Thursday, September 10, 2009

Notes on Patrick J. Buchanan's CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND THE UNNECESSARY WAR



Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World" is a necessary book countering certain popular myths surrounding World War I and II. We like good guy vs. bad guy narratives, and both wars--especially the second--have been sold as triumph of good over evil. Academics and Historians know more--and think differently--than the general public but haven't publicly challenged the general narrative for a good reason. Much of this has to do with the nature of the Second World War, where US, UK, and USSR were confronted with the radical right. Considering that most historians and academics are men of the left, any narrative favoring the left-liberal position over the forces of the radical right has been welcome. Had there been no WWII, WWI might have been remembered--especially in UK and US--as a gray war than a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Indeed, this narrative prevailed in much of UK and US during the inter-war period, especially with the socio-economic catastrophe in Germany--and beyond--as a result of the Versailles Treaty. And, some leftist and liberal critics, ever hostile to the prevailing capitalist order, refashioned WWI as having been instigated and carried out by capitalist interests. This kind of criticism was leveled during the war and during the inter-war period. But, WWII--where the radical right order challenged the survival of the liberal capitalist and radical leftist(and Jewish)order--encouraged a view--especially in school textbooks--where both wars were seen as evil acts of German aggression. Many of us got the impression in middle school that WWI was about Germans trying to conquer the world and failing, and WWII was Germans trying yet once again and failing again, once and for all time. Finally, the German pathology to rule the world had been defeated, fumigated, and buried so mankind could rest in peace. But, WWI and WWII were related only indirectly and not thematically. Yes, WWI led to Bolshevik revolution and communist threat, which led to the bourgeoisie and conservatives giving support to Italian Fascists and later National Socialists. Without WWI and no Communist triumph in Russia and threat to other nations, fascist forces would not have been able to take power as the crucial conservative/bourgeoisie/military support would have been lacking. Also, had it not been for the bitter peace of Versailles, Germany wouldn't have suffered as much; as such, there would have been no victory of National Socialists. Hitler often talked of vengeance for what had been done to Germany in WWI. And, consider the geo-political instability stemming from the creation of new nations following WWI. Also, the liberal guilt in UK and US in regard to Versailles made many politicians and the people ignore the dangers of National Socialism, which emboldened Hitler. And, so on.

But, even as the forces unleashed by WWI led to the forces that led to WWII, WWII was a different war altogether. If WWI seemed inevitable--with everyone helpless before unfolding events--due to various alliances and fervent nationalism among the masses, WWII was essentially the doing of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, it wasn't even the Nazis' war. Had Hitler died in 1938, there would have been no WWII. This isn't to say that there weren't warmongering radicals among the Nazis but merely to point out that only Hitler had the power/popularity to 'force' the nation to go to war. Only Hitler could unite all the disparate forces in government and military, many of whom were opposed to mounting war tensions. Also, only Hitler had both talents as leader, orator, and iron-willed demagogue. If Hitler has died in 1938 and been replaced by Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Streicher, Speer, Ribbentropp, or Rommel, WWII would not have happened. Only Hitler had the full package as orator, sorcerer, visionary, Nietzschean superman, lunatic, artist, radical, gambler, and man of iron balls. Just as Elvis Presley and Bruce Lee were inimitable despite the many imitators, Hitler was one of a kind. In the movie "Downfall", it's not hard to see why so many remained loyal to Hitler even to the end. For them, Hitler was Germany and Germany was Hitler. For many, Hitler seemed like the trinity of Germanness--father figure, adventurous son, and the spirit uniting the leaders and the led, past and future, triumph and tragedy. For many Germans who only knew work, discipline, and order, Hitler was a spellbinding figure, a man of boundless imagination and passions. Afraid and incapable of being passionate as free individuals in a modern society--especially with all the economic hardship--, Germans turned to Hitler to lead the way. In this sense, Hitler's appeal was far more religious than ideological. Relatively few Germans read "Mein Kampf", but they worshiped the man who seemed capable of saving Germany. The terrorist Aum cult in Japan--notorious for its subway attack--attracted people the same way. Many devotees were well-educated and intelligent, but they lacked imagination and a strong sense of individuality; they needed to attach to a powerful figure who provided them with a sense of mission, identity, and purpose in life.

Also, given the historical context, part of Hitler's appeal was that he was not the product of triumph, wealth, and privilege(like Churchill and FDR) but essentially the product of defeat, ruin, shame, humiliation, hunger, anger, and resentment. Just as there could have been no Moses without Egyptian enslavement of Jews and no Jesus without Roman domination of Jerusalem, there could have been no Hitler without the collapse of Germany military, economically, and politically. He was the avenging Messiah. This isn't to imply that Hitler was of the same caliber--spiritual or moral--as the Biblical prophets but simply to say that his jeremiad found an expanding audience amidst the ruin and hunger of Germany after WWI. As much as he hated Jews he was partly of the Biblical tradition, at least in style. His drive to the East had echoes of The Promised Land of Milk and Honey. And, it too would be bloody and genocidal.

Anyway, WWI happened because most of the leaders--who for all their pomp and posturing, lacked spine and will--lost control of world affairs. And, though it was the first great modern war, the themes and issues were much the same as in old wars--influence, domination, honor, glory, etc. The one major difference was the intensity of populist nationalist sentiments.
WWII was essentially different from WWI for the former was truly Hitler's War. It was his personal art project. It's been said that mixing religion and politics is dangerous. Mixing art and politics may be even more dangerous. Hitler thought people should be perfect like Greek statues and regarded 'Aryans' to be closest to the aesthetic ideal. He felt the world should look like a giant Greco-Roman city with perfect classical architecture--though fused with Germanic virility lest people become decadent like the ancients. He thought history should thunder through the ages like a never ending Wagner opera. Of course, he could be cautious, diplomatic, and statesmanlike on the outside. But, that was all playacting, and he often lost his cool when things didn't go his way. The more power he gained, the more restless and impatient he got. On the road to power, he understood he had to swallow much 'bullshit' of democratic politics and international diplomacy--he had to 'wait tables'. Once he felt he gained enough power to do as he wanted, he grew less cautious, more brazen, more arrogant and reckless--he became a political diva and resented the fact that he had had to wait so many tables to reach stardom; once, he felt sure of his power, he came to increasingly resent political compromise as going back to waiting tables . Jeremiah Wright is capable of being gentle and civil on the outside--as in Bill Moyers interview--, but that's not the Real him. It's playacting. And, Hitler too had playacted all along. Once he gained enough power, he began use more force to get things his way.
If British politicians made a mistake in dealing with Hitler, it was being taken in by Hitler's playacting charms--just as many restaurant goers think that waiters(who really aspire to become famous artists and actors)really enjoy serving people, when in fact, they personally feel humiliated by their servitude; is it any wonder that so many of our artists are virulently anti-capitalist? They love money and fame, but they have to struggle up the capitalist ladder to make it. Similarly, Hitler gained power through democracy and political compromise but didn't appreciate them, only seeing them as humiliating compromises he had to make when he'd been a nobody.
Anyway, the British politicians failed to understand that from Hitler's perspective, compromise was just using 'bullshit' to fight 'bullshit'. No amount of goodwill on the part of the Brits was appreciated by Hitler who saw compromise as either cynical bullshit or contemptible weakness. That was the nature of Hitler, and WWII was Hitler's war whereas WWI wasn't strictly Wilhelm's war. Wilhelm found it impossible to stop WWI. Hitler could have stopped it if he really wanted. But, as a sociopath incapable of empathy--not even for his own people, as he later blamed blindly loyal Germans for the defeat he brought upon them--, Hitler could only see the HIS side of things. In his view, ONLY Germany had been wronged in and after WWI, ONLY Germans suffered the indignity of having to live under other peoples, ONLY Germans were surrounded, ONLY Germans were hungry, etc. Even Hitler's love for Germans was a one-way street. They had to obey him, listen to him, agree with him, and die for him.

Because WWI has been bundled together with WWII by historians, Germans have gotten a bum rap--almost the sole blame--for the former. This has been part of the liberal narrative, as least for popular consumption. Now, Buchanan does the same, except he reverses the moral dynamic. Instead of using WWII to blame Germans for WWI, he uses WWI to exonerate Germans for WWII. Instead of saying German evil in WWII reflects on Germany of WWI, Buchanan says German haplessness(and crucifixion after) WWI reflects on Germany of WWII. So, Hitler, though 'odious' and 'evil', 'blundered' into WWII just like the Kaiser and mostly because of cowboy Winston Churchill; and so, Hitler was ONLY trying to right the wrongs of WWI. It's as though Hitler was just a wild bull--a force of nature--that should have been left alone but was driven crazy and caused havoc because Churchill chose to ride, rope, and brand it. This comes close to environmentalist rhetoric that wild animals attack humans ONLY when they are provoked. What about rabid animals?

Buchanan not only blames the UK--especially Churchill--for the fiasco of WWI and WWII but also for the decline and probable death of the West as consequences of the great wars. This isn't exactly a stab-in-the-back theory but at least qualifies as a shoot-in-the-butt theory. Crazy cowboy Churchill, intoxicated with his manhood, triggered a gunfight where Western Man got shot in the ass and is now dying of gangrene.
This theory is weakened by Buchanan's assertion that the two great powers to rise from the ashes of WWII were Russia and the United States. Isn't Russia part of Europe? Aren't Russians white? Communism was evil, but power of Russia still represented the power of Europe. The Red Chinese certainly saw things that way, accusing the USSR of being a turncoat white imperialist power as bad or even worse than all the capitalist white powers. Though Russia isn't part of Western Europe, it is part of European culture and civilization, and Buchanan's characterization of Russians as Oriental Despots is ludicrous. Yes, Russians didn't have a democratic tradition, but didn't Buchanan say in the "Day of Reckoning" that a nation is more than its political systems and ideology? Russia has always been a European and white power, even when it had been under Mongol rule--just as Greece was a European civilization even under the three centuries of Muslim Ottoman rule. Also, Buchanan's prejudice against Russians isn't much different than Western European nation's deep rooted past prejudice against Germans as The Huns. It's all a matter of perspective. To the French, Krauts were Hunnish Barbarians without ideals of liberty and freedom. To Germans, Poles were the lowly boors without values and refinement--and Buchanan relishes slighting and insulting Polish national traits(he even suggests Colonel Beck's lack of personal virtues reflects on the entire Polish people). And, of course, Poles have seen Russians as hopeless half-man beasts who wrestle with bears and bathe in vodka. And, how Buchanan sees Russians, most Western liberals see Buchanan--as a despotic barbarian. Anyway, the rise of Russia after WWII didn't mean the fall of Europe, but the rise of an evil European power; but, it was European power nevertheless--just as evil Nazi Germany was still part of European history and culture. Indeed, it's ironic that the successful democratic Western nations have lost more of their unique cultural-ness than communist nations. Today, much of Eastern Europe is still much like the Eastern Europe of old whereas much of the successful West has been taken over by non-white immigrants and has lost all sense of racial/national pride. A Russian living under Putin is likely to feel much more national/racial pride than a white American or Frenchman.
Now, let's consider America, whose rise in and following WWII contradicts Buchanan's thesis on the death of the West due to the Great Wars. Isn't America part of European(ized) civilization? Isn't it part of Western culture? If US grew rich and powerful following WWI and WWII--and did much to save and revive Western Europe--, how can we say the world wars led to the fall of the West? Buchanan says US grew powerful AT THE EXPENSE of UK, but the end result is still Western civilization dominant in world affairs. Had the tragedy of WWII led to the rise of China, India, or Africa as the dominant world power, Buchanan would have a point. But, it led to the rise of Russia--a European power--and the US--a Europeanized power. (The real problem is not the outcome of the war, but what happened to those nations in the decades after the war as decadence and rise of non-white populations got out of control.) If there's a tragic dimension to WWII's aftermath, it was the Cold War that pitted predominantly white US with predominantly white USSR over ideological differences. THAT, more than WWII, led to the weakening of the European(ized) civilizations. To be sure, the Cold War grew out of WWII, but it would have existed even without WWII. If WWII may have hurt the Soviet Union in the long run.
Stalin's brutal industrial policies before the war had worked--at great human cost--in creating a mighty communist state, and had it not been for the widespread destruction suffered in WWII, USSR might have been even more powerful and a graver threat to Western powers. Also, the fall of Eastern Europe to Stalin was, in the long run, helpful to the West. Russians came to realize that Warsaw Pact nations could be swallowed but not digested. There was widespread resentment and simmering rage among the native populations--especially as the Russian model had little to offer. Russian rule over Eastern Europe did more to discredit communism than anything else. Europeans in the West came to see what happens to white people under communism--and racial identification is crucial and effective. Soviet invasion of Prague in 1968 probably did more to turn off Europeans to communism than the mass murders of Mao; people generally don't like to see their own kind suffering under tyranny. Stalin meant to use Eastern Europe as buffer AGAINST the West, but in effect, Eastern Europe served as a buffer FOR the West and a poster-child AGAINST communism. Russians, with their hands full and losing sleep over Eastern Europe, had no desire to venture westward. And, anti-Russian sentiments still linger long after the end of the Cold War, with all the former Warsaw Pact nations and many former Soviet Republics begging NATO, EU, and the US for closer ties to stave off the Russian bear.

Also, did WWII really lead to fall of the West? The post-war era for Western Europe was its glory days of peace, democracy, record-breaking economic growth, cultural ferment, and moral regeneration. It's no exaggeration to say that just about everyone in the West never had it so good. WWII, as destructive as it was, finally led to a truly democratized Western Europe--which would come to include Portugal and Spain in time. And, the West learned valuable lessons, not least the Germans. In WWI, many Germans thought they lost because they'd been 'stabbed in the back by liberals. In WWII, Hitler and the militarists got to do EVERYTHING their way and then some. They brought total ruination to Germany. And, thanks to the lessons stemming from WWI and the total crushing of Germany, there was no second Versailles Treaty after WWII to punish Germany; the French had learned the lesson of sowing seeds of hatred. (It could be argued that there might have been no punitive Treaty of Versailles after WWI if Germany had been totally crushed and defeated in WWI--as they would be in WWII. The Allies may have felt pity than hunger for vengeance or fear of a revamped Germany. It was because Germany was not occupied in WWI and because the German industrial/military might was still intact that the Brits and French insisted on Germany being 'punished'. In a way, the Treaty of Versailles was less a punishment but a drastic means to keep Germany down n out in defeat. Because the German military had not been totally defeated, Brits and French felt a need to defeat Germany by other means--mainly economic. So, Germany might have been better off had it been totally crushed in WWI. Allies may have been more generous afterwards, and a new democratic Germany may have succeeded.) All Western Europeans decided to bury the hatchet--for good--and work and live together in peace and mutual understanding. Also, the rise of USSR drove all Western nations--US and Western Europe--closer together politically and economically. These were boom times of affluence, peace, and progress. Also, the loss of empires turned out to be a blessing, as most of them had been white elephants for the sake of national prestige than profitable enterprises. And, as imperialist powers, European nations got morally lectured by dark-skinned people who sought 'liberation'. But, once the non-European nations won independence, it was the time for Europeans to morally lecture dark-skinned peoples for their failings. Today, it's the white world that denounces the horrors in Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, Burma, Middle East, Tibet, and so on.

Of course, not all was good for the West in the post war era. And, there are SERIOUS and even fatal problems that the Euro-world order(all of Europe--from Russia to Portugal--, US, Canada, Australia, etc)face today. But, many of them cannot be said to be products of WWII. For example, the serious racial problems in the US is rooted in the fact of Anglo-whites having imported blacks to the US in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Indeed, the problem wasn't so much slavery but racial nature of slavery. Had white people used white slave labor in the US until 1865, the children of masters and slaves would have melded into one--just as the children of nobility, serfs, bourgeoisie, working class, etc--all melded into one Europe and in places like Japan and China. Indeed, even if blacks had arrived in the US as free men than as slaves, there would have been much the same problems; we only need to look at Europe after waves of African immigration to observe the similarities of racial problems. This is probably why so many racially anxious whites slobber all over Barack Obama as the prototypical and quintessentially harmonious melding of the white and black in American society and politics; they overlook the fact that Obama chose black nationalism and is only playacting to win over sucker whites. All honest people know there will be a white America and a black America for many years to come.

And, there is also the mass Mexican migration into the US. Now, what does this have to do with WWII? Nothing. Both are rooted in problems of American history, not WWI and WWII. Of course, we could argue that the racist and anti-semitic horrors of WWII made Western/white man morally defensive and apologetic and unable to stand up to tides of illegal non-white immigration, black rage and violence, and liberal/leftwing Jewish forces that have amassed tremendous power in the media and academia. Yes, there is SOME truth to this. But, how much? After all, the radical abolitionist movement that led to a series of crises in the 1850s and 1860s and culminated in the fratricidal Civil War had nothing to do with left-wing Jews, Marxism, black power, or Multi-Culturalism. The abolitionist movement--like much of secular leftist movements that came later--were rooted in Christian moralism. To be sure, prior to the 1960s Western progressive movements tended to be confident and proud of their cultural heritage and saw their proposals and causes as the culmination of Western ideals. Naive or not, misguided or not, most liberals of the 50s were proud to be Western folks or American folks. But, something fundamental happened when the very essence of Western Civilization was called into question and denounced in the 60s. Was this due to WWII and the Holocaust? Or, was it due to how WWII and the Holocaust came to be remembered and interpreted by the very people--leftwing Jews and Liberal Wasps--who gained the greatest power and influence in the most powerful and influential nation on Earth? Or, was it the legacy of imperialism which had connected Western nations close to non-white nations? Consider that former imperialist nations take in the most non-white immigrants from their former colonies--Algerians go to France, Jamaicans and Pakistanis go to UK or Canada. And, would US have an Hispanic illegal problem or a black problem had it not been for American imperialism that practiced bringing blacks to the US and grabbing land from the Mexicans?

Following are a series of arguments challenging Buchanan's thesis on what he calls the Second Thirty Years War(WWI and WWII) that brought down the West.

(1). Ironically, Buchanan sounds much like a leftist critic. His views on both WWI, WWII, and Iraq War come down to "Blame UK/US first". During the Cold War, the British left-wing Jewish historian Eric Hobsbawm argued that the Cold War was mostly the fault of Americans. He said Stalin didn't want to rule--at least not tyrannically--over Eastern Europe, and communism posed NO threat to Western Europe and especially to America. The Cold War happened--the wasteful spending on the military, proxy wars, bad blood, mutual distrust and hatred, etc--mainly because of US policy based on paranoia and capitalist-imperialist interests. According to Hobsbawm, Stalin wasn't an unreasonable man. He wanted peace and co-existence with the West. He could have overrun all of Europe but chose not to; he didn't give much support to communist parties in the West. He wanted peace and cooperation; but, 'paranoid', 'demagogic', and/or misguided American leaders--in order to maintain a New American Capitalist Empire--decided to use Red Scare to maintain the Cold War as long as possible. There is an echo of this in 'US vs THEM', a recent book by a liberal who puts most of the blame on the Cold War on 'paranoid' American mentality. If Hobsbawm blames America for the troubles with Soviet Union, Buchanan blames UK for the problems with Nazi Germany. Just as Hobsbawm and his ilk argue that Stalin was a reasonable man, Buchanan argues that Hitler was, essentially, a reasonable man. Hobsbawm grudginly agrees that Stalin killed millions, and Buchanan acknowledges that Hitler was a socio-pathic mass murderer. But, when it came to diplomatic matters and foreign affairs, both leaders were supposedly realistic, sensible, and certainly not unreasonable. (There's another book, "Stalin's Wars" by Geoffrey Roberts--presumably David Irving of the Left--that argues that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy after all, given the geopolitical neighborhood he operated in.) Also, we get the impression by certain writers that EVEN IF Stalin and Hitler had been totally evil and posed a threat to their immediate neighbors, they had posed NO threat to Western Europe(so says Hobsbawm) or to UK and US(says Buchanan).
Why do I feel that had Stalin had started the war first and was on the verge of swallowing all of Europe, 'isolationist' America First movement would have been filled with leftists calling for non-intervention while Germanophiles like Lindbergh would have called for immediate American entry into war?
Anyway, despite their 'objective' posturing, both Hobsbawm and Buchanan are arch partisans whose views of history are shaped either by ideological loyalty or national/racial identity. Hobsbawm has apologized for Stalin and communism because he's been a communist all his life and wouldn't have cared if Stalin did conquer all of Europe, and Buchanan apologizes for the Kaiser and Hitler because he's half-German and a white racialist(a racialism where Slavs need not apply--except as a bulwark against the Chinese) who wouldn't have lost much sleep even if Hitler overran all of continental Europe. This doesn't mean that Buchanan favors political fascism over democracy, but he favors white civilization over democracy where whites lose out--if he had to choose one or the other. He would like to have both democracy and white power(at least in Western nations), but if he had to choose between a long lasting powerful white civilization vs a democratic West that is gradually taken over by non-whites and the gay agenda, he would prefer the former. And, I do not condemn him for that. As he said in "Day of Reckoning", a nation is more than its political system. If you ask any Chinese, 'would you rather live under communist rule for another 50 yrs in a nation that is Chinese or would you rather have China become democratic but where half the people are non-Chinese?', most Chinese would prefer repressive China for Chinese than free China for non-Chinese. There is no scientific way to establish that one is necessarily 'better' than the other, but the fact is most people around the world are still think nationalistically. Only the West is 'suicidally' anti-, non-, or post-nationalist.

The problem with "Unnecessary War" is Buchanan pretends to present an objective set of historical lessons when, in fact, his thesis is Germano-philic. Another kind of bias--philosemitic--exists in the liberal and leftist view of World War II. The philosemitic bias often exaggerates the Nazi threat to the US, as though UK and US would have been next after Russia. In truth, as Buchanan says, Hitler initially had NO desire to fight UK. Hitler had a longterm fear of the US--a fear shared by most Europeans, even to this day--, but this was not a preparation for war with the US--let alone military conquest of America--, but to make sure that Europe was united and powerful enough to stand up to US in the distant future if the two sides were to clash in a imperial struggle. Hitler saw this struggle as similar between British and French empires, not one where one side would conquer and subjugate the other. It's often amusing that liberal and leftwing Jews, who insist that communism posed No Threat to the US, still tell the general audience that if Hitler had come to dominate Europe, US would have been invaded next.
This is a Judeocentric view of the world, just as Buchanan's is a Germanophile view of the world. If we should welcome and consider Buchanan's contrarian--even if wrongheaded--view, it's because our historiography has been dominated by Judeocentrism which has been equally wrongheaded.

The simple fact of the matter is Jews made a big deal out of the Nazi threat to the world because Nazis were antisemtic and anti-communist(at a time when great many Jews in both US and USSR and elsewhere were communist, pro-communist, communist sympathizing, or communist-allied). IF Hitler had only vilified and killed Gypsies or Poles but left Jews alone, I doubt if Jews would have been made such a big thing about Hitler. Indeed, suppose a non-anti-Semitic Hitler and communist Stalin maintained their pact. Suppose Hitler and his allies ruled all of Western Europe while Stalin ruled much of the East. Would most Jews have pressured UK and US for all out war against Hitler? Suppose this hypothetical Hitler had a pathological hatred for Gypsies and Poles but had a fondness for Jews. Suppose the Holocaust had killed 6 million Poles and Gypsies but no Jews--indeed, suppose good many German Jews joined the Nazi party. Would Jews have called for all-out war against Hitler? Would we be remembering Hitler as one of the most evil men that ever lived? I think not. As Buchanan points out, Churchill also had strong views on race; he thought the 'beastly' Indians should live under superior white rule. Yet, why do we hear little of this? Because he was a philosemite, had many Jewish friends, took much Jewish money, stood up to Hitler, and for a time, befriended far-left Stalin. As it turned out, Jews came to own and dominate most of the media and academic institutions in the US; also, they trumped the Holocaust as a unique evil--whereas all other mass murderers in history were supposedly humdrum, generic, and the same old--and made us believe that any criticism of Jewish ideas, influence, or power is 'anti-semitic'.
Considering the postwar academic reality, we need Buchanan's counter-Jewite perspective. But, it too needs to be critiqued because Buchanan seeks to replace the Judeocentric view which holds sway over us with a Germano-centric view. through the pages of Buchanan's book, we hear the wail, 'no one was as misunderstood as the Germans(among whom Buchanan considers himself a member), no one was unfairly punished as the Germans, no one bombed as much as the Germans, no one lost as much land as the Germans, etc, etc'. I find all of these lamentations rather off-putting. Yes, Germans and Jews suffered a great deal in the 20th century, but other people suffered just as much or even more. Also, consider the rapid recovery and rise of both Jewish and German power after WWII. For all its horrendous crimes, Germany after WWII was treated rather generously--at least by the US. As perverse as this sounds, even the Soviets were were relatively generous toward Germans when we consider what Soviets had suffered(25 million deaths); also, even though Soviet troops acted like savages when they entered Germany, at the very least there was no Soviet attempt to turn Germans into a permanent slave race. This is where communist ideology had a distinct moral advantage over Nazism. Like Christianity, communism believed that every person was equal--if not before God, then before Marx. Officially, Soviets had to maintain that not the entire German people but ONLY the Nazi regime supported by the evil bourgeoisie were the enemy . Though what Soviet troops did--especially the rape of millions of German women--was unforgivable, Slavs under Nazi rule would have fared MUCH worse. Himmler and his SS would have ruled over Slavs as Spartans ruled over the helots; worse, Nazi Germans would have looked upon Slavs as untermensch. At the very least, American slavery and Russian serfdom were tempered by Christian belief that said even subject populations have souls; soulless Nazis would have seen Slavs as mere cattle.
Given the nature and extent of Nazi crime, Germans got off relatively lightly. This isn't to slight the massive expulsion of German peoples--who were mostly innocent--, the rape of German women, and the starvations after the war. It's merely to point out that the Allies--including the Soviets--didn't do to Germans what Germans would have done to them upon German victory. And, both Germanys--East and West--benefited from the Cold War. West needed a revived Germany as a bulwark against communism, and Soviets were eager to show off East Germany as the model of Socialist Workers' Paradise. Of course, East Germany was essentially a prison but with living standard far higher than in the rest of the Euro-communist world. So, Buchanan making Germans out to be the greatest victims of the 20th century is a bit ludicrous.

Same is true of Jews. Yes, the Jewish Holocaust was one of the most horrendous acts of evil in history. But, it happened between 1942-1945. That's 3 yrs out of an entire century. To somehow use those 3 yrs to color every aspect of Jewish history throughout the 20th century--or all of Jewish history--is ridiculous. Most of the 20th century was a great and awesome time for the Jews who gained tremendous power, wealth, privilege, influence, and control. Yuri Slezkine isn't far wrong when he says the 20th century was really the Jewish century. Jews were essentially the victors, not the victims of the 20th century. Yes, they were great victims during the horrible yrs of WWII, but to somehow argue that the Holocaust is the defining moment for the Jews--and even the whole world--is pure Judeocentrism. And, such view came to take hold ONLY because it was promoted by various nations and groups for their own purposes. Just as the death of Jesus came to be more important than the death of any man, the killing of Jews became useful and meaningful because of its significance to the people who promoted them. There were and still are countless victims of every kind at every moment through all of history. Most are forgotten, and the few who are remembered are remembered ONLY because the powers-that-be choose to remember them. History isn't so much about what happened or even about remembering what happened. It's really about who gets to remember and remind us of what happened. In this sense, history is agitating in the present for a selective past. If Buchanan agitates for the Germanocentric worldview, most Jews agitate for a Judeocentric world view.

Just as Germans recovered remarkably from WWII, so did the Jews--indeed more than any other people. Today, Jews are the most powerful people in the world, and to see them primarily through the prism of the Holocaust is as stupid as seeing today's America through the prism of religiously persecuted pilgrims or to see rising China through the victimological prism of Nanking Massacre. Also, we must remember that Jewish history prior and following WWII was not entirely rosy. Indeed, many Jews committed some of the most horrendous crimes in the 20th century. Without radical Jews, there would have been no communism or Bolshevism. Without the threat of such, there would have been no Fascism and National Socialism. Also, the Jewish radicals played a crucial role in setting up the Soviet state, starving and murdering millions of people, and spreading the disease of communism all over the globe--a habit that still goes on to this day! The short-lived Hungarian and German communist governments were brutal and ruthless and ruled by radical Jews. And, just as there is a group of lowlifes called "Holocaust Deniers", many Jews have been Bolshocaust deniers. Can anyone with a conscience not designate what happened in Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc as holocausts? The Jewish holocaust was not the ONLY holocaust of the 20th century, and the idea that the term must only be reserved for Jews is morally arrogant and selfish. Sure, there were unique things about the Jewish holocaust but the same could be said of Communist Holocaust. Communist Holocaust was the first time in history where a regime came to power in the name of freeing the masses and then dispossessed, starved, enslaved, and killed millions of people 'for their own good'. So, if Germans killed 6 million Jews shouting "we hate you Jews", Soviets killed 5-10 million Ukrainians and 1/4 of Kazakhi population shouting "we love you". The fact that so many Western intellectuals apologized for communist regimes make them no better than Holocaust deniers. Some denied the reports of mass killing, some believed the reports but supported communism anyway because they favored their radical and theoretical conceit over human lives.

Also, it's disingenuous for Jews to say it was all Stalin's fault. For starters, Stalin's greatest crimes happened prior to the Moscow Trials that purged the top-level Jews; so, Jews were Stalin's willing executioners and theorists of policy during the Great Famine and Terror. More importantly, Jews generally fared much better than other ethnic groups during Stalin's purges. The idea that Stalin had a special hatred for Jews is Judeocentric bullshit. Stalin had a distrust and paranoia about ALL groups. Indeed, his fellow Georgians got it worse than Jews. Also, Soviet Germans, Poles, Latvians, etc, etc got it much worse than Jews. Indeed, most Jews aided and abetted Stalin every step of the way; only Jews at the top--though not all--got purged in any significant way and not necessarily because they were Jewish. Stalin began to have a special distrust of Jews only after WWII, when many Soviet Jews expressed conflicting loyalties between communism and Zionism. But, Stalin had always distrusted mini-nationalisms of all kind within the Soviet Union. Because of the prevailing Judeocentric view, we see Jews not only as the main victims of Nazism but of communism--indeed the plight of refuseniks was a bigger story in the West than 10 million Ukrianians killed, 100,000s of Chechens killed, Latvians massacred by the bushel, Koreans in Manchuria forcibly resettled in Uzbekistan--majority of whom died by starvation, etc under Soviet communism. It's all Jew, Jew, Jew. Worse, we are not reminded that radical Jews played a crucial role in the establishment of the Soviet Union and in the carrying out of communist holocausts. We are not told that Stalin came to power with the support of radical Jews. We are not told that many radical Jews served Stalin loyally. We are not told of Baltic and Volga Germans, Kazakhis, Armenians, etc, who really got it in the neck under Stalin and his Jewish henchmen. Instead, we hear more about Stalin's Doctor's Plot paranoia than The Great Famine--a massive crime in which Jewish radicals played a prominent role in taking grain and cattle and leaving 'kulaks' starve to death in the millions. Because of the prism of the Holocaust, we are supposed to be shut out eyes to Jewish crimes. We've all heard of Nazi destruction of synagogues, but how many people know that 50,000 churches were destroyed by communists(many of them Jewish) in the Soviet Union? This was a great crime against European culture. Eastern or Western, European culture is European culture. Sadly, Buchanan refers to Slavs as Oriental Despots or Asiatic Hordes instead of treating them as fellow European brethren. It's no wonder that many Russians--Putin among them--feel insulted by Western European and American attitudes. By the way, IF Buchanan sees Russians as a bunch of Asiatic Oriental Despotic Hordes, what's with his enthusiasm for Putin and Russian nationalism recently? Is Russia suddenly no longer 'Asiatic' or 'Oriental' because it abandoned communism? Communism is an Asiatic--rather than a European-Jewish--ideology?

Like the Jews, Buchanan is essentially partial to HIS people while pretending that his views don't particularly favor one side over the other. He's like Paul Johnson, a white racialist in universalist disguise, who beats his chest in railing against 'moral relativism' in his book "Modern Times". He says the bombing of German civilians was utterly unjust and evil, the product of loss of moral certainty in the modern world, but then says it was okay to nuke the Japanese. For all his moral sermonizing, Johnson lacks a fundamental moral virtue--honesty. Why not just be honest and say, for himself anyway, that killing white people is worse than killing "Japs". The nasty Johnson, in his wry contemptuous British manner, goes even further. His weighs the pros and cons of nuking Hiroshima with the observation that while 10,000s of Japanese suffered severe burns and radioactive poisoning, some previously bald Japanese had hair growing on their heads again. Johnson is beneath contempt. Buchanan at least states SOME of his strong views in an honest manner. Johnson mutters his essentially racialist views in a highfalutin moral tone. Never mind the issue of whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified or not. Maybe they were, maybe not. They certainly did the trick in winning the war. The problem with Johnson is his hypocrisy--denouncing moral relativism but then practicing it against people he doesn't care for--, pompous moral tone, and his sham objectivity. It's one thing to say, honestly and openly, 'I hate Japs'--a people who are not particularly likable, especially during the first half of 20th century. It's another thing to condemn moral relativism while reeking of it in the form of cheap racialist perfume.
Buchanan's biases are more tolerable because they reek of honest sweat and blood than stale perfume. Buchanan's views on Poles are vile and unforgivable but more openly biased. Indeed, Buchanan is at his weakest when he tries to come across as objective and fair-minded.

Because of Buchanan's special pleading for Germans, he--like many Jews--is blind to the feelings, perspectives, and suffering of other peoples. This is most telling on his chapter on the Poles. Poles may have been pigheaded, but why should anyone have trusted Hitler in the late 30s? Also, why does Buchanan insist that Hitler had to have Danzig returned to Germany when Hitler conveniently let Italians have South Tyrol? If Italians could keep Tyrol, why couldn't Poles keep Danzig? If taking back a mostly German city was SO important, wouldn't it have been justifiable for Germans to invade Italy too over South Tyrol? Besides, Buchanan admits that Hitler didn't demand back all the territories Germany lost in the Versailles Treaty. Hitler picked and chose grievances in order to set the grounds for the Big War--the Superbowl--against the USSR.
Also, were Poles wrong to reject Hitler's proposal for an alliance? Poles knew that if they accepted, Hitler would try to use Poland to launch war against the USSR. As much as Poles loathed the Russians, they didn't want to be caught in the middle between the war between giants. Poles didn't want to side with USSR against Germany nor with Germany against USSR. They wanted to live in peace, and where is the sin in that? Sure, Poles had certain German-populated lands that should have been given back to Germany, but Poles were not the ONLY unjust geographical power. After Germans took the Sudetenland, they took all of the Czech region. Also, Poles had seen how the Germans played on ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia to tear the nation apart. Why would they want Germans doing the same against Poland? Also, the map of Central/Eastern Europe was not as simple as Buchanan would suggest. If Poles returned certain lands to Germany, there would be Poles living under Germans--as we now have Serbians living under Albanians in Kosovo or just as the creation of new republics with the breakup of the USSR led to ethnic Russians living as minorities in places like Lithuania and Latvia. Also, could Poles trust Hitler when the man was an inveterate liar? Today, he wants Danzig and a railway between eastern and western Prussia, tomorrow he wants Poland as an ally against USSR, then he wants Poland to allow German troops to be stationed in Poland, then he wants Poles to join Germans in waging war on the USSR. Poland just barely recovered their nation from the ashes of WWI. The last thing they wanted was be caught in another war. Buchanan would rather blame Poles than Hitler for WWII. Somehow, Colonel's Beck's sexual indiscretions and cigarette ash were more responsible for 50 million deaths than Hitler's grand plan was. This is rather like saying Jews were responsible for the Holocaust since they didn't listen to Hitler's 'reasonable' demands. Imagine an hypothetical scenario where Hitler met with a powerful British or American banker. Suppose Hitler assured he would go easy on anti-semitic laws IF Jewish leaders in the West abandoned their anti-Nazi stance. Suppose the chain smoking Jew rebuffed Hitler and dusted the tip of his cigarette onto an ashtray. Suppose an angry Hitler called for the mass killing of Jews. So, are to blame the Jewish smoker for the 6 million dead Jews?
Even if certain German grievances with Poland were legitimate, Hitler had every freedom NOT to invade Poland, period. Suppose some dictator comes to power in Mexico and insists that SW territories of US should be returned to Mexico. Suppose US says 'no'. Suppose the Mex dictator then says he will be satisfied with the return of only several border towns which are overwhelmingly Mexican in their demographic makeup. Now, such demand is 'reasonable'. And, suppose this dictator is very popular at home. But, suppose US says 'no' again. Is US necessarily being pigheaded? Do we really want to deal with a dictator? Also, can we be sure that if we say Okay, Mexicans will NOT demand more lands in the future? Suppose upon the US saying 'no' for the second time, the Mex dictator is livid and angry as hell and has lost face at home. (Hugo Chavez lost face when Colombia exposed that he had dealt with FARC rebels, and tensions were high at one point, but Chavez had enough sense to swallow his pride and make peace with Colombia. Khrushchev lost face in the Cuban Missile Crisis but he chose peace over mutual destruction. The German people would have loved and supported Hitler even with the setbacks in Poland, so why did Hitler have to wage war against Poland?) Does that he mean he MUST go to war to settle historical injustices? No. And, Hitler did NOT have to attack Poland. Also, if Danzig and a connection between east and west Prussia were all he wanted, he could have only invaded parts of Poland. But, he not only took half of Poland and turned Poles into slaves, but he also gave green light to Stalin to take the other half of Poland--and OTHER vulnerable republics. Though Germans had legitimate grievances, Hitler's way was the wrong way. If all nations followed the Hitlerian way, we would have wars all over the places. There would be wars all over Africa and Latin America over who should have what. Japanese would invade the Kurile Islands. China would demand huge areas of north central Asia from the Russians. Koreans would demand parts of Manchuria which had once belonged to Korea. And, that's ONLY Asia. Think of all the mess that would be unleashed in the Middle East and Africa. Two old fables apply to Hitler. The story of 'never cry wolf'. Hitler lied so many times and broke so many promises that he made good-willed people who had tried to work with him look foolish, weak, and stupid--they were the ones who really lost face, a fact that Hitler mocked with laughing contempt in his speeches. While Britain's war guarantee to Poland may have been foolish, the British and Polish assessments of Hitler were not. He was a pathological liar and a sociopath. The other fable is the dog with the bone who looks in the water and barks for the bigger bone. Germany after WWI was reduced in size but still quite sizable in Europe. Had Hitler opted for peaceful diplomacy, Germany today would be considerably larger. In time, he may have worked with Brits and Poland to finally have Danzig returned to Germany. Whether Poles were pigheaded or not, Hitler was wolfish and snaky. Why should a pig allow a wolf to get nearer? Hitler barked for more and lost even the bone he had. Germany would lay in ruins, millions of German women would be raped by barbarian thugs, and Germany would lost a big chunk of territory. Because of Beck's cigarette or Chamberlain's umbrella? No, because of Hitler's fangs. Consider the eventual good will on the part of UK to help Germans rebuild their economy and even the military in the interwar period. Consider the goodwill shown by Brits to help--through diplomacy--Germans reclaim some of their lands to the east. And, what did Hitler give in return? One broken promise after another, one more insult hurled at democracies as weak and feeble before the mighty Fuhrer. He began to believe in his own myth. Like Stalin and Mao on their rise to power, the early Hitler could be accommodating, charming, seemingly reasonable, and so on. But, once he attained greater power, he grew supremely arrogant. The idea of working through peaceful diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise was insulting to him as he felt more god-like. Buchanan says the initial offers by Germany to Poland were reasonable, but he fails to mention that Hitler, if given an inch, would take a mile. Does Buchanan REALLY believe that if Poles had relented and handed over Danzig and allowed a pathway between east and west Prussia, then Hitler would have been satisfied and peaceful? That's like saying a football team would be happy with winning just the first round of the playoff. If it wins, it wants to win the second round. And, then it wants to win the league championship. And, then it wants to win the Superbowl. A degenerate gambler isn't happy to win a single pot in a game. He has play for more and more. It was the nature of the game Hitler was playing. The Superbowl team that loses is, in many ways, more depressed than a team that didn't even make it to the playoffs. The nearer it got to the ultimate prize, meaner and hungrier it became. It got to the point where it was All or Nothing with Hitler. By the time Hitler invaded Poland, he had to have ultimate prize. He could taste it.

This is why it makes no sense to blame Chamberlain, Churchill, or Beck more than Hitler. The former were guilty of miscalculation, hypocrisy on some matters at worst. Hitler was guilty of choosing The Will over willingness. The Brits had been willing to cooperate in good faith but Hitler only showed bad faith. Chamberlain's gentlemanliness was genuine whereas Hitler's charm and reasonable-seeming-ness had merely been ploys. Chamberlain learned that a terrier cannot tame a wolf nor wean it away from livestock to puppy chow. More significant than the blood on Hitler's hand was the taste for blood on his lips. In the movie "Patton", Bradley says he himself fights because he has to while Patton fights because he loves it. And, Patton admits it's true. Patton was a great field commander but he was a terrible administrative officer and would have been dangerous as leader of a nation. He was a poet warrior who romanticized war, violence, victory, triumph, and even defeat and tragedy. He wanted to fight on against the Russians. Thankfully, America has people like Eisenhower to overrule guys like Patton, but suppose Patton had been Fuhrer of America. Or, consider MacArthur's demand that US escalate the Korean War into Chinese territory with nukes and all. Personality is important in history, and all-important in a nations ruled by the cult of personality. Now, this isn't to say that MacArthur and Patton were MORALLY on the same level as Hitler. Neither MacArthur nor Patton was a genocidal ideologue, but they had extremely high opinions of themselves, suffered from megalomania--or close to it--, and were crazy about personal pride--often linked to Great Events in history. If MacArthur had Hitler-like powers as the leader of US, there's no telling what the Korean War might have escalated into. In this sense, the most dangerous thing about Hitler was not so much his ideology or moral values--or lack thereof--, but his personality that megalomaniacally linked his sense of self to world events. This being the case, there may be some truth to Buchanan's thesis that Churchill was dangerous not because what he believed but because of his sense of self. It could be argued that just when Britain should have been most cautious, cold-eyed, and calculating, Churchill's bluster and megalomania--albeit much milder than Hitler's--pushed UK to make a very stupid decision(one based not on rational assessment of the situation but upon an epic sense of honor and destiny). Churchill regarded himself as the Savior of the World but was soon reduced by actual events as a Charlie Brownish messenger boy between FDR and Stalin. And like Lucy, FDR never let Churchill Brown kick the ball. Buchanan ridicules Churchill for believing that FDR and his successors would reciprocate British love for America when, in fact, the Americans did just the opposite to make sure the British empire was over and done with for good. This is a wild exaggeration, of course. The fall of British Empire had much less to do with American machinations than the rise of third world nationalisms that could only be quelled with brutal force, and Europeans for the most part--to their credit--didn't have the stomach to do what Russian communists had done and continued to do to suppress non-Russian peoples to maintain the empire. Also, contrary to Buchanan's America-bashing, US was a generous power after WWII to all European nations, both vanquished and victorious. Without post-war US help, Britain--and rest of Europe would have been in much worse shape. The lesson of post WWI had been learned. They all cooperated, forgot and forgave. US wrote off many debts and then pumped money and resources into the European economy. US certainly did NOT act selfishly to destroy European powers to replace it with an all-powerful American. Parts of Buchanan's history could have been written by Lenin. More importantly, if Churchill was foolish enough to trust FDR and Americans as fellow Anglos--just as Hitler had been foolish enough to believe in Anglos as fellow Aryans--, would it have made any more sense for Churchill to trust in Hitler and believe that Hitler would reciprocate with love and kisses in kind? If UK was gonna lose its empire and its influence in Europe in a new world order, wasn't it better to lose it to US than to Nazi Germany? If Churchill was foolish to trust FDR, why would he have been smart to trust a man like Hitler? Wasn't Hitler an inveterate liar, not only devious like FDR but also socio-pathic?

