When the “European American race” gets down to the numbers of the native Hawaiians, then we can talk about “preserving” it. Short of that, it’s nothing more than racialist panic-mongering.
The underlying idea that our culture is somehow endangered is what indicates racist assumptions.
Not only are these people usually on the left, they’re also usually a product of the fevered imagination of the right.
And here I thought it was character created by Lewis Carroll.
Just a note here that I hear few if any people who commemorate and discuss the Holocaust referring to it as “uniquely evil” - though it has few parallels for scope and intensity in a modern, supposedly cultured society.
What does happen is that certain people, for whatever reason, do not like hearing about the Holocaust and suggest that it be de-emphasized. The least bigoted argument for this is that Holocaust remembrance supposedly devalues the suffering of others. This has never made any sense to me (if you remember one aspect of history you’re necessarily ignoring the rest??).
Well but the post I cited did, and used that as (part of its) basis for why PJB is a bad guy – that he (allegedly) refused to use the same characterization. All I was pointing out was that using some particular phrasing or some particular characterization/condemnation of Nazi evil – once the evilness of Nazis is fully stipulated – should not necessarily be a litmus test of being allowed to be in polite company.
Actually, the vast majority of people in Hawaii are not full-blooded native Hawaiian. They’re trying to preserve the race. They wish they had started earlier.
I don’t think this is right. As you pointed out, he is most interested in preserving what he, and I, see as the U.S. culture. He is also a big believer in the melting pot, meaning people becoming part of the culture. I see A-As as part of that culture, with the exception of those who choose to identify themselves in an Afrocentric manner. I’d keep in mind also, that he chose a black woman as VP. So, I’ll choose to look at his actual words and actions, as opposed to what might be “between the lines”.
Oh, and “Meh”, yourself.
This is an interesting outcome of the strange paths that someone can end up wandering, and the unexpected bedfellows someone might logically if improbably wind up with, in a two party system with a lot of policy overlap.
Fulani as a socialist wasn’t really much more or less of an outlier than Buchanan seemingly came to feel himself in the Bush-era GOP. The neocons validated every cliche about Republicans being the party of war (and robbed the Republicans of the ability to lob back with well whose been in office when the last three or four major wars started?).
There’s really not much of a home in either party for champions of fiscal restraint, limits on cheap foreign imports, tacit acceptance of mass immigration, a different policy on Israel, or a cautious and non-interventionist foreign policy (understand, YMMV as to whether those are good or bad priorities). I’m not sure if the unifying theme of populism is ever going to be enough to forge an effective alliance between people from Fulani’s philosophical background and those from PJB’s, or if the other differences between populists of the left and right will be too severe to overcome.
Pat Buchanan’s black female VP was NOT Lenora Fulani. Believe me, I’d remember that!
Meet Ezola B. Foster.
My bad, sorry – but she did find enough common ground to endorse him.
Well the thing is that most people concerned about the decline of ‘Western Culture’ are really concerned about the fruits of European ethnicity (read the fate of white people).
Part of the leftist totalitarianism though tells us that ethnic tribalism as portrayed by some is perfectly understandable, but by others it’s not. It’s not ok to be proud of your Anglo-American heritage, but it’s perfectly understandable that Palestinians don’t want to change their culture to adapt to their new situation. It’s a double-standard.
I don’t think Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite. Every Paleo-Con I’ve ever interacted with online inevitably gets this (cry wolf) term applied to them simply for being concerned about how deep the ties to the lobby (AIPAC) of a foreign nation go within our government in both parties.
I have come to the point where 90% of accusations of anti-semitism get thrown around strike me as complete and utter bullshit, people trying to capitalize off of white guilt in order to achieve a rhetorical and political victory. In otherwords, “If you don’t shut up and stop disagreeing with me I’ll tell everyone you’re a Nazi.” It’s currency is played out and it’s freshness date is running out. Israel is a real country and we can judge it based on the standards of other nations without having to pay obeisance to one of the most horrible tragedies in all of history.
I agree with Buchanan that AIPAC has too much influence in Washington, and I don’t think that either of us thinks that it’s because they are Jews, but because they are a foreign nation and we shouldn’t be making our decisions based upon the interests of a foreign country.
Generally the accusation of anti-semitism is thrown at anyone who is skeptical of Jewish exceptionalism.
Anyone who cannot plainly see that Communism is even worse than Fascism is hardly worth listening to. Communism was an unworkable fantasy forced upon millions through violence and bloodshed. It hated free thought with the fire of a thousand suns because it could not accept anyone pointing out the obvious, that Communism doesn’t work because it isn’t pragmatic. Now National Socialism is AS BAD as Communism, not worse, not better, but the current fascist government of Russia is eminently preferrable to the Soviet Union.
Relevant thread from 2003: Does Patrick Buchanan get a bad rap?
Jews = Negroes? Who knew?
This is sooooo typical of the SDMB. You can’t talk about anti-Semitism without someone dragging Israel into the discussion.
Its kinda like how is hard to discuss smug self-absorption and snotty pretension and never once mention France.
Or trying to digest an elucidator post without thinking of this.
I think you pulled sentences out of context. People in this country are tried in the press regularly and presumed guilty by the press without a frequent reminder that they are presumed innocent. Gov. Rod Blagojevich is the latest example. He may one day be found guilty, but until then he is presumed innocent. I am unfamiliar with any cautions by any major press outlets that readers and/or listeners should presume innocence, much less giving it equal time. The Nancy Grace Hour of Shame on CNN is all about presuming guilt. There is no balance. You say this is nonsense, I disagree. There is a presumption of guilt in the press and in the public, the presumption of innocence is a legal technicality. The same was done with Lewis “Scooter” Libby (turned out guilty), OJ Simpson, Timothy McVeigh and every major criminal case in the news as long as I can remember. I can think of not a single instance in the news where someone charged with a crime had the presumption of innocence trumpeted with even a quarter of the fanfare of the lurid allegations. But you seem to be familiar with a number of them, that I presume not only where the innocence presumption gets some billing, but a majority of them. Please name three. If you cannot name three, please name two. Include a link to the MSM article where you think the presumption of innocence gets better billing than the accusations.
