple, you would have heard this today.

Mr. Zmirak,
Reverend Hagee’s theological assertions are just odd.