Of course, one could argue that Hitler could be trusted--at least by Churchill and Anglos-- because his ideology was about blood and soil than about good and evil. America was a moral nation governed by political principles whereas Nazi Germany was bound by ideas of racial ideology. If Americans naively tried to be fair with everyone, Germans were earnest in their playing favorites with certain 'friends'. Hitler was not man of idealism but of sentimentality. His admiration of Mussolini and his loyalty to Fascist Italy were total and absolute; he would never have sacrificed and bargained away Mussolini's Italy for anything. Given this mentality and his admiration for Anglos, it's possible to assume that Hitler's bargain with Churchill would have been much more reliable than FDR's bargain with Churchill. For FDR, liberal principles trumped racial blood loyalty, whereas Hitler's faith was only sworn in racial blood. FDR would have betrayed a fellow Anglo to 'do the right thing', whereas for Hitler nothing that violated blood bonds could be right. The iron of race in his veins was Hitler's only true 'morality'. He was a pagan than a Christian, whereas FDR was of the Anglo-American Christian tradition that favored--though not perfectly--moral righteousness(though laced with national self-interest of course)over blood loyalty. On the eve of WWI and WWII, UK was torn between the iron bond of blood with their Germanic cousins or the ideological unity with democratic France. Buchanan's argument is that Brits should have chosen blood over ideology. Buchanan thinks Anglo-whites should have joined with German-whites than side with ideological and anti-European forces(including liberal America) that would bring down Western power.
Now, one could denounce Buchanan's argument as vile, immoral, and 'racist'. Are racial unity and self-interest the highest virtues for a people? Suppose there are five people named James, Bob, Arthur, Bill, and Eugene. Suppose James and Bob are both Northern European whereas the rest are different. Suppose Bob says to James that he's gonna use a baseball bat to beat and subjugate Arthur, Bill, and Eugene. Suppose Bob is sincere in his professed friendliness and admiration for James. Suppose Bob tells James to either join forces with him or don't interfere while he's clobbering Arthur, Bill, and Eugene with his bat and turning them into his slaves. Is it honorable for James to join forces with Bob out of self-interest? Should James do nothing? If the loss of the British Empire--whose loss would have been inevitable within the 20th century anyway--was the price for Britain's great moral self-respect for all of history, wasn't Churchill right in choosing to fight Hitler? We can agree that the war promise to Poland was foolish, but Britain gearing up for an eventual war with Germany would have been justifiable.

Of course, only history can tell what was wise and wasn't. What will Europe be 100 yrs from now? Will it become Eufricarabia, what with all the non-white invasion from other countries? Will the white race become mongrelized into nothingness and will European culture turn into nothing but porn, gay lifestyles, and decadence--to be supplanted by more aggressive and virile Afro-tribalism and Muslim radicalism? In that case, as evil as Hitler was, his vision of Europe as the 1000 yr Reich might well have saved Europe. If we can say that as evil as Stalin was, he saved the Russians from Nazi invasion, might it not be possible to say the same of Hitler IF INDEED the future of Europe is Eufricarabia? Of course, it's harder to wake people up to disaster that is happening in slow motion than in fast motion. If if we could speed up the steady invasion of Europe by Africans and Muslims--through immigration and high birthrates--in the next 100 yrs to a single year, one may well argue that only a powerful new order and racial consciousness could have saved Europe from disaster. But, nothing is for certain at this moment. Migratory and demographic patterns do change over time. If Europeans come to their senses, regain their cultural pride and confidence, severely restrict immigration, deport illegals, and have more babies, Hitler will continue to be seen as a great villain, and Europe of the future will flourish as healthy, prosperous, and proud democracies. But, if current trends continue for the next 100 yrs, Europe will be finished, and Hitler, as evil as he was, may have been the man who could have saved Europe through his racial order. Still, the fault lies mostly with Hitler as to why WWII happened the way it did. For example, had he not chosen to start a war with Stalin, Germany would have dominated most of Europe--western, central, and eastern--for much of the 20th century.

Whatever Churchill's fault, he was only reacting to the craziness of Hitler. To blame Churchill for what happened in WWII is like blaming Eisenhower for Soviet crimes in Hungary. Yes, US sent mixed signals that led many brave Hungarians to start an uprising. They thought US--and UN--would intervene on their part as they did in Korea. But, US did nothing and let Soviet tanks roll over Budapest. US was irresponsible in sending mixed signals that gave false hope to Hungarians and made Soviets very nervous. But, should Eisenhower take the moral blame for what happened during the invasion? No, the bloody mess was carried out by Soviets and they must take all the blame for every dead Hungarian. (At any rate, it must be said that US never gave a war guarantee to Hungarians.)
Of course, we could argue that Churchill should have been more cool-headed and cold-eyed, like Stalin. After all, Stalin didn't get all worked up over what Hitler was up to but carefully maneuvered Hitler into an alliance whereby German guns would be turned at the West.
But, we must keep two things in mind. Stalin, as ruler of Soviet Union, had total control over news and public opinion. British politicians had to respond to the free press--that denounced Hitler and called for strong action--which had profound influence on public opinion. British politicians had to operate within the realm of public sentiments--overwhelmingly anti-German after Hitler invaded Prague. Stalin, in contrast, could sit and wait, weigh all options, and do whatever seemed best to Soviet interests in his own mind. And, so came the masterful Nazi-Soviet Pact. But, Stalin's world had its downsides too. Because there was no independent public knowledge or opinion, no newspaper and politician raised alarms about German preparation for invasion of the USSR. Because Stalin had supreme power, those who warned him were shot or imprisoned. Stalin, unlike Churchill, decided to play it as cool and cold as possible. He was not gonna get carried away with emotions or be swayed by public opinion which was entirely in his control in any case. And, that nearly cost USSR everything. While it's true that USSR emerged as a great victor in WWII, it could just as easily have ended up as its greatest victim--and all due to lack of democracy, lack of public opinion and outcry(againt the Nazi-Soviet Pact, against Stalin's lack of preparation against the looming German attack, against the mass killings of experienced officers in the military purge, etc), and lack of free discussion and debate. It might have been better for all of Europe if Stalin had acted more like Churchill when Hitler first started to make trouble. Hitler would have been far less likely to attack a Soviet Union psyched and prepared for total war.

Though pluralistic machinations and populist dynamics in a democracy can lead to foolish decisions, it's generally true that, in the long run, totalist dictatorships make the bigger mistakes. After all, if there had been democracy in Germany in 1939, most Germans may have opted to vote Hitler out of office. Surely, most Germans would not have supported Hitlers' war on USSR in 1941.
And, just look at China. The relatively pluralistic autocrat Chiang Kai-Shek was forced by popular opinion--in a China, as yet, with many free and independent voices--to ally with communists and declare war on Japan; it was a move that was noble and patriotic but foolish and suicidal. The all-out Japanese onslaught would destroy the Nationalists, and the popular front would give second life to the almost vanquished communists. The end result was Communist takeover of China soon after WWII. That was Chiang's Churchillian moment, and he really didn't have a choice? Had he not chosen to ally with communists and to declare war against Japan, he would lost legitimacy in the eyes of most Chinese. So, we must consider Chamberlain's change of mind and Churchill's stance in relation to the reality of democratic British politics. In a democracy, politicians MUST play to prevailing popular opinions which are essentially shaped by the free press.
Nevertheless, dictatorships suffer from lack of independent public opinion in the long run. The massive environmental damages happened in the USSR because all the local disasters were went unreported. And, in Mao's China, where public opinion was completely controlled by the state, utterly insane things--Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc--could happen because Mao could do exactly as he pleased.

Anyway, Buchanan's blame-the-Western-democracies-first is surprisingly like the arguments made by scholars of the Left. If Hobsbawm--very influentially in academic circles--argued that the Cold War was essentially the product of American fears and actions, Bruce Cumings has argued that the Korean War was the product of pro-American South Korean aggression. Cumings have also argued that Kim Il Sung, though dictatorial, wasn't so bad. And, if he became worse, more oppressive, megalomaniacal, and paranoid, it was all because of American intervention in the Korean War. Supposedly, that made him bitter and more repressive than ever. Had US allowed North Korean communists to overrun South Korea, a united Korea would soon have led to enlightened leadership with Kim as a happy and generous Asian version of Gorbachev. Does anyone believe this? And, there have been countless liberal and leftist journalists, intellectuals, historians--indeed, too many to mention--who have argued that Castro's turning towards hardline communism and the Soviet Union was all America's fault. Had US been nicer to Castro, he would have sided with yankee than russkie. An earlier variation of such logic argued that Mao had been simply an agrarian reformer who wanted close ties with the US, but the possibility was lost all because of anti-communist 'paranoia' and 'hysteria' in the US. And, it's been said by leftist and liberal scholars, journalists, and TV shows such as "Vietnam, A Television History" that the Vietnam War was mostly the fault of Americans. They argue that Ho was a reasonable guy, essentially a heroic nationalist and not much of a communist--and even if he was a communist, communism and democracies supposedly share the same Enlightenment Principles. Ho wanted close ties with the US; all he wanted in Vietnam was to unify his country under his rule. Since US, in its Cold War 'domino theory' paranoia stood in the way, the Vietnam War happened and it was entirely the fault of the evil US. And, there are scholars who, even today, try to fix the blame of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia on US bombing. So, US is to blame FOR EVERYTHING. During the Balkan war, some leftist named Parenti tried to blame it all on George H. W. Bush; he argued evil Bush instigated a war in the region to rule by divide-and-conquer. Just about every leftist-leaning documentary on PBS tries to link all the suffering, poverty, disease, oppression, etc, etc to US economic policy, political strategy, and/or diplomatic malfeasance. And, now Buchanan has joined this blame-the-west-first gang, the only difference being he's doing it from the Right.
Of course, there is one crucial difference. Buchanan is attacking the actions of the West that undermined the power of the West whereas leftist intellectuals attack Western actions that served Western interests and ideals. At heart, Buchanan is a patriot whereas leftists are traitors. But, Buchanan's blitzkrieg against Churchill and British policy in general--and against Bush and McCain in regard to Iraq--is so unrelenting that one may label him a patraitor. In some ways, it's good to see that Buchanan has abandoned his childhood principles of 'my country, right or wrong'. He wants to air out the wrong. But, Buchanan, like Hitler, Churchill, and MacArthur, is a victim of his own personality. He's so eager to draw blood on those who disagree.

Anyway, though UK and US must share some of the blame for the excesses of WWII and the Cold War, most the blame must fall on those who (1) had aggressive intentions (2) lacked moral scruples and acted in bad faith (3) harbored murderous ideologies or blind fanatical faiths. Whatever the faults of British politicians, they really felt sympathy toward the Germans after WWI. They tried to work in good faith. They tried to be understanding and fair. Instead of being appreciated, the British were made to look foolish, weak, and cowardly by Hitler's demands and rash actions. Just as many good-willed and guilt-ridden liberal whites in America who had reached out to blacks felt foolish when blacks suddenly turned violent, hateful, and radical in the 60s, the British had a right to be angry when Germany under Hitler became hostile and belligerent. (What a certain people demand changes with the power they gain. In the 40s and 50s, many blacks sincerely thought they would be satisfied with an non-discriminatory America. Empowered blacks since the 60s want and demand much more, far beyond what their forefathers ever dreamed possible or thought desirable. This is also true of many Jews in America. At one time, many respectable and successful Jews wanted to assimilate, blend in, and accepted by WASP society. They didn't want to 'rock the boat'. As they gained more and more power, Jews decided they should dictate than follow American policy and unleash the full force of their chutzpah.) The only mistake of the British was making the promise to the Poles, but it was foolish and irresponsible, not evil. It was Hitler who invaded Poland and killed millions. The British were irresponsible and guilty in the sense that Americans were in regard to Hungarians and Shiites in Iraq after the Gulf War. In both cases, Americans led the people to believe that US would intervene in case they rose up against the oppressors. But, US did nothing when Khrushchev sent tanks into Budapest or when Hussein murdered over a 100,000 Shiites. Foolish, irresponsible, perhaps even craven. But, UK nor US was the primary culprit behind those bloodbaths. They just played their cards badly. A bad bluff is still not cheating.

In truth, both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan were infected with rabid ideologies, personality cult worship, and/or blind faith. Though both sides had reasonable people who tried to work with the outside world in good faith(Ribbentropp believed in the Nazi-Soviet Pact and was shocked by Operation Barbarossa, and Japanese diplomats in the US had no inkling about the Pearl Harbor), the central modus operandi of both nations was irrational, unstable, and dangerous. In the case of Germany, the fate of the nation really lay with one man. Hitler could have averted WWII simply by choosing peace over war. No matter how pigheaded the Poles were in regard to Danzig, they were certainly not going to start a war by attacking Germany or the USSR. And, Hitler had a second chance in 1941 not to attack the USSR. He could have consolidated power in Europe, traded with USSR for raw material necessary for war, and wore the British down to a ceasefire if not surrender. But, HE chose to attack the USSR.
If the German problem stemmed from so much power being concentrated in the hands of one man, the problem of Japan was, in some ways, even more grave. The Japanese lunacy was more systemic. If Hitler had decided on No War, there would have been no war. In the case of Japan, the top commanders were afraid of lower rank officers fanatical in Emperor worship and national destiny. Japan was not a populist tyranny like Italy or Germany--where one man was seen as a god by the masses--but was a tyranny of fanatics. Many lower level officers were willing to kill and die in the name of Greater Loyalty. This goes back to the story of the "47 Ronin", where loyal retainers rebel against the system paradoxically in the name of serving the system. Nazi Germany had plenty of fanatics, but if Hitler said 'go fetch', the underlings all dutifully ran and fetched. When Hitler made a pact with Stalin, even the most fanatical anti-communist Nazis did not rebel or try to assassinate Hitler. Hitler had direct connection with the people. Though there was a populist element in militarist Japan, the most decisive element of society was not the popular sentiment nor military rulers but rather the fanatical junior officers who were intoxicated with a vision of sacred Japan ruling over Asia. If Germany had been like Japan, there would have been countless attempts on Hitler and other top Nazi officials' lives by the lower-level fanatics in the SS whenever Hitler deviated from the Nazi line--which he did often for practical reasons.

Because of the nature of the system in both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan, it was impossible to deal with them on a rational basis. Not because both didn't have reasonable men--indeed they had many reasonable and pragmatic officials--but because the real decisive power was with a visionary gambler in the case of Germany and with a gang of fanatics willing to sacrifice their own lives at the drop of a hat in the name of 'serving the Emperor' in the case of Japan; the Japanese junior officers were so fanatical that they even disobeyed the Emperor and chose death to awaken the emperor from the evil spell of 'craven' politicians. They disobeyed the emperor to serve him better--in their minds, anyway.
Similarly, it didn't matter that communist China had many sensible and pragmatic people during the Mao era. If Mao wanted to throw the entire nation into chaos he did just that, and all the wishes of reasonable men were thrown overboard. And, it's near impossible to deal with North Korea because no North Korean diplomat or official--no matter how reasonable, intelligent, or sensible on a personal level--has any real power and must go along with what fat baby Kim feels like at the moment. Reagan could work with the USSR in the latter part of the 80s because it was under the control of a reasonable man like Gorbachev. But, the only option for the US prior to Gorbachev was 'containment' and 'rollback'. Similarly, it's foolish for Buchanan to say that Chamberlain and Churchill should have keep dealing with Hitler who cheated at cards. In retrospect, the war guarantee to Poland seems foolish but not the British resolve to stop dealing with Hitler the degenerate gambler/cheater.
Anyway, this blame-the-West-first must end. It's like saying a rabid dog bit someone because the person tried to ward it off with a stick.

(2). Buchanan is way too easy on Germany of the Kaiser. He doesn't much mention the aggressive nature of Prussian militarism in its style, pomp, and rhetoric(which would be much amplified in Nuremburg rallies under the Nazis). Style and rhetoric matter for they send a message to the rest of the world. And, Europeans were understandably worried about the rise of Prussian militarism and its aggressive--and even angry--rhetoric about Germany's place in the sun. Germany--like Italy and Japan--failed to see the fading of imperialism and tried to emulate Britain and France when a post-imperialist world order was beginning to dawn. Instead of letting the British and French empires fade into sunset, the up-and-coming nations wanted to fight for spoils. (Suppose just when Russia was starting to loosen its grip on the Central Asia, China tried to conquer and dominate it). This isn't to say that Kaiser or the Germans wanted to take the prize away from the Brits and the French.
It's merely to say that power--like wealth--has its own logic. A poor person who's hungry may sincerely believe that he would be happy forever if he had a roof over his head and a steady job. But, once he attains those, he wants other things. And, once he grows rich, he wants to grow richer. This is why millionaires wanna become ten-millionaires who wanna become hundred-millionaires who wanna become billionaires who wanna become ten-billionaires. There is an internal megalomaniacal dynamism in power and wealth. Those who want it want more once they get it. When Nixon was a nobody, he would have been happy if he could go to college and find a decent job. Once he became a lawyer, he probably thought he would be happy for life if he could be Senator. Once he became Senator, he was thrilled to be Vice-President. As Vice-President, he had to be President. As President, he had to be a very powerful Great President.
Similarly, Japan in the 19th century had no plans of conquering China or challenging Western dominance in Asia. They merely wanted to survive as an independent nation and then to join the European club with a few spoils. But, once they attained those things, they wanted more. What they already had was no longer enough or satisfying. This is why the so-called 'peaceful rise' of China is worrying to many. Today's Chinese leaders may sincerely want nothing more than a prosperous China trading with the world. But, once a nation gains much power and wealth, it starts to have other ideas and bigger ambitions.

The amount of power changes the nature of power. Even if someone was sincere in his original intentions, future intentions change as he changes. When T. E. Lawrence first got involved with the Arabs he had no dream of liberating all of Arabs from the Turks; he was just a British officer/agent. When US first got involved in the Korean War, it was only to save South Korea and drive the communists back up north. But, after the brilliant Inchon landing the policy changed to taking all of North Korea. And, MacArthur even dreamt of taking the war into China and installing Chiang Kai-Shek back in power. As UN forces reached the border of China, Chinese communists' only desire was to drive the Americans away from China. But, the Chinese victories were so sudden and unexpected that Mao soon changed his policy to take all of Korea. Sometimes, the original stated intention turns out to be have been a lie; more often, it was cast aside with new developments which changed the nature of what was and wasn't possible. We see this in politics all the time. When Hillary and Obama agreed not to include the votes of Florida and Michigan, both were being sincere. But, when Hillary later needed those votes she changed her position 180 degrees. And, when Obama agreed with McCain to accept public financing he last year, he had meant it. But, with all the money pouring in to break all previous records, he reneged on his original promise. So, for Buchanan to speculate on all future German policy based on what the Kaiser felt prior to WWI is truly naive.
Recall that movie "Good Earth" where a dirt poor farmer is initially happy to attain a little fortune and have a devoted if homely wife. When a friend says that a rich man must have a second wife or concubine, the farmer scoffs it off as foolishness--sincerely. But, when he's taken to some fancy show with some sweet tart, his view of himself changes--yes, a rich man should more than one wife.
It's not so much that the Kaiser was a nut who wanted to conquer the world and take British imperial property. But, Germany's national rhetoric put it on the path of wanting more and more--beyond the control of German leaders. Recall that when America won independence, the last thing on their mind was taking territory from Mexico. But, as American power rose, the nature of American ambitions changed and snowballed into something more aggressive. Recall that many Americans opposed Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. But, when the Mexican-American war came around, most Americans were cheering for war and conquest. And, later came the Spanish-American war. Was it because Americans had ALWAYS secretly planned on taking land from Mexico and Spain. No, it's just that the appetite of a nation changes as it grows more powerful, more confident, and more ambitious. Indeed, we only need to look at the aftermath of WWII. Prior to WWII, Americans had no plans to dominate the world. But, when US--along with the USSR--was the primary victor after the war, US couldn't resist remaking the world according to its own values, priorities, interests. Initial objectives and promises are never stable or permanent in politics and history. Everything changes with new realities. A Grizzly bear grazing on wild cabbage and grass don't think "I plan to steal a kill from wolves", but if wolves nearby bring down a deer, the Bear will amble toward it. Supposing animals could talk, the bear may sincerely demand only the leg of the deer with the wolves having the rest. Upon finishing the leg, the bear's appetite may have been whetted for more.
This is why it's wrong for Buchanan to take Wilhelmian Germany's good will in good faith. Wills always change in politics. None of this means that British policy in WWI was wise, but we can understand why British didn't merely trust the Germans. Even if the promises prior to WWI had been in earnest, the nature of German power might well have changed drastically upon quick victory WWI. Germans would have felt more proud and confident than ever. They may come to feel invincible and may really have started to entertain notions of becoming the premier world power. Success has a way of deluding the human soul. The powerful often end up believing in their own myth. In a way, this applies to George W. Bush as well. I sincerely doubt he came to office thinking of invading Iraq. But, once 9/11 happened and the nation/world behind him AND once US quickly defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush was on cloud nine. He was filled with confidence and desire for GREATNESS. He was like the Chinese dude in "Good Earth" who, flush with glory and victory, wanted a second--and more glamorous--prize: fall of Hussein, democratic Iraq that would spread freedom through the entire region, eternal American glory associated with Dubya. Just as Europeans--and rest of the world--were worried with rising American confidence after the Afghan War, many Europeans had been worried about the rapid rise of Germany since the days of Bismarck--a rise, which in its speed and achievement, may indeed be the most impressive ever in human history(and the template for the rise of modern Asia from imperial Japan to current China).

Now, it's possible that upon quick German victory in WWI, Germans might have been magnanimous and satisfied with their dominance on the continent. Possibly but not certainly. Though the Kaiser was anxiety-ridden and nervous on the eve of WWI, he was essentially a vain, pompous, arrogant, and narcissistic leader. He worried on the eve of WWI not because he abhorred war but because he feared defeat. Had Germany won a great victory, he would have elevated himself to god-like status. Though he wasn't the ideological monster like monster, they had something in common. Hitler too could be cautious and nervous, not because he abhorred war but because he was afraid of defeat. The Kaiser was a bully and a coward. If he had really been a man and father of his nation, he would swallowed his pride and forced Austria to find a diplomatic solution with Serbia. At the very least, he should not have thrown the first punch, especially a sucker punch. He had no business invading a neutral country such as Belgium. Buchanan says British also had plans to interfere with Belgium with a naval blockade, but that would have been a defensive measure whereas the German action was clearly offensive/aggressive. Honor, dignity, and pride can be wonderful things, but the conservative nobility of Europe twisted them for self-glory and to stir up the masses. Indeed, in the modern world of populist passions and nationalism, the values of the nobility were outdated in politics. Modern wars were not between chivalrous knights or noblemen bound by honor. They were wars between entire nations; and linking the fate of entire peoples to notions of dignity, pride, and honor of kings and noblemen was playing with fire. Of course, the bourgeoisie and the masses were not blameless either. The popular presses often disseminated nationalist sentiments far and wide. And, unlike in the pre-nationalist past, the masses demanded that their leaders to take revenge in the name of national glory. The rulers who used nationalism to control the masses came to be controlled by the nationalist passions of the masses. Similar thing happened in Japan. When nationalism came to infect the entire country, military officers from peasant background were often the most fervent nationalists demanding the rulers to do something for Japan's glory. Japanese rulers who sought to turn the masses into loyal dogs found themselves confronted with rabid dogs barking at the master for what the master promised--total glory and victory for Japan. China today is facing the same problem. Communist party has stirred up nationalism to unite the people, but many young fanatical Chinese are uniting together to force government to be more belligerent in the world. These forces have logic of their own, often beyond the control of rulers who initially intended to use and manipulate them for the purpose of political control.

Had Germans won a swift victory in WWI and then had been ruled by cautious people like Bismarck, things might have turned out alright. Bismarck, for all his ruthlessness, was someone who understood Harry Callahan's dictum: "A man's gotta know his limitations". He certainly knew Germany's. In his ideal vision, Germany would have a place in the sun but would stick to its orbit. Wilhelm was a very different kind of man. He was not evil but he was vainglorious, narcissistic, and fell prey to his own myth. A quick and glorious victory in WWI might have indeed turned him into a very dangerous man beyond anyone's control. That is the logic of power, especially in individuals of certain personality and temperament. (Even craven anxiety-ridden cowards can become arrogant and aggressive bullies if, by some chance, they gain great victory. During the tech stock boom of the late 90s, many naive Americans considered themselves economic geniuses and thought they were on the blitzkrieg road to great riches; they were talking big and acting like know-it-alls; then, almost overnight, they were humbled and feeling very small again.) In some ways, perhaps, this also applies to Churchill. Though admired as a leader of the free democratic world, his gusto in WWI and swagger in WWII had more to do with honor, dignity, and pride than in cool judgment and good sense. We praise him to the skies because, despite the high cost of victory, his side won. But, suppose Hitler had turned his entire forces on UK and defeated the Brits. He might today be remembered as one of the biggest fools of history. A courageous, honorable, and proud fool but a fool nevertheless.

Finally, it must be said of Bismarck that though cautious and limited in his ambition, he unwittingly sowed the seeds of WWI by playing one nation against another, constant shifting alliances, and making and breaking treaties. By the time he was satisfied with the Germany he had created, its neighbors--especially the French--were not too happy. Though his objective or end was limited, his means had played loose with the rules and created a kind of 'never cry wolf' scenario. German neighbors became far less trustful of Germans in general.
Though Bismarck can't be held responsible for WWI--just as instigators of WWI can't be blamed for WWII--, he set in motion the forces that triggered off the war. His actions--along with those of many others--had unintentional consequences. Though many historians--especially on the right--look back nostalgically to the long peace of the 19th century following the defeat of Napoleon and attribute that peace to prevailing wisdom of conservative doctrine, the socio-politico-psychological stunting that held back progress may have badly prepared the people for future turn of events. During the 100 yrs of general peace, much of Europe had changed from an agrarian civilization to a powerful industrial one. But, many people--especially those living under autocratic systems--were still willing to invest their faith and energy in the 'widsom' of the rulers. The rulers, trying to simultaneously preserve their power/privilege and pander to mass sentiments, found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. The rule of kings may not be as dangerous or deadly as rule of mob passions but ONLY if kings rule over servile subjects than passionate patriots. Prior to the rise of nationalism, most people had no clue nor interest in the wars between kings and noblemen or big national or international issues. On the eve of WWI, king, god, and country all became one and the same. Tolstoy rather simplemindedly expounded on this in the final section of War and Peace, arguing that Napoleon was carried by the forces of history than a maker of history. Because Napoleon was something new in history--the emperor of a free people--, he couldn't stop the forces that had been unleashed by The Revolution. He rode atop the waves but the force was unstoppable until it finally crashed and froze on the Russian beach. If the modern totalitarian leader was different--potentially more stable or more dangerous--, it was because he had total control over public order and opinion. Hitler could change course overnight--condemning communism and then making peace with the Soviet Union--and face no public outrage or rebellion. Mao could do the same, condemning the US for all eternity and then meeting with Nixon. Stalin could also do as he pleased. They were far less afraid of or attuned to public sentiment--or the passion of fanatical true believers--because they held all the political cards in their hands. In this sense, militarist Japan might have been less dangerous had it been totalitarian than authoritarian; the emperor and his cohorts might have been better able to decide on a safer course than feel compelled to heed the demands of fanatical underlings--who, by the way, had great support among the people.
Generally, we prefer authoritarian regimes to totalitarian regimes. Because the rulers of authoritarian regimes don't have total power, we consider them less dangerous and more likely to compromise. But, under certain circumstances--where the legitimacy of the authoritarian ruler depends on pandering to the powerful passion of the masses--, such a system can be far more dangerous because the authoritarian, unlike the totalitarian, cannot simply silence all voices and choose a safer course. On the other hand, if a psychotic totalitarian is deadset on engaging in war--as opposed to choosing peace and stability--, he's the most dangerous kind of leader of all.
Maybe, there is a game theory for all of this, but human passions don't play by a set of logical principles.

(3). Recently, there was an article in Foreign Affairs--"Clash of Peoples"--where the writer argued that homogeneity than diversity is the key to international peace. He argued that one of the triggers of WWI was the conflict among peoples trapped within diverse empires, and one of the main reasons for peace after WWII was the redrawing of maps and massive migration of peoples resulting in the creation of more homogeneous nations. It's rather strange that Buchanan, who agrees with this idea, should wax poetic/tragic about the loss of empires for Austria and Germany after WWI and for Britain after WWII. Will the real Buchanan please stand up? Is he or is he not for empire? He says US should choose 'republic, not an empire', so why not the same for European nations? Wasn't it good that Europeans lost their empires in WWI and WWII? Why should they rule over other peoples? Of course, one could argue thus, especially if of the Euro-centric persuasion. US doesn't need an empire since US itself is an empire. It is a BIG country--massive, heavily populated, blessed with resources, fertile soil, etc. US can be a great world power without an overseas empire. In contrast, the ONLY way European nations could have been a Great World Powers was by maintaining overseas empires. So, while 'republic, not an empire' may apply to the US, it didn't apply to Europe. For Brits, French, Italians, and Germans, 'empire, not merely a dinky republic' may have been justified--if they sought greatness. There was no way Britian or France, on its own, could have been a great power--as opposed to US, Russia, China, and potentially Brazil and India. They needed to have overseas empires.
Still, European empires were doomed once the genie of nationalism was out of the bottle and spreading all over the world. The only way Europeans could have maintained empires was by practicing mass slaughter--as in Algeria--against increasingly restless native populations or by practicing apartheid--which turned South Africa into a pariah state. And, just look at Israel's international reputation thanks to its imperialist rule over West Bank. The only graceful exit possible for the West was a quick exit. Contrary to Buchanan's argument, British loss of empire was not disgraceful or pathetic. It was relatively painless and done in goodwill for the most part. India peacefully struggled for independence, and Britain wisely let her go. Britain also let most of the African colonies go in the 1950s and 1960s--and good riddance to those moneypits. If Britain failed as civilizers in many areas, it was because they had failed to properly develop adequate local talent so that the natives could functionally take over upon the departure of the Brits. In many cases, Brits had restricted economic, social, and political developments in their colonies because they didn't want them to compete with the mother country--a lesson learned from American colonies which had grown too independent and strong. But, it would be unfair to blame only the Brits. Brits had offered a gradual timetable for independence which would have been better for all African nations but such was rejected by the blacks who were rash to rule their own nations though they didn't know how. Also, the fate of former colonies had much to do with the cultural developments of the people in question. Since Chinese were already an highly civilized people, Singapore was bound to succeed much more than African countries or non-Chinese Southeast Asians upon independence. Consider that Singapore won independence in the 1960s while Hong Kong was let go by Britain only in 1997, but they have similar levels of development. So, it's possible that Africa might not have done much better EVEN IF the withdrawal of British imperialism had been more gradual. No amount of British or French effort may have tamed the blacks enough to rule modern nations.

Also, Buchanan seems confused about Wilsonianism. Is he for or against self-determination? He says Germans in Sudetenland and Danzig should have had the right to determine their own future--to remain minorities or to rejoin Germany. But, in other parts of the book, he blasts self-determination as naive and stupid. It basically comes to, "self-determination is justified for western Europeans and Germanic peoples but no one else". So, Slavs demanding self-determination and breaking away from Austrian rule are trouble-makers, yet German minorities in Slavic nations have every right to demand autonomy or reunification with Germany. This rather sounds Chinese-ish--the Chinese had every right to determine their own destiny by kicking out Western and Japanese imperialists... but Tibetans have no right to determine their own future. Big Germanic and Big Chinese--and Big Russian--thinkings are nearly identical. "Freedom for me but not for you."
Now, Buchanan's two arguments against Wilsonianism is valid. What transpired in Europe and much of the world after WWI was not self-determination. Many Germans--and Hungarians--found themselves as minorities in Slavic countries. Also, victorious European nations kept their empires. Also, China got nothing out of the WWI though they sent manpower to help the British and French war effort. Also, Japan gained greater control over China--though not enough to be pleased. So, self-determination was not practiced after WWI. But, that's not the problem of self-determination as principle but as application. If the law says, 'thou shall not steal', but some people steal, the problem is not the law but the law-breaker. The concept of self-determination was essentially sound and came to fruition in much of the world with the fall of British and French--and later Soviet--empire. Of course, there were many ensuing problems, especially in newly created nations which could barely rule themselves and were empires in their own rights violating self-determination of other peoples(as we've seen in Iraq and Sudan). But, the fall of empires generally did make for a more stable world order--except in hodge-podge crazy quilt Africa where British and French imperialism were replaced with tribal imperialisms than with genuine nationalisms.

The real problem of the self-determination doctrine was its idea of interventionism. It was one thing for US to give moral and other forms of benign support to peoples aspiring to be free. It's quite another for US to involve itself--especially militarily--to 'save the world'. That is often foolish, dangerous, and self-destructive. But, let's not exaggerate Wilson's failings. He had no plans whatsoever to go to war with France, Britain, or Japan to liberate Africa, Asia, Middle East, and elsewhere so that non-whites could all determine their future. He focused mainly on Europe, and his advice was essentially sound. Had Europeans followed his advice and created new nations on the principles of self-determination, there would have been far greater chance for peace. There would have been no Sudetenland and Danzig Germans clamoring for reunification with Germany, no Czech/Slovak tensions, much less Croat/Serbian bad blood. Also, the peace that Germany made with Russia--which was along self-determination principles--should have been allowed to stand. After all, Germany didn't so much annex Russian lands as create newly independent nations leaning toward Germany.
At any rate, to blame Wilson for all form of interventionism is unjust. I highly doubt if Wilson would have supported the Iraq War. Wilson never called for US military intervention to free the world. Never. And, his advice to Europe was sound, pragmatic, and fair. Wilson was, at worst, a naive idealist, but he was not a radical 'democratic fundamentalist'. And, unlike Truman who expressed no sorrow over his disastrous policy in Asia or Bush who never seemed troubled by what happened in Iraq, Wilson agonized terribly over what had happened and died tragically. Give the man a break.

(4) Buchanan says it would have been okay for Germany to dominate Europe upon victory in WWI and also indicates that's precisely what happened anyway with the rise of German-France dominated EU. So, German victory in WWI would only have hastened constructive European unity and integration. In this light, British interference in European affairs not only extended the war to terrible proportions and inadvertently laid the foundation for communism, fascism, and WWII but only put off the inevitable. After all, what is the European Union today if not a Europe dominated by France and Germany? There are many problems with Buchanan's argument.
First, a Europe dominated by France and Germany is not the same as one dominated by Germany alone. But more importantly, there's a crucial difference between dominating through democratic/economic means and through the barrel of a gun.

EU works because free and independent European nation-states decided to merge together without external coercion. They saw the advantages and wanted to join the club, and several non-members in east and southeastern Europe also want to join. There is a Big legal, moral, political, and psychological difference between voluntary cooperation among nations and coercive unity maintained by the threat of military force. There's no guarantee that German victory in WWI might have led to lasting peace. Deeply humiliated, resentful, and angry French might have turned to fiery nationalist, anti-German radicalism. A wounded Russia might still have overthrown the Czar and empower the radicals of the nationalist variety. In other words, the fascistic forces might have prevailed in France, Russia, and other loser nations. Germany would have found itself surrounded by nations that hated Germany more than ever before. A France defeated in WWI would have hated Germany far more than they did from 1871 to 1914. Russians too would have looked forward to a day of vengeance and reckoning--and their own 'place in the sun'. Could a triumphant Germany after WWI keep peace and order over both France and Russia? For how long? What makes Buchanan think that the French and Russians would have licked their wounds and forgiven the Germans? Wouldn't the French and the Russians prepared for vengeance against the Germans? One could argue that Germans wouldn't have made as punitive a peace against Russia and France as the one made against Germany at Versailles. But, we don't know what might have happened. Also, punitive or magnanimous, no nation likes to lose a war and be belittled. No nation likes to be dominated by another nation at the point of a bayonet. Bismarck's quick victories and magnanimity didn't allay the fears nor ease the hunger for revenge among the French. If southern Germans and Austrians were more willing to forgive and forget Prussian aggression under Bismarck, it was only because they were of the same Germanic stock. But, there was a separate French and Slavic nationalisms. Germany could have defeated France and Russia without British intervention in WWI, but the victory would have sowed the seeds for future wars in Europe. WWI was a conflict which neither side could totally win. Even upon victory, there was no way the French and British could keep down an angry and vengeful Germany indefinitely and no way for the Germans to maintain order and domination over the angry French and Russians. France and Russia could have both spawned radical nationalist leaders, and in turn, Germany might have become even more militaristic.

Politics and history are like chess games. Every move creates a new advantage and disadvantage. What's matters is all the new possibilities--for the player and his opponent--unleashed by the move. Buchanan's reading of history is like commenting on a chess game after it's over. Buchanan may point to a move by the loser in the early part of the game and say THAT was THE 'fatal error'. But, chess games are not won or lost with a single move. Every move opens up infinite new possibilities. So, pinpointing any one event, personage, or decision for WWI and WWII, let alone the 'death of the west', is a meaningless form of scapegoating. If there's an iron law in chess, then a player should win by using the SAME strategy over and over. But, the game depends on the opponent's reading and adjustment to the strategy and then the player's reading of the opponent's reading and adjustment to the strategy and so on. This is why international laws are so important. Without rule of law among nations, we only have the dangerous art of mind-reading between nations. If Bush and Hussein made a mistake in Iraq War, it was that both depended more on mind-reading than on respect for and adherence to international laws. Hussein played games with WMD inspections, trying to make the world believe that maybe he got rid of his weapons or didn't or did or didn't. And, Bush's decision was based as much on geopolitical palm reading and psychoanalysis as on diplomatic maneuvers.

Anyway, nations working voluntarily together through mutually agreed laws--as in the current EU--should not be confused with the German dominated world order had Germany won WWI. Nations, big or small, don't like being pushed around. If Buchanan argues that Iraqis resent American presence in their country, what makes him think the proud French and Russians would have been happy with German dominance in Europe had Germany been victorious in WWI? And, even if French and Russians leaders would have opted for peace in a German-dominated order, could they have suppressed popular passions--especially those inflamed by vengeful firebrands? Buchanan is blind to all this because he has a bully boy personality who thinks big powerful nations should dominate their smaller/weaker neighbors. So, he finds nothing wrong with Putin's bullying antics against his neighbors. The republics next to Russia don't want to fear and hate Russia. They want to be left alone and be free to make their own decisions, whether this entails trade with Russia or the West, closer political ties with Russia or other nations. The choices must be left up to the republics, but Russians had ruled those territories under the Czar and under communism, and this habit of domination is still in the Russian blood. That is the reason for the bad blood between Russia and her neighbors. And, this bad blood has reached boiling point in some areas because of Russian pressures and dirty tricks--even using poison in trying to kill the Ukrainian candidate for democracy. Buchanan may be right in criticizing the US for setting up military bases in those republics or giving Russians reason to fear being 'surrounded' by hostile Western forces. But, those republics would not have invited US presence had it not been for Russian arrogance and chauvinism. If Russians accept the loss of their empire--which they had no historical or moral right to--and try to work in good faith with their neighbors, it'll be good for everyone. There can a kind of Eastern European EU. But, Russians, like Germans up to WWII, are used to dominating others, pushing them around, using violence and coercion. The result? 1/4 of Kazakhi population and up to 1/3 of Ukrainian population decimated under Lenin and Stalin. Many other republics fared no better. Expecting the peoples of these republics to defer to Russians--as Buchanan recommends--is like saying today's Jews ought to defer to Germans. Those people have suffered enough from Czarist and communist--especially the latter--oppression. But, they would all be willing to forgive and forget IF Russians approached them as free and independent nations than as vassal states of Russia.

There is a huge difference between Franco-German domination of EU and Russia's domination over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In the latter, the weaker peoples had no choice in the matter. A German dominated European order upon German victory in WWI or WWII would have been closer to the old Russian model of domination through blatant force. Psychology matters in politics. Even when domination by outsiders or foreigners is good for a people, resentment grows and grows. Yes, the British did wonderful things in India, but Indians resented white officers lording over them. Today, India is eager for increased trade and relations with UK and other nations but as a free and independent nation. This is why the American order worked much better than the old European imperialist order. Though US has been dominant in much of the world, it has been as(often generous)friend and partner than as an overlord.
It's possible that victorious Germans in WWI could have been generous and enlightened, but again, power has its own logic. No one knows exactly what one will do until one gets there. An athlete or actor doesn't know how he'll act upon winning the championship or becoming a big star. Will he keep a cool head or fall prey to his own myth, his megalomania? Also, even if Germany had been fair, we have no idea how the leaders and the people of defeated nations might have reacted, thought, or felt. German victory in WWI would have been just another move on the geopolitical chessboard opening up and triggering off a whole new set of possibilities and chain reactions, promising or problematic. We need just look at the end of WWII and the Cold War. After WWII, many people thought that Evil itself was vanquished for good, but there was plenty of more evil to come. And, then came the fall of communism. Many people were, again, in triumphalist mode, as though this was indeed the ideological/moral end of history with Liberal West victorious for all time. Well, look again. That too was just another move on the chessboard opening up new challenges. There is no magic bullet nor no sure way to dodge the historical bullet. Countless energies and trends ricochet around. So, the idea that Western history would have been just hunky dory had Europe had dodged the WWI bullet is to miss the point; later events could just as well have led to war. In other words, there might have been WWI in the 20s or 30s than in 1914. But, Buchanan has this magic bullet theory with the same theme--Germanophilia. Had Germans won WWI, there would have been no Death of the West. Had Germans not been punished with Versailles, there would have been no Death of the West. Had Hitler been allowed to take Danzig, there would have been no Death of the West. Had Hitler been left alone to clobber Stalin's Russia, there would have been Death of the West. In other words, it's because the maturer nations of the West didn't let the tantrum-throwing German baby hog all the milk and cookies that the Death of the West happened. Ridiculous!!

