Epic lols.

Now, please return to your pablum about political spectrums. I’m sure it’s interesting too…..well, someone.

Unfortunately, this left-right paradigm is so pervasive that you have to use those terms to explain its fallacies, and why it should be scrapped. If you’re going to attempt to be witty, at least be good at it. I see that you haven’t countered my point that the political spectrum is far broader than that paradigm would have you think, so it stands. The fact that you’re wrong about “ooh, watch out for those far righties” stands as well. You essentially put Bastiat, De Tocqueville and Locke in the same class as Goebbels with that statement, which is nonsense.

You preceded your tirade by copying a quote of mine, which had literally nothing to do with your following paragraphs which simultaneously define groups on the left-right spectrum, and criticizes other people who do the same thing.

The only connection with your comments and the Hindenburg is what kind of air is kept both of them afloat.

Speaking of the Hindenburg, that’s a completely fallacious argument. Those that buy into the entire “left vs right” paradigm aren’t analyzing things deeply enough. The Nazis – Fascist National Socialists – were still Collectivists, just like Communists, the Italian Fascists, Corporatists, Monarchists, today’s so called ‘Liberals’, and any other breed of statist philosophy. They still held the State as the highest power.

What American Conservatism is supposed to stand for is Individualism – the idea that each man and woman is an end to himself, sovereign, and not a serf or disposable by the state.

American Conservatism is supposed to stand for free market Capitalism, the idea that we are all free to exchange for mutual benefit, to the extent of our abilities.

American Conservatism is based on non-intervention, the idea that America should defend herself, and not be entangled in the affairs of the crumbling old empires of Europe and Asia.

To even think of lumping in the ideas that all men should be free – the ideas that gave birth to America – in with the Nazis, while the current reigning philosophy of so called ‘Centrism’ is far closer, exponentially, to what was going on in Germany in the 30s and 40s – is an affront to any kind of reason.

The Communists are super left, while Nazis are super right? Garbage. An insipid argument, based on a limited, one dimensional view of the political spectrum – which is in reality a continuum, not a line – which is boiled down to the lowest common denominator so that the news can spoon feed it out in five second sound bites. The entire left-right paradigm was created by Socialists. Abandon it. Things are far more complicated than that.

Not only is that degrading to Eastern Europeans, but misses the point that Hitler always had intended to conquer France. In “Mein Kampf” he wrote “France must be destroyed.”

As for Danzig:

1. It was Poland’s only outlet to the sea.

2. Wilson’s Fourteen Points did cover an independent Polish nation.

3. Giving Germany Danzig would have left Poland largely surrounded by hostile nations (i.e. Germany, Soviet Union, and pro-Nazi Hungary).

As bloody as it got, better Poland did take the British guarantee.

Obama should negotiate with the Middle Eastern terrorist. Let’s give them land for peace. Specifically, California. Liberals believe in land for peace, so they would not mind sharing their state with misunderstood terrorists.

California is warm. There is money there. Hollywood, one of the many things those guys with guns and bombs hate about us, is there. With all those cameras they could even make movies about how just their former cause was. What’s not to like?

Giving them California might make them forget about Israel and grant lasting peace there too.

And would giving up California be that much of a sacrifice for the rest of us?

Vote Obama/Buchanan!

I like the Old Testament Israel better. Some times negotiations have to be done at the end of the sword (or laser pistol). Just–here it comes–ask Padme.

What Pat refuses to acknowledge is you cannot negotiate with terrorist who want you dead period. I think this is the case with those various Middle Eastern variety terrorists.

Negotiate? As in give up land. JR’s point is fairly clear to me. Buchanan puts the responsibility of Hitler’s actions on Poland.

See, ya gotta be careful about these people who bash the Republican Party for not being conservative enough while they run for President, both for the Republican nomination and for third parties.

Over the last thirty years, I have read much of Pat Buchanan’s writings and I used to talk with him when he used to attend Republican functions around Virginia. Pat Buchanan has a very deep understanding of history and government. He is one of few analysts who regularly include objective examples from the Nazi regime under Hitler as part of his topics. His approach is always honest and objective and it is unfortunate that since he doesn’t start and end every piece that he does on the Middle East with a big sloppy wet kiss for Israel, he is so unfairly accused as being pro-Nazi, or the consummate sin in the eyes of the Left, anti-Israel. Neither is the case. Pat Buchanan, as always, just provides his usual cogent analysis, fairly comparing current events with his crystal clear view of history.

A legitimate criticism of his recent essay would be that using the Polish-German example distracted from, rather than reinforced, his position that diplomacy is sometimes a viable tool.

Pat Buchanan knows that by adding a reference to any facet of the Nazi era to his essays will add a spark of controversy and is always good for a boost in readership. He got you again!