Asserting Demjanjuk’s innocence was the right thing unless he was a witness or prosecutor, regardless of how the Court eventually ruled. If I stated otherwise, I mis-typed. I regret being misunderstood. I think the same should apply to Eichmann before trial. If we aren’t going to do that, then we have abandoned the principle of burden of proof and presumption of innocence, and any official in a bad mood anywhere can take you down until you make friends with a more powerful official, which is hard to do if you are presumed guilty.
The second point, Buchanan saying what he thinks on prinicple, you do in fact Godwinize. Buchanan has never come out in favor of killing 6 million Jews, yet you equate him with Hitler. It’s an analogy that is just crap.
I contrast Buchanan saying what he really thinks with Peggy Noonan, a pundit who was caught on open microphone during the recent election saying that she thought Palin was a really bad choice, immediately before or after, having said the opposite as a press shill. When Buchanan is showing his true colors, he is showing all of them and the full extent. Few people do that when punditizing. They play acting parts. If I want acting, I’ll rent a movie.
You never hear someone in the mainstream media (MSM) representing views similar to Noam Chomsky. He is unwelcome on MSM and so is anyone with views similar. I don’t agree with all of them, but I like how Chomsky reasons to get to his opinions, and how he expresses them. Yet, performance art schtick like Ann Coulter, which demonstrates poor reasoning and poor manners gets booked everywhere every time she has a new book out.
I’m not going to revile people for their thinking, but rather for their actions, which I’ll extend to publishing as an act. The world is filled with fools who can’t think. I haven’t the energy to revile all of them.
:rolleyes: Find a better one.
The fact of the matter is that Western culture and “Anglo” and “American” culture are the most successful cultures (each a subset of the preceeding) in the history of the world by a large, large margin. They are not in any danger. Many Americans enjoy other cultures and their contributions too and spotlight them to the horror of Milton scholars everywhere, as though learning something about other people will diminish American/Anglo dominance and water it down. As though culture was like food, you can only eat so much and get so fat that you push out room for good old Anglo/American. That’s not the case. Diversity is a basic Enlightenment principle and bringing in diverse cultures really spreads the Enlightenment to those cultures by being included, and there is no limit to the number of cultures a single person can enjoy.
AIPAC has too much influence in Washington, and from my position on the left, I agree with this sentiment, but maybe not Buchanan’s reasons for it. The US should have a special relationship with Israel, but not an exclusive one. We have other interests in the middle east other than Israel. Israel does not have interests in the middle east other than its own. But this is a problem with lobbying in general. Lobbying in this country is not really about educating lawmakers and providing knowledge resources, it is about funding political campaigns. All lobbying has this problem and it isn’t going to go away until there are laws requiring campaigns to be funded by direct donations from human citizens and no other entities. I don’t see that happening in my lifetime.
I disagree about accusations of Anti-Semitism being thrown at everyone who disagrees about Jewish exceptionalism. That is both too broad and too cryptic at the same time. I think that careful criticism of Israel can be made without accusations of Anti-Semitism by a major outlet, but the topics are so intertwined that most people are not careful enough.
This is a perfect example because of the way it has been handled. The guy may well be found guilty after a fair trial, but his trial in the press has virtually the whole country thinking he is guilty already.
The prosecutor, whom I somewhat respect, spent months preparing his case, got some final last minute phone intercepts that looked damning and then presented it at a press conferences. Nobody on Blagojevich’s side was ready to respond by the end of the news cycle and only passing reference gets made his claims of innocence. We don’t know what the hundreds of hours of taps and documents will reveal or put in context, but you already think that this is a bad case to talk about presumptions. So Blagojevich says: “if I appoint your guy, what are your going to do for me?” That’s pretty damning. But, what if he meant “what are you going to do for my political agenda?” That, while crass, is perfectly innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to all. Even Tom Delay, whom I think may very well have been railroaded by prosecutor abusing his power. When is Delay’s day in Court? He was presumed guilty. I loathe Delay’s politics. I think he did great damage to this country. But I think a prosecutor abusing his power in charging him and having a media anxious to take Delay down is far more dangerous. Delay, being human and just one man, will one day be gone, like all men. But traditions and institutions of prosecutors abusing power and media not assuming innocence are far, far greater dangers. The part of me that is happy that Delay is not poisoning Washington with his politics and lobbying money is overwhelmed by the danger I see in the long wait between charging and trial. This may be caused by Delay (no pun in ten did), but it stinks and is horrible.
I disagree, both of these “isms” are capable of Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Mussolini or Franco. Those are the worst examples, and it isn’t hard for any of them to go from Tito to Stalin. Any time a set of principles is elevated over the real world needs of competent government answering to the people you get rigid people in charge who put purity over practicality.
Personally, I think the Nazi version of fascism is worse than run of the mill communism, and a lot worse, but any fascism can quickly turn into Naziism, and any communism can turn into Stalinism. And it can happen anywhere, even in the US. The best protection we have is that we and our neighbors vote and discuss these things heatedly during halftime.
Apart from the fact that I find communism’s ideals neither high nor noble, can you point to any case in which communism has successfully lived up to them?