Now, consider North America. Canada, US, and Mexico all live in peace because they do not dominate one another through force. Tensions have arisen when boundaries and laws were not respected. So, there was a war in 1812 when the US sought to swallow up the Canadian territory. And, there were tensions--which last to this day--between US and Mexico because US swallowed a big chunk of SW territories that had once belonged to Mexico. Also, gringos dispossessed the property of many Mexicans in the territory. And now, there's a lot of fear and resentment among Americans because of Mexican drug trade and illegal immigration. So, nations must work together through peace, mutual respect, and rule of law. (Currently, Mexicans don't respect American border laws, and Americans don't enforce them.) Germans were not ready for the Rule of Law until their defeat in WWII, and Russians are still not ready even today. But, US, though dominant in North America, has been respectful of Canada and Mexico's borders, governments, sovereignty, etc--at least since the latter part of the 19th century.

A hypothetically victorious Germans following WWI might not have been so fair-minded and respectful with its neighbors. For one thing, US was a big country that felt self-satisfied with its size and power. Germany, on the other hand, was a nation striving for greatness but was limited in terms of population and land mass. A victorious Germany may have developed greater appetite for forcing more concessions from Russians and even expanding overseas. Ambition has its own logic. Those who gain something want to gain more and more, just like a team that wins the Super Bowl wants to win again the next year and forever and ever. Indeed, American hunger for land, power, and influence expanded exponentially with every new gain. At one time, Americans were only interested in the 13 colonies. Once those were secured, they were interested in parts of the West as yet unclaimed by other nations. Once those were secured, Americans eyed the SW territories. Then, they couldn't resist taking Hawaii. And, then Philippines and Cuba were next. Did all this happen because the Founding Fathers hatched a master plan for world conquest? Did Lincoln leave a secret memo calling for the taking of Hawaii and Philippines in the future, or of purchasing Alaska? Of course not. (If Russians hadn't sold Alaska, Americans probably would have found some bogus reason to just take it.) So, Buchanan's thesis of 'republic, not an empire' fails. For 130 yrs prior to Wilson, Americans were empire-ists, not humble republican-ists. The difference between British or French empire building and American empire-building was that the former were small and therefore had to stretch out across the seas whereas the latter has its hands full taming the vast continent. If the entire North American land mass had comprised only of the original 13 colonies, Americans would have joined in overseas empire building enterprise to a much greater extent. Americans, like Russians, were no less empire builders than the rest. The only difference is they had huge territories to conquer and claim. And, they lucked out that most of their conquered territories were sparsely populated, therefore less likely to be lost through the rise of indigenous nationalism. In the 130 yrs prior to Wilson, the size and character of America changed greatly, and it was due to the mentality of empire-building, not due to the political philosophy of 'republic, not an empire'. And once the entire continent was claimed and conquered--minus Canada and Mexico--, Americans were eager for more prizes overseas, instigating a war with Spain to get them. And, this was all before Wilsonianism. If anything, the Wilsonian doctrine comes closer to 'republic, not an empire'. His idea was that each nation should rule itself than be ruled by imperialist overlords of other nations. And if Wilson wanted to use US military might, it wasn't to expand the American empire but to limit the empires of others. So, Wilsonianism is interventionist empire-destroying than empire-building. Of course, cynical Europeans thought this was just a dirty American trick of using lofty ideals to check European influence and power in the world.
Once US laid claim, conquered, and settled the vast continent, it sought to expand its wealth through world trade; thus, US had to be mindful of the world order. In order to maintain its global business ties, US had to work on its political and diplomatic strategy. In this light, the growing US role in the world must not be isolated from its overall economic interests. As US wanted to sell more to other nations and purchase certain materials it in short or limited supply, US had to maintain a stable world order; this was problematic as control of the world order was becoming crowded out by old rivals and new players. Though UK and France managed to respect each other's empires, it was not an easy truce. But, with Italy, Germany, and Japan on the rise, the old world order dominated by the Brits was coming under pressure. As for Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch, their claim to world domination had faded long ago. China was too weak, and besides its vast size and population required it to focus its energies on itself. And, as Russians had possession over such vast land mass, they were less hungry for overseas territories.
Americans were somewhere between the Russians and Brits. On the one hand, US was a huge country, and there was enough to do WITHIN America alone. America, like Russia, was an empire unto itself. But, Americans were far more energetic, productive, and restless than the Russians. Once the West Coast had been connected with the East Coast through the continental railroad and once big cities rose in California, Americans too wanted to control the seas in a more dominant way. And, Americans, who had been content to build their own industries in the 19th century, wanted to look outside America for new investments, new adventures, new missions, etc. Idealism and economic interests were rolled into one--as was the case with the first Spanish adventurers who came to the Americas with the gun to defeat the savages, pick axes to mine for gold, and the Bible to convert the heathens. So, to describe American internationalist policy since the WWI era as purely idealistic is naive or disingenuous. American internationalism wouldn't have had real bite if not for the economic interests underlying them. Why did US intervene in Kuwait but not in Rwanda and Sudan? Kuwait has oil. Why did US go into Iraq? Purely out of Democratic Fundamentalist ideals or 'Blood for Oil'? A bit of both. If Iraq had zero economic interest to the US, it's doubtful that Neocons could have persuaded oilmen Bush and Cheney to remake the Middle East into gGianth. Sure, Bush loves Israel, but he doesn't love it THAT much. What he'll really drink to is OIL. Even if Bush may not personally profit from the Iraq venture, he comes from a culture that thinks, talks, and dreams of oil.

Buchanan should know that there is a public relations side to doing business. So, for US to do business with the world and to promote itself as a business partner to other nations, US has to sell something other than products. America has to sell the image of itself as a 'good' nation. A good nation sometimes has to do 'good' things. All companies do business this way. So, Coca-Cola pays for clean water in some African village and sending some Chinese woman to college. Coca-Cola wants to sell more Cola by linking its product to noble and good values. Walmart does the same in local communities; it played a huge role in the New Orleans disaster. It's all part of advertising, as when companies pay money to celebrities to endorse their products. If Tiger Woods drinks Gatorade, it must really be a cool drink. So, America has to maintain a morally positive image in the world by sometimes doing 'good work'. Of course, all 'good works' cannot satisfy everyone. Europeans were both grateful and resentful to the US for resolving the problem in Bosnia and Kosovo--grateful because US was much more effective and resentful because American effectiveness made Europeans feel small. And, the world wasn't much persuaded about America's effort to save South Vietnam from communism or to liberate Iraq from Hussein. Much of the world saw US in Vietnam and US in Iraq as neo-imperialism in disguise.

Buchanan criticizes British 'balance of powers' policy in Europe as outdated on the eve of WWI, but his view of American foreign policy is also outdated. The idea that US foreign policy in the 20th century could or should resemble that of the first 130 yrs is wishful thinking.
Through the first 130 yrs, US was a relatively weak child growing into over-sized suit. US was a secondary power when compared to UK or France. America until mid-19th century was even weaker than China. So, US was in no position to deal strongly with the rest of the world. But, once the child grew into his clothes and grew bigger, it had no choice put to bump into other giants of the world. And, it had to fashion a new outfit for itself.
And again, during the first 130 yrs, US was an expansive and imperialistic nation. It kept expanding into areas that were not originally part of America. It provoked and waged a war with Mexico to grab a big chunk of territory. It waged wars of conquest against Indian 'nations'. Some 'republic, not an empire'! Americans were indeed expansive imperialists in the first 130 yrs but of a different sort than the Brits and the French(or even the Spanish). They had so much land to conquer that they didn't bother with an overseas empire--unless one designates America itself as the product of overseas empire-building, which it certainly was. Also, because Americans conquered mostly sparsely populated lands and because whites became the overwhelming majority in those lands, the territories were seen as part of America than another country ruled by white American imperialists. The difference between Asian-Indians and American Indians was there were relatively few of the latter. They could be resettled in reservations or absorbed into the larger white community. They became part of America. In contrast, Asian Indians were always Asian Indians and outnumbered the British overlords by a huge margin. This is why people say 'demography is destiny.'

Anyway, Germans had no right to impose their order by force throughout Europe. Whether their proposed order would have been good or bad is not the point. The point is freedom and sovereignty of nations. Buchanan talks about the importance of American national sovereignty--border control, immigration, laws, etc--, yet, he thinks Germans had some God-given right to violate national borders, invade smaller or weaker countries, and impose their order on all of Europe. A forcibly imposed order is always unstable. Even perceptions of stability in such political order are delusional. The Shah of Iran was misperceived by many as a stabilizing figure in the region when, in fact, he was seen as a US puppet by his people and much of the world. This is why US was eager to pressure Philippines and South Korea toward democratic reforms in the 80s--Americans got tired of being accused of propping up dictatorial puppets of "American Imperialism". If Filipinos and Koreans elected their own leaders, the political passions in those countries would be directed toward domestic figures than at the US.

Things can get nasty even when a truly democratic nation imposes its order on another nation. Just look at the British-Irish history. Brits may have done much for the Irish, but the rage and resentment were the order of the day for centuries.
Is Buchanan a nationalist or an imperialist? He switches back and forth from one to the other for the sake of argument. He tells us that an American world empire--if there is such--is stupid but then writes that the British empire was glorious and should have lasted for much longer(though it was ruled by chauvinism and arrogance unlike the American dominated New World Order today). Buchanan says national sovereignty is of paramount importance but it seems only for Big Powerful nations. So, even though it was awful for Poles to not return Danzig to Germany or stupid for the US to alarm Russia by 'surrounding' her, Germans had some God-given right to trample across the borders of other nations to create a German dominated order and Russians have some divine right to use its muscle to intimidate smaller nations. Buchanan even suggests Imperial Japan should have ruled over Asia; he faults the Chinese for instigating a war with Japan by trying to reclaim Chinese territory!!! Then, I suppose US is to blame for the Pacific War by avenging the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course, Buchanan thinks US had every right to smash Japan and kill any number of those 'yellow-bellied Japs' for what they did to the naval base in Hawaii, but he thinks Chinese had no moral right to fight Japan to reclaim lost national territory. Suppose Japan had taken Alaska than Manchuria and US retaliated by sending troops to Alaska to beat back the Japanese. Should we blame ourselves for 'starting' the war with Japan?! Buchanan thinks UK should have let the aggressive Japanese have a free hand in Asia in exchange for keeping their hands off British possessions in the East. Of course, Buchanan says the Japanese weren't so bad but only became psychotic BECAUSE the British rebuffed them and didn't extend the alliance. It's almost embarrassing that Buchanan, who considers himself a proud white man, now makes excuses for the Japanese. So, the main reason why the reasonable Japanese turned into psychotic 'yellow-bellied Japs' was because UK told Japan, 'you can't marry my daughter'? This is surreal.
More likely, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was bound to eventually fail due to rising Japanese ambitions in the region. There was little US or UK could have done. Japanese demands grew in proportion to their power. At one time, they were satisfied with Korea, a chunk of Manchuria, and a few islands. But, as they saw themselves more as a great world power, they became restless over Western dominance in Asia. More importantly, once the Japan got accustomed to seeing itself as the Premier power of Asia, it could not tolerate the rise of China under Chiang Kai-Shek who effectively unified the nation. So, this silly idea that Japanese went psychotic all because of shortsightedness of British policy is nonsense. A clash between Japan and UK or between Japan and US was bound to happen. But, at the core of this eventual clash was the problem of Japan vs. China. Western powers--especially idealistic Americans--were willing to allow and even help the Chinese Nationalists to unify the nation, promote national pride, and move toward greater Chinese independence. That would have meant Japan being eclipsed by China in the position of the most powerful Asian nation. Though Japan pretended to save China from the West, it was really trying save itself from a rising China aided by the West. Just as the mother country of England has grown accustomed to seeing the American colonies as loyal, appreciative, and subservient, and thus fought a bloody and bitter war to maintain its superiority over the colonies, the Japanese were determined to keep China down and remain the dominant power in Asia. Chinese had more right to resist Japan than American colonialists had a right to fight the Mother Country of Britain. After all, whereas the Anglo-Americans and the British shared same ethnic stock, language, and political culture, Chinese and Japanese were as different as Russians and Germans.

Through all of his reasoning(or unreasoning), it's disturbing to see how off-putting Buchanan. Indeed\though quite unwittingly--Buchanan's own thoughts and biases reveal why the European order really suffered. As with Hitler, Buchanan's views are closer to Aryan or Germanic consciousness than pan-white consciousness. How does Buchanan intend to unite white consciousness when his book insults every white person not of German stock? So, French should have lost WWI and should have accepted Germanic domination? Czechs and Poles were more guilty of WWII than Hitler and Germans? It would have been okay if Nazis conquered Russia and turned Slavs into subhuman slaves? Wow, what an inspirational message to the white race! It's precisely this kind of tribal ethnic than pan-racial mentality that brought ruin to Europe. If Hitler had thought more in terms of race than ethnicity\Germanic or 'Aryan'--, he would have worked peacefully and constructively with other white peoples. But, he believed the Germanic kind should rule over the 'lesser' white kind. And, Buchanan is angry with UK because it didn't take the German bait of 'we Germans and you Anglos are better and should rule the world together' schtick. On this issue, Buchanan is blind as a bat and still thinks in terms of the mentality that led to WWII.
Hitler could have had the first atomic bomb had he realized(or admitted) that the many German Jews were patriotic. But, Hitler had to attack ALL patriotic Jews and white Slavs.
Buchanan is angry with Anglos for not siding with 'superior' white Germans against 'lesser' white Slavs. This is crazy. Surely, Poles and Russians who read his book will hate Buchanan's guts and rightfully so.

Also, Buchanan's expression of outrage over Stalinist domination over Europe and communist takeover of Asia sounds disingenuous. He laments about how 100s of millions of innocent people were enslaved or murdered. But, Buchanan's moralism is PURELY selective. He has little to say about the horrors suffered by those under Japanese or German occupation. There isn't a single mention of German atrocities in Russia while there is much about forced expulsion of Germans in the east. There isn't a single mention of German terror against Poles, but much about the nastiness of Polish leaders and people(five or six times, Buchanan uses quotes describing Poles as 'hyenas'; by the way, hyenas have gotten a bad rap in nature. In Africa, lions steal hyena kill far more than hyenas steal lion kill. Lions are the real 'hyenas'.). Also, while Buchanan is right that Stalin killed more than Hitler and that China under communism produced more corpses than during the war with Japan, he doesn't consider the what-might-have-been had the Axis powers won. Had Hitler won in the East, he might have killed tens of millions of Slavs. And, had Japan prevailed over China, who knows what kind of horror would have taken place. The horrors committed by the Japanese in Southeast Asia and in Nanking might have been multiplied a hundred fold. Buchanan is right in condemning the evil and horror of communism, but he's too easy on the horrors of Nazism and Japanese militarism. He treats communist evil as immoral while treating fascist evil as amoral. It's as though fascists were just a force of nature who should have been accommodated one way or another, whereas communist evil had to be confronted without compromise. Buchanan faults Churchill for fawning over Stalin during the alliance, but did Churchill have a choice? Had Stalin invaded Germany first and threatened all of Europe, wouldn't Churchill have fawned over Hitler--at least for the duration of the alliance with Germany against the USSR?
To be sure, Buchanan does make one important and valid point. If Churchill was willing to schmooze evil Stalin for national interest, why had he been so rigid and moralistic against Hitler? It's as though Churchill rejected the devil for Satan. But, I think it all came down than to Churchill's assessment of the nature of the leaders than to the nature of regimes. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler but he was patient and less of a gambler; he may have wanted the world but he had ice in his veins. Hitler, on the other hand, was hot-blooded(and therefore, less stable and more reckless). Stalin had no compunction against killing millions but he wouldn't have invaded powerful nations for the sake of national 'honor', 'historical justice', or personal vision. Stalin understood only power, and his actions were based purely on what was or wasn't possible. Stalin wouldn't have attempted something like Pearl Harbor. His Georgian feudal mentality and his Marxist-Leninist training made him bid for time and strike only when victory was likely. His rule was always attack the weaker and helpless, not the powerful. Hitler and the Japanese, on the other hand, prescribed to the theory of the Iron Will. There was an irrational spiritual quality about Nazism and Japanese militarism that made their rulers more likely to gamble and go for ALL OR NOTHING; there was this idea that will and spirit could overcome all obstacles. So, in this sense, Churchill was right in his assessment of Hitler and Stalin. In the end, it was not that Hitler was morally worse than Stalin. It was that Hitler was less stable, more reckless, and more aggressive than Stalin. Two people can be equally evil, but the bolder one is more troublesome than the cautious one. If Stalin had been incautious prior to the German invasion, it was still of defensive nature. He misread Hitler. He trusted Hitler, a mistake Churchill never made. But, did Churchill trust Stalin? No. He had to schmooze Stalin in the spirit of enemy-of-your-enemy-is-your-friend.

Though many historians favor Trotsky over Stalin, the former was more dangerous(with political power, which he lost) for, like Hitler, he was ambitious, reckless, and aggressive\much more so than Stalin. Stalin's rule was "hunt for easy prey and fight powerful nations ONLY when national survival depends on it". Otherwise, spread influence and power through patient subversion, penetration, proxy wars, etc. Stalin didn't even try to take all of Europe in WWII though he could have if he wanted to; he didn't want a confrontation with the Americans; in contrast, Hitler insanely declared war on the US after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor! And, when FDR requested that Russians enter the Asian sphere, Stalin hesitated and finally invaded Manchuria, Mongolia, and northern China ONLY after the nukes were dropped on Japan and Japanese surrender was right around the corner. It is for this reason that Stalin was less dangerous, at least in the short run. Of course, in the long run, USSR proved to be more dangerous for just this reason. It didn't go for all-or-nothing gambles that could bring about its collapse as Nazi Germany and militarist Japan had done.

(5). Buchanan says Churchill was thrilled about WWI, reveling in guts and glory in contrast to many sober voices in governments in Europe. But, his sentiments weren't necessarily the same thing as warmongering. It's not that Churchill wanted war but got caught up in the excitement once war was inevitable; and he certainly wasn't alone in feeling the way he did. For a relatively young patriotic politician with an exciting military background, this was understandable. Also, once war becomes unavoidable, a nation needs enthusiastic and heroic figures than defeatists and pessimists. The French, for instance, could have held off the German attack in WWII had they shown more determination. But, too many French officers and soldiers decided halfway that there was no way they could stop the Germans. War is half material, half psychology. Once war became inevitable in Europe, Churchill had the right attitude. Once you step into the ring, you better be ready to rumble.
Also, we must keep in mind that Churchill was by no means alone in his excitement at the outbreak of WWI. Because of the long peace since the fall of Napoleon, the rise of nationalism across the continent, media and education devoted to pride and chauvinism than critical thinking or individual conscience, and values such as honor and dignity, countless Europeans--from kings to peasants--got swept up in the passions for war. Niall Ferguson wrote that many officers and soldiers in WWI really loved the war as a kind of manly bloodsport. Their ancient and modern passions all fused into one, and for many WWI was the defining moment of their lives.
Perhaps, as destructive as WWI was, it shouldn't have been defined as catastrophe for all of Europe. The soldiers of the winning side should have been allowed to feel pride in the victory, and even the Germans should have been allowed to go home as warriors-who-gave-their-best. As it happened, the leaders of the victorious side made many people--not least the veterans--feel that it had all been for nothing, and the soldiers of defeated nations were made to feel like total shit. So, victory felt anti-climactic for the winners, and defeat felt unbearable for the losers. Notice WWII was not remembered this way. Russians took great pride in their victory despite losses much greater than in WWI, and this pride--more than anything else--held the USSR together for another 40 yrs. Americans suffered more deaths in WWII than in WWI but there was great sense of honor and pride among Americans. And, the Britain didn't fall into pessimistic guilt-ridden funk as in the aftermath of WWI--though British war crimes against German civilians and betrayal of Eastern European countries in WWII far exceeded British crimes during and after WWI. So, in this sense, the problem was not so much Churchill's enthusiasm for the First World War but his excessive pessimism in its wake. Perhaps, this had much to do with Versailles. Perhaps, if a just peace with Germany could have been made, the winners could have felt greater confidence and pride in their victory, and the losers could have preserved, at the very minimum, their pride as courageous men who'd fought for their fatherland.

Anyway, Churchill wasn't the only one who got swept up by the First World War. And, it wasn't Churchill nor UK that started the war. At worst, the Brits miscalculated by entering on the side of the French, but this is all with the benefit of hindsight. No coach in sports has the luxury of seeing how the game will play out before making his decisions. It's easy for us to look back and feel all the wiser with hindsight. We don't know what the stock market will be like in the next 6 months, but we know what it was like in the past 6 months. So, should we say everyone who lost money in the past 6 months were idiots because they didn't know what we know now?

Also, suggesting that Churchill was responsible for WWI because of his enthusiasm for war is like saying US got involved in WWII because Patton loved war. Yes, Patton loved war--and unlike Churchill, was something of a genuine warmonger--, but he had nothing to do with WWII, though if he could have done things his way, he would have ignited WWIII against the USSR. Churchill was reacting to the times, and he was neither entirely right nor wrong. In fact, nothing in this world--at least in politics and history--is totally right or wrong. The British policy of 'balance of powers' in Europe could be moral or immoral, sound or unsound, stabilizing or destabilizing. In some ways, one could argue that Britain shouldn't have stood in the way of Napoleon who, in spreading Enlightenment principles throughout Europe, was something of a liberator and modernizer bringing the light of Reason to the oppressed all over Europe. Was it right for the British to support kings and noblemen against the French who were sweeping away the old rotten world? But, one can equally argue that Napoleon was a megalomaniac, his French soldiers were rapacious thugs, and he was replacing one form of oppression with another. There is no easy answer to this. I suppose a French Pat Buchanan--Patrice Buchaneux--could argue that the Death of The West was all due to British intervention in the Napoleonic wars. Had the British not got involved, the French would have created a stable, unified, confident, proud, and dynamic European order dominated by civilizing, rational, and enlightened French influences. This New European Order would have stretched from Spain to Siberia. Europeans would have been liberated from kings and noblemen, lived in republics with the consent of the people, looked to Paris for inspiration and instruction, and taken up French cooking than barbarously wolfing down sausage and sauerkraut. Such a Europe would have been united, happy, and forward looking. There would have been no kings and noblemen to manipulate and exploit mass psychology upon the rise of nationalism. As such, there would have been no WWI or WWII or the Death of the West. We can play this kind of academic parlor game forever.

Anyway, Buchanan's Churchill bashing is a form of scapegoatism. It's understandable that Buchanan is upset with loose morals, low birthrates, and the demographic darkening of the West. He's so upset that he's inclined to believe that Hitler, as evil as he was, might have been more of a savior of Europe than Churchill who 'traitorously' sided with the "Asiatic Horde"--Russians--than with his racial Germanic cousins. But, only history can tell how things will really play out. 100 yrs from now, it may well be that Hitler's Europe might have been better in the long run for Europeans than the liberal democratic one that replaced it. If guilt-ridden, decadent, liberal democracy is inherently suicidal and gutless, then history will eventually expose worthlessness as a civilizational survival tool. After all, a big tough thuggish--and evil guy--has a better chance of protecting his family from criminals and home than a nice, wussy, do-goody, and wimpy guy. The tough evil guy would be willing to fight other evil guys whereas the goody goody guy will turn the other cheek when scumbags come to rape his wife, kidnap his children, and burn his house down. One of the fatal flaws in Western liberalism is the notion that evil tyranny is uniquely Western(or if it exists among non-Western peoples, Western people have no right to judge on the grounds of cultural relativism or Western historical guilt), or that only white people are capable of oppressive evil. So, all the moral, political, and economic burden falls only on Western nations. So, if Africans are starving due to their lousy economic management, backward values, and corrupt leadership, the West is blamed for not feeding those blacks. If African immigrants leave their impoverished nations--impoverished by their own behavior, decisions, and stupidity--, the West is blamed for not taking in enough of these 'immigrants'. The same mentality is applied in North America. American liberals never blame Mexicans for the problems in Mexico. Liberals say it's the responsibility of Americans to give more aid to Mexico and to welcome more poor Mexicans into the US. "Racism" is purely a white problem or disease, whereas if a non-white figure like Jeremiah Wright spews hatred and venom in the manner of Hitler, we are supposed to understand and forgive his feelings. It was this guilt-ridden liberal mentality that failed to see the dangers of rise of Nazism, and we have the same problem in regards to blacks, Mexican illegals, and Arab/African invaders in Europe. This isn't to say that liberal morality is necessarily wrong. Indeed, much of its fair-minded and noble. But, no amount of goodwill has any value without reciprocity and mutuality from those who are shown goodwill. Israeli liberalism toward Palestinians is stupid not because liberalism is necessarily wrong but because Palestinians will not reciprocate Israeli goodwill; similarly, Palestinian liberalism is stupid because too many Israelis will not reciprocate Palestinian goodwill.

That Germans got a bum deal in Versailles is true. That British tried to make amends with the Germans was laudable. But, the Nazi leaders were not the sort who could appreciate good will nor work in good faith. The liberal fallacy believes that suffering equals nobility. Because some of the noblest INDIVIDUALS in history suffered greatly and because people who suffer deserve our sympathy, liberals think entire GROUPS who have suffered historically or are suffering currently are little Jesuses. Blacks have been milking this liberal teat for decades, and the Nazis played on Western liberal emotions in the inter-war period too. Many decent British people were willing to bend over backward for Nazi Germany because of their feelings of guilt going back to Versailles. But, no amount of goodwill has any value unless it is reciprocated and mutual. For instance, if some early black Civil Rights leaders were men of mutual goodwill and appreciative of white desire to make amends, many blacks since the 60s have only been manipulating white guilt to build up Black Power. Similarly, the Nazis--like many Muslims today in Europe--manipulated the guilt of the Western powers for the sake of 'Aryan Power'. Hitler, like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, merely exploited the real suffering of German women and children who starved to death during and after WWI to build up his own power and glory. Similarly, many black demagogues who make much noise about slavery and poverty are really saying, "I want to be the black Fuhrer". Only stupid liberals fall for this shit over and over. Of course, some Brits who reached out to Hitler were Germanophile conservatives, but there's no denying that even they were motivated by a sense of guilt not unlike the kind of liberal guilt we see today.
In truth, suffering does NOT equal nobility. If that were true, Hutus--who suffered for centuries under Tutsi tyranny--would have been all little Jesuses. But, when they had power, they slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis in a mere 3 months. And, Germanic barbarians suffered much under the Romans but, upon gaining military advantage, plundered Rome and raped countless Latin women. And, just look at the behavior of the Chinese--who suffered tremendously for centuries--in places like Tibet. Some noble saints! And, Afghanis, who suffered much under Soviet occupation and won our sympathy, soon turned against the US and welcomed Alqaeda on their territory which led to 9/11. And, consider the Jews who suffered discrimination in Russia and Ukraine for centuries; once their radical brethren took power in Russia they started an orgy of violence unseen since Genghis Khan's Golden Horde. All slaves want to be masters, and all masters are fated to be slaves once they become weak and stupid. The current liberal notion of permanent white guilt and permanent people-of-color nobility is just another stupid variation of Trotsky's permanent revolution. It says white folks must be purged of their evil over and over and over while non-whites grow more numerous, arrogant, and hateful.

(6). Buchanan argues that WWI-WWII spelled doom for the West, but as tantalizing as this may sound--especially since human psychology is essentially scape-goatish and seeks one all-encompassing villain or fault to blame--, it is not only misguided but fundamentally wrong. Of course, it's not entirely wrong as much of the loss of faith in Western culture stems from those calamities, but it's plain to see that WWI-WWII were not the main cause of Western decline. They certainly hastened the decline of overseas European empires, but that didn't mean the decline, let alone the fall, of the West. First of all, the relative decline of Europe happened in tandem with the rapid rise of US and USSR. Even if we reject USSR as part of European civilization--it certainly wasn't part of Western European civilization--, the rise of US as the greatest superpower guaranteed the continuing prominence of the West. And, even if America didn't back the British and the French during the Suez Crisis, America did them a favor by hastening the inevitable. Indeed, the French, who tried to delay the inevitable in Vietnam and Algeria--without US opposition--ended up much worse than Britain which was quicker to see the writing on the wall and peacefully dump their empire. To be sure, Brits at least the pride of victory in WWII; French, who'd been humiliated by German victory and Anglo-American rescue, sought to prove its national greatness and glory by holding onto its most prized possessions. Out of fear of communism, US even backed the French in Vietnam, but it was to no avail. The rising tide of nationalisms--communist, rightist, monarchist, etc--were bound to overthrow the yoke of Western imperialism everywhere.


While the French really did lose international influence, the same cannot be said of the British nor of the Spanish civilization is about cultural influence as well as political power. Even after Americans overthrew British rule and even after Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gained national independence, they were part of the Anglo world order. And, even most non-Anglo whites who came to US became wasp-ized, and such had been the ideal even for non-whites up to the social revolution in the 60s and 70s which culminated in political correctness and multiculturalism of the 80s to the present. Yes, British political dominance was fatally weakened after WWI and became relatively minor after WWII. But, if one thinks in terms of the Anglo civilizational enterprise, WWII was a great triumph. Contrary to what Buchanan says, the special relation between US and UK is no myth. Americans genuinely have felt closer to UK than with any other nation(and many Americans see Canada as an extension of the US). Whatever the politics, there has been much cultural flow back and forth due to commonality of race, language, temperament, and tradition. The British monarchy means a lot more to Americans than Saudi princes or the royal family of Japan do. Buchanan is more likely to feel relaxed in the company of the likes of Andrew Roberts and Paul Johnson than with Russian, Italian, French, or even Mexican intellectuals. So, whatever the political status of Britain itself, Anglo civilization has been a great success. All over the world, lingua franca is English. One of the advantages of India in the globalist world order is its choice of English as the language of higher education and inter-ethnic communication.
Something similar can be said of Spain. Though Spain lost its political power over its colonies a long ago, Hispanic civilization is one of the most important in the world. Nearly all of Southern, Central, and Carribean America belong to the Hispanic or Portuguese cultural order. Mexico is part of North America and with its migration into the US, Hispanic power is nothing to laugh at. Thanks to black slavery in the Americas, the Afro-cultural order is also on the rise through high birthrates, athletic dominance, and the wide youth appeal of black music. If Buchanan is worried about whites been overtaken by non-whites, this has much less to do with WWI-WWII than the conquest and interbreeding with American natives(especially in the Latin Americas), the black slave trade, and Christian-based moralism which morphed, in the modern era, into secular liberal guilt.

Anyway, WWI-WWII did not spell doom for Europe. Rather, the post-wars years after WWII were in many ways the golden age for Europe. There was rise in white birthrates, rapid recovery of nearly all European economies, confidence, exuberance, and hope. European nations cooperated and worked well together like never before. The loss of empires turned out to be great boon economically and morally. Most of the colonies had been money pits than the golden goose. Also, having overseas empires made Westerners--who had just thrown off the Nazi yoke--look rather hypocritical. Europeans of the postwar/post-imperial era never had it so good. Some nations recovered more quickly than other, but all--even the initially sluggish UK and Franco's Spain--saw remarkable economic growth, improved social well-being, and recovered almost fully from the dark first half of the 20th century and then some.
Great losses of populations in wars and other calamities don't spell doom for a people. If that were the case, Europe should never have recovered from the Bubonic Plague which carried away 1/3 to 1/2 of European population. Indeed, the aftermath of the plague opened up economic activity and expansion like never before. The plague weakened and undermined many crusty hierarchies and opened the door to new ideas and enterprises. Similarly, there was much to build upon after WWII and, indeed, the recovery was deemed miraculous. Europe, which had thought it would never rise from the ashes of WWI, recovered faster and more amazingly from the far more devastating WWII. One could argue that most of the destruction during WWII happened in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe, but Germany--a nation that had been totally smashed, reduced in size, and divided\rose again like a phoenix almost overnight. Italy, which suffered far more in WWII than in WWI, enjoyed boom times from the 50s to the early 70s. Even USSR, much of which had been reduced to wasteland, saw remarkable recovery after WWII, and not just because of Stalinist slave camps. After Stalin died, the gulags were closed and people were sent home. Still, the 60s and early 70s were boom times--relatively speaking--for communist countries. This is all the more remarkable when we consider that USSR lost 20-27 million people. So, the idea of Death of the West stemming from WWI-WWII isn't very strong. If indeed WWII was fatal for the West, Europe should have crumbed right after WWII. Instead, its population and economy expanded like never before.

The problems really began in the late 60s with sluggish economic growth, rising youth disaffection, stalled birthrates and dependence on foreign workers. But, all of these trends took place long after WWII. If we follow Buchanan's logic, Africa should be hopeless since millions have died in wars, from hunger, and disease since the end of colonialism. Economically and politically, Africa has been and probably will be a basket case. In Rwanda in the 1990s, 800,000 people were slaughtered. In the war in Congo, over 5 million have died since the fall of Mobutu. It's said 300,000 Darfurese have died. So, if Africa dying? No, for every dead African, 5 or 6 are born. So, there are more and more Africans, and they are embarking on a demographic imperialist invasion of Europe--far more dangerous than political or military imperialism since it's easier to overthrow a bunch of foreign officials than to toss out entire populations(it was easier for the Chinese to toss the British ruling class out of Hong Kong than it is for the French to throw out millions of illegal immigrants--who are having 5 to 6 women per women and tugging at the heart strings of Western Christian/socialist conscience rooted in the notion of compassion).
And, if we follow Buchanan's logic, Asia should be dead too. If whites fought and killed fellow whites in WWI and WWII, Asians have been fighting and killing one another--nation to nation, in civil wars, etc--in the 19th and 20th century too. Japanese killed 20 million Chinese, Chinese communists and Nationalists slaughtered one another, Korean War cost 4 million lives, Vietnam War and its after effects in nearby regions led to the deaths of 4-5 million, and so on. Wars between Indians and Pakistanis claimed millions. In the 20th century, at least 100 million Chinese died of war, famine, genocide, terror, etc. Japan was bloodied senseless by Americans. Millions of Japanese died and Japan lost all its empire--and unlike the Spanish and British, didn't even leave behind a worldwide Japanese cultural order. And yet, did it spell the Death of the East?
In 1949, the Chinese population was 400 million. Despite all the Maoist horrors and poverty, China in 1980 had a billion people and were damned proud to be Chinese. Since Deng's reforms, China has been rising and rising. Japan, totally smashed in WWII, recovered and rose even faster than Europe. It learned that doing business within the Anglo-American world order maintained by rule-of-law was A LOT more profitable than war and plunder. And, Japanese population expanded rapidly up to the early 70s, more than making up for the losses in WWII. Much the same could be said for many other Asian economies. One could argue that Asians suffered more and lost even more lives than Europeans, but the East doesn't feel defeated, hopeless, and finished. Yet, Asia is now facing some of the same problems as the West. Japan and South Korea have dangerously low levels of birthrate. Both nations are relying more on foreign labor, which like in the West, are leading to ethnic tensions and social problems. There is also a sense of cultural rot and decay stemming from youth culture--largely Afro-Jewish-American influenced--, rejection of past certitudes but uncertainty about new values.

In some ways, the postwar loss of faith in Old Values was a great boon to the culture of both West and East. Europe produced some of the most important and deep literature and films in the postwar era. Camus, Resnais, Rossellini, Antonioni, and countless others thought deeply about European experience and created profound works. Japan produced some of the most searching works of art after WWII. The anti-war films and social dramas are now justly considered as classics. Europeans and the Japanese were forced by recent history to think deep, ask hard questions, etc. So, the optimism of their recovery was tempered by reflection, sobriety, and profound questions. Unfortunately, the left dominated the cultural field--with the entire spectrum of the right unjustly associated with the crimes of fascism--, and what could have led to greater wisdom centered around humanism veered into fashionable radicalism that would soon erupt in the late 60s and early 70s, doing much harm to the social fabric.

But, how much of the problems of Europe from the 70s to the present have to do with WWI-WWII? Couldn't it be argued that the problems really stemmed from success than from failure? Expanding economy allowed more kids to get higher learning. They came to expect more from life. With more leisure time, they got addicted to stupid popular culture and/or got hooked to corrosive know-it-all radical theories. In the immediate aftermath of defeat, Germans had only one thing on their minds--economic recovery, enough to eat, housing, food, clothes, etc. And, they got those things, faster than they'd expected. There had indeed been an economic miracle. But, the children of successive generations were raised in relative affluence. They had more time to putz around and make a mess of things. They were more likely to be disaffected with the limitations of life and more fancifully sensitive to moral causes. In the modern world, rebellion against parents is one of the rites of passage, and for German kids it was, "so, how many Jews did you kill, daddy?" First, Germans got dumped on. And, then rebellious, sanctimonious, radically charged French kids began to ask, "so, why did you collaborate with the Nazis, daddy?" and so on.

In this sense, one could argue that WWII led to the loss of European moral authority, and THAT, rather than the loss of lives during the wars, proved fatal--self-loathing and suicidal--for European man. But, even this isn't entirely convincing.
Consider the US. It won WWII, its economy recovered DURING the war, turned into a superpower overnight, and dominated the world stage. It was brimming with pride, glory, confidence, wealth, power, etc. Americans lost far fewer lives, and there was a huge baby boom following the end of WWII. So, why did American whites turn out, more or less, like the Europeans? US didn't commit the holocaust or collaborate with the Nazis. US helped defeat Nazism and Japanese militarism. But, the same negativity took hold of the US. Youth rebellion turned into, 'so, how many Negroes did you lynch, daddy?' And, there was rampant mindless hedonism, abuse of illicit drugs, declining work ethic and morals, loss of moral confidence, etc. Why should US, a nation that reaped every moral, economic, demographic, and political trophy from WWII, end up as troubled as Europe on many fronts? When we look at the problems of US, Japan, and Europe, they are problems stemming mostly from success than failure. Success breeds laxity, decadence, social neuroses, cynicism, self-centeredness, hedonism, radical chic, and etc. among a large segment of the well-off population. Right after WWII, Japanese were grateful for a bowl of rice, any job they could get, raising families in a peaceful society. But, the kids born into a booming and prosperous society reaped both the great freedom and opportunities AND grew more lax and fussy. Your average Japanese kid today is more obsessed with videogames and pop music than putting away childish things and raising a family. But, there must have been some of this in Buchanan as well because he was good friends with the degenerate Hunter S. Thompson.

Neither WWI/WWII nor the loss the empires proved fatal to the West. After all, WWII was followed by the predominance of the greatest Western power that ever existed, the United States. The problems of the West arose from its success--which bred decadence and disaffection--and because of the legacy of its imperialist and colonialist policies which mixed the races and peoples together, its first full-fledged attempt to practice egalitarianism based on Christian principles--especially in relation to non-whites--, the communist/Marxist challenge, the physical superiority of blacks, intellectual superiority of Jews, and the immunity of certain non-mainstream groups--mainly Jews and blacks--from any criticism whatsoever.

WWI had something to do with the loss of faith and confidence in the values, ideas, and power in the West. It also led to the rise of communism in the USSR and the attractiveness of Marxism in a world that had just experienced the greatest disaster--thanks to the forces of conservatism, monarchism, and nationalism--to befall Europe since the fall of Rome. There was also a loss of faith in democracy for its weakness, divisions, and inability to fix economic problems following the Great War. So, it came down to a battle between communism and fascism. For good many people in the West, Fascism and Nazism meant renewal of Western confidence, power, pride, glory, and greatness. It was seen as the weapon of modernizing nationalism and traditionalist glory against the disease of decadence and the threat of Bolshevik Jewish-Asiatic(aka Slavic) communism. Many admired Mussolini and Hitler for restoring pride and power to their nations. Even the Church gave support to Fascism and Nazism if only as a shield against communism which had devastated Christian life and culture in Russia and in Spain during the civil war.

It's possible that had Hitler not been a gambler and played his cards more carefully, Western and Central Europe would have been fascist-dominated for much of the 20th century and then would have gradually liberalized and democratized like Franco's Spain. Modern authoritarian right-wing dictatorships have been shown to be far more capable of change than left-wing totalitarian systems. We only need compare Pinochet's Chile with Castro's Cuba or compare South Korea from 1960s-80s with North Korea. Fascism, and even Nazism, had never been as fully totalitarian as the communist model where all economic, cultural, political, spiritual, and social power was controlled by the state. Had Hitler merely sought influence than conquest, most of the Central European nations would have been better off with an alliance with or influence under Germany than falling under the influence of Soviet communists. If Hitler had not ignited the war with Poland, there would have been no need for war with France which would have remained democratic. No need to conquer Holland or Norway, which also would have remained democratic. After the passing of Hitler and Mussolini, new generations of Germans and Italians would have demanded greater freedoms. It's possible that fascist nations would have made the transformation into democracies or freer political systems in due time. And, the process would have been more a TRANSFORMATION from fascism to democracy than the FALL of fascism. Though fascism suppressed political freedom, it allowed considerable freedom and independence in many social, cultural, and economic spheres. So, a vibrant civil society independent of government would have developed under fascism. This is why there was no sudden break with the past in Spain after the fall of Franco or in South Korea when free elections were allowed. The same was true of Chile and Taiwan's transition to democracy. Only the political order changed while much else stayed the same. But, the passing of communism was really the FALL of communism, that is the fall of every facet of life, economy, and culture. Because communism had had total control of everything, its demise meant a need for a wholly new order. Central European nations--like Poland-- which hadn't been fully communized fared better than Russia, in which communists had come to control EVERYTHING. The fall of communism was so profound in Russia that many people couldn't find their footing in the new order of democracy and capitalism. And, it is for this reason that Putin has chosen a semi-fascist path toward Russian renewal so as to establish basic law and order within which the economy can grow and produce a middle class. Down the line, it will be up to the middle class to call for genuine democracy.

