A Savage Attack On Pat Buchanan


 A Savage Attack On Pat Buchanan


R.E. Prindle


     Tablet Magazine continues its relentless assault against America and Americans under the guise of ‘social justice.’  In this case an attack on the Jewish bete noir, Pat Buchanan.  The attack incorparates a condemnation of the former German Army enlisted man, John Demjanjuk.  Johnny D., for short,  a nonagenarian, was seized a year ago and sent to Germany under double jeopardy.  He had previously been tried for the same crimes a couple decades ago in Israel and acquitted.  Illegal under United States law, for the present, but part of the vengeful Jewish law.

     Acquitted on a genocide charge as Ivan The Terrible at Sobibor he is now undergoing trial for gaving served in the Army at a different camp.  These are absurd proceedings and I have no sympathy with them.  Sufficient to say as an Army enlisted man, Johnny D. was not responsible for any of his actions and hence not guilty in any circumstances.  He had no choice but to follow orders.  Therefore he was performing the will of others and not his own.  Had he been allowed to remain a civilian he would likely never have killed anyone let alone a single Jew.  Case closed.   He could not possible be guilty of anything he was required to do.  Period.

     Now, on the attempted character assassination of Pat Buchanan.  Someone called Mike Moynihan wrote this one.  Irish sounding so we are led to believe this is an indignant Irishman accusing his fellow Irisher.  Not a Jewish assassin at all.

     Moynihan, if there is a Moynihan, writes:

     While receiving significant coverage in the German media.  Demjanuk’s recent deportation hasn’t been widely debated in this country. (USA)  But when the news reached conservative columnist Pat Buchanan, he compared Demjanjuk, who admitted to  having had an SS tattoo uncer his arm removed after the war, to both Alfred Dreyfus and Jesus Christ,   Buchanan deploys an argument- and Google reveals its popularity elsewhere- that is at once reductionist and compelling:  What good comes from prosecuting a feeble old man previously exonerated of being a guard at Treblinka?  (Note that  according to MM Johnny D. was only tried only for having been assigned to an Army post and not for any crime.)  Contained within this question is an odd neutrality on the matter of Demjanjuk’s having served at a different death camp- and the impliation that there’s a statue of limtations on genocide.  Nor is it particularly relevant that, as is often argued, that at such an advanced age Demjanjuk is no “threat,”  and thus unlikely to foment a pogram in suburban Cleveland.  The prosecutors aren’t likely motivated by a desire to reform, but to punish.  those who insist aupon bringing Demjanjuk before a court, Buchanan argues, are motivated by the “satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago”  (It is perhaps the one instance in which Richard Nixon is a useful character witness.  In 1992, Nixon told his then assistant Monica Crowley that Buchanan was “so extreme” that he’s  “over there with the nuts.”)

     That paragraph contains several disconnects and non-sequiturs.  Apparently the Nazis were fond of tattoos as they not only tattooed Jews but apparently their own.  Moynihan says that Buchanan compared Johnny D. with Dreyfus and Jesus.  That’s not exactly true, Buchanan was identifying a Jewish trait of murdering those of whom they disapprove, in this case Jesus and Johnny D., albeit for different reasons.  MM throws in the irrelevancy that J. D. had an SS tattoo.  I should imagine that all SS people had the same tattoo just as all Jewish convicts were tattooed with numbers.  Buchanan is then quoted as noting the futility of convicting a nonagenarian which Moynihan twists to ‘an odd neutrality on the matter of J.D.’s having served at a different death camp.’  I presume that means a second camp.  Once again, Johnny was not responsible for his assignments as a soldier.  He went where others willed him to go.  He had no say in the matter.  If Moynihan is not a cover name for a Jewish editor, a la Wag The Dog, then obviously MM has never served his country or he would know what marching orders are.

     Then come the ‘Dirt on the shoe’ ad hominem Jewish writers find so attractive at the present.

     Quoting a President the Jews hounded out of office from sheer malice, Richard Nixon, Nixon is supposed to have said to his then assistant Monica Crowley (close to Lewinsky, and its Democratic connotations, isn’t it?) that Buchanan was “so extreme that he’s over there with the nuts.”  The coup de crace from the ad hominem argument:  This guy is crazy.   As MM’s quote is unfoot noted we are forced to take his word for it, or not.

     Now, it’s not like Buchanan hasn’t been around for a bit since Nixon left on  his jet plane, and established himself as an able social and political critic, commentator, polemicist and anlayst with a considerable following of intelligent people.  Notwithstanding Buchanan’s buzz saw vocal approach Buchanan is such an able thorn in the side of Jewish machinations that the concept of dynamic silence has been abandoned to make a direct attack.

     Tablet and Moynihan have elevated Buchanan to a red alert status.  There must be a reason.  Pat Buchanan deserves our support, and our vocal support, whether he’s a favorite or not.  You don’t try to silence the ineffective.  Hang in there Pat Buchanan.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s