Anyway, that might have been the history of Europe had Hitler not been a gambler. We might remember Fascism and Nazism as we remember Franco's rule in Spain--unfortunate but not especially evil. At best, people might remember it as the movement that kept communism at bay both geopolitically and domestically. All in all, the Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany might not have been an eternal curse for Europe as seen today. Mussolini, though a bully, was only a shadow gambler. Without the alliance of Hitler, he would have been much more cautious.
Hitler really was a gambler and a crazed artist-visionary. And, he triggered events that ignited the war. He made an evil pact with Stalin which handed the Balkans and half of Poland to the Soviet Union, which made Stalin salivate for more. WWII followed, 50 million people died, the Holocaust happened, and Fascism/Nazism became the most infamous ideologies in Western history. Also, the war crimes of Nazism were so horrible that the West really did indeed lose some of its moral confidence. Meanwhile, communists gained tremendous moral capital. Though Western Europe made a swift and miraculous political and economic recovery after WWII, its moral self-image was fatally damaged. WWII and the Holocaust put the West on the moral defensive for good.
Bitter, angry, and vengeful Jews, who would grow tremendously powerful, wealthy, and influential especially in America have used the academia and media to undermine all notion of white pride, white glory, western power, western greatness. Blacks and Jews united politically, and American racial history came to seen as no better than Nazism. And, it became difficult for Western nations to condemn the evil of Nazi Germany while imperialistically ruling over non-white peoples and nations. (This accusation has also come to sting Israelis. Ironically, Jews who created Israel in reaction to the Holocaust are being accused of carrying out a mini-holocaust--or at least apartheid--against hapless Palestinians. If Jews love to rub the WASP nose in the sin of slavery, many around the world enjoy rubbing Jewish noses in gZioNazismh.) Also, as 'racism' was deemed the greatest evil, white folks were not allowed to complain about the darkening of their nations with the flood of non-white arrivals from the Third World. Many European nations decided to become sanctuary nations to redeem its sins of not having done enough to save Jews. Because of this guilt-conscience, whites were forbidden to criticize powerful and often radical/hateful Jews lest they be branded with 'anti-semitism'--deemed just as bad as 'racism'. Generally, ANY criticism of Jews or non-whites was deemed either 'anti-semitic' or 'racist'.
To make up for their sins white had to be judged by a higher standard of morality than non-white people. So, the multicultural model allowed ethnic, racial, and national pride and power for non-whites but not for whites.

Perhaps worst by far, two main white nations that defeated Nazism--US and USSR--competed during the Cold War to win the hearts and minds of non-white peoples around the world. In the process, they weakened themselves and undermined their own racial interests. Two white nations had nukes aimed at one another because one happened to have come under the virus of radical left-wing Jewish ideology since 1917. If Hitler had played it smart and maintained his pact with the USSR, Stalin might have further de-Jewified the Soviet Union, and his successors--not Jewish and even hostile to Jewish influence--might have transformed Soviet communism more toward the fascist model. It's possible that Russia might have become Putin-ized in the 60s. But, Hitler had to have it all. He unleashed a war that came to destroy the confidence in the West, taint the ideological right, and give great moral boost to the USSR in the eyes of both Western European intellectuals and non-white peoples around the world.
Had Hitler played it smart and had there be no major war, most non-white peoples would have gained independence at a later date(from French and British rule) and would have been better prepared--due to longer apprenticeship under white rule--to run their own nations. And, the developmental model by choice around the world may have been Germanic-Fascist than Soviet-Marxist. And, the fascist developmental model would have been more beneficial for developing nations than the Marxist one. Just look at the difference between Pinochet's Chile and Castro's Cuba. Just look China under quasi-fascism of Deng as opposed to under communism of Mao. Modernizing right-wing authoritarianism with a degree of social programs and policies have been far preferable and more beneficial than the Marxist models of development. Just imagine where China would be today had Chiang--a semi-fascist--prevailed and modeled his country's economic development on both the 19th century German and 20th century Nazi model. Just imagine what Cuba would be today had Castro been a social-fascist than a Marxist-socialist. Castro could have pushed forth some basic social reforms yet also allowed free-markets and independent civic institutions. Cuba today would be far richer, far freer, far happier.
But, idiot Hitler had evil ideas about race and had to have it all.

So, there is a connection between the moral decline of the West and WWII. Of course, some could argue that this wasn't so much a moral decline but moral ascendancy. Though the West lost moral confidence--or precisely because such was lost--, the West gained a degree of moral redemption. West went from moral hubris to moral humility, and out of this moral humility--Christian guilt--redemption became possible. So, it was only by having been shit-faced by its own moral failures that the West was able to confront its own demons. It was only by recognizing Nazism as the the most extreme manifestation of Western racial attitudes and feelings that the West was able to lead the way in trying to eradicate 'racism' all over the world--or at least white 'racism' all over the world. (Most blacks, Jews, and liberals seem to think it was wrong for Afrikaners to rule over blacks, but Africans murdering millions of black brethren has been overlooked or rationalized time and time again. Even the tragedy in Darfur is blamed more on the Chinese and Arabs than on blacks--never mind that Sudanese 'Arabs' are racially black.)
Moral humility and moral hubris may be two sides of the same coin, which is why Christianity has had such a strange story. On the one hand, the Christian or Christian-influenced moralist says "I'm unworthy, I'm sinful, I'm loathsome, I'm disgusting", but this professed humility fills him with moral righteousness--thus hubris--to judge others who aren't as self-abnegating. Isn't this the main schtick white liberals have against white conservatives. White liberals think they are morally better because they loathe themselves more than white conservatives do. There is a variation of this in many cultures, but Christianity has perfected it. So, even secular Europe is still in the grip of Christian morality and mindset. Because it spends so much time apologizing for its Nazi or Nazi-tainted past and promoting censorious political correctness, Western Europe now thinks it has the moral justification to pass judgment on other (mostly white) nations which aren't as apologetic all-the-time. Their main target is the United States, but Western Europe--through its courts in the Hague--is making grand moral gestures to the rest of the world as well. "We sit in judgment on you because we paddle our own asses."

Whether we call the loss of moral confidence among Westerners moral decline or moral redemption, even that may not be the main reason for the problems of the West.
The three main dangers to the West are the (1)influence of liberal/left-wing Jews (2) rise of black culture and (3) low white birthrates coupled with high rates of immigration and high birthrates among non-whites--especially among blacks, Mexican illegal aliens, and Muslims.
Though Jews in Europe and America are considered whites, they have a separate identity from most white gentiles. This is true even though most Jews today are secular non-believers. The sense of Jewish separateness is both due to cultural and historical factors. Jewish culture traditionally stressed separateness, and Jewish presence in the West was often met with hostility and distrust. In the modern era, many Jews ditched God and came to believe that they, as rational mortals, held The Scientific Truth for all time. The most dangerous modern Jew of all was Karl Marx. His ideology would come to power in Russia and commit the greatest crimes of humanity before Hitler came along and decided to top even that. And, there were many Jewish communist radicals all over the world. This only made already anti-Jewish people hate Jews even more. Christians who heard of communist bloodbath came to hate Jews. Nationalists who believed that radical Jews were out to undermine national identity and majority power came to feel extreme hatred for Jews. They heard and read about the madness of Soviet Russia, and they came to fear Jewish communists in their own nations.
The majority of Jews were divided. Great many were pro-socialist but not necessarily pro-communist. Many Jews were rich and wealthy and hated communism. But, their well-educated sons and daughters were drawn to the intellectual and moral conceit of communism. Also, even some rich Jews in the capitalist West felt uneasy about being minorities in a goy society and fantasized about a new world order where most of the goyim could be controlled and pacified with ideas about 'social justice' and 'equality'(devised and administered by Jews in government, media, and academia).
Being critical of Jews wasn't generally deemed evil prior to the Holocaust. People were as openly critical of Jewish power as we are today of Muslim power, Chinese power, Evangelical power, Cuban-American influence, etc. But, WWII and the Holocaust changed all that.
Given the appallingly grave nature of Nazi crimes, it was understandable that many people felt sympathy toward Jews. But, the Jews' own blood-soaked history--especially its hand in communism--was whitewashed; any criticism of Jewish power or influence was deemed 'anti-semitic', that is to say 'closet-Nazi'; and radical Jews could do as they please without being attacked as Jews. When radical Arabs in the US agitate through campus activism, protests, marches, subversion, and even terrorist attacks, we identify and attack Arab-American influence itself. But, when Jewish radicals did the same in the 50s and 60s, we could not point out that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical anti-American activity. A Jew could spit in your face but you could say a Jew did it. Historians attack Nixon for his remarks about Jewish power and influence, but it's not because Nixon was wrong--indeed, he was right--but because he dared to badmouth Jewish power or influence. He dared break the Jew Taboo(even if it was only in the secrecy of the Oval Office). Would Historians be so critical had Nixon had bitched about Arab or Japanese influence?

Some people excuse Jewish radicalism as a response to Nazi evil, but Jewish radicalism preceded the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust by a long shot. Even before Hitler created the death camps, left-wing Jews of the USSR had killed millions and enslaved countless millions more in their 'social justice' gulag-state. Stalin, though distrustful of Jews, was thoroughly steeped in Jewish radical ideology and had thousands of loyal radical Jews serving under him. So, Nazism didn't so much trigger Jewish radicalism as provide it with moral cover during and after WWII. Jews, having gained eternal noble victim status--not least through media and academia controlled in their own hands--, could do and say the most outrageous things(like spying for Stalin, sending atomic secrets to the USSR, apologizing for Mao, championing the North Vietnamese communists and the Khmer Rouge, and now mythologizing Che Guevara). A Jew like Carole King or Barbara Walters feels no shame or fear when they say Fidel Castro is a dear friend. Because she's Jewish, she has moral cover for ANYTHING she does. Of course, Jews do something REALLY bad, there is some degree of mea culpa, but not much. So, Sidney Schanberg, who used his reports to undermine US efforts in Cambodia and help the Khmer Rouge to power, NEVER publicly apologized for his communist sympathies nor has he cut his ties with publications like The Nation which is still heavily Marxist-leaning. At most, Jews only say OOPS, shrug their shoulders, say "gee, I'm sorry", and go on being hardline leftists supporting more crazy causes in this country and around the world.

Anyway, Jews would come to play a major role in the post-war era because they are tremendously smart, driven, pushy, brilliant, creative, weasely, and ruthless. They would gain the greatest money and power in the greatest superpower on Earth--the USA. They would see conservative whites as the greatest enemy or rival for dominance and supremacy. By owning and controlling the brains(the academia) and the eyes, ears, and mouths of the nation(the media), Jews would come to control the soul and conscience of the nation. Jews would use their power to undermine the power and confidence of white gentiles.

Under the long reign of FDR and rise of Liberalism--which under FDR was closely associated with the elements of the left, even the far left--, Jews(mostly liberal or leftist) felt assured of their dominance assured over American culture and society for the foreseeable future. FDR had greatly expanded the role of government, allowed--knowingly or unknowingly--leftists and even Soviet agents and spies to infiltrate the US government, and seemingly buried the forces of conservatism forever. Nazis lost the war, Soviet Union was the other Great Power. Many liberal and leftist Jews felt close to both FDR and to Stalin. History seemed to on the side of liberal and leftist Jews. But, then came the Cold War, and Jews especially fell under suspicion as the tide of anti-communism swept over the nation. There was the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs which pathologically reminded many Jews of the Holocaust where innocent Jews had been scapegoated and murdered. For a long time, many Jews entertained the notion that the Rosenbergs had been railroaded by evil 'anti-semitic' white christain conservatives. Though what the Rosenbergs did was treasonous, they were vilified much less--if at all\than were the overzealous anti-communists who tried to root out communist agents and communist sympathizers in the US government. Today, the general liberal attitude about the Rosenbergs is 'what's done is done, it's old history, it's water under the bridge, so what's the point of bringing it up again?' Of course, these liberal Jews never let us forget about McCarthyism and what happened to some blacklisted folk singer or hack Hollywood writer for a few yrs. To liberals and leftists, entertainers losing their gigs for a few yrs was a greater injustice than communist agents passing Bomb secrets to mass murderer Stalin. Now, suppose Rosenbergs had been gentile Nazi-sympathizers during the war who'd passed nuclear secrets to Hitler, and the Nazis got the Bomb. You bet we'd never hear the end of it. But, the Jewish controlled and owned media and academia have done everything to suppress the story of Rosenbergs or romanticize them through stuff like "Daniel" by E. L. Doctorow or "Angels in America" by Tony Kushner.
Anyway, great many Jews thought that US-USSR cooperation in defeating the Nazis in WWII would cement the two empires together forever. They hoped that US would become more like the USSR and USSR would become more like the US. US would become socialist while USSR would become social-democratic.
But, the Cold War happened. It happened because of Stalin's evil and also because freedom-loving people of the West saw communism for what it was. But, many Jews couldn't accept this. They saw the Cold War as a cruel joke instigated by evil, greedy, white, Christian capitalist class who gained control over stupid, ignorant masses of 'paranoid' superstitious Christian whites. As far as leftist Jews were concerned, there was nothing to fear from the Soviets. At most, Soviets were seen as bumbling and crude--like Kissoff in "Dr. Strangelove"--, but they were not seen as diabolical or evil. At worst, they were boorish, childish, and poorly dressed. (This boorishness could even be thought of or portrayed as funny, amusing, and likable). Otherwise, the Soviets were even thought to be ahead of us because they practiced socialism. And they'd 'heroically' defeated Nazism. And, even after Stalin's purges, many Jews in the West knew that Jews were still powerful and influential--and privileged--in the Soviet bureaucracy, institutions, and government. And, many leftist and communist Jews were instrumental in setting up Israel. And, USSR initially supported the creation of Israel and even sent weapons to the Jews. Jews wanted both US and Soviet support for Israel but came to realize that they could not expect Christian Americans and atheistic Soviets to cooperate. Ideologically, most Israelis felt closer to the USSR, but politically/economically they knew that American support was more crucial. Thus, the tension within Zionism ever since. Consider that Neocons were originally Marxist or leftist Jews who turned toward conservatism only when USSR became more and more pro-Arab.

Anyway, the prospect of a US-USSR friendship to be cemented by leading Jewish forces in both nations was the great Jewish dream. But, the Cold War burned those bridges. The West strongly stood against Stalin's aggression, but many Jews rejected such 'hysteria'. For them, the Cold War was the product of the 'paranoid style in American politics'.
Thus, many Jews came to see the Cold War, anti-communism, American patriotism, and white power/pride as enemies of progress, justice, truth, and Jewish power. Many Jews came to see conservative white Christians as closet-Nazis fanning the flames of anti-communism just as Nazis had done so to maintain White Supremacy and smoke out the Jew. And, just as the Nazis had eventually killed millions of Jews, many Jews felt that rising tide of anti-communism would pave the way for persecution of Jews in America. Of course, it was the Jews who were far more paranoid than white Christian conservatives, but it was the Jews and their sheepish liberal wasp allies who wrote the books, shaped the terminology, and framed the debate. So, the 'paranoid style' was attributed ONLY to the Right. So, even when it became obvious that many people in government under FDR had been Soviet spies or communist sympathizers, many liberal Jews either didn't believe it or didn't think it was much of a problem even if true. (Would any The Nation magazine writer have been disturbed if he'd discovered that Castro sympathizers ran the CIA?). When Whittaker Chambers proved that Alger Hiss was a liar, most liberal Jews refused to believe it. Besides, even if the accusation were true, what did it matter since many Jews in the US--especially among the better educated--were communist sympathizers too?
During FDR's reign, liberal and leftist Jews thought they would have it all. Nazis would be defeated, and US under liberalism and USSR under socialism would rule all the world!
This dream was dashed with the coming of the Cold War. Many Jews tried to resist the Cold War, undermine its agenda, or aid the enemy. It was AFTER World War II--when US-Soviet alliance was no longer necessary--that the Rosenbergs slipped atomic secrets to the mass murderer Stalin. And, there were MANY more Jews who would have done the same thing. Indeed, Oppenheimer surely would have done so if he had the chance.
But, rising Cold War tensions, revelations about Alger Hiss and other commie agents, the Rosenberg scandal, and etc. put the liberal Jews on the defensive. They feared they would lose it all. They feared that US would turn into a crypto-Nazi nation. This fear was so powerful that even as late as 2004, Philip Roth wrote a book where closet-Nazis came to power in America and beat up on Jews.
It's obvious that Jews were no less paranoid than anyone else; indeed, they were not only more paranoid but were sleeping with the enemy\one of the reasons for their paranoia since they always had to look over their shoulders for anti-communist crusaders and agents. But, Richard Hofstadter, a left-wing Jew, came up with the concept of 'the paranoid style' to describe only white Christian conservatives.

The mounting evidence of liberal collusion with or shocking naivete about communism, Stalin's bloody purges in Eastern Europe, the fall of China to communism, the Korean War, and etc. put the liberal-left forces on the ropes. They lost much credibility. Liberal collusion with and/or naivete about communism kept America asleep while every inch of territory from Berlin to Shanghai fell under red tyranny. Liberals had some answering to do. Truman's foolish geopolitics even unwittingly invited the North Korean invasion.
In this climate, the Jews, who had gained great power and influence under FDR and even under the more anti-communist Truman, saw their dreams slipping away before their very eyes. Through the so-called 'paranoid style' politics, the white Christian anti-semitic/anti-communist closet-Nazi white supremacist thugs were regaining political power. Everything might come undone.

Jews received a blessing in the figure of Joseph McCarthy. Though there was much to fear from communism and liberal naivete/collusion, McCarthy was really paranoid or at least relished cynically indulging in the paranoid style. His antics became so outlandish that it turned into a political 'never cry wolf' story. And, he made for bad TV in an era when the new medium was coming to define politics. Jews saw a great opening through the unsavory bogeyman of McCarthy, and when they went on the assault against the Right, they were resolved to use all their might, influence, power, and wealth to undermine themes of American glory, white power and pride, Christian solidarity, patriotism, and anti-communism. All such were deemed as the seeds of the 'paranoid style'.
By exploiting McCarthy's foolishness and by subtly fanning liberal paranoia against conservative paranoia, the Jews gained a great victory. Jews played this game beautifully, like Hyman Roth in "Godfather II". Whereas McCarthy howled that there was a communist hiding in every office and under every table, liberal Jews didn't crudely or boorishly say that every white Christian conservative was a closet-Nazi--though they actually thought just that. Instead, Jews merely exposed the absurdity of McCarthy's charges, focused on how powerful this madman had become within Republican ranks, and then implied that all forms of anti-leftism were of the McCarthyite ilk. Also, liberal Jews didn't just go on the offensive against the Right but portrayed liberals as sane, rational, harmless, and patriotic. They beautifully blended the negative message about the Right with a positive message about themselves. (One of the biggest failings of the Right has been the inability to define themselves in a positive light. Instead, like McCarthy, they growl too much and come across as grumpy and pigheaded. This is true of both Rush Limbaugh and guys on the Far Right.) And, conservatives did themselves no favor by overlooking McCarthy's many outrageous stunts.

Similarly, Jewish publishers may secretly welcome Pat Buchanan's latest book because it makes right-wing revisionism of WWII seem ludicrous. If Buchanan's relatively cautious thesis in 'Republic, Not an Empire' had some validity--even persuading the venerable George Kennan--, Buchanan has gone the McCarthyite route in gUnnecessary Warh by implying that Hitler wouldn't have done much harm to anyone if Churchill had left him alone(or Hitler would have done harm only to less human Slavs).
In truth, Hitler ruined himself by overreaching with the Blitzkrieg war against the USSR. McCarthy ruined himself by overreaching in hunting for commies which really turned into a witch hunt. And, Buchanan, who was half-convincing with the argument that Britain shouldn't have made a war guarantee to Poland in his previous book, now overreaches with such notions as the Holocaust would not have happened if Churchill didn't declare war on Germany. Not that Buchanan is necessarily wrong; Hitler's decision on the Holocaust had something to do with his seething rage and frustrations over the war in the East--and the cover that war provided for a great crime--as well as with his hatred for Jews. Similarly, the Armenian massacre/genocide was half coldly planned, half hotly improvised. Great powers--even evil ones--are capable of magnanimity when triumph comes easily or of ruthless mass murder when victory seems difficult or defeat looms. The Hutu genocide against Tutsis accelerated when Hutus feared the Tutsi invasion; Hutus figured they should kill as many Tutsis while they had the chance. And, the Japanese might not have committed something as horrific as the Nanking massacre if the Chinese resistance hadn't been so strong in that city. And, US would not have firebombed Tokyo or nuked Hiroshima or Nagasaki if Japan's commitment to war hadn't been so stubborn. So, it's not true that just because Hitler hated Jews and had long thought of ridding the world of Jews, he would have committed the Holocaust no matter what. He surely would have killed a good many of them and reduced Jews under his control to a condition of misery, but the Holocaust may have been an extreme reaction to distressing military developments. Hitler was an extremely self-centered and vengeful person since he was a child. If he felt slighted, he fumed forever. He held lifelong grudges. He could only accept things going HIS way. If not his way, it had to be the highway. So, if everything had gone his way, he might not have killed the Jews\or, at least, not so many of them. Indeed, Hitler felt this way about Germans as well during the war. He could have saved much of Germany and many German lives by surrendering earlier. But, the Germans had let him down, and he was convinced that they would all have to die too for their 'weakness' and 'failings'. He told his commanders to destroy all infrastructure and pretty much make all Germans to die along with him. He was essentially calling for the Holocaust for the Germans as well. He was angry and bitter. The Germans who let him down had no reason to live. They had no honor or glory left. Let them fight and die to the last man, woman, and child. Hitler's order to burn Paris gives us a clue as to how his mind worked. He loved the art and culture of Paris. He had no grand plan of destroying it or turning it to rubble. But, when his forces were losing in the West, he ordered his generals to destroy and burn down Paris. Everything had to be HIS way or the Highway. Of course, there is a difference between Paris and the Jews. Hitler didn't hate Paris but merely wanted to 'punish' it whereas he hated the Jews as well as wanting to 'punish' them. But, like most people, Hitler was at his worst when things were not going his way or when all seemed lost. Take lunatics like Columbine killers, the V-Tech killer, or the NIU killer. Something happened in their lives or they felt miserable and felt all was lost; so, they had to take other people with them to down to their private hellsl. And, it's possible that once Hitler feared that 'we're going down', he turned not only hateful but downright murderous toward the Jews. If the Germans were going to lose and die by the bushel, Jews would have to die too.
Still, Buchanan's argument is ludicrous on a moral level. Suppose some crazy criminal was trying to break into Buchanan's house. Suppose the criminal hasn't yet made up his mind whether to just burglarize some property OR tie people up, torture them, and kill them. Suppose Buchanan bluffs the criminal with an unloaded gun. Suppose the criminal is calls the bluff, knocks Buchanan's gun away, seethes with anger, and in a fit of anger stabs all the Buchanan household to death. So, was Buchanan to blame for bluffing the criminal with an unloaded gun? We can argue that if Buchanan and everyone in the house had cooperated with the crazy criminal, they would have all made it out alive. Perhaps, the killer might have spared their lives. At any rate, it makes no moral sense to blame Buchanan--who had tried to protect his family--for the mass murder that took place in his house. The killing was done the killer.

Anyway, Operation Buchanan-ossa--the publication of the Unnecessary War--may have been anticipated by the Jews. The Jews who run the media may have figured, 'we'll let Buchanan over-extend himself and then route him through the mainstream press and cut him down'. Buchanan, who cautions against imperial overstretch, has been careless in his rhetorical and theoretical overstretch. He's stretched the logical arms of his thesis to such ludicrous extent that he's left himself open to counterattacks. Just as Hitler's Germany was bombed from the skies and pushed from the East, Buchanan is now being attacked and bombed by everyone--even in The American Conservative Magazine. To be sure, Buchanan must have some balls to set himself up for this kind of abuse. So, is this the 'para-heroic style of American politics'?

Anyway, Joe McCarthy overstretched, and Jews used the dangers of McCarthyism to undermine the entire spectrum of the American Right. The American Right, lazy and stupid, didn't take the advice of Whittaker Chambers who warned against McCarthy. So, anti-communism came to be regarded as worse than communism, at least in crucial academic and media circles. All those communists and communist-sympathizers of the 40s and 50s came to be idolized, lionized, mythologized, etc. This was almost inevitable since highly intelligent and talented liberal and left-wing Jews came to run most of the media, arts, and cultural institutions.

Also, the Jews played on racial tensions between white and black. This wasn't mainly because Jews like blacks but because blacks were useful in undermining white Christian conservative moral authority. Jewish-black relations were always love/hate. Many Jews admired, imitated, and profited from black music and athletic talent. But, Jews were an intellectual people whereas blacks were not. And, a good many Jews got their asses kicked by the physically stronger Negroes. But, prior to the 60s, most blacks were not as crazy as they would later become. And, many Jewish businessmen had operations in the black community. Because so many Jews profited from blacks, even Jews who didn't care for blacks felt a degree of moral obligation and social connection with the Negroes. In sports and entertainment, some Jews made great fortunes off black talent and didn't want to jeopardize that special relationship. This is true even today, with many teams being owned by Jews and most players being black. Also, as Jews got called 'Jewboy' or 'Christ killer' by white goyim, many Jews sympathized with blacks who were called 'nigger'. Also, Jews found many parallels between the Holocaust and the black plight in the US. Of course, there was the history of Jewish role in communism which enslaved and killed millions, but powerful liberal Jews either whitewashed that history--just like Stalin removed certain personages from photos--or argued that, despite all the evil committed, communism was for the equality of all people--theoretically anyway. So, even if a lot of radical Jews had been involved in communist mass murders, liberal American Jews claimed the participation had been to liberate, not oppress, mankind(and to save it from fascism). As for Zionist 'racism' and 'imperialism', Jews explained the necessity of Israel by tirelessly invoking the Holocaust. The creation of Israel, far from being a practice of 'racism' and 'imperialism', was justified and rationalized as a reaction to those evils. Jews supposedly had to flee from the 'racism' and 'imperialism' of Europeans who'd given them no peace; besides, US and other Western nations had hardly offered refuge to Jews who had nowhere to go. So, Zionism was sold as necessary 'imperialism/racism' against anti-semitic 'imperialism/racism' of the West. Jews can be funny this way. It's like how affirmative action is promoted--as necessary 'racism' against 'racism'. So, Palestinians and poor white people in America got it in the neck for the sins of powerful Western folks.

Anyway, Jews amassed great wealth, power, and influence by taking over the media and putting the Right on the defensive for its evil 'paranoid style'. Buckley was often praised for eventually weaning the Right away from 'the paranoid style', but he too had backed McCarthy at one point. So, even though Buckley cleaned up his act, the damage had already been done.
In the 60s, Jews revived the memory of the Holocaust in a major way. By using their dominance over the TV--the most powerful medium in the US--, Jews made the Holocaust the greatest event in human history. PBS was mostly dominated by Jews, and Jews replayed Holocaust images and themes over and over. In the 70s, they even made a series called Holocaust soon after they broadcast Roots. The twin message was obvious. White evil is EVIL. Whites invented and practiced slavery, and whites killed poor, hapless, innocent, and saintly Jews. Though anti-communist movies have been made in Hollywood, the villains have mostly been Russian or Asian communists and almost never Jewish communists. Take a movie like "Julia"--based on Pentimento--, and you'd never realize that Lillian Hellmann was a lowlife, disgusting, communist sympathizing, and compulsively lying Jewess. Personally, I grew up thinking WWII was mostly about the Holocaust since that's all I saw on PBS, school documentaries, movies, etc. I had Holocaust imagery coming out of my eyes, ears, nose, etc. I was even led to think that Russian revolution was homegrown Russian, its evil rooted in the Tsarist tradition, and that the main targets of communists were saintly Soviet Jews. And, my image of Arabs was always that of the Terrorist because that's all I saw through Jewish dominated TV shows, Hollywood movies, and the news. And, I thought there was no Polish history, culture, or history other than 'anti-semitism' since that's the ONLY Polish-related topic that makes the news in our Jewish-controlled media.

Anyway, Jews were eager to draw a comparison between what Nazis did to Jews and what white Christians did to blacks. By pushing this comparison over and over and over, Jews hoped to suppress any possibility of the 'paranoid style' rising ever again. The last great fear of the revival of the 'paranoid style' was during the Nixon presidency. In the 60s, the liberal/left tide had gotten control of both the Democratic Jewish/Wasp elite. Young people and Negroes became wild, militant, anti-American, rebellious. After demise of McCarthyism and end of the Eisenhower era, liberal Jews and wasps could breathe a sigh of relief and once again feel that the future belonged entirely to them. But, Kennedy was assassinated by a communist; this was so shocking that the Left would spend the next 40 yrs obsessing about some fiendish vast right-wing plot. Civil Rights turned into uncivil riots. Vietnam War escalated, with liberals split between anti-communists and communist-sympathizing appeasers. Liberals were confused about Vietnam. Most of them were reasonably anti-communist and wanted to save South Vietnam, but easy victory wasn't nowhere in sight. As time passed, more and more liberals--especially Jews--saw US as the bad guy in the conflict. With anti-communist 'hysteria' a thing of the past, radical leftists--many of them Jews--felt confident enough to take to the streets and wave the Red Flag in unabashed sympathy with the communists. The liberal elite seemed split between denouncing the radicals or siding with them. In this social melee, King and Robert Kennedy were shot dead. The cities erupted in riots. 1968 Democratic Convention was a fiasco. Given these troubles, Jews felt that the paranoid right had been given a second chance at life. Nixon, pandering to the 'paranoia' of the so-called Silent Majority(mostly white and Christian), gained power. Just as conservatives in the 50s regained power by saying commies were taking over the world--which was partly true--, conservatives in 1968 took power by an even more alarming charge that the commies were taking over the very streets of America. If McCarthy's extremism played into the hands of liberals, the leftist radical lunacy of the 60s played into the hands of conservatives. (Of course, since the liberals and leftists run history departments, write the books, control PBS, and etc, the radical activism of the 60s has been romanticized and celebrated whereas nothing that anti-communists achieved in the 40s or 50s has been given ANY credit. The issue of fighting communism--and great things were done in the fight--is ONLY associated with the abuses of HUAC or the excesses of McCarthy. So, the leftist excess in trying to destroy the entire American system has been romanticized and glorified but the rightist excess in trying to save this nation from communism has been vilified as purely 'paranoid'. What's distressing is why conservatives have not mastered the visual medium to make documentaries of their own, especially in this age of cable TV, internet, and the dvd. Are they so lacking in creativity and imagination? If a fat-ass no-talent like Michael Moore can do it, why can't conservatives?)
So, Nixon became president. As far as the liberals--especially Jews--were concerned, Nixon was the greatest paranoid right-winger of them all. The Prince of Darkness who first made a name for himself against Alger Hiss. And, it could be said of Nixon that he was his own McCarthy\his own worst enemy. And so, when Nixon's administration got caught up with Watergate, Jewish power went into full swing to destroy, once and for all, the 'paranoid style in American politics'. Nixon, who foolishly made a recording of all of his conversations, fell right into the trap. Of course, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all said outrageous things in is why, if he ordered those recordings for posterity, did he say so much unpleasant and nasty shit? What made him think future historians would look upon him kindly saying stuff like 'fuck', 'asshole', 'cocksucker', 'niggers', 'jewboys', and the like? In some sense, Nixon was even kookier than McCarthy; in some subconscious way, it was as though he distrusted himself and secretly wanted to get caught--like he'd been caught lying as a child by his mother. Anyway, Watergate was a godsend for the Jews. Though when compared to Wilson's jailing of war protesters or FDR's imprisonment of Japanese-Americans it was strictly small potatoes, liberal Jews hyped it as the greatest abuse of Presidential power ever, the closest US ever came to being ruled by a dictator, the greatest threat to our liberties, and, the greatest political crime of all time. Never mind that FDR's administration had the Soviet spy Alger Hiss funneling top US secret to the commies. Never mind Truman's administration had many 'China Hands' who undermined US support for Chiang in order in order to help the communists. Somehow, Nixon's lame attempt to cover up a bungled burglary was the GREATEST POLITICAL CRIME in US history. A bunch of morons breaking into a deserted Democratic campaign office was deemed WORSE than FDR appointing a Soviet spy and being asleep at the job while Hiss was slipping the most sensitive information to the commies.
Watergate was bad but not THAT bad. But, as Nixon correctly said in many of his recordings, Jews have tremendous power. And, the liberal Jewish media did everything in their power to bury the 'paranoid style of politics' for all time.

Anyway, it must be said that Jews had mostly succeeded by the late 50s. Though Nixon was elected in 68, American society had changed drastically and irreversibly. Mindless youth culture was unstoppable and was overwhelmingly liberal to leftist. Vietnam War couldn't be won even by the Right. Nixon reversed his 'paranoid style' and made peace with communist China--the only thing for which he was given credit by the Liberal Jews. Blacks were free, out-of-control, and wild in the streets. Youth culture, which had first risen in the 50s, defined itself against older men who, weathered by life experiences, tended to be more conservative. In previous times, young men looked up to older men as heroes and social models. Boys had yearned to become men like John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Gary Cooper, etc. Boys had to grow up and prove their manhood. In 'High Noon', we don't like the young punk who thinks he knows everything. In 'Shane', the hero tells Joey to grow up to be strong, moral, and such. In 'Sands of Iwo Jima', young guys who initially don't like John Wayne come to respect and honor him. In "Ride the High Country", the young guy has much to learn from the older fellars. So, to fully take part in society and national culture, boys had been expected to grow into real manhood. This was true even when the main music of Americans was jazz.
But, in the postwar era with unprecedented affluence, freedom, 'my own bedroom', James Dean and his imitators, and especially a new kind of popular music, youth culture took off. Young people felt they had nothing to learn from the oldies anymore. OLD was lame, dull, boring, and stiff. YOUNG stuff was cool, fast, hip, etc. And, businesses--especially ones owned by Jews--found out that the youth market was vast and profitable, and leaders and activists found out that young people are often the most energized, willing, and impressionable. This favored liberalism over conservatism, even though many liberals couldn't abide by the new order. Many of these liberals would turn into neocons or Reagan-Democrats. Even the Old Left was surprised, shocked, taken aback, and even terrified by the new logic of youth-based politics. In years past, young people in the movement obeyed the orders and respected the idea of the established elders and stars of the 'progressive' movement. In the 60s, the youthful middle-finger could just as well be aimed at the liberal or leftist establishment as to the 'pigs' and conservatives. Indeed, many liberals found themselves being accused of being part of 'The Man'. Still, this know-nothing youth culture was bound to be more liberal than conservative because it was rootless, naively hopeful, cynically anti-authority, addicted to jiveass music, etc.

Another key influence of the liberal and left-wing Jews rested upon playing on social dialectics. So, Jewish-dominated feminist movement set women against men--especially white gentile women against white gentile men. So, liberal Jews set youth against elders. So, liberal Jews set races against one another. When it came to race, liberal Jews had initially tried to bring the races together in the 50s and the 60s. They genuinely believed in going beyond-the-color-of-the-skin, and many Jews were appalled by Muhammad Ali's antics. By mid 60s, Jews were divided on black power. Blacks no longer wanted to be considered as white people who just happened to be of black skin--or look upon white people as merely black people who just happened to be of white skin. Until the mid-60s, the main scientific narrative said that race was only 'skin-deep'. But, the new black narrative was nationalist, even supremacist. When Muhammad Ali said, "I'm the Greatest", he was not only talking about himself but of the entire black race. He was saying 'we blacks can kick your white ass and take your white women. And, "among all these bad-ass blacks, I'm the greatest one of all." Muhammad Ali was both an individual and racial megalomaniac. Initially, many Jews were appalled. But, many Jews made great fortunes by running industries in entertainment and sports which were becoming more black. So, most Jews decided to go along with the new kind of black politics which emphasized black nationalism or supremacism. The trick was to woo the likes of Ali by turning them into god-like heroes of America. So, the Jews schmoozed Ali and gave him tons of money. Ali reciprocated in kind by the late 60s and left the blatantly black supremacist and anti-Jewish Black Muslim movement and joined a mainstream Muslim movement.
Still, the racial dynamics had changed. Despite all the official liberal preachings, race was no longer just 'skin-deep'. It was history-deep, culture-deep, muscle-and-bone-deep, emotion-deep, and so on. The black sense of their own beauty became aggressive, militant, and warrior-like. Blacks saw whiteness in terms of the great-white-hopeless Jerry Quarry who was slow and clutzy. Blacks saw white creativity as lame white rock music which had watered down the powerful creativity originality of black music and had no soul or rhythm.
And, many white liberals began to agree and worship everything black. Just consider rock critic Dave Marsh's racial preference and admiration for everything black. So, even though white/Jewish liberals and leftists maintained the myth that race is only skin-deep, they were actually worshiping blackness because it was seen as superior to whites in terms of muscle power, speed, volume, aggressive style, charisma, ass-motions, and the size of the male appendage. 'Race is only skin-deep' turned into the unspoken but whispered 'Race is truly muscle thick'. How else can we explain the sheepish white boy-ish admiration of all things black or the white girls' desire to be ravaged by a big strong Negro? If indeed race was only skin-deep, this fascination, fear, admiration, dread, worship, and anxiety about blacks wouldn't exist. But, they exist because naked truth has a way of breaking through a web of lies. The official Marxist line was that human nature could be molded into 'new man nature', but real human nature--different among races--could not be suppressed. The medieval Christian line was that sexuality is sinful and vile, but sexual energies always resurfaced--not least among priests and nuns. And, the secular liberal line is that 'race is only skin-deep'. But, look at the data on black/non-black crime. Why is it overwhelmingly black on non-black? Because blacks are poorer, and poor people commit more crime? But, look at the crime data between blacks and non-blacks of same income level. There's still far more black on non-black crime than vice versa. Why? Simply because of the color of the skin or because blacks are physically stronger?
Isn't it true that there is more black-on-non-black violence for the same reason there is more male-on-female crime? Men are stronger. In the thuggish world--and much of US is under the rule of thuggery, especially with the demise of the family structure--, strong rule over the weak. Isn't this why much of prison rape is black-on-non-black? But, of course we can't say such because we've all been brainwashed to think that such statement is 'racist'. If so, we need to be more racist because racism is truth. (Just because extreme and evil Nazi racial science was discredited doesn't mean that all ideas on race have been discredited. That would be like saying since radical socialism has been discredited in Russia, Ethiopia, and North Korea, all forms of socialisms--public education, social security, etc--have also been discredited. That's like saying, 'since neo-liberalism has been discredited in Yeltsin's Russia, all capitalisms have been discredited.'--as Naomi Klein would have us believe. Race is a valid idea, and there are racial differences which lead to social differences. If anything, the notion that 'race has been discredited' has been discredited by all evidence. Just look at the success of the Jews. Just look at the levels of black crime and the fear of black crime. Just look at the abject failure of black Africa. Just look at the dominance of blacks in sports. Just look at the interracial violence data in integrated neighborhoods. In Chicago, check black-on-Vietnamese violence data compared to Vietnamese-on-black violence data; it's overwhelmingly black-on-Vietnamese. Race matters. Nazi racial science was bunk, but that doesn't mean the concept of race is bunk. Just because Ptolemy was wrong about the solar system, was astronomy itself bunk? No, Ptolemy's Earth-centric ideal was bunk and was replaced by the correct models of Galileo and Copernicus. Similarly, Nazi racial science that said 'Aryans' are smarter than Jews and stronger than blacks' has also been proven to be bunk. In truth, Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than white gentiles, and blacks are stronger than whites. If race is bunk, why did Jews cower in fear when blacks attacked them in Crown Heights? Whenever there's a black riot in a big city, how come most non-black hide, run, and cower in fear? If any idea has been discredited, it's the notion of racial equality. There are natural racial inequalities, and just because Nazis were wrong on its particularities doesn't mean that racial differences don't exist and don't matter.)

But, how can the white race get back on track to recovery and restoration of pride and power when even Pat Buchanan denounces people for being 'racist'? The proper word for blind prejudice is BIGOTRY, not 'racism'. Racism, properly defined, demonstrates that nature developed different races within the same human species. Though all humans are of the same species, there are racial differences in physical size and strength, intelligence, temperament, and etc. And, even though every racial group has a variety of different traits, each group has MORE of certain traits than other groups do. There are uninhibited and inhibited blacks, but there are likely to be far more uninhibited people among blacks. There are uninhibited and inhibited Japanese, but there are likely to be far more inhibited people among the Japanese.
Why a society or community is the way it is can basically be understood by taking an archetypal sample of any group and multiplying them a thousand fold. Randomly pick 10 Japanese and then multiply/clone them to 10,000 people in a community. Do the same with blacks. Check the differences. You get the general picture.
Of course, if we selectively choose only the craziest Japanese and clone them 10,000x, their community will be crazy and worthless. And, if we chose only the sanest blacks and clone them to 10,000x, their community will be functional and decent. But, I would wager there are far more unstable--albeit musically more expressive--people among blacks than among the Japanese. There are all kinds of blacks, but the crazy ones make up a large portion of the overall population. Among Japanese, the sane ones--or at least more orderly ones--outnumber the crazies.

Anyway, blacks have posed a danger to the white race for four reasons. Two reasons are intrinsic to blackness while the other two are external to blackness.
The black-related reasons are simple. Blacks are aggressive and strong and a threat to white folks, especially to white males. If white females can submit and put out to black males, white males are turned into biological slaves/beta-males(akin to what happened to Japanese males when Big American GIs roamed the streets of Tokyo after WWII). This sexual slavery is permanent and not merely social. Historically, the militarily dominant side always had sexual dominance over the losing side. So, Mongols had dominance over Russians, victorious Russians in WWII had dominance over Germans, and so on. But in cases of military dominance as during the Russian invasion of Germany, Russian men raped millions of German women--and some German women willingly gave themselves to Soviet occupiers--because they had the superiority of weaponry, not because Russian men were physically bigger or tougher than German men. Indeed, such was the case for most of American history when whites ruled over blacks. Whites had sexual dominance over blacks because whites owned the gun. A black guy couldn't do much when a white guy took a black woman because the white man had social unity and technological superiority. So, white dominance over blacks had been social, economic, political, and militaristic. But, black dominance over whites is far more fundamental. It is biological. It is as eternal and fixed as the male dominance over females. So, the only future role for white males in a blackening America is to become pussy-boy liberal slaves or 'whigger' sidekicks of the alpha-male blacks--unless whites happen to be affluent and can afford to live in safe neighborhoods and talk the talk of liberal progress while walking the walk of protected privilege--like what most liberal Jews enjoy. We see this in all the wimpy pussy-boy antics of white liberals who grovel before Obama. Just look at Christopher Matthews who giggles like a silly teenybopper swooning over his Pop Idol.
Blacks are not only stronger but their numbers are growing fast--and more and more are coming from Africa. (Even Africans who arrive as free people to America show little gratitude, and they take up the 'slavery narrative' and join the black political movement against white America. In both Africa and African-America, the narrative is 'white man owes me stuff, so gimme gimme'.)
Since 1993, black population has risen by 30%. It went from 30 million to 40 million. Red states will all become Blue States. So, white people have much to fear from blacks who are (1) physically stronger and (2) multiplying fast.
And, there is indeed much anxiety, fear, and dread--though most of it's not expressed lest one be called a 'racist'. But, there is also much fondness and fascination with black superiority. Why? There is the American obsession with sports. Ever since whites came to accept black physical superiority, whites have come to look upon black athletes as hometown heroes. So, if one's city wins the Super Bowl, NBA championship, world series, or whatever, a great many people feel grateful to the black 'heroes'. Never mind that these 'heroes', had they not succeeded in sports, could well be roaming the streets mugging people--come to think of it, even successful and rich black athletes indulge in criminal behavior.
There is also the issue of sexuality. There was a time when sexuality was discrete in America and when most white girls felt it was their duty to go with white men. But, once sexuality came out into open as a kind of exhibition/competitive sports, black sexuality has come to be accepted as the more orgasmic, powerful, and mind-blowing kind of sexuality. So, white girls fantasize about rappers ravaging them. So, white boys try to ape tough blacks--and look stupid in the process. Whites, Hispanics, Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc, etc all try to ape black style and sexuality. There is this grand narrative that says all non-blacks had lived repressed, boring, stuffy, dull, and generic lives... until the Negro came along, shook his booty, swung his ding-dong, flexed his muscles, and acted crazy and wild and exciting and fabulous. Never mind the fact that such kind of jiveass behavior could never have served as the basis for founding or building civilizations, but our decadent hedonistic society where most people don't have to worry about the next meal or roof over their heads is addicted to all notions of thrill, bombast, and lunacy. And, blacks are the masters of thrill, bombast, and lunacy. Of course, thrill, bombast, and lunacy haven't done much for Africa, but most white folks in the West see blacks and African through the lens controlled by liberals and leftists who mostly show only the fun and colorful side of blackness while suppressing the darkness. Or, even the darkness is glorified or celebrated as the true meaning of freedom and rebellious power--or empowerment. This is a debased pop version of Foucault-ism which was debased to begin with. It says all 'normal' values or 'civilized' social codes are really prisons and coercive means to keep us from being free. So, the only way to be truly free is to be crazy, wild, out-of-control, and destructive--like Norman Mailer's White Negro.
There is a close connection between white worship of black sexuality and white worship of black music. No musical form is as sexually-oriented, groin-and-booty-centric, uninhibited, irreverent, jungle-animalistic as black music. In the past, white man tried to tame the Negro to act civilized, moralistic, well-behaved, and in-control-of-one's-own-emotions. But, things began to change with the rise of Jazz. More and more whites came to love Jazz and felt that blacks were teaching whites folks to be free, liberated, wild, and fun-loving. Even so, there was some degree of maturity, restraint, classiness, and sophistication in Jazz. A bigger change happened with the advent of Rock n Roll and the rise of Elvis Presley. Rock n Roll was far more out-of-control than Jazz. But, Rock n Roll and Rock were still white-dominated, white-filtered, and white-ized. Also, though Rock promoted wild freedom and individualistic anarchism, it didn't call for contempt, rage, hatred, and such for the most part(there were exceptions, like Punk, but punk wasn't very black-ish but only bratty.) Also, much of Rock music wasn't aggressive at all. For every Jagger there was a McCartney. And, despite his high energy, Springsteen didn't call for thuggery or violence. Neither did Van Halen or Led Zeppelin. There were some very lewd and 'satanic' Heavy Metal bands but their violence was fantastic than social. But, Rap was different. Unlike earlier black musical influences which came to be 'stolen' by whites and drastically altered/adapted, rap mostly remained in the hands of blacks. (Eminem and a few others have been the exceptions).
As rap was so blatantly black in essence--vocalism, body motions, rhythm, etc--and so fixed in its form, it was hard for whites to effectively turn it into something white. Also, rap and hip-hop were very physical and athletic and the performers had to have the moves, and well, most whites simply did not have the moves--nor the tough vocalism. So, the rise of rap and hip-hop meant the rise of undiluted blackness. Though previous generations since the age of Jazz have been immersed in black-influenced music, most white people had favored the whitened version of it--Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, Presley, Beatles, Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, The Who, U2, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, etc. As such, white self-respect as sexual, physical, mythic, and heroic icons had been preserved. But, with the rise of rap and hip-hop, this cultural tradition was broken. Whites could not out-rap the black rappers nor could they effectively turn rap or hip-hop into a white-dominated form. So, since the late 80s, a whole new generation grew up total worshiping blackness as the ultimate in sexuality and coolness. And, those weaned on the fast and jungle rhythms of hip-hop now find much of White Rock slow and lame--just like those weaned on recent Hollywood blockbusters would find John Wayne movies 'dull' and 'lame'.

There is something funny here. Liberalism, which argued for the equality of the races and pushed the notion that 'race is only skin-deep', has been unwittingly promoting the idea of black superiority. Indeed, liberalism no longer demands that we see a black guy as a 'man' but that we see him as a 'superman'. So, we are supposed to regard a fat TV talk-show hostess as the greatest woman since Virgin Mary. And, why? Oh, she's so soulful and wise because she's black. And, we are supposed to look upon Obama as The One, and why? Simply because he's black.
Blacks are all masterful, all powerful, all cool, all sexy, etc. This is cult of racial worship.
There was a time when the ideal was for white man to teach black 'savages' to wear clothing and act civilized; today, it's for blacks to show whites how to wiggle their asses and act like savage thugs. The race that gave us Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, the Renaissance, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner are supposed to take cues from a race whose idea of society is chucking spears, shaking their booties, pumping their groins, and talking shit about 'yo mama'. Even white conservative kids listen to and know more about Rap and other forms of black culture than they know anything about the glories of their own tradition, culture, and history--not least because so many conservatives so anti-art, anti-creative, anti-curious, and anti-cultural.

So, those are the intrinsic black-related reasons. But, there are two other reasons why whites are helpless before the black physical and cultural assault, and these are not related directly to blackness. One is Christian morality that plagues the conscience of white folks, especially in America which likes to pride itself in EXCEPTIONALIST terms. All peoples and nations on Earth practiced slavery--and much else--, but ONLY the US makes a BIG deal out of it. Do you see Muslims pull their hair for having practiced slavery through the ages? Muslims aren't even bothered by the fact that slavery is allowed in the Koran; indeed, slavery was ended in the Middle East only in the 20th century due to Western pressure. Do you see Chinese apologizing forever for their long history of slavery, conquest, warfare, and etc. Do you see any African people apologize for slavery--which continues in large parts of Africa. And so on and on. Indeed, even most Latin American nations which practiced slavery--involving Indians in much of Spanish America and blacks in Brazil--don't apologize and feel sorry forever and ever. Why not? Because Latin American nations never claimed to be EXCEPTIONAL or special nations, the 'city on the hill' and all that jazz.
In contrast, America was founded by Protestant idealists. And, American independence was hailed in epic and epochal terms as the new beginning of the Freedom of Man. So, American brand of Christianity was both idealistic and terribly self-critical; as such, it was bound to come under attack for its many hypocrisies.
As people who understand history well know, it takes a great deal of violence, warfare, and subjugation to build a vast new order and to expand one's empire. You cannot do it with idealism alone. And, America was founded and built with its share of bloody violence and oppression. But, because Americans--and Brits--always acted with an air of moral superiority toward the rest of the world, their sins became magnified to a greater extent even though they committed 'crimes' no worse than any other great powers. Thus, even Buchanan lays it on UK and US for carpet-bombing German cities. He also attacks the hypocrisy of the Allied Western Good Guys who would dare kill 100,000s of innocent civilians and make an alliance with mass murderer Stalin. Buchanan asks, 'if the Good Guys were indeed So Good, how come they did so much bad?' Japanese would like to ask the same about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Japanese were evil for the 'rape' of Nanking, how can one say US is 'good' when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, indiscriminately killing everyone from grannies breathing their last to babies newly born into the world?
As a result, many liberals and leftists ask, 'if America has been such a great noble country, how come it committed slavery and killed Indians and so on?' Because of white Christian America's highfalutin sense of itself, it is burdened with paralyzing shame over what had been done to the black man. What happened to blacks in the US was no worse than oppressions elsewhere--indeed, better than most other oppressions around the world--, but, by golly, how could it have happened in America the Good country? Americans will only learn to feel less guilty if they stop seeing US as some EXCEPTIONAL country it never was and never will be. US must become a normal nation.

The other reason for white paralysis in face of the black threat is due to Jewish influence. Jews, with their control of academia and media, have played on white guilt like a violin. And, by using the Holocaust card, Jews have made it difficult to discuss, challenge, or counter Jewish power. Why, any criticism of Jewish power would be 'anti-semitic'. And, Jews have covered up the Jewish role in communism which led to the deaths of millions. When Pat Buchanan defended the rights of those accused of Nazi crimes, Jews went apeshit and called Buchanan a Nazi-sympathizer. But, what no one mentions is the fact that both Israel and US took in many Soviet Jews with blood on their hands. Many Jews who settled in Israel or in the US had been Stalin's willing executioners who had killed millions of Ukrainians, Latvians, Kazakhis, Volga and Baltic Germans, Poles, etc. No one ever mentions this or calls for the deporting of Jews with commie-blood-on-their-hands from the US--and if demands were to be made, the Jewish-controlled media and academia will ignore or suppress them. If US deports those associated with Nazi crimes, why doesn't it expel those Jews associated with communist crimes? Was it somehow okay for communist Jews to kill millions of Ukrainians? Though Adolph Eichmann was a scumbag who got what he deserved, I find it amusing that Israel--which took in its share of mass-murderers(mostly from the USSR)--should be sitting judgment on a mass murderer.

WWI and WWII matter in relation to the rise of Jewish power. WWI led to the ascendancy of radical Jewish power in Russia, and that would have longterm impact on the West for two reasons. Fear of communism would drive many conservative and bourgeois forces to support radical right movements they otherwise would not have supported. This led to the rise of Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany. Even so, the greatest villains of the 20th century would have been left-wing Jews and communists had Hitler not embarked on WWII and committed the Holocaust. The demise of Hitler and end of WWII led to the Cold War which pitted the US against the USSR. The West was in a specially vulnerable moral position in this battle because Western democracies still had imperial possessions and US still denied full rights to non-whites. US and the West had moral superiority in terms of offering freedom and liberty to their own citizens, but USSR had the moral advantage based on ideological principles denouncing 'racism' and imperialism--though Russians practiced de facto imperialism themselves. Much of the non-white world wanted to do business with rich Western nations but sought inspiration from the communist model. Even non- or anti-communist non-white nations embraced that aspect of Marxist-Leninism that was anti-imperialist. Of course, the USSR was an imperial domanin in its own right, but ideology--even when bogus in practice--had strong hold on people all over the world. And, in the postwar era, leftists and liberals--many of them Jews--played on these moral conflicts.
Prior to WWII, radical Jews had been the biggest mass-murderers of the 20th century, the greatest villains. But, the Holocaust gave the Jews an opening to pose as the greatest victims(of all time), which was easy since Nazi crimes were indeed horrific and also because the Nazis lost the war and their crimes were exposed and recorded for all the world to see--in contrast, the millions who died under communism perished in dark silence. The Jews, with their growing hold of the media, made it seem as though 'racism'--especially 'racism' against Jews called 'anti-semitism'--was the worst curse upon mankind. In news program after news program, documentary after documentary, book after book, and movie after movie, Jews crammed into everyone's mind that Nazis were the worst people that ever lived and Jews were the best people that ever lived. Nazis were totally mean and murderous, Jews were totally harmless and helpless.

Though most of Europe felt pride in having resisted Nazism or relief in having been liberated from Nazism in the postwar era, the Jews and the leftists eventually changed the narrative to the one that accused ALL of Europe for having been complicit in the Holocaust because (1) European gentiles didn't resist Nazi invasion forcefully enough (2) they didn't hide or save enough Jews (3) some Europeans turned Jews over to the Nazis, etc. And, in the US, liberal Jews linked the Holocaust with the plight of blacks in the South. Though it's true that blacks were given the short end of the stick in America prior to the 60s, just how does one compare the condition of Jews with those of blacks? If US committed anything close to genocide, it was spreading disease--intentionally or unintentionally--among the native Indians or preventing immigration of Asian women so that most of Chinese-Americans in California--mostly male--would die as a race without breeding a new batch of 'chinks.' But, Jews found the black cause more useful and interesting to Jewish power and interests. There were far more blacks, blacks were vocal, and Jews made a ton of money off them--and were bound to make much more through Jewish ownership of sports and entertainment where blacks were prominent.

Without the Cold War in which US tried to claim the moral high ground against the USSR by winning the hearts and minds of non-whites all over the world, white Americans could have moved more gradually and cautiously toward racial progress in the US, and such might have been much better for blacks and whites. Whites would have allowed more equality for all races with greater moral confidence and from a position of strength. But because of the Cold War, US was morally backed up against the ropes with accusation from the communist world that US was 'racist' like the Nazis. So, Americans allowed full freedom to blacks overnight, and blacks, like so many hastily liberated Third World peoples, abused their freedoms and came to be dominated by demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright who are not much different than the crooked elites of Africa. Regarding nations like Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, we observe that gradual transition to democracy and greater freedom was the sensible course since peoples of those nations had little or no sense of modern democracy or freedom right after liberation. And, we forgive the fact that China and Russia--still poor and backward in many ways--prefer a gradual transition to full democracy. It's possible that a full-blown sudden democracy in China may actually do more harm; recall that China's first attempt at democracy in 1912 was a total failure; and democratic Russia in the 90s was a gangster paradise. Similarly, it might have been better for everyone in the US if black liberation had been allowed more gradually within a timetable. It should be clear by now that the liberal dreams of the 50s and 60s were mostly fantasies.

And, we should remember that even white people didn't have full democracy until the 19th century. When the American republic was first set up, only 20% of white males were allowed to vote. Was it 'unfair'? In a way, yes. But, this probably allowed the enlightened, educated, and more temperate classes to establish and strengthen a kind of political system they thought necessary for longterm greatness. Had US been a full-fledged democracy from the very beginning, the will of the ignorant and illiterate masses might have overwhelmed the educated classes, and the American experiment may have turned into a demagogic and populist disaster like the one in France. The chaos unleashed by the sudden new order might have given rise to ruthless Jacobins and then, even an American Napoleon. It's because the first chapter of American democracy had been in the 'unfair' control of the moderate, temperate, and educated elite that the noble and sane ideas of the Founders were able to take root. So, when America did finally have its own ersatz Napoleon--Andrew Jackson--, his power was checked and balanced by other institutions which had been planted and taken root in the first few decades when voting rights had been restricted to the landed and educated classes. It was because of the prior restrictions that the early American republic had been defined and shaped by men like John Adams, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Jefferson. Had US allowed full democracy from the very beginning, illiterate ruffians and firebrand radicals might have taken the helm.
There was a need for a man like Andrew Jackson later on, and he was a great president. But, he would have been a bad president in the beginning stages of the Republic. The power of Jacksonian populism could be weathered and harnessed only because the laws and institutions had taken root in the early years when voting rights had been limited to the educated and relatively enlightened.
And, the same thing could be said of what happened in regard to blacks. Their sudden freedom was actually bad for them as for the entire country. Many blacks used their freedom stupidly, like the blacks we see in "Birth of a Nation" by D. W. Griffith. (Though this movie has much that is false, distorted, and offensive, it contains much truth when we look at black social and political reality today. If anything, the reality we see today is more distressing than the stereotypes we see in Griffith's classic. Griffith's blacks are stupid and rough, but today's crazy blacks are worse than animals in every sense, and rap music is the most hateful, thuggish, mindless, contemptuous, murderous, destructive, savage, corrupt, demagogic, and vile message-form created by man.)

Anyway, it was the Cold War which forced white America to implement complete freedom overnight for blacks--rather ironic since Soviet Union didn't even allow basic freedoms for white Russians, let alone people of other ethnic groups. And, Jews took advantage of this and used the 'racism' issue to undermine the authority of the Wasp elite and the feelings of white ethnics. In time, Jews would replace the wasps as the de facto masters of America. So, in this sense WWII did matter.
But, even without WWI and WWII, much the same might have happened. There still would have been a massive and problematic black population in the US. Jews in US and Europe would have amassed tremendous power and would have used it undermine the authority of white gentiles. Of course, had there been no WWII and the Holocaust, Jews might have been on the moral defensive since communism--largely led and defined by radical Jews--would have been the greatest criminal enterprise of the century. And, radical Jews would have been the greatest villains and killers of the 20th century. And had there been no Holocaust, we would today be criticizing Jewish power without shame or fear as when we criticize Arab, Muslim, Chinese, French, or Christian power. And, a more gradualist approach might have been possible between whites and blacks. But, because of WWII and the Holocaust--and Jewish control of the media in the US--, it became impossible to criticize Jewish power--though tremendous and overwhelmingly left-leaning. And, the right had to tread very carefully because of its association with imperialism, 'racism', 'antisemitism', and the Holocaust. And, as Western Europe had been at war with Nazism than with communism during WWII, most Europeans in the postwar era saw Nazism and Fascism as greater evils than Communism. Firsthand experience under Nazi occupation clouded their views of communism, too often regarded as the heroic force that defeated Nazism.

(7). Buchanan despairs of the loss of Western confidence in its own history, achievements, and so on, but isn't he adding fuel to the fire? By knocking Churchill from the historical pantheon, he has desecrated yet another hero for Western man. And, by questioning WWII as a necessary fight against the evil of Nazism--and presumably Japanese Imperialism--, Buchanan is taking away the pride and glory on the part of UK and even the US for having won WWII. Of course, Buchanan can counter that Nazism, though evil, was still white, or at least Western-white. So, going by the rules of 'my country, right or wrong' or, in this case, 'my race, right or wrong', UK and US should have sided with the Nazis because the bigger enemies were the Asiatic Russian Hordes and Semitic Subversives. Though Hitler was murderous, he was not murderous toward Western man or he was presumably only aggressive against the West only when it declared war on him first or restrained his ambitions in the East and his repression of Jews. Buchanan is asking, 'what was it the concern of Brits or white Americans if Hitler wanted to conquer the East or repress Jews?' Did Germans interfere with Anglo-Americans or Spanish-Americans when the latter were conquering the New World through much violence and mayhem? Did any nation wage war on white America for using black slave labor or on Spanish-America for using Indian slave labor? And, wasn't the British, acting as the superior and master race, ruling over non-whites all over the world? So, why was it necessary for UK and US to go to war with Germany in order to save Slavs and the Jews? Since Germans didn't morally protest nor condemn the conquest and the mastery of the world by Anglo-whites and other whites, why did Brits and Americans have to stand in the way of German ambitions? And, didn't Germany initially offer Poland a membership in the white man's club? Why did the Poles reject the German offer of cooperation and protection against the 'Asiatic' Russians. So, from Buchanan's point of view, it made little sense for white folks to fight white folks over the issue of non-white folks or lesser-white folks(Russian Slavs)or problematic/subversive white folks(the Jews). (This reminds me of the scene in "Battle of the Planet of the Apes" where apes chant 'ape shall not kill ape.') And, though WWII is seen as a great triumph of Western freedom, Buchanan sees it as the bigger triumph for the Soviet Empire. This may sound odd considering that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, but one could argue that winning the Cold War was a Pyrrich victory for the Western Man since he had to forgo so much of his power to win over(and buy) the hearts and minds of non-whites--many of them venal and corrupt--all over the world. In order for the West to win the Cold War in the eyes of the world, it had to prostrate itself, apologize for every sin, beg forgiveness, and repent, repent, repent. So, even though US and the West won the Cold War, leftist moralism had to be imbibed by the West. West had to prove to the world that it was more self-critical and self-corrective than the Evil Empire of communism. This gave a crucial opening to critics of the West in the West. Intellectual Cold War in the universities and many institutions has been won by the Left. America won the war of economics, liberty, freedom, and innovation. But, it could still be argued that the Left won morally, at least in intellectual terms. Political correctness--a soft form of radical leftism--has crept into all Western nations. Generations of Western youths have been converted to the religion of 'social justice' which stresses equality of outcome more than equality of freedom. The reason why many people--especially the young--are not shocked by Obama's radical associations is because our society and values have become radicalized within mainstream culture itself. Though far-right associations are fatal for any mainstream conservative figure, a liberal may have any number of far-left associations. The liberal Jewish controlled media don't make a big deal out of Obama's ties with terrorist Bill Ayers, for example.
So, even if Churchill's war was a victory for the West militarily, it was a defeat for the West morally. For one thing, even though US and UK helped defeat Nazism, the evil of Nazism has become associated with all of Western culture. It's often been said that the Holocaust discredited ALL Western claims to moral superiority. This view says the Holocaust was not just a product of Nazi evil but all of Western culture and history. People who held these views--largely left-wing and liberal Jews--attempted to tie together Nazism with all of German history, Catholicism, Lutherism, Chrstianity, European 'racism', Western Imperialism, and so on. And, we've all heard the anguished cry, 'how could a people as civilized, advanced, and educated as the Germans have done something so horrendous and cruel?' Such sentiments suggest either that Nazism was indeed a shocking anomaly in Western history or an out-of-the-closet manifestation of the true core of Western culture all along; in other words, look underneath the veneer of Western civility, and the West had always been about exploitation, hypocrisy, and mass murder. Often, liberals and leftists try to have it both ways. They want Germans to feel sorry for what happened and to try extra hard to be Good Germans in the future. But, they also want Germans to feel that the germ of evil is in the German DNA itself, and so Germans should cower with their tails behind their legs forever to restrain their innate toxicity. And, this viewpoint has spread far and wide to all white people. So, all whites in the US are made to feel guilty for slavery though the majority of whites in America had no ancestors who owned slaves. So, even Polish-Americans and Romanian-Americans--whose ancestors never conquered nor enslaved non-whites but suffered from invasion and foreign occupation/oppression--must share the guilt of white imperialism. Meanwhile, all blacks around the world--though they'd been involved in tribal wars, conquest, slavery, genocide, etc against one another and even against non-black kingdoms in North Africa--can feel ennobled as saintly eternal victims of white oppression and evil. Never mind that nearly all of the slaves sold to white slave traders along the coast of Africa had been captured by black slave-hunters. So, even as the West defeated Nazism, it got tainted with the same kind of evil in the postwar era. Ironically enough, it's even happening to the Jews, with more and more people comparing the Nazis with Israeli Zionists. But, in the US at least, such views tend to be rare due to Jewish control of the media and academia. But, considering that academic trends--increasingly leaning in favor of Palestinians-- prefigure media trends, it's possible that anti-Zionism will grow much more powerful in the US.

Now, we can argue that this argument against The West or Germany is unfair. If it's fair game to find links between all of German history with Nazi evil, why can't we do the same with Judaism and communism? Well, doing so is attacked as 'antisemitic'.
Of course, Jews love to find links between Soviet Evil and the Tsarist tradition. This is merely a way for left-wing Jews--and even some conservative Jews--to hint that communism failed or turned ugly in the USSR because of repressive Tsarist or Russian traditions. In other words, the evils of communism were not the fault of radical Jews hellbent on creating heaven on Earth; oh no, the real problem was the Soviet experiment failed due to the weight of Russian history and Georgian-turned-Tsar Stalin. But, this is terribly simple-minded because, even as the Russian system had been plenty repressive, it was authoritarian and never totalitarian. If anything, the Tsars had been rather lenient and forgiving of most subversives, radicals, and troublemakers. During their exiles, Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were able to laze about, go fishing, have sex with locals, even allowed to keep guns to go hunting, and to read and write and even have family members come and go. The real horror of communism lay within the totalitarian model created by left-wing Jews. Had Stalin been satisfied with mere Tsarist authority, he couldn't have done what he did. He killed millions and turned the entire nation into a vast gulag because of the utterly ruthless and totalistic system conceptualized and implemented by left-wing Jews. The idea that the Soviet Union would have been like social-democratic Sweden if Russian traditions been more liberal is nonsense. For one thing, communism and social-democracy were different animals; social democracy was not liberal communism--an oxymoron if there ever was one. Had communism taken over Sweden, it would created a gulag state too. And, had Social-Democrats gained power in Russia--which might have been possible if not for the destabilizing impact of WWI--, Russia would have been a far freer and better place. We cannot discount the importance of traditions in any country, but generally, the SYSTEM than the tradition is to blame. It wasn't the Cambodian tradition but the communist system which led to the hellish excesses of the Khmer Rouge. If communism took over the US, it wouldn't matter that US had over 200 yrs of democracy. Communists would use ruthless means to create a totalitarian system, and millions would have to die or be thrown into slave or re-education camps.

Also, how come no one asks a question about the Jews that's similar to the one asked about Germans: "How could a people as historic, cultural, intelligent, intellectual, knowledgeable, spiritual, and advanced as the Jews come up with something as crazy and murderous as communism, act like rabid dogs, spread the radical virus all over the world, and create a system where many other Jews joined in the mass enslavement and murder of millions... in the name of Social Justice?" But, this question is never asked. Or, how come a man as intelligent as Noam Chomsky have supported the Khmer Rouge and then apologized for its crimes? How could the Jewish dominated media give a pass to the many psychopathic left-wing radicals who've caused so much damage to this country? How can so many Jews make excuses and even encourage the bloodcurdling and murderous excesses of black rap culture?

In some ways, the crimes of both Nazi Germans and Marxist Jews aren't hard to understand. Paradoxically, the most civilized or most idealistic people can sometimes be the most ruthless and intolerant. A hygienic person is far more insensitive of filth than is an unhygienic person. Whether it's racial, moral, spiritual, or whatever kind of hygiene, those who are more perfectionist will be more allergic and hostile to whatever doesn't fit the scheme of what is desirable. Jews came up with an highly advanced and morally profound(and demanding) concept of God and his Laws. In some ways, this made Jews more humane, understanding, and civilized, but in other ways, it made them more judgmental, intolerant, arrogant, contemptuous, and hostile toward 'renegade' Jews and the 'filthy' ways of goyim. The Biblical God is said to be perfect and perfectionist, and it is precisely for that reason that He could be so unforgiving, ruthless, and murderous. In seeking perfection, He felt compelled at times to wipe out entire peoples who disobeyed his commands or were wicked.
Civilization calls for higher ideals and greater accomplishment, but the corollary to this can be greater intolerance and greater suppression/repression or even extermination of undesirable elements. People lacking such ideals may actually be more tolerant, but their less well-ordered and less civilized societies are likely to be plagued by cycles of savagery, thuggery, random violence, and animalism. Blacks of Brazil are not intolerant nor idealistic like Nazi Germans or Biblical Jews; lacking ideals or vision, they don't seek to use violence for the creation of a new order based on high principles. But, lacking civilized ideals and principles, they often have loose sex like animals and rob/kill randomly like predators.

If a stinky bum walked through a dirty Mexican town, the people of the community may not like him but would tolerate his presence. But, if a stinky bum walked into a social gathering of rich elegant people in the US--whether they be liberal or conservative--, people will grimace, feel offended or uneasy, and try to have the bum tossed out. Though many white liberals love to profess their compassion for the down-and-out, they themselves want to maintain safe, clean, elegant, and 'sophisticated' livelihoods among the affluent and well-educated. Notice that the more educated, 'civilized', and 'advanced' a person happens to be, the more he's likely to be an intolerant snob. Most affluent liberals want to do good for poor people ONLY from the vantage point of the ivory tower. Their liberalism is a means to maintain their social-class superiority. Liberal compassion is about feeling sorry for the less fortunate, and as such, implies that liberals are(and should be) in a superior position over those deserving of their condescending compassion--from a distance. So, liberals want to climb as high as possible, make as much money as possible, and/or gain as much power/influence as possible just so they can look down on the masses from the highest position possible. Of course, liberals claim to want to help the poor masses, and this is surely better than wanting to oppress the poor masses. But, the fact is most rich liberals don't want to rub shoulders with the masses. Hollywood liberals are some of the most demanding, spoiled, pampered, snot-nosed jerks in the world. They want to rake in not only all the money and power but all the love and compassion as well. "I own the biggest hotel in Las Vegas and the biggest juiciest compassionate heart."

Anyway, the more civilized, perfectionist, demanding, pure, and 'best' we wanna be, the more intolerant and even contemptuous and hateful we become toward those people and things that upset, interfere, or threaten our grandiose vision. So, it's no mystery that the Nazis did what they did. Hitler was likely a repressed homo with a thing for beauty and health, and so he wanted to erase from the world all that was ugly, sickly, filthy, and so on.
And, communism envisioned a world of perfect Social Justice and couldn't tolerate class enemies, 'exploitive'
capitalists, and other evildoers. Tragironically, the greatest victims of communism turned out to be poor people. Actually, many people of bourgeoisie and the middle-class backgrounds--indeed, most revolutionary leaders were of privileged background--, joined the party and function as party members, agents, or bosses due to their education and skills. Though many capitalists were imprisoned, exiled, or killed, many privileged members of society joined communist movements. The real horror was visited upon the masses of poor peasants who wanted to keep their own plots of land. The state saw these peasants as ignorant, stupid, ungrateful, superstitious, and reactionary. Soviet communism expressed more hostility towards the peasants than towards the bourgeoisie. Many bourgeois Jews joined the communist cause and even lived ersatz bourgeois lives as Party members while millions of peasants were ground to dust. And, the proletariat didn't fare much better as they could not lodge their complaints nor freely organize--after all, they were living in the workers' paradise--but simply had to do as the communist bosses said.

The Nazis committed horrendous violence BECAUSE they were for ultra-civilization, and communists committed great violence BECAUSE they were for ultra-justice. And, it's BECAUSE white Americans had a grand, noble, and romantic vision of a great progressive country that they wiped out savage wild Indians and tried to keep the thuggish blacks down for as long as possible. Especially whites in the South had a vision of society based on restraint, chivalry, honor, dignity of white women, and so on. For these whites, the more aggressive and animalistic way of the Negro was threatening. Many liberals criticize and even denounce Southern values as stupid, but it's true enough that the rise of black culture as the American ideal has led to a culture that is more crude, crass, idiotic, infantile, thuggish, and moronic.

One could argue that black culture is, at the very least, more tolerant if less advanced than white culture. But, is it? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that everyone is invited to shake his or her bootie and holler and make ape-like motions. But, black culture is so heavily based on physical prowess, sexual wildness, and thuggish lunacy that it tends to look down on qualities such as gentleness, kindness, civility, honor, and respect. It's tolerant in the way that the animal world is tolerant: everyone's invited to fight it out and slaughter one another. There may be less of an ideological intolerance in black culture or community, but black culture tolerates, inspires, encourages, and breeds thuggish tyranny. In time, it only leads to another kind of 'racism'.
In a world where all dogs are invited to fight one another, the tough dogs--the dobermans, pitbulls, german shepherds, etc--will gain mastery over and feel contempt toward weaker breeds. Similarly, a new kind of 'racism' has taken hold of the black community that is based on physical prowess and thuggery. The dynamics of this culture have separated the top dogs from the weaker dogs; the toughest mofos are black, and this awareness of their thuggish superiority has led to a kind of ersatz racial supremacist ideology among blacks. Blacks are careful not to blatantly spell it out since non-blacks will wake up, see blacks as a threat, and develop their own racial ideologies to counter black 'racism'. If US was 80% black and if blacks controlled most of the institutions--military, police, government, etc--, they won't feel any hesitation to spell out how they REALLY feel about the 'pussy-ass' whites and other non-blacks. But, blacks know that they can't do such as yet, because if whites--who still make up the majority--are shaken out of their guilt-ridden slumber, there may be a united white front against the black threat. So, even as blacks act like they're superior to 'slow and lame honkey', they say they are for equality, reconciliation, and so on.
Just look at African countries where blacks have gained decisive advantage over the whites. In South Africa, where most powerful institutions are now in the control of blacks, there is growing rhetoric about putting whiteys down. If US were more like South Africa, the preferred candidate among blacks would not be Obama but someone far more radical and crazy. Or, Obama under such circumstances would be far more aggressive and hostile and not so eager to 'not to make sudden moves.' Notice that while he was in black Chicago, Obama had No Problem in being part of a virulent black nationalist/anti-white church. But, in the national spotlight, he's trying to act like he's a nice lovable Negro.

The most preferable system for man is a harmonious balance of civilization and tolerance. Under this system, certain ideals and values must be upheld while ensuring political/legal equality to all people. This system would have to reject ruthless perfectionism. But, it must also push everyone to strive toward higher values. Tolerance without values lead to the rule by slobs, mobs, and thugs.
The essence of both Nazism and communism was civilization-minus-tolerance-of-that-which-stood-in-the-way-of-its-notions-of-perfection.
The problem of many African nations are even worse. It might be called no-civilization-and-no-tolerance. Most African societies are still primitive and tribal with little concept of higher civilizational values, and they are also hellishly intolerant, with each tribal group slaughtering others over stupid stuff. We've seen it in Uganda and recently even in a relatively stable African country like Kenya after the bogus elections.

What may be ailing the current West may be called tolerance-without-civilization. There had been a time when liberals believed in family values, individual responsibility, civic duties, and other stuff as well in the ideals of tolerance, 'social justice', and openness. But since the 60s, a new generation of liberals have rejected family values and moral responsibility. Liberals call for more freedom, more openness, and more whatever, but without values attached to them. Liberals say diversity and tolerance are values, but they are only general values that do not govern individual moral life. What does tolerance teach about the need to restrain one's own freedom, about sexual behavior, about the dangers of drug use, about the need to marry before you have children, about the need to take care of your own children, about the need to take school seriously, about the wrongness of stealing/cheating/lying, about the need for personal honor, about one's obligation to family and friends? Tolerance is a good general value, but it doesn't guide inner or personal morality and individual behavior. A person can be tolerant and not call people 'nigger', 'chink', 'kike', 'spick', 'honkey', 'faggot', etc, but he could still be a lame-ass jerk, idiot, moron, louse, punk, or fool. People who come on Jerry Springer are mostly tolerant, but they are morons destroying their communities. They have no sense of personal dignity, honor, obligation, nor whatever. They find nothing wrong with lying, cheating, and betraying friends/family members left and right AS LONG AS they do in a 'progressive' and 'tolerant' manner. So, maybe it's okay to cheat on your wife as long as you sleep with a gay black guy; at least, you're being 'tolerant'. Maybe you've failed in school and leeched off welfare, but it's okay since your best friend is a lesbian Asian midget. Gee, at least you're not 'xenophobic'. Maybe, you're a lazy pig and hurt everyone around you, but at least you hang around fat people. See, how tolerantly embracing of fatties you are? Suppose you're a Jewish porn producer, but at least you make gay and interracial porn and had a photo-op with Nelson Mandela. How wonderfully 'progressive' to promote tolerance, inclusiveness, and diversity in porn.
Liberals have no sense of individual morality or personal duty/obligation. Their sense of morality and obligation is only faceless and general. Under liberalism, you can be hateful and contemptuous of individuals AS LONG AS you love 'mankind'. So, we have Hollywood liberals treating their subordinates miserably but claiming to love The Poor Around the World, especially in Africa. So, we have lowly rock stars, stupid athletes, and rappers who are vile or vain monsters in their personal lives but posing as icons of tolerance and progress, and that's supposed to make them 'good people'.
A liberal will not a judge or condemn a person who beat up his parents and teachers, committed crime, got girls pregnant and then ran from his duties as a father, sprayed graffiti all over and committed other acts of vandalism, and such. All those are deemed lesser evils than someone saying 'faggot' or 'jewboy' in a fit of anger even if that someone happens to be a solid citizen of his community decent with his family, friend, and neighbors. A total fuc*-up is forgiven by liberals for ruining his entire community with his stupidity, violence, ugly behavior, and lunacy AS LONG AS he maintains his political correctness. Notice that what bothers liberals most about rap culture is not its violence, mayhem, sexual message about pimps and ho's, thuggery, and etc. No, it's the fact that rappers often call gays 'faggots'.
And, this explains why left-wing terrorism and thuggery have never been much condemned by liberals. It's because leftist terrorism, though unpleasant, is supposed to fight 'intolerance'. So, Bill Ayers gets a pass while KKK who bombed black churches do not get a pass.

For liberals, the ONLY social obligation that really matters is one that is faceless and can be theorized by intellectuals and implemented by big government bureaucrats. So, hard working earners must feel obligated to pay more taxes to take care of all those faceless poor people. And, though poor people should be allowed to enjoy as much stupid freedoms as they want--and ruin their lives by doings so--, they need feel no personal sense of shame or responsibility, no sense of duty to themselves or their families, friends, or neighbors. No, they merely need to demand HELP from the government. This kind of mentality leads to Tolerance without Civilization. Personal morals and values are not encouraged, promoted, or prized. The only value that is prized is Tolerance. So, if a you're a movie maker or rocker, it's okay if you wallow in excess ugliness, inhumanity, stupidity, lunacy, drug use, wanton sex, and etc AS LONG as your message is not 'racist'. Indeed, liberals may even see personal values and a strong individual sense as impediments to their interests. If more people are personally responsible with their individual freedoms, they are far less likely to mess up. Such people are less likely to depend on Big Government for everything. Indeed, if more blacks acted responsibly and led decent stable lives, far fewer are likely to vote Democratic and fall under the sway of braggart demagogues like Jeremiah Wright.

(8). Buchanan dismisses the notion that democratic nations are likely to go to war, at least with one another. Buchanan is right to some extent. First of all, consider the fact that most modern democracies have been culturally close to one another. They've been US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand--all members of the Anglo-sphere world. So, there was likely to be more mutual understanding amongst one another since they all shared common origins, language, cultures, and even, more or less, mutual interests. Americans and Canadians are more likely to see eye to eye than Americans and Mexicans whether democratic or not.
Even so, all these nations were created through war and conquest. To be sure, it was mostly war-and-conquest over non-democratic non-white peoples, but the aggressors were the whites seeking new land and new adventures. Democratic whites did wage wars all over the world.

Few small-ish European nations--like Netherlands--was democratic, but one could argue that they too were part of the Northern European cultural order--the racial/cultural cousins of the British. And, it could be argued that their ambitions were checked not so much because they were peace-loving but because their nations were relatively small and weak. Still, the Dutch were mighty aggressive in South Africa and lorded over Indonesia. To be sure, it wasn't a case of democratic people warring with democratic peoples but a case of democratic peoples ruling over backward peoples. Still, it was the democratic peoples who were the aggressors. And, recall that the Brits and the Dutch Boers fought a brutal war. To be sure, it could be argued that these aggressions weren't due to democracy itself but economic/military superiority and idea of the 'white man's burden'--a patronizing form of white supremacism which claimed the right to rule over non-whites for their own good.

France was a major democracy that learned to live coexist with the democratic British, and this may serve as proof that democracies are better able to co-exist in peace. But, the British and French peace was always tension-filled and bitter, especially to the French who had to play second-fiddle in the world empire game. Also, the French-British rivalry may have been tempered by the rise of Germany, Russia, and the US. With newcomers in the world power game, it was in the interests of British and the French--who had gotten a head start in laying claim to most of the non-white world--to cooperate and try to co-exist in peace.

In the post-WWII era, it must be said that Japan and Germany were safe nations not only because they were democratic but de-fanged as well as democratic. Though their peoples were politically free, the nations were not truly sovereign and independent in the traditional(especially military)sense. They both had to obey the dictates of US or NATO dominated by non-German nations. Had Japan and Germany developed into democracies independent of US influence and power, there may have been far more conflict between the Anglo-sphere democracies and non-Anglo-sphere democracies. A democratic Japan hungry to rule over Asia may have still come to blows with a democratic US. A democratic Germany that dreamed of its 'place in the sun' may have come to blows with UK and France just the same.
Today's democracies are far tamer, but that's a relatively recent development. In the past, democracies were often fired up with nationalism, mob mentality, and call for blood. Consider the mini-nationalisms within the US. Today, most racial and ethnic groups co-exist in peace. The only real problems today are black vs non-black. But, the many national groups of the American past often clobbered one another viciously. In some cases, it was the democratic nature of society which gave rise to greater levels of tribal, populist, and demagogic hatreds. We also saw this in Yugoslavia with the fall of communism. Freedom and introduction of democracy only inflamed nationalist passions, and democratized Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims were all slaughtering one another. And, look how 'nationalist' or 'sectarian' passions played themselves out in Iraq upon the implementation of democracy. Democracy, instead of making Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds live together in peace had them all fighting one another. And, democratic Kurdistan is causing more trouble for the Turks than Kurds under Hussein ever did. Even so, it could be argued that IN THE LONG TERM democracy is eventually good for long-lasting peace.

Anyway, it could be argued that the kind of nation that is most likely to be a war threat is an autocracy where populist sentiments have a life of their own. Such nations tend to be ruled by dictators or autocrats who have made a deal with their people whereby the people have traded their freedom/liberties for national glory/pride/honor. The leader tells the people, "there is no need for you to have political freedoms since we are, all of us, more powerful and prosperous united under my leadership." As long as there is a sense of national glory or power and/or a sense of economic success--also feeding into the sense of united national power--, the people are willing to put up with lack of political freedom. But, the fact that the leader has to resort to and rely on the passions of his people means that he's not totally powerful, and the people are not totally powerless. These nations are not totalitarian but authoritarian. The leader can be ruthless and brutal, but he never has total control over his people. To an extent, he rules by consent--not by votes but through show of populist passion. For this reason, it's very difficult for a leader of this political system to back down when the nation's pride or glory is at stake. His legitimacy is based on the passions of the mob. Such leader is reluctant to use totally ruthless means to beat the people to his will. He may lose legitimacy and respect in the eyes of his people; his people will see him as a tyrant-thug than visionary father-of-the-nation. A father's whip can be tolerated and accepted by his children if they still respect him as the family patriarch. But, they cannot respect a man who seems to rule by whip alone.
This is what made nationalist autocracies dangerous. Unlike communist dictatorships, the nationalist autocracies did not have total control, ownership, and power over the nation. Also, as the political order was based more on personality or symbolism--national pride and glory--than on ideology, loss of honor or face was more grievous to the rulers.
Communist leaders had total control of all information, all education, all media, and all thought. They could turn public opinion on and off like a spigot. And, all rallies were purely state-controlled affairs, and all shows of ideological/national solidarity were orchestrated than spontaneous. Stalin and Mao could do as they pleased however and whenever, and that was that. Though there was a cult of personality in communist states, it had weight than heat. Also, as 'great' as Stalin or Mao was, there was a sense that they--and everyone else--were all parts of the historical process as prophesied by Karl Marx. So, national honor didn't matter as much since historical certitude guaranteed the victory of communism. Communism was not about the shining moment but about the long haul. Consider the famous picture of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin all profiled alongside one another. They were all part of a continuum toward a new future.

Radical right-wing autocracies, on the other hand, relied on the heat of the moment. As radical right-wing autocrats didn't have total power over the populace, they had to be more mindful of public opinion. (Right-wingers didn't want total power because their ideology forbade it. They hated communism because communism was monomaniacal politically, economically, spiritually, morally, and culturally. Right-wingers believed in coordination and fusion of various independent elements than the eradication of all non-radical ideas, values, and systems to be replaced by the One and Only Radical Order.)
Right-wing autocrats or dictatorships, therefore, relied on economic performance and/or national glory. Usually, they resorted to national glory rooted in military prowess when economic problems were making the masses restless. Right-wing dictators understood issues of national pride would have a unifying effect on the nation. So, Mussolini tried to keep the support of his people by invading Ethiopia for Italian national honor and imperial grandeur\like in the ancient Roman days. So, Argentinian generals in the 80s started the stupid war in the Falklands to win the support of Argentinians. So, Greek generals provoked the trouble in Cyprus to inflame Greek nationalism. So, Hussein went into Kuwait to show what a tough guy he was to his people--after a brutal decade-long war with Iran that made his regime unpopular and during a time of severe economic duress.
Though Hitler had consolidated far more power than most right-wing dictators--almost to the point where he set up a near-totalitarian system--, he too was to playing to popular sentiments. Unlike the Bolsheviks, the Nazis came to power legally through elections, and Hitler knew that he had to please the people to keep their support and to consolidate his power even more; public opinion mattered in Germany up to the early years of war. He began by focusing on the economy, but when the economic recovery reached its limits and began to cause problems of deficits, Hitler looked across national borders. His military move into the Rhineland and his annexation of Austria and Sudetenland played to nationalist sentiments. Those were populist gambles which, had he failed, would have led to huge loss of face and even the fall of the Nazis. But, by the time Hitler went into Poland and then attacked France, he had gained such power that the Germans could no longer stop him or bring him down even if they wanted to. Also, with a European war having escalated into a world war, Germans had no choice but to fight for survival or defeat.

Mass psychology was crucial to Nazism because Hitler really reveled in the adulations of the people. With every new victory and the wild cheers of his people, he felt a greater sense of destiny. Had Hitler been an absolute totalitarian leader from the very beginning, he may have been more cautious. He would have known that he had to make his own decisions and suffer the consequences on his own. When Stalin invaded Poland and then Finland, he didn't appeal to the people for approval. He just did it. Success or failure, they were issues Stalin had to deal with on his own.
But, Hitler didn't have that kind of power from the start. So, before he ventured on a new bold idea or gamble, he had to appeal to masses, play to their emotions, and seek their approval. And, he gained victory after victory. He felt not only increasingly confident in his calculations and prophecy but empowered by the magical will of the people. He felt as if the very gods of Germanic lore were manifested through the wild applause of his people. Hitler got swept away with his own myth. Though crowds under communism too rallied behind the leader, there was little that was spontaneous. Of course, there were many Soviet peoples who really revered and admired Stalin and would have done anything Stalin ordered them to do. But, this was not because Stalin sought their approval nor because they spontaneously wanted to scream 'Heil Stalin.' It was because they were raised to believe that communism was the only truth. The very fact that Fascists and Nazis had to rely so much on the wild show of popular support betrays their sense of intellectual or ideological insecurity and doubt. Communists had total confidence of history being on their side. Fascists and Nazis felt a need to be reminded of their power and glory every so often by playing to popular opinion.
This was because communism was textual, history written as a book. In contrast, fascism was artistic, history as a fashion show. Fascism was more vain, and as such, more insecure even as it was more narcissistic.

Anyway, both Mussolini and Hitler built up their own myths as invincible supermen to such extent that they found it difficult to back down when their rival nations finally said NO. Stalin, who never sought public approval for his acts of aggression, might have sued for peace before he dug himself into a hole. But, it wasn't so simple for Hitler when he couldn't bend Poland to his will and when Britain and France decided to stand behind Poland. The nature of his power and myth being what it was, Hitler had much to lose if he backed down. This doesn't mean that the German people would have rejected him; considering the achievements up to that point, they surely would have forgiven him for failing to force concessions from Poland. But, Hitler couldn't face the German public if he backed down because of his narcissistic faith in his own myth.

There was a similar kind of danger to the Japanese Imperial system. Though brutal and ruthless, it too was not totalitarian, and it too depended largely on impassioned--if less spontaneous--support of the populace. The 1930s was a time of economic distress for Japan; also, as Japan's star rose higher in the 1910s and 1920s, the Japanese government staked its legitimacy on Japan's glorious position--dominance--in Asia. With each passing year, Japan grew more restless about Western presence in Asia. Also, after Chiang Kai-Shek unified China in 1927, Japanese feared that China would eventually become the dominant power in Asia. The nationalist flames which the Japanese government had fanned in order to unite the Japanese came back to torch its own behind. Had Japan been a totalitarian government with total control over everything, the political leadership--and the Emperor--could have suppressed the demands for bolder actions on the part of fanatical lower ranked military officers from humbler backgrounds.
The Japanese government tried to have it both ways--use nationalism to unite Japan but also use smart diplomacy to maintain good ties with other nations. But, populist and nationalist sentiments grew more intensel. The military officer rebels who were executed became national heroes mourned by the entire nation. With each passing year, the reckless Japanese forces in Manchuria acted in accordance to the 'will of the Japanese people' instead of following the orders by the government that urged caution and restraint. Many people in the government had strong nationalist and imperialist feelings too, but they also knew that it was dangerous to embark on a path that might lead to an all-out war. But, with mounting pressure from junior officers and public support for those nationalist radicals, the military government decided the ONLY way it could survive was by going the whole hog for national glory and pride.

Popular support can be intoxicating to any leader in an autocracy or democracy, but it's more dangerous in the former because the legitimacy of the ruler is based on public sentiment and because autocrats face a fall steeper fall if they were to lose control. In a democracy, legitimacy is based on the vote and on laws. So, even as Truman had very low ratings in his last years, his power was assured. Though he left in disgrace, he was not going to be lynched or shot; a new President came to power in a smooth transition.
Autocrats, on the other hand, know that their power can come tumbling down if they lose popular support. People in a democracy, no matter how angry with their leader, have the satisfaction of voting him out of office sooner or later. But, people under an autocracy feel enraged when they are stuck with a ruler they detest. Without popular support, the leader faces two options: violent downfall or maintaining power through brutal means. Downfall for an autocrat can mean humiliating exile--as with the Shah--or even a lynching. Keeping his power through brutality means being surrounded by people you hate your guts--like Mugabe in Zimbabwe. It's hard for a right-wing dictator or autocrat to exit gracefully. He must fight like a thug or take flight like a chicken.

Compare the cases of Mao and Chiang Kai-shek in the 1930s. Mao ruled over a totalitarian system that had been purged over and over to the point where diehard ideologues and Mao devotees remained. Mao needed no popular support nor approval among his underlings. They obeyed him like robots. If Mao told had them that black is white or that the sun is the moon, they would have agreed. There was only ideological correctness as defined by Mao, and that was that.
Chiang, in contrast, ruled over a pluralistic system. Chiang could be ruthless and bloody, but he never sought total power. He was a right-wing authoritarian than a totalitarian. And, national glory and pride mattered more with the Nationalists than any ideological notion of truth or history. Communism ruled systematically while nationalism ruled 'symbologically'. So, maintaining FACE--in the public sphere--meant a helluva lot more to Chiang than to Mao. Also, there was a good amount of independent public opinion and sentiments in the China ruled by Chiang. Anyway, it was because Chiang was only an authoritarian ruler who didn't have total control over his people--and because his rule relied on symbolism of national pride--that Chiang made a fatal decision to go to war against Japan when China was weak and divided. Deep in his heart, Chiang knew that China was not ready to fight Japan. He also knew that the Nationalists would be terribly weakened by the war, and the power vacuum could be filled by the re-energized communists. He feared that a war with Japan would give the communists a second life. Had Chiang had the kind of power Lenin or Stalin had, he could have kept order and unity among the Chinese populace, played for time, strengthened China, finish off the communists, and THEN deal with Japan. Indeed, this is just what Lenin and Stalin had done during WWI and the Civil War. The Soviets knew they lost a good deal of territory in WWI--indeed, the communists had allowed such national humiliation in order to sue for peace and gain total power. Once in power, the communists focused on wiping out the Whites in a bloody civil war. And, then they decided to build a massive industry and war machine. ONLY THEN were they preparing to take back lost parts of the Russian empire.
Chiang wanted to play for time too. He wanted to consolidate his power over his China. Though the Nationalists had won the civil war of 1927 and brought all of China under its rule, national unity was still weak. And though on the ropes, the communists had not been finished off. And, though Western powers had recognized Chiang as the leader of unified China, there were still vestiges of Western imperialism along the coast. Japan was the greatest threat, but a premature war with Japan could be a fatal mistake that could bring upon total chaos to China--not just a prolonged war with millions of casualties but the revival of the communists. Chiang knew of this. He wanted to put off confrontation with Japan as long as possible. He wanted to keep the Japanese mired in Manchuria and parts of northern China. But, he didn't have the power of Lenin or Stalin, independent and spontaneous patriotic sentiments all over China demanded immediate war with Japan, and Nationalist rule had been legitimized on grounds of national pride and power. So, Chiang felt he had no choice but to make the fatal alliance with the communists to fight Japan. The passions of the Chinese people were understandable and even noble, and Chiang did what he had to do under the circumstances, but it turned out to be a disaster for almost all of Asia. The total war between China and Japan drove US and Japan apart. The Nationalists lost 1/3 of China to the Japanese. Communists gained control over vast territories and were seen as patriotic heroes by many Chinese tired of Nationalist corruption and ignorant of the true nature of communism. Millions of Chinese died in the war. Japan eventually got mauled by US. Soviets entered Asia. Communists took over China. This led to the Korean War. Communist Chinese support of communists in Vietnam led to the long drawn out Vietnam War.

In some ways, Mao gained more from WWII than Stalin did. Even prior to WWII, Stalin was a ruler of a vast powerful empire. In WWII, Soviet Union suffered great losses in manpower and infrastructure but gained superpower status and satellite states in Eastern and Central Europe. Prior to the war with Japan, Chinese communists were a ragtag army shacked up in some dusty town called Yenan. Though highly disciplined, dedicated, and tightly organized, they were small in number and in control of insignificant and limited territory. Thanks to the Japanese invasion and the vacuum caused by the destruction of the Nationalists, the communists were able to take all of China. It's almost as if a few beggars had taken over the empire.

Mao made sure that he had totalitarian control in his new order. Though Mao stirred up the masses, there could be no independent opinion or passions in communist China. The people could only parrot the party line. Mao made sure that people would be brainwashed with the correct opinion before being allowed to express them. So, if Chiang had to partly play to the spontaneous and independent passions of the Chinese, Mao made sure that EVERY feeling and expression felt by the people in his new order originated from the communist party itself.
Since Mao and the communists had all the power and control, perception of reality and public opinion were exactly as Mao wanted them to be. So, one day, the Soviets were friends. Next day, they were enemies. For a time, US was the mortal enemy. But, then the US would be not-so-bad. There was some of this too under Hitler, but it must be remembered that Hitler was the most totalitarian among right-wing leaders, at least by the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact Also, the Nazi-Soviet pact was less shocking to Germans because ideological positions had remained unchanged. Germans, wink wink, understood that the great genius Hitler had opted for a tactical partnership. In contrast, the communists had such total power over all information and thought that they could really say the sun was the moon or that 2 + 2 = 5, and the people had to accept it. So, Stalin and Mao didn't have to worry about saving FACE in front of their peoples.

Mao deviated from this Iron-fisted policy twice. During the Hundred Flowers Campaign, he allowed the people to freely express themselves but soon clamped down on dissenters when 'intellectuals' spoke out against him.
Later in the Cultural Revolution, Mao allowed mass passions to run wild but this was far less risky than embarking on a war with another nation. As horrible as the Cultural Revolution was, it was an 'internal affair' and the whole event was not about rooting out 'capitalist roaders'. Though the passions on display seemed spontaneous and free, they were really formulated and orchestrated by the powers-that-be, namely Mao, Kang Sheng, and the 'Gang of Four'.
Even so, Red Guards ran riot all over China to such extent that this was the most unstable and challenging time in Chinese communist history. And, eventually Mao did lose some face. The military, anxious over the mayhem, pressured Mao to give the green light to restore order. The street battles between the military and youths would end up killing untold numbers of people, and many Red Guards would come to question whether Mao was really the infallible sun that rose in the East. If Mao was so right, how come he told young people to run riot and then ordered the military to shoot them? And, if all Red Guards were supposed to be pro-Mao, how come so many of them slaughtered one another in the game of 'who was more loyal to Mao?'
Events such as the Cultural Revolution demonstrate the dangerous nature of mass passions. Passions can greatly empower a leader or regime but may also raise expectations and lead to populist impatience. For the leader, such show of mass passions can fill him with reckless confidence, hubris, or even anxiousness to live up to the expectations of the crowd.
In this sense, Stalin was more stable and cautious because he was more like a fight promoter than the actual fighter. Though his image was everywhere through an obnoxious personality cult, Stalin ruled in the shadows. His image was more iconic than dynamic. Hitler and Mussolini, on the other hand, were more like fighters telling the world how tough they were. Once they made their boasts loud and clear to their peoples--and leaders of other nations--, it was much harder for them to back down without losing face. A fight promoter or manager, on the other hand, doesn't lose much face if the fight is canceled or even if his fighter loses. Because Hitler fought a hubris-istic war based on notions of his infallible genius and the invincibility of the Aryans, every defeat was a heavy blow to national pride. But, it didn't matter to the Soviets if they had a hard time in Finland or lost many battles in WWII. Stalin was for overall victory through many setbacks, not everyday reminder that he or his side was invincible at every turn.

Both Kaiser-ian Germany and Tsar-ian Russia were very dangerous because both were autocracies with good amount of spontaneous and independent nationalist passions. As Germany modernized throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was increasing demand for social change and political reform. The most effective card held by the Kaiser for the continuation of the Old System was national power, glory, and pride. If Romans had kept the masses happy with bread and circuses, the Kaiser wanted to maintain his people's loyalty through symbolism and promise of glory and pride. Of course, the Kaiser wanted to avoid a major war. The same was true of the Tsar, who didn't want war. But, given the nature of their rhetoric--and the fact that their power rested on the claims of such rhetoric--, neither the Kaiser nor the Tsar could back down when national pride, glory, and honor were at stake.
For 100 yrs, conservatives forces in Europe had been able to maintain order and peace, but once nationalism became a powerful force it was harder for rulers to resolve difficult issues behind closed doors away from the stare of the masses. With rising literacy, the spread of newspapers and nationalist indoctrination in the schools, and the rise of big cities with concentration of peoples who could rally publicly like never before, it was impossible to play elitist closed-door diplomacy as in the days of Metternich or even Bismarck. Prior to the rise of nationalism, the royal houses of Europe had closer ties with one another than with their own peoples. But, the new nationalistic order meant that the Kaiser had to represent the Germans and the Russian Tsar had to represent the Slavs. Considering the blood relations among European monarchs and noblemen, WWI was like a big family war where each royal member had to fight his cousins in the name of his People.

It is for this reason that democracy was preferable in the modern world of big cities, populist passions, modern industry and weaponry, and technological progress. The modern world was too complex, dynamic, potentially destructive, and powerful to be governed by principles such as personal or national honor, 'saving face', pride, glory, etc. When noblemen dueled over such matters in the past, one lost a life or a limb. Even when whole armies were employed, the battles were limited in scale. But, WWI showed how much damage modern wars could do--to civilians as well as to soldiers. So, democracy based on laws, institutions, negotiations, and freedom became all the more necessary. Democracies also came with a release valve for populist sentiments. If the people were really angry with the current leadership, they could just vote it out. Also, those tossed out of power need not worry for their lives for they were allowed to bow out gracefully--not be dragged through the streets, exiled, dispossessed, or imprisoned. But, those safety valves were not present for Germany and Russia on the eve of WWI. Since the Kaiser and Tsar held great power and symbolic authority, they could claim all the credit upon victory and be blamed for everything upon defeat. Similarly, because Mussolini was invested with power and glory of all of Italy, he could take all of the credit for Italian victories or nearly all of the blame for Italian defeat. It seemed strange that Italians who had hailed Il Duce to high heaven just a few yrs back dragged his corpse through the streets, piss on his body, and hang him upside down. But, it was all very natural given the unwritten contract between ruler and the ruled in a populist dictatorial state. Such leader may be hailed as a god or sacrificed as the scapegoat.
It's possible that even had Germany and Russia been democracies, the populist-nationalist sentiments might have led to WWI, but then the people would have had no one to blame but themselves. But, autocratic rulers in Germany and Russia made a devil's pact with the increasingly nationalistic populace; suppression of liberty/freedom in exchange for national glory/pride.
It is for this reason that China may become more dangerous in the future.
The current regime has made a devil's pact with their people not unlike the one made between the Kaiser or the Tsar with his people.
The communist party in China wants to maintain political monopoly in exchange for prosperity and security for the masses. Lest economic succeess be threatened or deemed insufficient by the Chinese people, the government will have to resort more to themes of touchy national pride, glory, power, etc. This could boil over into territorial disputes with some Asian country or actions against Taiwan. Or, the Chinese government, in order to boost its sense of national power, may build more jet fighters, bombers, battleships, and carriers. Maneuvering around the Pacific, they may come uncomfortably close to American military forces in the region. We've already seen how the Chinese communist party played on nationalist sentiments effectively and even dangerously, with the passions reeling out of control and thereby necessitating the government to clamp down to save its relations with Japan and the US.

(9). Buchanan's characterization of Germany after WWI is that of Samson blinded and shorn of his hair. According to Buchanan, this Samson regrew his hair and regained strength but remained blind... or blinded(due to the cruelty of the victors). This is where Buchanan's argument is most problematic. Yes, Germany's blind rage may have been partly due to the Versailles Treaty and the two great depressions suffered by Germany during the inter-war period, but, Buchanan underestimates the degree of preexisting blindness even prior to WWI. It's not enough for Buchanan to say that the Kaiser had grave doubts about igniting a war. The crucial fact is he struck the first major blow. Whatever his doubts and worries, the Kaiser and Germany would have held the higher moral ground IF they had chosen not to attack first.
One could argue that Germans feared that if they didn't strike first, they never would have gained the momentum to win the war. But, this justification seems dubious. France and Russia--especially in an age without modern communication networks--couldn't have coordinated a war to destroy Germany overnight. And, surely the Germans knew that the leaders of France and Russia weren't very enthused for the looming war--even if their people were.
So, why did German leadership feel a need not only to fight if need be but to strike first? Germans were blind in two ways. They were blinded by old conservative--outdated aristocratic--values of honor, loyalty, and oath. To an extent, this was to Germany's credit because a nation's--or a man's--worth must be gauged by the value of his words. But, unwise words lead to unwise actions. That Germany was honor-bound to the Austro-Hungarian empire was understandable. But, for a major nation to risk everything by valuing the word(among kings and noblemen) over lives wasn't wise. (Of course, one could argue that the bond between Germany and Austrians had a genuinely populist and nationalist element since they were both Germanic peoples who felt threatened by the rising power of the Slavs and other Eastern Europeans.) Any bond between two people or two nations must be based on a sanity cause, whereby if one side acts insane the bond would be automatically annulled. Suppose you have a dear friend with whom you make a promise to come to one another's aid. But, what if he wants to do something really crazy? Remember the movie "Once Upon a Time in America" where Max wants to rob the Federal Reserves, and Noodles just can't go along with it. In a way he betrayed his friend Max, but he was trying to do the sane thing--and even to save Max from his own craziness. So, when Austrians were being unreasonably harsh with the Serbians, the Germans should have sternly told the Austrians to come to their senses or else the pact would be annulled. Bismarck was steeped in aristocratic honor BUT he used those values for German security and national interest than allowed those values to control him and Germany. As much as he revered and sought to preserve the old culture and ways, he understood that politics must be carried out cold conscious minds than in a state of dreamy delirium dictated by symbolism and populism(or by pure honor or iron ideology). So, conservative values, which might have guided the monarchs of Europe to be cautious and guarded, made them proud and haughty, especially among the Germans. They were controlled by the dark than by the cautious side of conservatism.

Also, the first German attack in World War I wasn't purely a defensive measure. The logic of the Schiefflin Plan may have been to neutralize the enemy or enemies before they could do harm to Germany, but there had long been much rhetoric and/or planning in Germany by the monarchy, military class, and the firebrand nationalists for a much bigger role for Germany in Europe and the world. Though these ideas had not yet developed into the pathologies of Nazism, many Germans, from top to bottom of society, were infected with the virus. One could argue that it was merely a healthy ambition for a great nation to stand up as an equal with other great powers, but the militant Prussian style and rhetoric rattled the nerves of other nations.
Buchanan's generous judgment on the Kaiser has the benefit of hindsight and is highly selective, but those wishing to prove that the Kaiser was a war-monger can pull up plenty of files too. No leader in history is ever 100% confident or 100% cautious. So, even today historians argue what Kennedy might have done about Vietnam. On the one hand, Kennedy said he would fight communism everywhere. But, there were some indications that Kennedy had grave doubts about getting deeply involved in Vietnam. So, who is right on the issue of what-Kennedy-might-have-done?
Anyway, the Kaiser finally did decide to attack first. Also, we should keep in mind that the Kaiser was not an all-powerful totalitarian leader; so, even if he wasn't completely sold on the need for war, there were many powerful and influential people around him who were hellbent on pressing the Kaiser toward war. So, the fact is there were enough people in Germany who assured the Kaiser that their plan to attack first was not only necessary but magnificent and sure to bring national glory.
Indeed, suppose the plan gone according to plan. Suppose Germany had prevailed over France quickly and then defeated the Russians. You bet the Kaiser would have made statements, written letters and memoirs, and told associates and visitors that he never had any doubts, never felt weak at the knees, had been preparing for the great victory for 30 yrs, and etc. And, he would have tried to bury all evidence that he had expressed any doubts about the victory prior to the outbreak of the war. As it happened, Germany lost the war and the exiled Kaiser and his apologists were eager to point only to evidence that showed that the Kaiser had been opposed to the war all along. We should keep in mind that letters and memoirs are notoriously unreliable, especially those by powerful or significant figures in history who knew full well that their written ideas, sentiments, and opinions will one day be availed for all to see.

(10). Buchanan's no fan of Woodrow Wilson's interventionism, and it's reasonably fair to argue that American entry into WWI didn't do much good. One could even argue it did much bad. By 1917, Germans have prevailed in the East. Could they then have prevailed on the Western Front had US not entered the war? Could that have prevented the rise of Fascism and Nazism in a German dominated European order? Perhaps, but it could have led to other dangerous developments. Perhaps the war in the Western Front may have dragged on much longer had US not entered the war. Suppose a stalemate went on and on, with millions more dying into the 1920s. Would that have been good for Europe or Western society? Also, if the war between Western nations had continued, they would all have grown weaker, wearier, and demoralized even further just when the Bolsheviks in the East would have been growing stronger. If WWI had dragged on in the 20s with Germany, Austria, Italy, and France all growing weary and on their last legs, the conditions in all those countries would have been more suitable for communist revolution--with the aid of rising Bolshevik power in Russia.
So, Wilson's interventionism may, at the very least, have saved Europe from communism by tipping the balance of war so that Germans called it quits by 1918.


(11). Buchanan says WWII was a total catastrophe for Europe and Western civilization, what with 50 million people dead and nearly all of Central/Eastern Europe falling under communism. But, the outcome of WWII could have been worse--depending on the perspective. ALL of Europe could have come under the rule or dominance of Nazism or communism. At the very least, Western Europe was saved from both and became prosperous democracies in the post-war era. And, though the conditions of Warsaw Pact nations ranged from unhappy to miserable, most of them were spared the Leninist-Stalinist madness that destroyed millions of lives in the USSR. The Soviets understood that people of nations such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, etc were opposed to Soviet communism, saw Russians as imperialist occupiers, and wished to join the West. Soviets knew that if they were too lenient, the people would rise up--as they did in Hungary few years after Khrushchev's anti-Stalin speech--and in Czechoslovakia. But, if the Soviets pressed too hard, national resistance to Soviet power would harden and the Soviet image would suffer more in the Free West. So, the period of Eastern Europe under Soviet domination was a terrible time but not a horrible time.
On the other hand, suppose the Nazis had prevailed in Europe. There wouldn't have been a single democracy on the European continent--with a few exceptions such as Switzerland, Sweden, and UK. (If France had not declared war on Germany in 1939, it too may have remained democratic.)
To be sure, life in many of these nations might not have been so bad; in many ways, it would have been preferable to living under communism--as long as one was of the acceptable race or living in territories of little concern or interest to Nazis. The lives of people in Eastern and Central Europe would have varied greatly under the Nazis, with (non-Jewish and non-Gypsy)Hungarians, Romanians, Croats, Slovaks, and some others faring pretty well while others--Poles and Serbs--facing severe oppression. This is largely because Germans had less respect for the Eastern European races and also because Germans set their eyes on Eastern territories. As Germans wanted much of Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, those people had most to lose. German rule over the Russians would have even more terrifying than anything Stalin did; indeed, communist horrors were at least accompanied with the notion of the equality of man, and indeed the survivors and servants of Stalinist transformation were considered as 'comrades'. And, as horrible as Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe and Germany was in WWII, it must said that the Soviets didn't look upon or treat people in their satellite states as 'subhuman'. To be sure, there was Russian chauvinism but it was nationalist than racial. At the very least, the Soviets regarded non-Russians and non-Slavs as fellow human beings. Communists rejected and repressed freedom and individual dignity but not the idea of basic humanity for all men and women. This was not the case with the Nazis who regarded all Germanic races as the best humans, the Latin races as humans, some Eastern Europeans as acceptably human, some Slavs as adequately human, some Arabs as tolerably human, but regarded Jews and Gypsies as subhuman and Russians as the subhuman Asiatic Horde. Nazi German rule over Russians would have been like Anglo-American decimation of Indians/white enslavement of blacks x 1000. At the very least, Anglo-Americans were tempered by Christian notions of compassion, peace, and moral conscience. At least, most American whites knew that slavery had to go eventually and that Indians must be given some kind of homeland to resettle and live as free and proud peoples. Nazis had two goals for most Russians--immediate extermination or permanent enslavement as helots under German overlords. Had German victory been swift in Europe, it's possible that Hitler may have let the Jews live with severe restrictions in some part of Siberia. Live or die, it would have been horrible for the Jews.

So, given the fact that a good portion of Europe--nearly all of Western Europe and Greece--were saved from Nazism and spared communism, WWII was far from a total loss. And, though this may sound unfair to Eastern Europeans, the most important parts of Europe were saved for democracy and allied with the powerful and just United States.

Anyway, Buchanan seems to have a problem considering Eastern Europe--especially Russia--as part of Europe. In truth, there is no clear division between Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. In some regards, parts of Eastern Europe are racially and even culturally closer to certain Western European nations than with fellow Eastern European nations. It could be argued that in many ways, Poles are closer to Germans and the Brits than the Spanish, Sicilians, and Portuguese are. A Pole is more likely to blend into the crowds in Sweden or England than a Southern Italian is. The division of Europe between West and East is no more indicative of real differences than division between North and South. I would wager Germans and white Russians have more in common genetically than Germans and southern Italians. I would wager Poles and Anglos are closer than Anglos and the Portuguese.

Germanophiles like Buchanan often have problem with the Asiatic component of the Russian make up. Because of the Mongol invasions, it's true that Asiatic traits were passed into the Russian bloodstream, but this, in most cases, is negligible. Most Russians look hardly different than other Europeans. Also, I find it rather odd that Pat Buchanan would care so much about blonde-and-blue-eyed-ness. Buchanan himself has dark hair, and when he laughs his eyes turn into 'chinky' slits, not unlike than those of the late Boris Yeltsin in one of his jolly moods. But, certain Germans--and even Poles--have obsessed about the Asiatic nature of the Russians... just as much as Russians have obsessed about the real Asians along their eastern frontier. Russians claimed that they were Europeans shielding the white world from Asiatic invasion, Poles claimed they've been Europeans shielding the white world from Asiatic Russia, and Germans claimed they were Europeans shielding the white world from Asiatic Poles and Russians. And, during WWI, the English depicted the Germans as the Huns, an ancient barbaric people who burst into Europe from Central Asia. So, whenever Europeans want to badmouth other Europeans, it's by accusing others of being more Asiatic. So, there is both a growing pride and inferiority complex as we go eastward in Europe. There is greater pride among Europeans in the East for having done more to fight off the Asiatic/Muslim horde and saving Europe from the Huns, Mongols, and Turkic peoples; but, there is also a greater sense of inferiority complex from the knowledge that in the confrontation with the Asiatic/Muslim hordes, the Asiatic/Muslim genes got passed into the European bloodstream. So, Europeans of the East both resent the lack of gratitude on the part of Western Europeans AND envy the purer European blood of those in the West.
Still, there was far less animosity between the West and the East when Russia was ruled by Tsars who were part of the European royal family, when much of the Russian elite--business, politics, education, etc--had been of Germanic background, and when the Russian elite were well versed in French literature and philosophy. WWI put an end to the influence of Germans in Russia, felled the Tsar, and led to a radical revolution where Jewish elements took power to build a new society whose goal was to destroy and remake the entire world. At its head was Lenin, a strange Mongrel of many bloodlines--Jewish, Russian, Tartar, German, etc. He looked like Ming the Merciless, and it seemed as though the European--especially the Germanic--hold on Russian society and culture was finished forever. Some people in the West felt that Russia was forever lost to the Mongrel barbaric horde. After the death of Lenin the Merciless, Russia was to come under the control of vicious full-blooded Jew Trotsky or the grubby swarthy cut-throat Georgian bandit Stalin. Many in the West could no longer believe that Russia was a Western or Christian civilization--especially with the mass killings of the clergy and destruction of churches. And in rhetoric, the Soviet Russians seem to side with the non-whites of the world against the Western world. Communism would sweep away exploitative capitalism, superstitious Christianity, brutal imperialism, and blind racism. There would be a one-world order. Or, that was Trotsky's line. Stalin was more a national communist, and Hitler should have kept his alliance with Stalin as Stalin respected Hitler and, like the latter, didn't trust Jews. Besides, despite the changing nature of Russian leadership, the racial makeup of Russia was as it had been. It was mostly white, and Stalin was gearing to favor Great Russian Nationalism over World Revolution. Stalin may well have been willing to 'betray' the international struggle for peaceful co-existence with the Fascist West. But, Hitler was hungry for vast territories, and his racial theories couldn't see most Russians as anything but Asiatic Hordes.
This is rather amusing when, in the near future, Russians may be more purely white than most Western Europeans. Considering the huge number of Africans and/or Muslims in places like Spain, France, Netherlands, and the UK and the increasing numbers of Turks in Germany--and the rate of race mixing--, it's possible that your average Western European will be less fully white than your average Slav of the future. Even Sweden has a good number of grubby Muslims who have lots of babies. With the demise of 'racism' and with interracist unions being promoted everywhere, Western Europeans may become more mongrelized than Eastern Europeans.
Some degree of race mixing is no problem and may even introduce new positive genetic traits into the overall populace. But, race-mixing at the current levels will lead to the Brazilization of Europe, and we know Brazil is no heaven on earth.

Buchanan has the same problem not just with 'Asiatic' Slavs but with 'Indian' Hispanics. Buchanan doesn't seem to regard Latinos as fully or properly white as real white people, by which he means the Anglos, Irish, Germans, etc.
To be sure, whiteness is murkier among many Hispanics than among Russians. Despite some trace of Asiatic characteristics in some Russians, most Russians are almost entirely white and nearly impossible to tell apart from other whites. But, many Hispanics--depending on the country they come from--are racially far more mixed or not white at all. Many Mexicans are more Indian than white and many are full-bloodied Indians. Though they speak Spanish, a European language, they are racially and even culturally not white or not mostly white.

On the subject of Slavs, Buchanan is racially opportunistic. When it was a matter of Germany vs Russia--in WWI or WWII--, he characterizes it as a conflict between Western White Knight vs the Asiatic Horde. But, when the issue is the Chinese encroaching on Russian-Siberian territory, it's the Asiatic Horde invading white territory. Buchanan would have us believe that Soviet Russians were all members of the Asiatic Horde--though communism as an ideology arose from German, Christian, French, and Jewish philosophy/tradition--, but Putin is a hero warrior of the white race. On the one hand, Buchanan wishes Hitler had reduced people of Putin's 'Asiatic' race as slaves of the white German ruler class, but on the other hand, Buchanan wishes Putin could lead a revival of white racial pride. So, which is it? Are Russians 'chinks' or 'honkeys'?

(12). The West dodged the bullet in the 20th century despite the senseless slaughter. First, as horrible as WWI was, its destruction was concentrated on two fronts: France/Germany and Germany/Russia. The rest of Europe suffered far less damage or none at all. Italy lost a lot of men but fought a limited war, Spain stayed out of it, the Scandinavian nations were uninvolved, and etc. Germany proper was not invaded or attacked militarily; neither was Great Britain. Most of the bloodletting in Western Europe took place in the northeast part of France, but most of France was not affected directly. The other great bloody front was in the east, in the great struggle between Germans/Austrians and Russians. And, certain Europeans had much to gain from the demise of the Ottoman empire which had foolishly thrown its lot with Germany and Austria.
And, after the war, the most of the troubles were in the East--the Balkans due to far-from-perfect creation of new nations and in Russia with the rise of communism. Considering the rise of US in WWI, the war wasn't necessarily a deathblow to the West--and its terrible consequences could have been avoided if leaders had been more forward-looking. After WWI, the West was still supreme. Japan gained some territories from the dismemberment of German holdings, but the power of the West was still unquestioned. The Russian communists who'd come to power wanted to fire up anti-imperialist sentiments in order to overthrow the world capitalist order, but Russia was too weak, divided, and desperate to do much. Indeed, Russian communists came to favor Stalin the national communist over Trotsky the world communist.

Also, except for Russia, Italy, and then later Germany and few others, most of Europe avoided radical ideologies after WWI. The rise of the Bolsheviks must partly be blamed on terribly shortsighted dirty dealings of the German militarists who allowed Lenin to return to Russia--a decision more boomerang-ingly disastrous than American support of the so-called 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan. Italy fell under a radical ideology next but it must be said Italy had never been a true democracy, so it was no great loss. Also, Mussolini was hardly a mass murderer on the order of Lenin or Stalin. The real problematic turn of events was the rise of Nazism, but this came about as a result of German democracy and depression.
But, it must be said for the Germans that despite all the humiliation, hunger, and desperation after WWI, they tried to stick with democracy for as long as possible despite the lack of democratic traditions and all the social hardship. Germany lost the war in 1918 and the Nazis came to power with only 35% of the vote in 1933. So, for 15 yrs, it means that the Germans had rejected both communism and the radical right. And, even in 1933, the vast majority didn't go with the Nazis nor with the communists. So, the views that dastardly Germans rejected democracy for radicalism is false. Any nation that suffers like Germany did from 1918 to 1933 would surely have supported radical forces much earlier. Also, Germans didn't vote for the Nazis to reject democracy but merely saw the Nazis as the democratic party--after all, it ran in free elections--that was most likely to do good things for Germany. To be sure, Germans didn't resist much when the Nazis began to erode away the institutions of democracy but after 15 yrs of hunger and humiliation--and continuing threat of radical violence from the left(especially following the burning down of the Reichstag)--, they were glad to trade bread for the ballot. Similarly, Americans allowed the government of FDR to greatly expand its power over the economy--and private property--to get America out of the depression. Though political democracy was preserved in the US, much of economic freedoms were traded for stability. This isn't to suggest that Hitler/Nazism and FDR/New-Deal were the same thing but merely to point out that a desperate people who see no light at the end of the tunnel will resort to drastic and even radical measures to have food in their table and to have basic dignity and pride restored. After WWI, many Germans felt they had lost everything and had nothing to look forward to; they'd lost the war, the empire, national pride; they got all the blame and saddled with tremendous debt. The nation's politics and economy seemed to be mired in divisions and hopelessness, and there was a European-wide sense of malaise. The only people who seem to be profiting from or enjoying the new order were self-indulgent, decadent artists, and clever finance capitalists who knew how to profit from national debt and inflation. Given all these realities, it's surprising that Germans stuck with democracy for as long as they did and with a genuine desire to make it work. And, it might have worked had it not been for the outrageous demands of the Versailles Treaty which bankrupted Germany and the rising violence and aggression on the part of the radical left which drove many capitalist and conservative forces to the National Socialists. Nazis said the nation would be partially socialized whereas the Left said all of German economy must be communized. The Nazis said traditional cultural institutions would be respected and left alone while communists declared that everything traditional and old would be smashed and replaced with the New. Nazis said Germany would still remain Germany while the communists said Germany would merely be one unit in a new global world order. Given all these differences, it's understandable that more Germans went with the Nazis than with the communists. Sure, there were odious and extreme things about Nazism but on most issues it was more tolerant and conciliatory than communism. Besides, some of its most extreme ideas seemed too outlandish for practical application whereas the example of the Soviet Union--and the brief Red Republic in Munich and Bela Kun's reign in Hungary--more than proved, beyond a doubt, that communists really meant everything they said. When Germans voted Hitler into power, they focused only on the positive and ignored the negative since the latter had only been rhetorical thus far. In contrast, by 1933 there was more than enough evidence that communism in Russia committed horrendous mass crimes against humanity. Looking back after WWII, the Germans look bad for having voted Nazis into power; indeed, many would argue it would have been better if Germans had favored the Communist Party. But, that is only with the benefit of hindsight. In 1933, communists had a far worse record than the Nazis--if only because Nazis hadn't yet exercised power to do all the crazy things they would come to do later.

One could argue that Spain fell to fascism next and as such was harbinger of more to come. But Franco's Spain was only partly fascist, and the fascists didn't even make up the most influential or important faction in government. In many ways, Franco had more in common with De Gaulle than with Mussolini or Hitler. He was an old-fashioned conservative patriot with little interest in matters outside his own national borders. If De Gaulle could have had everything his way, he too may have favored the Franco-ist system for France. De Gaulle accepted but never embraced democracy as his main values revolved around the symbolisms of nation, honor, church, king, and etc. Both Franco and De Gaulle differed from Mussolini and Hitler in that they were more conservative and reverent of tradition, and as such regarded themselves as servants of a great national tradition than as revolutionary visionaries who would radically re-create their nations in their personal image. The Nazis shouted, "Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler", but it's hard to imagine Franco or De Gaulle encouraging or even tolerating a similar identification with the nation. Though men of ego, they would have it found an insult to national honor to suggest that The Nation--its history, tradition, sacred symbols, achievements, etc--could all be reduced to a cult of personality. For Franco and De Gaulle, their nations were much bigger than they whereas Mussolini and Hitler felt that their nations must reflect the great vision of the Duce or the Fuhrer. So, Franco's victory in Spain--despite the help he got from Italy and German--cannot really be marked up as an instance of fascitization of Europe. The alternative being a communist takeover of Spain, Franco and his coalition did what was necessary in order save and preserve Spain as a nation, a history, a tradition, and culture. If anyone destroyed democracy in Spain, it was the liberals who failed to stand up the extreme forces of the radical left who tried to grab all the power for themselves. Had Franco and his allies not stepped forward, Spain would have turned into what Venezuela may become in the near future. Like Hugo Chavez, Spanish liberals and leftists were working together to permanently rig the political system to their advantage. It would have been preferable if conservative forces fought for genuine democracy than autocracy, but the fact is neither side fought for democracy. By the time the war broke out, the Spanish republic was a republic only in name. It was really a government dominated by a proto-communist regime.

WWII was far more destructive overall than WWI but not necessarily to most of Western Europe. If the bloodbath on the Western Front dragged on in WWI because the two sides were evenly matched, Germans quickly overran France, and as a result, far fewer French died in WWII than in WWI. Also, Brits and Americans waited until Germans had been weakened considerably on the Eastern Front before invading the continent on the western front. Though US casualties in WWII were three times higher than in WWI, US along with UK had decisive advantage over the fatally weakened Germans and the pushover Italians. So, it could be argued that WWII was less destructive as a whole for most of Western Europe than WWI had been. Indeed, fewer Italians may have died in WWII than in WWI. To be sure, Italy was on the losing side and was invaded as opposed to being on the winning side in WWI, but WWII was not the end of the world for Italy. As for nations like Netherlands and Norway, their damage and suffering were limited within the context of being swept up in a World War. And, though the British have made much of their heroism in WWII, they may have lost fewer lives in WWII than in WWI. Because Brits, for the most part, didn't engage the Germans head to head and instead mostly fought an air and naval war, their casualties were probably limited. Also, Brits lucked out when Germans suddenly turned their attentions to the East and only engaged in a secondary conflict with Britain. So, WWII was far from a total disaster for Britain. One can argue it led to loss of empire but the British Empire was built on sand and couldn't last forever. It was an empire that had been maintained by force and pomp on the part of the British and ignorance, admiration, and fear on the part of their subjects. But, with rise of more liberal values in The West and national consciousness among non-white subjects, the empire's days were numbered. The writing was on the wall--the empire could only be maintained in the future with great bloodshed whereupon the Brits would keep the world but lose their soul, or the empire would have to be abandoned whereupon Brits would lose the world but preserve their soul. Would it have been better for UK to rule over places like Uganda, Kenya, and Zimbabwe today? Because Africans messed up their own nations, it's the Brits who can wag their finger and say 'naughty, naughty!' The breakup of the Soviet Empire proved that a civilization cannot embrace freedom and imperialism--not forever anyway. The Soviets could maintain the empire only through naked force or threat of force. Once Gorbachev introduced the 'virus' of freedom and liberty into the empire, non-Russians wanted to go their own way--not always for the better as some autocrats of new republics turned out to be worse than the old bosses whose excesses had been curtailed by Moscow.

Anyway, the great bulk of the damage of WWII happened in the East. And, the ONLY Western European nation to suffer total ruin was Germany. Germany, at the very least, was not invaded in WWI. German civilians were not murdered, bombed, or raped en masse. Though Germany lost some land in WWI, it was nothing compared to the loss of lands after WWII and the division of Germany. So, for Germany--and Germans in Eastern territories--, WWII was indeed hell on Earth. But, all the other nations that suffered horrifically in WWII were Eastern European nations. This isn't to discount the terrible loss of life, property, and cultural treasure in Italy or France. But, for most Western European nations the destruction was relatively limited. In contrast, much of Eastern Europe was decimated. One of the main reasons for this was that the Germans and the Soviets--unlike say Germans and the French or the Germans and the Norwegians--were almost evenly matched. The Eastern Front in WWII was like the Western Front in WWI. For awhile, there was a deadly stalemate with both sides throwing everything it can muster against the other and then some. Germans pushed the Russians back but the Russians would not be defeated. And once the Russians began to push back, Germans fought tooth and nail to hold onto every inch of territory. Both German and Russian casualties were tremendous. Those caught in the middle--Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc--fared no better. And, those nations such as Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, etc which hoped to piggyback to victory on the backs of the Germans were doomed once the Soviets came rolling westward. There was to be plenty of retribution not only for Germans but all their allies. Two Eastern Europeans that suffered most were Poland, largely because it just happened to be right between Germany and USSR, and Yugoslavia because its long festering ethnic strifes flared up under both Nazi and communist domination. Though Yugoslavs were mostly spared from Soviet occupation and domination, the internecine bloodletting among various ethnic groups and factions proved to no less bloody and destructive. On a proportional basis, Yugoslavia was one of the most deadliest places during and in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

Anyway, all of this illustrates that except for Germany--which started the war--, most of the nations and peoples who suffered most in WWII were Eastern Europeans. But, because of the bias in both US and Western Europe, we tend to focus far more on what happened in the West. In truth, most of Western Europe was spared the worst of WWII. Most of Western Europe, because it easily fell to the Germans or because it remained neutral, simply waited for the big giants--US and USSR--to defeat the Germans. And, one giant, the US, waited for Germans to be on their last leg before deciding to engage the Germans in a major way.
Soviets have often been accused of doing nothing while the Polish Home Army was fighting the Nazis in the Warsaw Uprising, but much the same could be said of US prior to the Normandy invasion. US waited for German power to be greatly diminished under the Soviet onslaught before finally entering into the continental war in major operations. Considering US casualties of around 400,000, it would be perverse to call this a mop-up operation, but when compared to the Soviet role in WWII the American role was much less. Soviets would play a smarter variation of this game in Asia when they entered into China ONLY after US dropped the nukes and Japan's defeat seemed all but certain.

So, in terms of damage, WWII was a much bigger disaster for Eastern Europe--the Europe Buchanan doesn't much care about UNLESS he can use it as a poster-child against the horrors of communist rule--than for Western Europe. If anything, considering the savagery of the war, most of Western Europe--minus Germany--really dodged the bullet. The hurricane mostly swept through the East and then a flood came back to swamp Germany before ebbing before the American levee. Of the 50 million who died in WWII, anywhere from 20 to 27 million were Soviets. 6 million were Poles, half Jewish and half non-Jewish.

If anything, WWII and its aftermath are proof of the power the humanity to overcome great adversity. All of Western Europe recovered quickly and in unexpected ways. Consider the fact that Spain, which had been totally unscathed by the war, came late to the economic revival of Europe, getting the ball rolling only in the 60s. And, consider the fact that Germany, the most damaged of all Western Europeans nations, soon became the economic powerhouse of new Europe. The destruction had been extensive but cleared the way for rebuilding of industries based on the latest technology. German factories in the 1960s were far more modern than ones in Britain, which had suffered far less damage to its industry and infrastructure. It's no accident that the Japanese steel industry in the 1960s was among the most modern in the world. Whereas US, which suffered no physical damage in WWII except in the naval ports of Hawaii, was still equipped with old steel mills built in the early part of the 20th century, Japan had efficient mills modeled on the latest designs and the latest technologies. So, greater damage in WWII didn't necessarily mean greater longterm handicap.
Also, the lessons of WWII--and WWI--were many, and Western Europeans finally decided to cooperate and come up with laws and institutions which would be, more or less, fair to all its members. It was no longer a Europe whose fate was decided by conservative autocrats playing to the populist passions or whose fate was fixed to radical visions of dictatorial demagogues\who sought domination of the entire continent under one nation(Napoleon in the early 19th century, Hitler in the 20th century). National honor and petty egos had been behind the WWI and the punitive Versailles Treaty. After WWII, Europeans cared more for institutions and laws that would fairly bind all of them more closely together as equal partners than push policies that only served narrow national interests. To some extent, the fact that most of these nations had been losers brought them together. In WWI, French and Italians could lord over Germans and Austrians as the victors while the resentful Germans felt they could have won the war if they hadn't been 'stabbed in the back.' The victors of WWI really loved to rub it in on the loser, and the loser didn't feel like a loser but more like a cheated winner. But, no nation in Western Europe could take pride in victory from WWII. France had been humiliated by the Germans. Italians had been humiliated by the Americans and the English. Germans had been smashed by the Russians. Sure, De Gaulle and the French could pretend that the Germans had been defeated largely by The Resistance but deep in their hearts, they knew it was mostly a joke. Sure, Italians could pretend that they had hated Mussolini all along and were glad to be liberated by the Americans and the British, but they weren't really fooling anyone. As for Netherlands and Norway, they knew they'd all been liberated by foreign powers. So, there was no pride for everyone. One exception was, of course, UK, but it too was exhausted and drained of its treasury by the war(and lost its empire), and it knew that the new masters of the world were the US and the USSR. Britain was reduced to mini-me of the US. Churchill tried to pretend that UK and he still mattered, but no one bought it except the Britons--or maybe not as they voted Churchill out of office soon after the victory. And, most of Western Europe didn't feel all that friendly to the British after WWII. For one thing, they were envious of the fact that UK alone had not been invaded. For another, they knew Brit had just lucked out because Hitler was an Anglophile, didn't have enough air and naval power to take Britain like it took France or Poland. Also, many Western Europeans felt that British heroism had been more talk than walk. Also, Britain seemed as weak and drained as rest of Europe. And, perhaps most of all, many Western Europeans saw the new world order being dominated by uncouth, upstart America alongside which Britain was merely a poodle--a perception which still lingers to this day, not least in Britain itself. Western Europeans felt a love/hate thing for America. They knew that Americans had been the true liberators of Western Europe but idea of their own nations rich in history and culture being saved by a bunch of gum chewing and coca-cola gulping GI's was hard to take. Also, Americans seem to be so much richer and even turning all the local girls into prostitutes with cigarettes and nylon stockings. The perception in Europe of the big fat ugly rich consumptive crass American probably goes back to the Liberation period when even GI's with their simple rations seemed rich in the eyes of many Europeans. Also, the fall of Nazism and the radical right was bound to give a great boost to leftist forces. Being Marxist, they were naturally anti-American. And, because Soviets had done most to defeat Nazism and because Western Europeans had experienced Nazi and American but not Soviet occupation, many Western Europeans romanticized the communists. Though Americans were clearly preferable to the Nazis, many Europeans--especially the proud conservatives and radical leftists--felt threatened by American influence in terms of ideas, politics, values, economics, etc. Conservatives like De Gaulle found Americans childish, uncultured, and simpleminded while leftists found Americans crass, corrupting, and commercial.
In the minds of many, the leftist and rightist excuses for anti-Americanism became all mixed up. For the Right, American influences were changing Europe too fast and in all the wrong ways, and for the Left, American power was keeping Europe from making radical changes it needed to make.

Anyway, after WWII, Western Europe was a club of loser nations. And, these nations felt sandwiched between the winner empires of US and USSR. So, it was time for everyone to get smart and be reasonable. They were all on the same boat--the ship of losers. They could see that US was a better ally for Western Europe than USSR could ever be. They could work together and rebuild the economies under democratic systems in alliance with the US or end up like Eastern Europe. Or, stay weak and divided in mutual suspicion based on national honor and political grievances like after WWI. No Western European had any national pride left. French could not pretend to have been the victors of WWII. And, as the Nazis, with the full support of Germans, had done everything they wanted to do, Germans could not spin another 'stabbed in the back' theory for having lost WWII(though Buchanan's theory is almost a variation which has Churchill stabbing his fellow whites--Germans--in the back in favor of Jews and the Asiatic Horde). Germans lost without any doubt. And, this was no ordinary defeat but one where entire cities got decimated, huge areas lost for good, and millions of women got raped. Western Europe after WWII was like a grand performance of "Trojan Women"; in the case of Germany, this was more than figuratively true since so many men had been lost and so many women had been widowed and raped. But, it was from this great disaster that a new, prosperous, peaceful, and free Europe arose. This is the Europe that Pat Buchanan should really be proud of. His mantra is 'republic, not an empire.' Europe would come to give up its empire and focus on matters close to home. Europe discovered that it doesn't need grand empires to maintain rich, powerful, and peaceful societies. So, the end of WWII saw the birth of a wiser and saner Europe--one that also became richer than ever before. Western Europe also became more powerful than ever before though not relative to the US and USSR. But, with the fall of the Soviet Union, EU is the second most powerful force in the world after the US.

Of course, Europe is now facing major demographic and cultural problems, but it's questionable that these are necessarily the products of WWII. Consider Spain which had been unscathed by both WWI and WWII and had been under conservative Catholic rule until the late 70s. As a result, you'd think that the Spanish would be more patriotic, religious, traditional, conservative, and having more babies. But, Spain is one of the most liberal nations in Europe with one of the lowest birthrates among whites. And, it has one of the most liberal policies in regards to illegal immigration. It allows 'gay marriage' and acknowledges apes as having unalienable human rights. Of course, we can argue that the influence of OTHER European nations rubbed off on Spain, but we should ask why the Spanish bothered to adopt those values? It has to do a lot with the tradition of moral righteousness that goes back to Christianity--except that moral righteousness today is monopolized by the Left and, therefore, many people have adopted 'tolerant' 'social justice' values--, the irresistible seduction of unfettered hedonistic freedom which makes Western boys and girls culturally enslaved to Afro-originated music, rhythms, and sensibility which are antagonistic to the ideals and values of the West--but who cares when everyone gyrating their groins are having too much skankass fun?--, the inevitable decadence of culture in any advanced society, and the mindless international influence of American popular entertainment which Europeans hate sensibly but love sensually. (Many of the problems facing Western man and rich Asians are rooted in success and freedom. Those with enough money to enjoy life understandably want to have fewer children which might interfere with ones' freedom and pleasure-seeking. Also, free and prosperous people feel more fulfilled without families. In the past, women had limited opportunities and sought fulfillment by raising a family but no longer. Affluent and educated women in US and Europe prefer the SEX & THE CITY to family and home. Men are no different, wanting to be sexual gunslingers than husbands/fathers. Also, even those who cannot get quality dick or pussy can get much pleasure from porn and striptease joints and whatnot. Also, mental stunting of our culture makes adults want to watch comic book movies, play video-games, get tattoos on their arses, and listen to rock music than grow up into adults forever. Also, sexual mores are looser today so there's far less pressure on both men and women to tie the knot before jumping into bed. Also, the expectations of boys and girls have been raised thanks to the narcissistic style so prevalent in the media. So, every guy wants the perfect girl and vice versa. This is even truer in Japan where boys and girls, lusting after Western-looking cartoon characters, are disappointed with real people around them. Also, women with their own jobs feel less pressure to marry and have kids. And, there is no longer any parental pressure on their kids to marry in most nations, let alone arranged marriages. The low-birthrate is usually a sign of economic success as nations that have the highest birthrates are poor and desperate nations. Too much of a good thing can lead to some bad things. Too much emphasis on individual fulfillment and personal freedom--as though one has found the fountain of youth--may lead to a fun life but to lonely death in old age and no future generation for tomorrow.)
To be sure, one of the reasons why much of American pop culture is so appealing to non- or even anti-Americans is that Americans have figured how to peddle anti-Americanism as American Popular Culture. So, V for Vendetta and the Bourne Trilogy make money for Hollywood by marketing anti-Americanism all over the world. How funny that America does anti-Americanism better than anti-American nations. It's as though Hollywood Jews and the US academia--run by left-wing Jews--are raking in money by selling American flags and matches to would-be flag-burners all over the world.

Anyway, there are too many cases of nations that suffered great destruction but came roaring back and too many cases of nations that experienced long peace but faced steep decline. The bloodiest war in the 19th century was the American Civil War but America after the war saw tremendous growth in power, pride, industry, and demographics. No war in Latin America of the 19th century came anywhere close and indeed most of Latin America enjoyed relative peace during this period; but, Latin America stagnated economically and politically. Burma did not experience a war as horrible as the one in Vietnam from 1940s to the 1970s yet today, it's Vietnam that is surging ahead while Burma is just a rotting cocoon. After the bloody war of unification in the 16th century, Japan was solid and stable for the next 250 yrs. The wars, far from destroying Japan, had consolidated and strengthened Japan(WWII had a similar effect on Western Europe as a whole; even though Hitler's scheme of unity had been rejected, postwar Europe was united as never before).
After WWII, defeated Japan enjoyed a long period of economic growth, and it seemed as though the sky was the limit. In contrast, communist China, though triumphant soon after WWII, killed 30 million during the Great Leap Forward, killed millions and burnt nearly all books during the Cultural Revolution, and was mired in miserable poverty. So, you'd think China was crippled forever. Yet today, China seems to be on the up-and-up while Japan seems to be on the down-and-down. Many wrote off US in the 80s and said Japan and German would dominate the world order in the 1990s and in the 21st century. Well, well. Many thought India would be a basketcase forever yet look at its rise today. War or no war, the rise and decline of nations are difficult to gauge because political and economic realities change all the time. Had Maoism prevailed in China after Mao's death, China today would be a vast North Korea. Had Japan shown some spine and reformed its economy in the late 80s, Japan would be in much better shape today--but it seems as though Japanese have again settled for Tokugawan stability over change and growth. And, the Jews, who should have been finished for all time due to the Holocaust, grew more powerful than ever AFTER World War II. It's been said that 50-70% of all European Jews had been killed in WWII; before the war, many had been forced to start new lives in the US. And, Jews in Israel were surrounded by hostile peoples. Yet, Jewish power only grew mightier in the postwar era.
A nation is not really like a person though the analogy is valid to some degree. A scarred person is scarred forever and grows old without being able to renew himself. But, new generations of kids are not born with the memory of the old haunts or scars. German women had been raped and scarred by war, but their children were born without knowing such horrors. So, the specific experience of a generation matters less than how its lessons are formulated for those in the future. Whether a generation had good times or bad times, future generations will not be affected so much by what happened as what and how it's remembered and used as an instruction for the future. Western Europe rose like a phoenix after WWII because it had learned all the right lessons and passed them down to new generations born after the war. But, many lessons were obviously not good because the 1960s saw the destructive explosion of the radical left. Also, Europeans fail to understand that all ideas have their 'useful limit'. Tolerance and diversity are useful and beneficial ideas but only to an extent. All ideas must be tested in the real world, not worshiped as pure ideals--the cult of ideas or radical ideologicalism. People like Hitler had the same problem. Some degree of racism(as opposed to kneejerk bigotry) and nationalism was valid as races are, indeed, different and nations are the most useful and sensible political entities in the modern world. But, Hitler worshiped his racial IDEA and pushed it way beyond its useful limit. Communists had the same problem with the idea of socialism. Instead of looking for ways in which socialist programs could be useful, they worshiped the IDEA to such extent that everyone and everything had to be made communist.
Some people become wedded to some IDEA out of religious zeal while others become addicted to an IDEA as a panacea based on its earlier successes. So, some liberals think because Keynesianism worked under FDR it should always work for all times, while some conservatives think that just because cutting taxes worked under Reagan, all economic problems could be solved by cutting more taxes. If the world were so simple!
And, Buchanan is locked within the social idealism of the whited dominated 1950s, as though it can be revived again or could work again. It's a different world that calls for different solutions.

And, this is a lesson that Europeans must learn. After WWII, United States was the only rich, powerful, and free nation in the world. US economy was the world economy, and it wanted to help rebuild Europe. There was no economy to really speak of outside the Western world. There was no competition from Asia. Also, there was no wild youth culture as yet, and most Europeans regarded social welfare with gratitude and appreciation. But, as years went by, there was growing competition from other nations, a more lax attitude to loafing off welfare, a youth population that just wanted to make trouble, and declining birthrates which mean that fewer young people would have to take care of an expanding number of retirees. Also, declining birthrates meant the need for more immigration from non-European nations. For awhile, all seemed well, but the ideas and policies of the 50s and 60s had served their USEFUL LIMIT. But, Europeans who had felt all was lost after WWII and were so grateful that things had turned out far better than expected wanted to cling to what they came to believe was a fool-proof system. Europeans, who had been open to bold new ideas right after WWII, grew afraid of change and reform lest everything they'd worked for and gained might go down the drain. Some stuck to status quo of the welfare state out of ideological dogma while others did so because it seemed to have worked so well for at least 20 yrs.
So perhaps, WWII was a great boon to Europe. Without it, Europe may have just stagnated earlier in their cocoons spun during the inter-war years. It was WWII that forced Europeans to adopt new ideas--just like defeat in WWII forced Japan to seek and adopt new way for economic growth and social prosperity. In any case, Europeans after WWII were hungrier, both literally and socially. They knew something bold had to be done. But, even with all the problems ailing Europe today, too many people can put off tomorrow because, for now, everyone has a full belly and roof over his head. As terrible as this may sound, a WWIII may actually be good for Europe and shake it out of its doldrums. Or, maybe another Great Depression. Sometimes, a slow decline is more fatal than a sudden jolt that wakes one up to action. Leaking gas is likely to be more deadly than growls of a tiger in the woods. Those who die of carbon monoxide poisoning never knew what hit them whereas someone who hears a tiger in the woods knows he has to be alert and ready for action. Because the decline we see in Europe, Japan, and even the US is gradual and relatively painless--at least for the foreseeable future--, no one may wake up to the dangers until it's too late, and then, well, it's too late. Of course, one has to be careful not to cry wolf every time there's a crisis because the messenger will not trusted when there really is danger on the way. McCarthy made that mistake in the 1950s by overplaying the anti-communist card. And, it could be Buchanan is way overstating his case in his latest book.

Anyway, a great crisis would jolt Europeans and Americans into action. 9/11 had that effect on America but the crisis seemed to vanish almost overnight after the Taliban crumbled almost immediately upon the US assault.
Now, suppose there was a boat bringing 100 million Africans and Muslims to Europe all at once. That would force the Europeans wake up and do something about their idiotic immigration policy of allowing illegals to remain and have 10 babies each. But, demographics of Europe is changing gradually, and Europeans are failing to wake up and take notice. If current conditions continue, the non-white share of Europe will overtake the white population. Middle Easterners are cultural threats to Europe as Islam sucks, and black Africans--in huge numbers anyway--are a racial threat to Europeans since blacks are naturally stronger, more aggressive, and less capable of creating/preserving civilization. Such is a racist fact proven by all data.
And, suppose 100 million Mexicans were about charge into the US any moment. That would wake Americans up, but of course the invasion takes place gradually, one state falling to Mexican-American or even illegal Mexican majority after another. And, as most American have jobs, homes, and are well-to-do, they don't want to stick out their necks and become 'racist' social pariahs by sounding the alarm.
It's kinda like the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". 'They get when you sleep!' and indeed Western Man is asleep or under the hypnosis of liberal Jewish media and addicted to the destructive but irresistible jungle-jive badass mofo-trash-talking Afro-paganism.

It's too bad that the government is bailing out failing industries. Perhaps, a fundamental and extensive domino-like fall of the world economy is what we need to wake people up. Only such will galvanize Americans to protect the borders from illegal aliens. Only such may wake American people to the fact that the main meaning of life isn't 'gay marriage', decadence, stupid video-games, ass tattoos, fatty foods, stupid TV shows, celebrity culture, and other such crap. Only such will awaken European man that they cannot expect to be taken care of the nanny-state forever in exchange for docile servility to the state and its politically correct/multicultural policies.

The 20th century witnessed destruction like never before, a testament of the awesome achievements of man. What the new technology could destroy, it could rebuild just as well. Though WWII wrought destruction on a scale the world had never seen, the post war recovery was construction on a scale the world had never seen. And, this was even truer in Japan whose cities were decimated by US planes. In earlier centuries, such levels of destruction would have required many decades or even an entire century for recovery, but in the 20th century a nation that had been smashed could rebuild itself in a single decade. In order to appreciate the power of 20th century technology, progress, and ingenuity we only need to look at China since the 80s. Compare China today with what it had been only 20 yrs ago; the changes are mind-boggling. And, atomic energy, which had been used to decimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has been used as major sources of energy in many nations, providing energy to untold numbers of people. So, the destruction of WWII didn't necessarily doom mankind but merely demonstrated how far man had come in science, technology, and organization. An handful of uranium could blow up or light up a city. Man could turn steel into tanks or bulldozers. In this sense, WWII was the most important and constructive lesson--much more so than WWI--in human history. Due to the nature of man's achievements, war simply didn't pay anymore. The lesson should have been obvious enough after WWI, and Britain and France seemed to have learned it. Germany didn't, which goes to prove that what people experience is less important that what lessons are imparted to the new generation. If the French and British generation that experienced WWI told the new generation that it had been a tragic affair(despite the victory), the Germans--under the Nazis--had told the new generation that WWI had been a great heroic war and would have been won if the brave fighting men had not been 'stabbed in the back.' Of course, there were plenty of Germans who knew otherwise, but they lost the authority to impart their lessons to the new generation in the crucial 30s, especially since the Versailles Treaty was so harsh and turned so many Germans bitter.
One of dangers of China and Russia today is the leaders have suppressed or distorted the lessons that should be learned by all. Mao, a mass murderer, is still promoted as a national hero, and many young Chinese know little or nothing about the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution--or, they are so swept up in neo-nationalism that, even if they do know, they don't much care as long as Mao is an 'inspiring' national figure. And, there's something very disturbing about the return of the Stalin cult under Putin and a brand new monument to Felix Dzherzhinsky, the father of the Cheka. In both China and Russia, odious figures of the past are being wrapped in the nationalist banner; as such, new generations think more in terms of might-is-right and 'my country, right or wrong.' What's most perverse is that such figures did great harm to the peoples of China and Russia. But, morality nor the millions of lives lost or tortured don't matter when people worship power. In both cases, it's blind idealism mixed with craven cynicism. Though both China and Russia reject communist dogma, they are glorifying communist gods of the past as symbols of national power; the message for the new generation is there is no right or wrong, good or bad; there is ONLY power, and whoever or whatever makes the nation powerful is good.

Anyway, even without WWI and WWII, many problems of modernity--low birthrates, mass migration of non-whites, decadence, etc--would have happened.
There is a general arc to modernity. There is hunger for survival and success, national unity and pride that originally lead to prosperity. Prosperity is followed by demand for greater freedom and socio-economic security. This leads, at once, to greater individualism and bigger government. What follows is the loosening of family ties and lower birthrates. Also, higher expectations or economic security made possible through the welfare state make fewer people work at menial jobs. The educated want 'good jobs' and the poor would rather live off the welfare dole than work for a meager paycheck; if you're going to be poor, why not be poor by taking it easy than struggling. Those with work ethic believe that work itself is honorable and good for character, but liberal philosophy believes work has value only when it's 'fulfilling' or very profitable--or promotes 'social justice'. If a person is given a choice to hard work to maintain a basic lifestyle or be given free money to enjoy the same, the former seems foolish to a liberal. So, it's not surprising that many blacks opted for welfare than work with the full support of liberals. Prior to Great Society, many blacks worked a lot of hours just to make ends meet. With Great Society, blacks--at least single-mothers--were given an option to maintain basic livelihood simply by living on welfare. Now, those with 'work ethic' will choose to work for basic necessities than live off welfare. Their sense of dignity, pride, and values is linked to self-reliance; also, they believe work is good for the soul whether it's financially rewarding or not. In the short-term, such people seem like suckers because they choose to work for basic necessities which could be had for free through welfare. But, it is precisely those people who impart the values of work ethic to their kids; kids who grow up watching their parents honestly struggle to make ends meet are far more likely to feel appreciative and develop their own work ethic and values than those who grow up under a single welfare mother who watched TV all day and talks shit.
Liberalism has been corrosive because its message is that work is worth it ONLY IF it's financially rewarding, fun, satisfying, or progressive. Liberals may not be dumb but they are stupid. In truth, the value of most work is simply in allowing people to earn enough to make ends meet and take care of their families. But, because liberals tend to have a snot-nosed mentality, they think the only decent kind of work is the one that satisfies the earner\good pay or lots of fun--or does 'good' for society(usually by encouraging the poor to be lazy and bitch/complain for more handouts). It's all about self-satisfaction, sense of guilt, or both--consider Wendy Kopp, president of Teach America who, by pretending to serve the poor, is really just serving up her immense Ivy League fashion-model-esque ego. Of course, we all want financially rewarding or satisfying jobs that make us feel good. But, that is not the jobs most people have nor can hope for. The main satisfaction for most workers derive from the fact that they are willing to work than rely on handouts and the fact that they can take care of their own families. They are not working because their work is SO cool or because their work makes them feel so socio-morally holier-than-thou; they are working because they have to and believe they must for the sake of self-pride. But, liberals despise these kinds of workers. Liberals see most of them as suckers who would rather slave day in and day out for the rich man. Despite their feelings of animosity toward the business class, liberals at least respect the rich for working because it's highly rewarding. Work is cool if you make 100,000s or millions of dollars a year. Of course, liberals argue that such people should feel guilty for all the money they have, and so they should pay more taxes so that more bureaucrats--who work for 'social good'--take care of more people on welfare. In the ideal liberal view of the world, there are the rich, the bureaucrats, the bohemians, and the masses who should be taken care of by the bureaucrats through tax revenues drawn from the rich. It's no wonder that blue collar whites have become so disenchanted with much of liberalism. Democratic politics went from representing the working man to the welfare mama. It went from government doing what business cannot do to government taking over what the private sector can do much better and what people should do for themselves through work and responsible lifestyles. Because some people became fabulously rich and the private sector doesn't serve ALL people, liberals think it's their right to 'nationalize'--euphemism for steal--entire industries and put them in the hands of bureaucrats for the 'social good' or 'social justice'.

Anyway, this liberalized social reality has made many citizens of America and Europe not want to work UNLESS the job is cool, well-paying, or 'meaningful'. So, this required US and Europe to bring in many non-whites--many of them illegals--to do that jobs that many citizens don't want to do. Why bust your butt to afford the necessities of life when you can get them for free through the government? So, we have a lot of black and white trash in America who'd rather live on welfare and watch Jerry Springer than find work to make ends meets. And, we have rich affluent people who feel guilty because they have well-paying or satisfying jobs while most people don't; their sense of 'progressive' values prevent them from designating those who refuse to work as 'lazy'. Even many affluent or successful people feel, 'if I can't work at a well-paying or satisfying job, I'd rather not work at all.' So, it's not hard to understand why affluent liberals who work hard themselves don't promote work ethic in general for the masses. It's because affluent or successful liberals conceive of work as worthwhile ONLY IF it's satisfying in and of itself or ONLY IF the financial rewards are great. Having been influenced by the likes of Marx and Rawls, they cannot accept the idea that working in and of itself--even if the pay is low and work isn't fun--has value for the human soul and individual self-worth. For such liberals, a sight of a black maid working to make ends meet is one of pure misery or exploitation; they have no concept that, even if her job is menial and financially unrewarding, she may have simple dignity and may impart values of work ethic which may be beneficial and constructive to her children. So, Michael Moore in "Bowling For Columbine" whines that the government is 'forcing' a black welfare mother to work at some low-paying job. For Moore, it's better that she live on welfare and force 'rich people' to pay taxes to keep her living on welfare; since the capitalist system is inherently 'unfair', such women have the right to demand and take from rich people.

Anyway, this mindset is becoming prevalent in all the advanced nations around the world, and it has little to do with WWI and WWII. Consider Sweden which hardly suffered from either; if anything, it prospered during both wars by selling raw materials and products to warring countries. Also, Sweden didn't have overseas non-white empires. But, it's facing the SAME problems as the rest of Europe--and Japan. Low birthrates, problems with non-white immigrants who were initially brought to work at menial jobs which Swedes refused to do since they could rely on generous welfare. Sweden, like all advanced nations, went through the same stages from growth to prosperity to decadence to looming suicide.

Also, people who are better fed and clothed tend to have more time for reflection, self-criticism, self-loathing, and social dissatisfaction over every problem or imperfection. With rising prosperity in Europe and with most of the academia, media, and government taken over by the Left, Europeans began to erect impossibly high moral standards for themselves. So, even when the problems of immigration were obviously boiling over and causing massive havoc in certain Swedish, Danish, and French cities, white Europeans only criticized themselves and tried to APPEASE the non-white minorities--fast growing into future majorities--with multiculturalism, political correctness, more welfare, etc. What didn't work with Hitler--appeasement--didn't work with non-whites who only grew more militant, anti-Western, more demanding, and more contemptuous. When democracies acted weak, Hitler felt emboldened to demand more and more; he was convinced that democratic types were wimpy. If Brits during the inter-war period acted out of guilt and goodwill, Hitler acted out of confidence, rage, and bad faith. We are seeing the same pattern in the US today. White conservatives who've tried to be ever so nice to Jews--who are mostly liberal to leftist--have only been spat on the face by cocky and nasty Jews--most of them anyway. And, the style of politics in the black community today is worse than that of Nazis. They despise white liberals as much as white conservatives but only pretend to appreciate the former because white liberals are useful idiots who accede to or appease every black demand. Much the same is true with illegal Hispanics. Goodwill on the part of Americans over the years has made the illegals--and their Mexican-American brethren--only bolder to cross the border. Appeasement to La Raza doesn't work. Liberalism is the politics of appeasement. Though Neville Chamberlain was a conservative, his approach with Hitler was purely liberal. He negotiated from a position of moral weakness--guilt over Versailles--and practiced good will with Hitler, a man of limitless bad faith and contempt for those showing any sign of weakness. A lamb can never negotiate in good faith with a wolf.

(13). Though politically secular, Europe and America are going the way of the Catholic Church. The culprit is the naive and even radical ethos of egalitarianism and universalism at the core of Christianity. Look where today's Catholicism is going. While some churches are nationally oriented, some are international or 'imperialist'. And, Catholic Church, though having imposed its order, influence, and power over non-whites in the past, is now facing the prospect of non-whites taking over the Vatican. Though European Catholics often used force to convert non-whites to Christianity, the converted became the ideological, moral, and spiritual equals of the whites. Whites subjugated non-whites only to end up empowering them through a faith that favored the victims. White Christians said, 'we have the right to use guns and other means to liberate you from superstition and bring you to the light of God.' So, initially, Christianity gave whites the moral rationale to rule over and dominate non-whites. But, once non-whites turned Christian, they could argue that they should have equal power and authority as the whites--or more authority since they had been victimized by white imperialism for which whites must make amends(and we know Jesus loved oppressed folks). If Africans and Chinese have adopted Catholicism, why shouldn't the next pope be either Chinese or black? But, Christianity had even further repercussions because its message said, "don't use force or violence against your fellow humans; convert people to the Faith only through love and peace." Because white Christians broke this rule through most of its history, many whites felt they should apologize to non-Christians all around the world. So, Christian ethos of secular Europe demands that the West reject all notions of race and accept all people and all cultures as the same through open immigration.
Now, it must be said that Jesus said all humans are the same in the eyes of God but not all cultures are the same or of the same worth--as multi-culturalists believe. Jesus said all people should believe in the One and Only God. But, Jesus also said 'never use violence and only love and promote peace.' Because white civilization used much violence to spread its power and influence over the world(even in the name of saving souls), many whites felt the ONLY way redeem their stained Christian souls was to accept all cultures as equal. Why? Because the history of trying to convert the entire world to Christianity was founded upon much bloodshed.
How shall one spread the true spirit of Jesus? Do you spill blood and spread his word? Or, do you love non-Christians as fellow human beings and practice peace? (But, can there be longterm peace in a multicultural world where people don't share the same moral values nor unite around the same cultural symbols?) After much aggressive effort to Christianize the world, The West felt the only Christian option was to tolerate non-Christians for what they were than use the sword to bring them to God. History had depressingly(and antithetically to the spirit of Jesus)demonstrated that the only way to spread the word of Jesus was by ignoring his pacifism and by resorting to violence; it seemed nakedly clear that if Christians practiced True Christianity in actual life, fewer heathens were going to be converted(or they might even attack and bring down the Christian civilization). With the rise of science, greater respect for world cultures and diversity, and growing moral doubts about the use of Western power, most Westerners--even Christians--came to think it's better to tolerate different cultures and even to accept and cherish them for what they were than try to remake the entire world Christian. There was this idea that it was better for Christians to practice Christianity without necessarily spreading Christianity than spreading Christianity by acting unchristian.

Still, the core of Christian ethos calls for a One World order, and such is the goal of both the Catholic Church and secular multi-culturalism. Both call for opening up the entire world to the West, and opening up the West to the entire world. Indeed, what the Catholic Church is becoming may well be the template for Europe's future, which goes to show that Christian ethos are much to blame for the immigration problems in both US and Europe. So, Hillary Clinton, on the issue of illegal immigration, asked 'what would Jesus do?' Actually, she need not have looked so far back. What would Pope John Paul have done? John Paul preached to rich white nations to open their doors to more people. Catholic Church of Italy used to be a de facto national or regional Church, dominated by Italians and Europeans. But, most Europeans today practice Christian ethos(without the religion) through secular multi-culturalism. So, the Catholic Church has become more and more non-white--not least because the Catholic Church is still in the race with Islam to convert as many people as possible. (If the American moral struggle with the Soviet Union during the Cold War necessitated white Americans to prove their abandonment of 'racism', the Catholic Church's competition with Islam forces it to be more inclusive of non-whites. In both cases, in trying to gain the world whites have lost their souls.)

Of course, Christian-ization is now done through good works and peaceful missionary work than through guns and violence, but this will only turn the Church less and less white. But, that is the nature of Christianity. It is supposed to be a multi-cultural and multi-racial faith. It can even be said to be anti-racial.
So, if Europe is fated to fall to non-white hordes, the Catholic Church will get there much earlier. We don't know when European governments will be filled and ruled by non-whites, but such is likely to happen much sooner within the Catholic hierarchy. If much of Africa and China becomes Catholic, the Church will eventually come under the influence of Africans and Chinese. The Vatican will become a spiritual UN dominated by the likes of Kunta Kinte and Fu Man Chu.

Empires conquer but are then conquered by those who've been conquered. The Romans conquered northern Europe and brought many Germanic peoples under Roman influence; in time, the northern Europeans conquered the Romans. The Mongols conquered the Chinese but, in time, became swallowed up by the Chinese. This may happen to Jews in Israel too. Whites conquered and enslaved blacks but now the blacks are conquering and enslaving whites--by beating up or intimidating white boys and taking white girls from pussified white boys who've lost the respect of their own women--, something that would not be happening if whites had never imported and enslaved blacks. US conquered the SW territories and took them from Mexico, but Mexicans today are not only reconquering those territories but vastly expanding into many others parts of America. This is why, horrible as Hitler was, he understood the truth about imperialism and conquest. If you want to conquer(and not be counter-conquered by those whom you conquer) and win permanently, you must eradicate all those you conquer, or at least conquer those of similar racial or ethnic stock--as when Germany swallowed up Austria and Sudetenland. There is great truth to this as awful as it may sound. This doesn't mean Hitler had the right to attack Russia in order to eradicate entire populations. BUT, if he wanted to conquer those lands and keep them forever, he would have had no choice but to be utterly ruthless. Of course, total eradication may not be necessary if the conquerors and the conquered are of the same race and if the latter are forced to adopt the culture, values, language, and beliefs of the conquerers. This is why Christian conquerers of Europe gave the ultimatum to pagan folks--convert to Christianity or die. And, communists forced people to adopt communism or die too. But, even this isn't as foolproof as total eradication. Notice that though much of Ireland was Anglicized, Irish maintained their independence of spirit. And though Russians have tried to Russify many non-Russian people during the Tsarist and communist era, most non-Russian peoples(though racially similar to Russians) doggedly remained un- and even anti-Russian.

Buchanan wants Christianity only as a spiritual value-system for the West, but values\especially if universal in nature--affect whole of society. Just as there can be no strict or absolute separation of Church and State, there can be no clear division between Church and social values. Even the secular West has been deeply permeated by the ethos of Christianity, and those values call for egalitarianism and universalism. And, such dynamic is true everywhere. India is a secular nation-state, but Hindu values still play an important role--even if non-consciously or unintentionally--in the thoughts and actions of many Asian-Indians.
The traditional values of certain peoples tend to be particularist and tribalist, which is why even MODERN Japan is less eager to open up to the world. Japanese don't want to reach out to everyone, nor do they want to open Japan up to the world--despite their serious problem of low-birth rates. This is less a matter of Japanese constitution than the fact that the cultural values of Japan have traditionally been more clannish, ethnocentric, and inward looking. In contrast, the ideas that came to dominate the West were Christian and as such drove many Western people toward a One World order. Initially considering themselves the chosen elect of God, white people thought they should have power over non-whites in order to spread the Word of God. But, as time passed and Europeans became more reflective and moralistic, they could no longer abide by the tension between Christian ethos and racialist/tribalist/nationalist/aggressive mentality of Europeans. People like Buchanan want to stick to the old formula where Christianity is less a set of social principles than a symbol of Western/White heritage. But, the essence of Christianity isn't inherently white. If anything, Jesus was a Jew who opposed the most powerful and glorious Western power of his time--the Roman Empire. And, it could be argued that Christianity was the non- or anti-Western virus that eventually brought down the Roman Empire. But, Christianity got absorbed into the Western bloodstream and served as the foundation of a much more powerful, grander, and long-lasting Western civilization. For most of its history, it was so closely linked with the rise and the power of the West that it came to be considered uniquely Western or white. But in spiritual principle, it did NOT belong more to one people than to another. Like Buddhism, it belonged to anyone who converted to it. Some cultural identities and values are fixed, emphasizing the tribal, the unique, the particular. But, some cultural values seek to transcend all cultures, all lands, all time. And, Western man began to regard Christianity as a value system for the entire world than as white man's cultural banner. And, in a way, such Neo-Christians were more Christian in spirit than Christians who implied that God and His Son up in heaven rooted for 'my country, my king, my army, etc.' It was foolish when two armies went into battle, each praying to the same God and each claiming to fight in the name of Jesus as in the Medieval Era. Not only did white people become genuinely more Christian in spirit--than merely using Christianity for nationalist purposes--, more non-whites began to adopt Christianity for their own uses and empowerment. Ironically, just when whites were de-nationalizing and de-racializing Christianity, non-whites began to nationalize and racialize Christianity for their own nationalist or tribalist purposes. So, Latin Marxists adopted Liberation Theology which simply made Jesus a fellow comrade of Karl Marx and Che Guevara. So, we have black churches in the US that emphasize the Brothahood of Homeys than the brotherhood of all men.

What had once been good for the West can be bad for the future. Guns that once gave your side the advantage you power can empower the other side once they attain them too. When the Christian West conquered the world, the rest of the world had no moral ammo against their West. They had always practiced might-is-right, and so they had to accept the victory of the more powerful West, and that was that. But, the West taught Christianity to conquered peoples, and this supplied the conquered with the spiritual and moral ammo to shoot back at the West. Christian teachings said right-is-might, not might-is-right. So, why should the white man rule over non-whites through force?

If whites really wanted to maintain their supremacy over non-whites, the non-whites should have been allowed to keep their indigenous values and not forced/pressured to become Christian. For example, most American Indians and tribal Africans lived in warrior cultures where you fought to win or lose. If you lost, you lost and that was that. There was no right or wrong, and the losing side had no reason to complain. So, even if they hated the fact that they lost, they had no moral argument against the winner since the only game in town was winner-takes-all. But, once the white man introduced them to Christianity which said 'losers are the noble salt of the earth,' the non-white losers began to fire back morally and undermine the white dominated order. Non-whites gained moral authority over the whites BECAUSE they lost to the white man.

So, like all ideas, Christianity could be good or bad for the West depending on how it was used, how it was shared, and how it came to be interpreted and practiced in changing times. This was true of Free Trade as well. At one time, it was a great boon to the British which had overwhelming industrial and naval superiority over all the world. With minimal foreign competition, the result was a world being flooded with British manufactured goods. But, with the rise of US, Germany, and other competitors, free trade came to undermine British industries while giving an advantage to rising nations.

Or, consider Confucianism which served as the moral and political foundation of China for 1000s of yrs. Chinese found it useful as a permanent system of ethical guidelines which would preserve China's status as the Middle Kingdom second to none in power, harmony, and virtue. But, when China was faced with foreign invasion in the 19th century, the once-useful but outdated Confucian values and ideas kept China from adapting to new ways. So, what had served China well for 1000s of yrs was now keeping China rigid and weak. So, many Chinese began to see Confucianism as the source of all ills. It was anti-democratic, anti-modernist. But, Confucianism has, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, came to serve Asia well once again as Asians adopted modernization. As the modernization process is often chaotic, alienating, violent, fast and furious, and uprooting, Asians needed a value system emphasizing values promoting harmony, order, family unity, sobriety, and such. Confucianism had been attacked because it stood in the way of modernity in the 19th and early 20th century but then later came to be valued precisely for its 'timeless' values that countered the hectic pace of change in the new world. Just as man does not live by bread alone, man doesn't live by individualism/freedom alone. Asia needed to be free, but it still needed a moral compass to guide the newly attained freedoms.
The changes in the nature of Confucianism in modern East Asia was comparable to the changes in the meaning and use of Christianity since the Renaissance. During the Middle Ages, Christian Dogmatism maintained order and stability but kept Europe from making progress. The West was able to move into the modern era only with the rebirth of humanist ideals of the Renaissance. Initially, this led to much conflict between Christianity and Humanism, but eventually they found a way to serve one another. Similarly, Confucianism which had stood in the way of modernity in Asian came to buttress modernization in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, and China. Since modern change was now accepted and irreversible, many Asians felt a need for a value system that gave meaning to their lives. Both Christianity and Confucianism are serving this role in much of Asia. Jews have a similar relation to Judaism. Though most Jews today are not religious, they are still beneficiaries of a Jewish tradition that prizes education, family, moral values, intellect, cooperation, etc. Of course, if we take a longer historical look, it may seem that modernity came to serve Christianity and Confucianism than vice versa. The nature of modernity may be vastly differently 200 yrs from now but Christian and Confucian value systems may still be around.

Before Japan and China fully embarked on modernization, they tried to adopt Western technology without Western ideas and values. But, this proved impossible as Western science and technology had not been created in a vacuum. They could only have risen from a certain socio-economic conditions that allowed free enterprise, capital investment, innovation, free exchange of ideas, political pluralism, open-mind inquiry, property rights, individualism, rule of law, etc. And, the most potent weapon of the West was the acceptance of change or need for progress. Even if China and Japan could have obtained all the weapons possessed by Westerners circa 1850, by 1900 they would have been helpless yet again before the West because the West would have developed more formidable weapons within those 50 yrs. (Just consider the advancement of weaponry since the American Civil War to World War I). This ability to change and come up new and more powerful technologies had much to do with the nature of Western society--the freedom to come up with new ideas, the freedom to experiment, the freedom to invest and create greater wealth for further investment, the open-mindedness and sense of adventure. Asia tried to be powerful in order to maintain the status quo whereas the West accepted change as a good in and of itself in order to grow more powerful.
It was foolish for Asians to think that they could adopt Western technologies ONLY for the sake of producing weapons to maintain the Old Way; only by accepting the new ways and the ideal of change could Asia hope to be powerful. Of course, conservatives feared that new ideas would have profound social, political, and even moral implications for all of society; in other words, Western influence could not be limited to producing better weaponry. For instance, the concept at the core of Western science called for empirical research and rational thinking, approaches which could undermine or overthrow the spiritual/political/cultural assumptions of the East--as it had done in the West with Galileo and Darwin. Every idea has implications beyond its stated sphere.
For example, it became more and more difficult for Westerners--especially conservatives--to call for greater respect and adherence to Christianity yet also insist on an essentially racial and nationalist view of civilization. So, Buchanan sounds a bit foolish when he calls for more Christianity and then goes on and on about how the West must be white. He can have one or the other, but he can't have both.

For instance, Pat Buchanan opposes strict separation of Church and State. He thinks school prayer should be allowed in schools. But, couldn't one argue that pro-illegal immigration policies is nothing more than the State acting in accordance with the values of Christianity? Or, take universal health care which many people see as a spiritual as well as social necessity--with the backing of the Catholic Church hierarchy. Isn't that a case of the State devising a program in accordance with values in the New Testament? If Jesus returned to Earth, what would he support more? School prayer or universal health care? The right for a city hall display to say "Merry Christmas" or the allowing the poor from all over the world to come to rich nations to find a better life? I am not endorsing universal health care or illegal immigration, both of which are bad ideas. It's merely to point out that the problem of Western secularism lies in its Christian roots. Western secularism isn't rational, skeptical, cautious, and truthful but rather blindly idealistic, do-goody, universalist and egalitarian beyond all rational sense, guilt-ridden with collective historical sin, and hopeful for the impossible. Why? Because of the still powerful legacy of Christianity. The fatal character of secular Europe is that, unlike Pat Buchanan--for whom Christianity is just a white man's war banner or a moral system meant only among white folks--, it strives for a truly Christianized world of equality and universality. It is willfully blind to the differences between Africa or the Middle East with Europe nor between United States and Mexico. Bob Geldoff and Bono want the West to spend 50% of their wealth on Africa. There is this irrational 'spiritualist' mantra that race is a bogus myth and differences among all men are only skin-deep. If you disagree, you're called a 'racist'. And, the secular West says homosexuality is just as normal as normal sexuality, and if you disagree you're a 'homophobe'. There isn't much that is rational, scientific, or sensible in this. It's quasi-spiritual and idealistic despite the bogus scientism employed to justify it. And, though Jesus wouldn't have agreed with much of liberalism, the whole liberal secular agenda derives from Christian values. Secular West may be far more tolerant of pagan, atheist, or non-Christian ideas, values, and peoples than ever before, but this blind egalitarianism and universalism are variations of what are essentially Christian values, for better and worse.
The modern secular agenda is impossible to conceive of without taking Christianity into account.

(14). Buchanan argues that Japan became dangerous to the West all because of British ditching of the Anglo-Japan treaty. This rash action on the part of the British supposedly forced Japan's hand in Asia, making it more aggressive in China. But, even with an ongoing alliance between Japan and Britain, Japan's rise in Asia and its growing nationalism would have almost inevitably led to a confrontation between East and West. Also, the rise of China under Chiang Kai-shek was the main factor in Japan's belligerence. (Japanese, of course, never gave this as a reason because they needed to justify their aggression in terms of trying to save weak Asia from the imperialist West. For Japan to express alarm about rising China under the KMT would have meant that Asia's largest nation would regain its full sovereignty and become powerful in the world at the expense of Japan. Some may argue that China under the KMT was weak and divided, but from 1927 to 1937 China grew more united and more willing to assert its rights against foreign nations, Western or Japanese. And, western nations, which had played warlord against warlord(divide and rule in China), were willing to recognize Chiang as the one true ruler of a united and sovereign China. Japan, which had come to see China as forever weak and divided, were alarmed by these developments which would make China the dominant power in Asia. In the mid-19th century, a weak Japan had looked to China as the Asian hope that would expel the foreigners but when big China was humiliated by every Western power, Japan decided it had to act on its own; in time, it would develop a contempt for China more intense than that held by Westerners. Japanese came to look upon the Chinese as a big fat mistress to serve the Japanese warrior. So, when China finally unified under Chiang and was moving toward greater independence, Japan grew alarmed and was even offended. The narrative that the Japanese had established by late 19th century and early 20th century was that China was weak and hopeless and therefore needed Japan to rule over her as a samurai ruled over his peasants. (Though Japanese weren't as racially genocidal as Nazi Germans, they too wanted to control vast territories and reduce the Chinese natives to helot status.) So, in the context of the narrative that took hold in Japan, China's rise was seen as a hostile rebellion against Japan though, in fact, it was only a natural case of a nation finally standing up in the world. There was a similar mindset among the British during their war with the colonies in the Revolutionary War of Independence. The British narrative posited that the Royal troops had done everything to protect the colonialists from the nasty French and other dangers. So, colonialists should be forever grateful to the King, the mother country, and throw flowers and blow kisses to the Red Coats. But, colonialists, of course, had a different narrative, one where America should be independent and grow powerful in its own right, indeed more powerful than the mother country since it had more land and more potential.

Today, it's not Japan which is alarmed by the rise of China. Japan, an economic but not a political or military power, has become resigned to the fact that China will one day become the premier power in Asia; such resignation has become almost second nature to the Japanese after losing in WWII and bowing before the mighty Americans. The nation that is most alarmed by the rise of China is the US, the lone superpower in the world. Though US never intended to rule China like Japan once intended, in the 70s and 80s US saw China as a perpetually poor and backward country that would need American aid, goodwill, advice, ideals, values, etc, etc, for a long long time. The American narrative saw US as dominant in the 21st century with China slowly growing economically and changing politically through trade with and with the help of the Unites States; this narrative argued that the Chinese would be grateful for all the things US has done for them; indeed, US was more worried about Japan all through the 80s. But, this narrative is being torn asunder by the rapid rise of China that is independent-minded, paving its own way in the world regardless of American interests, and building up its military faster than ever.)

Japan initially acted friendly to Western powers because it felt relatively weak in the earlier part of the 20th century; Japanese mounted a charm campaign, much like the 'peaceful rise' rhetoric employed by the Chinese today. Japanese knew that it couldn't do as it wished in Asia. They knew they had to accommodate the West and knew that if they got too ambitious, Western powers would unite to stop them.
There was no guarantee that Japan would have 'behaved' so well indefinitely IF ONLY the British had maintained the alliance\as Buchanan argues. Political realities change with shifting conditions. (If Buchanan argues that US acted against British interests during and after WWII despite the close alliance and loyalty on the part of the British, what makes Buchanan think Japanese would have acted in any better faith had British maintained the alliance with Japan?) For example, though US grew closer to China in the early 70s to counter USSR, China changed its policies on the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. US, growing ever close to China, wished to use China as a counterweight against the Russians, but China had different ideas; China had its own interests and cards to play as it grew more confident and Russian attitudes changed. There are no permanent allies in politics. Many non-communist Asian nations were pro-Taiwan and anti-China during the Cold War, but when US opened up to communist China, they followed suit and recognized China over Taiwan. Was this because Taiwan did something wrong? No, Taiwan had been a good friend to all the anti-communist nations, but it didn't matter. All the Asian nations figured China was now the big guy in town and China must be favored at the expense of Taiwan. So, the alliance between Japan and Britain couldn't have lasted even if Brits had maintained it. With Japan growing more powerful, it would have seen Britain as a nuisance and obstacle in Asia with each passing year. When a nation is relatively weak, it acts nice and seeks friends, but as it grows stronger and more confident it sets its own course of action. Suppose Napoleon had not sold the Louisiana territory and suppose the French had maintained good relations with the US in the 19th century. Does anyone think the vast Louisiana territory wouldn't have been gobbled up by the US under some pretext? When Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory, he knew France was a power that should not be messed with. But, by the mid-19th century, Americans could and would have taken the territory by force.
History is filled with both dictatorships and democracies breaking treaties, agreements, and alliances for national gain. Hitler stuck with agreements when Germany was weak but began to break one agreement after another as Germany grew more powerful.
And, as John Lukacs pointed out in "June 1941", Stalin made Hitler nervous after the Nazi-Soviet Pact by constantly nibbling at bits and pieces of Eastern Europe that violated the terms of the agreement. And, Stalin later broke his promise to Churchill and FDR that he would let Eastern Europeans choose their own political destiny. And, Saddam Hussein, though well-treated by the West and Arab allies, decided to invade Kuwait. In the case of Hussein, it may well been Western kindness and understanding toward him which emboldened him to do what he did. After all, during the long brutal war between Iraq and Iran, the West had supported him. So, he saw himself as the darling of the West. Perhaps, Hussein would have been less likely to invade Kuwait had the West not been so nice to him during the long war with Iran. And, it's possible that Hitler ended up doing what he did because the West was initially too nice and understanding of him. Some people are naturally megalomaniacal and if you give them an inch, they take a mile. And, there was some of this with Japan also. When Japan began to modernize, its ONLY hope was to survive as an independent nation. But, as its power grew, it was recognized and accepted into the imperialists' club. Initially, Japan was grateful and 'bought over', but it also whetted Japan's appetite for more. And, why not? As Japan grew ever more powerful, it felt both a sense of duty to 'protect' Asia from Western imperialism and create an Asia dominated by Japan. So, the problem wasn't so much the British ditching of the alliance with Japan but the alliance itself. Britain should have never made the alliance, thus encouraging the Japanese to see themselves as imperialists of equal standing with the West. The West should have limited the thrust of Japanese modernization only toward preserving and protecting an independent Japan. From the very start, Western powers should have told Japan that rest of Asia was off limits to Japan. Japan might have been furious, but its appetite for imperialism would never have be whetted. There would have been no Japanese presence in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, etc. So, the main problem of the West in regard to Japan was having allowed Japan to get a taste of imperialism in the first place.

The nature of contractual agreement changes depending on changing realities. No amount of British goodwill, promises, handshakes,etc could have persuaded India to remain a colony. No amount of agreements with Japan could have kept Japan deferential to Britain. Just as the US, having grown powerful by mid 19th century, took a vast chunk of Mexico, Japan was becoming poised to take more and more of Asia at the expense of Britain. The idea that a paper agreement with the British would have kept Japan nice and gentle in Asia indefinitely is naive. After all, Americans broke all treaties made with American-Indians despite the goodwill of the native folks.

Also, why does Buchanan call the Chinese 'xenophobic' in their resistance to Japanese imperialism? Weren't the Chinese trying to save their nation from foreign domination--like what whites are doing in US and Europe? At the time, China had to suffer foreign troops, foreign settlements, etc. Was it 'xenophobic' for Chinese to resist foreign aggression? For someone who hates being labeled a 'xenophobe' by the Left and neo-cons, Buchanan is an arch-hypocrite. The Chinese were trying to do what Buchanan is trying to do for the US. Buchanan doesn't want the West invaded by non-whites, and the Chinese wanted to keep China in the hands of the Chinese. For Buchanan, US immigration policies that banned non-whites in the past were not 'xenophobic' but sensible, but it was somehow 'xenophobic' for the Chinese to resist naked aggression by foreigners who came invading with guns, cannons, and warships. Of course, there had long been a xenophobia in Chinese society and history. But, there's a difference between shutting oneself to outside world(and its many positive influences) AND resisting violent aggression by foreigners. By the 1920s and 1930s, most Chinese were willing to learn from the rest of the world; Chinese had come to appreciate the achievements of the modern nations and were trying to modernize and grow rich/powerful themselves. What the Chinese couldn't tolerate was the presence of foreigners in China through the use or threat of force. But, Buchanan, feeling greater sympathy toward the Japanese--perhaps because it was an ally of Germany--would have us believe that the war in Asia was triggered not by Japanese aggression but by Chinese 'xenophobia' against the Japanese. So, it's 'xenophobic' to want armed foreign imperialists out of your country. Buchanan cannot even stand the influx of Mexican lettuce pickers, but he suggests that Chinese should have embraced Japanese aggressors with rifles and cannons.
Suppose US today was in the condition that China was in the early 20th century, with foreign armies coming and going as they chose and demanding special zones of settlement. Wouldn't Buchanan join an anti-foreign movement to expel the imperialists and to make US independent and free again? Were the Irish 'xenophobic' about British power and domination in Ireland for centuries? Were East Germans and Poles 'xenophobic' about Soviet presence in their nations during the cold war? Was US 'xenophobic' for its outrage when the attack on Pearl Harbor took place? Gosh, why didn't we welcome those wonderful Japanese who only bombed our warships and killed thousands of our men? Alas, we were 'xenophobic' like the Chinese in the 1920s!

(15). Buchanan worries a lot about the INVASION of America and Europe by non-whites, mostly Mexicans in the US and blacks/Muslims in Europe. Though this is something to worry about, he doesn't focus enough--if at all--on the DOMESTIC enemies within Europe and America which have weakened the borders(and willingness for whites to stand up for their land, power, and women). The reason why the borders have been so porous, immigration policy so lax, 'diversity' such a mindless mantra, and 'racism' such a perceived evil is because of the power of domestic enemies in both Europe and America. For instance, WHITE institutions in Britain and France are penalizing and locking up fellow whites for speaking out against out-of-control immigration or against anti-Western values and customs of non-whites. Yes, there is an invasion happening, but the reason why resistance is so weak is because both America and Europe have become diseased and weak from within. And, we cannot deal with domestic enemies properly because they enjoy all the rights and protections of citizens. If a foreign enemy blatantly attacks us--as in Pearl Harbor or 9/11--, we can unite and pulverize it in retaliation. If a foreign nation attacks us through propaganda and subversion--like the USSR--, we can fight back in kind. But, when radical Jews and violent blacks IN the US cause all sorts of trouble, we have to treat them as fellow 'patriotic' citizens. Internal cancer is more dangerous to a boxer than an external opponent. Termites are more dangerous than thunder and lightning to a house.
When crazy blacks riot and kill white Americans, we cannot use brute force that we are allowed to use against foreign terrorists. If a shipload of Islamic terrorists got off the boat and ran around the city, burned houses, looted property, attacked whites, and chanted hateful slogans, we would deal with them properly. But, when violent bloodthirsty blacks in urban areas do this over and over, we just cower and hide, make excuses for them, and slap them on the wrist. The vast majority of black looters, attackers, and thugs across the nation were never brought to justice. Instead, we apologize for them; we say they committed violence because they'd been 'marginalized', 'disenfranchised', or 'impoverished'. Of course, some make the same excuses for foreigners who attack the US. (Moveon.org did just that, arguing that we should not retaliate for 9/11 since imperialistic Americans drove Muslims toward violence.)

When foreigners attack us, we unite and fight back. But, when enemies within America use naked aggression or subversion against white Americans, there is no unity and call for vengeance on the part of white Americans. When Pearl Harbor happened, Americans felt justified in killing any number of Japanese--even women and children--to get even. When 9/11 happened, Americans didn't care if innocent Afghanis might die in the US invasion, and of course a good number did. Since US had been attacked, Americans felt they had the right to commit great acts of violence to get even and bring the scumbags to justice--even at the cost of killing innocents. Iraq didn't even attack the US, but when the war got started most Americans were okay with a good number of innocent Iraqis dying in the invasion since US had to get even with all those 'ragheads'. But, when blacks routinely rise up and attack/kill white people in America, nothing is supposed be done about it. When mayor Daley told his police officers to 'shoot to kill, shoot to maim' in the 1968 riot, he was denounced as evil though rioters and looters were burning down property and killing innocent people. But critics of the Iraq War say it was wrong for US soldiers to allow Iraqis go on a crazy violent looting and rioting spree after American entry into Baghdad.
If US soldiers should have employed the tactic of 'shoot to kill, shoot to maim' against Iraqis, why not against crazy blacks who go around killing and burning in the US?
If a Muslim terrorist attacked a man's business or house and tried to burn it down, it's okay to 'shoot to kill or shoot to maim' the terrorist. But, if a crazy black wants to attack you, kill you, rape you, or burn down your property, it's wrong to 'shoot to kill or shoot to maim'.

There is a similar problem with left-wing and liberal Jews. Suppose anti-American foreign Muslims gained great control over our media and academia and tried to subvert this country. There would be a call for all Americans to wake up and unite against this foreign threat. But, when left-wing Jews use our media and academia to undermine all our values and promote suicidal self-hatred among whites, radical policies that undermine national security and borders, and morally destructive notions such as 'gay marriage', we are simply supposed to perceive and treat these lowlife left-wing Jews as 'patriotic fellow Americans.' The ONLY thing that is American about these left-wing Jews is their citizenship; regarding everything else, they are NOT American. Sure, they hide behind American symbolisms--like when American Stalinists hid behind Abraham Lincoln logo when going off to Spain to fight for communism--, or they use American freedoms only to undermine American power. It's like burning the American flag and then calling oneself an American patriot for having practiced a right guaranteed by the constitution. American freedom allows anti-Americanism but anti-Americanism is not pro-Americanism. If it's so wonderfully American merely to exercise American rights no matter how controversial or extreme, how come liberals don't celebrate KKK's cross-lighting ceremonies? Notice that the liberal and left-wing Jews only celebrate radical left-wing use of American freedom--such as flag burning--to undermine mainstream America.

Now, this isn't to say that left-wing Jews should not have the freedom to subvert this country, but we should call anti-American subversion what it is: anti-American subversion. It doesn't matter if foreigners do it or American citizens do it. If it's anti-American, it is anti-American. It doesn't matter if Tom Hayden or Bill Ayers are American citizens. They are no less enemies of this country than any Muslim terrorist or communist foreigner even if their rights are protected by American citizenship. There are foreign friends of America and foreign enemies of America, and there are domestic supporters of America and domestic subversives against America. Domestic enemies must be seen as enemies as dangerous as foreign enemies. Indeed, they must seen as graver threats because domestic enemies' rights are protected by American laws; as such, they can do far more damage. A Vietnamese communist spreading anti-Americanism on American soil in the 60s could have been jailed or sent back home, but Americans who were chanting 'Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh' had the freedom to do so. If a foreign radical came to US to spread anti-American propaganda, he could be brought to justice or shipped out of the country. But, if a domestic radical did exactly the same, his rights must be protected. A foreign communist activist in the US could be treated as a threat to national security. But, a domestic communist activist could go to any length to spread communist ideas and propaganda.
Liberals don't seem bothered by leftist subversion UNLESS it's foreign--and only grudgingly even in such cases. As far as many liberals saw it, the ONLY problem with people like Alger Hiss and Rosenbergs was that they spied for the Soviet Union. Hiss or Rosenbergs' beliefs or ideology never bothered liberals. So, if Hiss and Rosenbergs had tried to promote communism or radical leftism in the US far and wide but didn't do it in the service of a foreign government, that would have been okay with liberals. And, that is the danger today. During the cold war, many American leftists had ties to foreign governments. Today, they are purely American Marxists and therefore cannot be accused of serving foreign governments. So, they are seen by liberals and leftists in the academia and media as 'patriotic Americans.' It doesn't matter how leftist one's ideology is; as long as one is not tainted with foreign ties, he's said to be as American as apple pie. Liberals argue that as long as a leftist is not serving a foreign government, one is pro-American no matter what his beliefs are. This is hypocritical because liberals don't pay the same kind of respect to the KKK and neo-Nazis in the US who have no ties to foreign governments whatsoever.

Now, take a movie like V for Vendetta. Suppose Alqaeda or foreign communists had made it and tried to spread it in the US as propaganda. Americans can all stand together and oppose its message and see it for what it is: anti-American hate movie. But, because it was made in the US by Americans--financed and produced by liberal and left-wing Jews--, we are supposed to see it as red, white, and blue. Or, suppose the new Che Guevara movie by Steven Soderbergh had been made by Cuban communists. We would see it for what it is: anti-American communist propaganda. But, because it was made by an American, we are supposed to see it as an American movie made by a patriotic American. Here's a movie that romanticizes a thug who was Osama Bin Laden of the left, a man who wanted to shoot off nukes at the US. Yet, HOLLYWOOD has made this movie, and since it's Hollywood, it must as American as apple pie.(The same Hollywood that spoke up for the North Vietnamese government at Oscar ceremonies in the 70s.) We must not call for censorship, but just think of what is happening. Hollywood would never back or finance a movie romanticizing David Duke or Hitler, but it has now made a movie that glorifies a rabid and virulently anti-American Marxist radical whose grand dream was to turn all of Latin America into a Maoist hellhole. This vile communist has been elevated to god-like status by the narcissistic Jewish capitalists of Hollywood who are into radical chic.

How about we use apply Che Guevara-ism against Hollywood? Let's take the money of all those Hollywood goons and distribute it to the working class and the poor around the world. Let's force the likes of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie to work in forced labor camps. Let's take away artistic freedom away from the likes of Steven Soderbergh. Let's raise the tax rate to 99.9% for everyone working in Hollywood. If they love Che Guevara, we should make them live the Che Guevara way. Of course, the reason why Hollywood liberal and leftist types adore Che is they don't have the guts to actually give up all their wealth and go into the jungle and wage warfare. On the one hand, they wanna be rich pigs, and on the other, they wanna see themselves as pure-hearted souls struggling for 'social justice' and a new utopia. So, they make as much money as possible and then make glamorous movies--like REDS--where they fantasize about how fun and exciting--and noble--to be revolutionaries. What a bunch of hypocritical cowards.

Anyway, the internal enemies in America are the radical/intellectual Jews, physically powerful and aggressive blacks, demographically rising illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic. Helpless before them are Christo-conservative whites who are flavorless, uncreative, unimaginative, thick-skulled, and bound to a spiritual value system and ideology that is pacifistic, guilt-ridden, and suicidal.
Westerners have been pacified and pussified in relation to non-whites after WWII as Great Britain had been pacified in regard to Germans after WWI. After WWI, Brits felt so guilty over Versailles which brought much suffering to Germans that they failed to see or do anything about the growing Nazi threat. After WWII, whites have become so apologetic and guilt-ridden about non-whites that whites fail to see the rising threat of non-whites and others who hate Western Civilization. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the rising hatred of Chinese and Muslims in the US. But, Americans fail to understand that Chinese and Muslims--thousands of miles away in another continent--are secondary threats to America. The much greater threats are illegal aliens from the south, the left-wing Jews who control much of media and academia--so much for the 'fairness doctrine'--, and aggressive and crazy blacks who've turned our cities into shitholes and our culture into trash. It could well be that the rising American hatred for the Chinese and Muslims--politically acceptable and even encouraged by the liberal Jewish controlled media--is really an outlet for their deeper frustrations about Jews and blacks. It could well be that many white Americans are angry with liberal Jewish control of America and black violence in the cities. BUT, since they've been brainwashed to believe that negative feelings against Jews is 'anti-semitic' and negative feelings against blacks is 'racist'--supposedly the twin greatest evils in the world--, white Americans feel ashamed of having any negative feelings toward those people. So, their pent-up frustrations and anger need an outlet. They need some target upon which to relieve their stress, frustration, and anger. And, liberal Jews may well sense this rage among white gentiles and its potential for exploding. Just as the hormonal energies of young males are channeled through aggressive sports like football and rock concerts, it could be that liberal Jews running the media are using Chinese and the Muslims as outlets for white American anger and frustration about what's happening to this country. Chinese and Muslims are two people against whom any amount of abuse, condemnation, mockery, and hostility is still allowed. And, this serves Jews well for another reason. Most Muslims are enemies of Israel, and China is perceived by many Jews as a friend and supporter of nations like Iran that are a threat to Israel. So, the Chinese and Muslims serve a dual purpose for liberal Jews in the US. They are outlets for American white frustrations about race and national security, and they are enemies of Zionist interests that need to be targeted.

(16). Buchanan has harsh words about British pre-war diplomacy in regard to Poland. Buchanan says the British bluffed and gambled with the fate of Europe, but Buchanan fails to take acknowledge that no one bluffed and gambled more than Hitler. (Buchanan's rationalization of the Nazis is often much like black rationalization of guys like Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and thugs who burn down cities. Nazis, like crazy blacks, are characterized as a force of nature--often justified--that must be understood and accommodated by other peoples.)
The British, if they did indeed bluff and gamble, did it as a counter-bluff-and-gamble against the Germans. It was Hitler who wanted to use bluff-and-gamble at every turn instead of agreeing to any set of rules. So, if Britain blundered by bluffing and gambling, it was only in response to German bluffing and gambling.

Also, it was not so much German action against Czechoslovakia and Poland that upset France and Britain as the nature of Hitler's regime. If a liberal democratic Germany took action to take German lands back, Britain and France might have been more understanding. Similarly, it was not national unity that US opposed in Korea and Vietnam that got America involved in wars in those countries but American opposition to the nature of the regime that wanted to achieve national unity. US was not opposed to a united Korea but to a united communist Korea. US was not opposed to a united Vietnam but one united under a Stalinist regime that was close to the USSR and might further spread communism in Asia. If Hitler had been a sane, reasonable, and democratic German leader who insisted on regaining German territory--and even used military force to achieve his ends--, it's very possible that British and the French would have been far more accommodating. After all, Chamberlain allowed Sudetenland to return to Germany. If Germany had kept pushing to reclaim Danzig in the international community, Britain and France might have exerted pressure on Poland to give it up. Or, if Germans really just wanted Danzig back, they should have a waged a limited war taking only that city. Instead, Hitler signed an evil pact with the USSR where he took all of western Poland and the Soviets took all of eastern Poland--as well the Baltic republics. It was this evil pact that gave Stalin the green light to spread communism further West. Had Hitler not signed this pact, Stalin would have been very nervous about spreading his influence westward. We can surmise that Hitler was only pulling a trick on Stalin and using the Corleone trick of 'keeping one's friends close but keeping one's enemies closer' in order to draw the communists closer so he could smash them all the more effectively. But, this was a huge gamble and ruined the lives of millions of people who got between the two giants.

Anyway, Buchanan fails to understand why Britain and France had a hard time being reasonable with Hitler. Even if it was true that Hitler's demand for the return of Danzig was reasonable from a nationalist point of view, it was not so from an ideological point of view. It was clear that Hitler was a megalomaniac, a radical visionary, and a very dangerous man. One can only be reasonable with reasonable people. It's difficult to be reasonable even on reasonable matters with unreasonable people. It's reasonable for any nation to want nuclear energy,
but do we want crazy or unreasonable leaders to gain access to nuclear energy? Think of what Hitler or Imperial Japan might have done with nuclear technology! It's reasonable to sell firearms to sane people but not reasonable to sell firearms to an unreasonable person even if the very concept of gun ownership is reasonable. Just look at the mayhem that took place in V-Tech. Selling guns to reasonable people is reasonable, but it's unreasonable to sell guns to unreasonable people. Handing Danzig back to Germany was reasonable, but it was not reasonable to hand it to a Germany ruled by Hitler. Hong Kong being returned to the mainland China was reasonable in 1997 but would not have been reasonable under Mao. And, even today, it makes no sense to allow autocratic mainland China to rule over democratic Taiwan. This doesn't mean that US must guarantee protection to Taiwan; what it means is that the nature of national aspirations is shaped by the nature of regime in place. The reason why we deny certain basic rights to child molesters is quite obvious. A child molester could claim to be demanding reasonable rights that we all enjoy(freedom to live anywhere, move about anywhere, etc), but such freedom and rights--no matter how basic and generally reasonable for most people--cannot be reasonably granted to a man with serious behavioral problems. And, Germany under Hitler was an evil nation. It was not entirely evil as the Nazis did much that was good. Similarly, its racial arrogance and contempt, its warmongering ideology, and its ideological grand vision calling for conquest and subjugation of Eastern lands made Hitler's Germany very dangerous. The reason why the world didn't allow Hussein the right to rule over Kurds after the Gulf War was not because the world opposed the idea of Iraqi sovereignty but simply because the world understood the nature of the Hussein regime.
When Hitler took Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia, the world saw his true nature. He broke his promise, he showed off to the world, he mocked and insulted those who had negotiated with him in good faith, and he used his trophy to elevate himself in front of his people. If Danzig had been handed over to Hitler, what makes Buchanan think that Hitler would stopped there and then? With every new victory, Hitler would have felt greater confidence, greater recklessness, and greater hunger. Like a degenerate gambler, he never knew when to stop. When he got something, he wanted more. And, getting more, he wanted even more. He was the total opposite of Bismarck who didn't take things personally and knew the limits of national ambition. Also, Bismarck was not a gloater who went out of his ways to mock and belittle his rivals. Hitler was a different sort of personality. He turned every triumph into the greatest victory in history. He mocked and insulted other nations and world leaders. He really loved to rub it in. He showed bad faith at every turn. His ambitions stretched all across Russian territory deep into Siberia. Bismarck wanted to unify only Germans in German territory. Hitler wanted to expand German territory and make the German empire the biggest and the grandest in Europe. To do this, he wanted land in the east and 'subhuman' slave labor. Bismarck, though ruthless at times, saw himself as a servant of the king and nation. Hitler saw himself as a god who would rule over a new world order. He wasn't content with Sudetenland and had to take all of Czechoslovakia. After such vicious and venal act, why should Poles have trusted Hitler's contention that he only wanted Danzig and a railway between East and West Prussia? Even if Hitler had been sincere, who would believe such a person after what he'd done in Czechoslovakia? And, if Buchanan thinks Germans minorities had been mistreated by Poles and Czechs after WWI, what about the mistreatment of Poles and Czechs at the hands of Germans and Austrians during the long years of Prussian and Austrian empires? When western Poland had been under Prussian rule, many Poles were pushed off the land--just as many Mexican-Americans in the SW territories lost much of their lands to Anglos after the Mexican-American War.

So, the nature of the regime influences the way other nations perceive that nation The world had no problem with German unification after the cold war, but suppose East German communist leadership had demanded immediate unification of all of Germany under communist rule in 1950 or 1960. On the face of it, it sounds halfway reasonable. After all, why shouldn't a people of same nationality, race, and language be united? But, should Germany be united under Soviet-style communism? There was a time when East German communists and their Soviet backers tried to take ALL of Berlin. One can say it was similar to Hitler's demand to have Danzig returned to Nazi Germany. But, the free West would not give up Berlin to the communists, and it's understandable why Poles were not willing to give up Danzig. Of course, there were 'selfish' reasons on the part of the Poles as well, but Nazi Germany was a fearsome nation unworthy of anyone's trust. Also, there was little within Germany to check or balance Hitler's power. With every victory, his power grew ever greater. And, it seemed foolish to hand Hitler another victory which might make him even more megalomaniacal and powerful and invincible in the eyes of his people. Of course, by the time Hitler had his eyes on Poland it was too late, but it was all still Hitler's doing.

If Britain and France erred, they punished instead of helping, supporting, and encouraging a democratic Germany after WWI. A happy secure democratic Germany would have been the best guarantee for future peace. Germans would have seen the moral, economic, political superiority of democracy over militarism. But, Germany got collectively punished for its past militarism just when militarism had been cast aside. It was like making a bad child into a good child and then punishing the-now-good-child for past bad deeds. The good child will see no reward in choosing goodness. Worse, suppose this mistreated(and unrewarded) good child turns bad again out of anger and is then REWARDED for bad behavior. The kid will start to think that badness pays, and he'd been a fool for having tried to be 'good'. And, this is what happened with Germany. In WWI, Germany had been bad, ruled by militarists. Germany lost WWI and came under the rule of democrats who called for a fresh start. The victors should only have punished those responsible for the war--as in the Nuremberg trials--and then helped Germans to build a new society based on freedom and democracy. But, the victors decided to punish ALL Germans just when Germans had accepted defeat, loss of empire, and much else. The victors wanted generations of Germans to suffer for what had happened in WWI. Though poor and desperate, Germans tried hard to make democracy work and rejected radical calls for revolution. But, the victors only insisted on making all Germans feel ashamed, self-loathing, and remain impoverished. Just when Germans were trying their best to be good, they were told they are bad and must be punished. Things got so bad that the Germans elected Nazis into power. Germany had turned bad again, indeed much worse than during WWI. But, just when Germany had turned evil, French and Brits started to be more respectful and accommodating to the Germans. Hitler and the German drew only one lesson from this. 'Crime does pay', and power/force is the ONLY thing that counts in this rotten world. Germans must be powerful, aggressive, and demanding to get things their way. If Britain and France were going to be 'unfair' to Germany, they should have kept this up even, or especially, as Germany came under Hitler's rule. But, they decided to treat Germany nicely when Germany became bad again. So, the victors were nasty to Germany-trying-to-be-good and then nice to bad Germany-trying-to-be-bad. Germans figured it's much better to be bad and powerful than good and weak.

Badness should never be encouraged. One of the problems of American race relations is that white liberals--who control most of the academic, social, cultural, and other institution--have rewarded blacks for acting badly. So, when black students took over university buildings with guns, college administrators submitted to the radicals' demands. So, when blacks rioted and burned down cities, white liberal media went out of their way to make apologies for it and call for MORE government aid to the blacks. In New Orleans, blacks who had lived on the government dole for generations used the hurricane as an opportunity to loot and rob. What was the liberal message in all this mess? We should do more to help the blacks. Even Walmart got into this act. Blacks looted Walmart stores, so Walmart felt 'morally' obligated to give out more freebies to blacks. This is rewarding bad behavior.
Or, when the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Louis Farrakhan spread fear and hatred, white liberal media treat them as leaders of the black community. And, when rappers spew hatred and glorify blood lust and mayhem, white liberals express sympathy and understanding. The message that blacks have gotten over and over is that the more outrageous they are, the more attention and respect they get.
And, Russians have come to feel the same way. After the cold war, Russia decided to be nice and let their empire disintegrate. They let all the Eastern European nations go their own way. And, Russians tried to adopt democracy and free markets. But, from the Russian perspective, they got punished for trying to be good. NATO expanded eastward. US forces were stationed in republics all around Russia. And, though the purpose of the free market reforms promoted by the West had not been to punish Russia--unlike the Versailles Treaty whose purpose was to punish Germany--, the economic effects on Russian society were just as grave--if not more so--than what happened in Germany during the Great Depression. Russians too began to feel that they got punished--politically, geopolitically, and economically--for trying to be good. Also, like Germans under Nazism, Russians under Putin--a mild fascist of sorts(in the complimentary sense)--felt they were finally getting rewarded for being tough, aggressive, assertive, confident, and talking tough--by acting bad or at least badass. If Mussolini wanted to revive old Roman symbols to promote a new Italian pride and glory, Putin shamelessly drew upon all Russian symbols--anything from Russian Orthodox Church, the Soviet era anthem, communist symbolism,and even a bit of Stalin cult--to make Russians feel powerful and confident again. Putin is more like Mussolini than an Hitler. He's a ruthless man of power than a grand dreamer or schemer. Also, he's no megalomaniac and has decided to step down and another man take the title of presidency though, as prime minister, he retains much power.

Now, what is the West to do? Should the West treat Russia nice since it's acting bad again? This is what Buchanan wants. But, it would be the same mistake that the West made when Germany began acting bad again. Again, this isn't to say that Putin is Hitler, and that today's Russia presents the same kind of threat that Nazi Germany did. But, there is no doubt that a resurgent Russia feels it has regained respect only by acting 'bad' while it had gotten shafted when it tried to be 'good'--along Western guidelines--in the Yeltsin 90s. And, there are many Russians who believe that West pushed for market reforms and democracy ONLY to see Russia weakened and helpless. This is something to consider. It would be foolish for the West to become paranoid about New Russia as a Nazi-like threat, but rolling out the red carpet to Russia just when it's acting like a nasty bully in the region isn't very smart either. When the bear had been tamed in the 90s, it felt underfed and mishandled by the Western keepers. Now, the bear is confident again, looking for food on its own, and has grown bigger and stronger. It is healthier in some ways and more dangerous in other ways. What should the West do? History doesn't repeat itself but remakes itself. Hollywood remakes of old movies are very different but there are certain common themes. And, something may be learned from the inter-war period that may guide us in formulating a reasonable policy for Russia. For starters, Russians--leaders and the led--must be persuaded that the Western recommendation for democracy and market reforms in the 90s was NOT to punish Russia nor weaken/humiliate it in the eyes of the world. It was not a Versailles Treaty aimed at Russia. It was a policy that was badly applied but still not a total loss since it laid the groundworks for what is at least a semi-democracy in Russia and the current expansion of Russian economy. Anyway, just because Clinton didn't properly reward Russia when it was trying to be good doesn't mean that we should now reward Russia when it's being bad.

Anyway, US and its Western Allies did learn the lesson after WWII. When Germany turned democratic and rejected the Nazi past, it was rewarded both politically and economically. Same was done for Japan. Allies figured that what the Germans and Japanese suffered during the war was enough.

(17). The Nazi German war on the USSR wasn't primarily ideological in the political, social, or economic sense. Its particular evil was rooted in Nazi racism. A war based on race can be justified if (1) it's defensive, (2) the people to be conquered or vanquished are relatively small in number--as with Anglo conquest of the Americas or Australia--and preferably culturally primitive-- (3) or, if carried out as a civilizing mission, as a certain aspects of Western imperialism were; after all, the Western expansion didn't merely exploit non-European peoples but also brought the light of progress, civilization, and etc. The Nazi war on Soviet Union didn't fit into any of those categories. Soviet Union was heavily populated, with more than double the people in Germany. Also, Russians and others were heirs to proud and even great civilizations in their own right. Also, Nazis only intended to enslave, exploit, and/or kill and offered little in terms of a civilizing mission. If Western imperialists were restrained by some sense of humanism and Christianity, Nazi Germans looked upon Russians and other peoples of the Soviet peoples as subhumans. Buchanan may share some of this sentiment as he refers to all the people of Soviet Empire as the 'Asiatic horde'. Finally, the war was not defensive on the part of Nazi Germany. Had Soviets attacked first, Germans would have had the moral upperhand. In fact, Germans specifically waged a race war of enslavement and annihilation. It wasn't as though Germans attacked merely to topple communism so that Russian people could live in freedom. If such had been the case, Hitler would have been more like George W. Bush who went into Iraq to topple Hussein and liberate Iraqis. (Bush likes to see himself as a new Churchill but his worldview is closer to that of Napoleon. Neocons ought to really be called Napoleo-cons.) Such action may have been foolish but not necessarily evil. At worst, Hitler would have been like Napoleon who saw himself as a Promethean figure spreading the ideals of the French Revolution through Europe, even to Russia. But, Hitler was not that kind of moral or social idealist. All of his ideas centered around race. Now, racism is fine as long as it means that (1) races exist and (2) races may be different and those differences may account for certain social realities--such as why Jews are so rich and influential and why black crime is feared by many people. But, Hitler was not that kind of racist but a radical racist who had very dark ideas about who were human and who were subhuman. To Hitler, Russians had worth only as prospective slaves of German overlords. As Hitler once said, Russia had been tolerable as a civilization prior to the outbreak of WWI since its elite--political, economic, military, etc--had been largely Germanic. But, once Russia became an enemy of Germany in WWI and then was lost to Left-wing Jewish Bolshevism and then Stalinism, Hitler saw the USSR as not only an ideological enemy but a racial enemy. It's possible that had Russia been populated by 'Aryans', even a communist Russia may have been tolerable to Hitler. Or, Hitler may have attacked Russia only to liberate his fellow 'Aryans' from communism. But, Hitler's war on Russia was a total race war. As such, it was far more dangerous than his war on France or UK. Hitler thought Latins to be inferior to the 'Aryans' but still saw them as fellow Europeans and full-fledged human beings. And, the war with UK was purely political--not really even ideological as Hitler could tolerate a democratic UK--and had nothing to do with race. So, even if Hitler would have prevailed over Britain, he would have only killed those who had politically stood in his way. He would have left most Brits to go on as usual AS LONG AS they didn't try to oppose German ambitions in Europe; Hitler's attitude would have been, 'if you're not against me, you're with me.' But, Hitler wanted far more from Russia and other Slavic lands, and this is where Buchanan is most blind or even evil. Though communism was evil, not even communist Russians deserved the fate that Nazi Germans had in store for them. And, though the fall of Eastern Europe to communism was tragic, it would have been more tragic for many Slavs and other 'subhuman' folks in the East had the Nazis prevailed. If Buchanan cannot recognize the humanity of those people, then he's no kind of Christian.

Because Russians and others ultimately fought for racial survival and for the Motherland, they had every right to win. The war crimes they committed in their defeat of the Nazis cannot be justified under any circumstances, but it must be said that even after suffering terribly under the German onslaught, Soviets still did NOT wage a war of racial annihilation against the Germans but rather a war of national vengeance. Many Germans were killed--many of them innocent--and many women were raped, but there was no Soviet design to turn Germans into a slave race or to wipe out the Germans as a race. This--plus the fact that Germany broke the pact and struck first--is what gave the Soviets the moral upper hand in their war with Nazi Germany.
Of course, one can argue that communism is a form of slavery. True, but it's at least a slavery that recognizes the humanity of the enslaved whereas the Nazis would not even have looked upon Slavic slaves as fully human. That is a crucial difference. The Romans and Americans practiced slavery but didn't deny the humanity of the enslaved. The Russians practiced serfdom but didn't deny the humanity of the serfs. Communism, at its worst, was a most horrendous form of slavery but, there was still some hope that the slaves would be 'reformed' and made into 'new man' who was equally human as all the other comrades. There was no such hope for the enslaved under Nazism. They were to be seen as slaves forever. Worse, they would be worked to death and not allowed to reproduce as the Eastern lands were intended for resettlement by German farmers.
In many aspects, Nazism was better than communism, but when it came to the issue of RACE, Nazism was the most horrendous ideology ever developed by man. On economic, social, cultural, and political ideas and policy, Fascism and Nazism were far more tolerant, pluralistic, and moderate than communism. But, when it came to the issue of certain races, Nazism--an especially extreme form of Teutonic fascism--was even more psychotic and evil than communism.

(18). Buchanan belittles and mocks interventionism under any circumstances--though I'll bet he would have called for intervention in Europe if Soviet Union had attacked Germany first--, but there is a basic or general rule as to when interventionism may or may not work.
The following rules are as thus: (1) decisive victory is possible upon intervention.
(2) there will be popular support for those who intervene. (3) external enemy or enemies--neighboring nations that are opposed to the intervention\aren't dangerous/threatening nor likely to oppose the intervention (4) there is a good chance of stability in the post-interventionist order.

Now, suppose there is a people or nation A being oppressed by evil nation B. Suppose B has decisive power over A but isn't all-powerful. Suppose US intervenes to save people A. Suppose people A welcome Americans with open arms. Suppose US intervention had averted or limited the scale of atrocities or even a genocide by people B. People A will be grateful to the US and will want to be an ally of the US. Also, the tyrants of nation B will have lost face politically, morally, internationally, and even in the eyes of their own people. So, there are reasonable cases to be made for certain interventions. We must be mindful of necessary conditions for success.

Somalia was a bad case for intervention because there was no united people of victims. Rather, US entered into a zone run by tribal warlords, each of whom was no better or worse than the next. Also, the very people Americans went to feed, help, and save showed no gratitude and hated Americans. Somalia violated all the rules for intervention.
But, intervention in Korea worked because the support of the people--most South Koreans didn't want to live under communism--and because decisive victory was possible against North Korea. And, there was a chance for a stable order in Korea once communists were defeated. But, US violated or overlooked one rule, at least when they decided to liberate the north as well. US didn't see China as a formidable enemy and was confident that the Chinese would not stand in the way of American advancement. This turned out to a major miscalculation, and overstretched US troops were surrounded or pushed back by hordes of Chinese.
Kosovo is a stranger case. Decisive victory was possible and attained. There was popular support in Kosovo for Americans and NATO. But, Kosovo still borders a volatile and far more powerful Serbia backed by Russia. Serbia is not a formidable power but is plenty dangerous regionally, especially as many Serbs look upon Kosovo as Jews look upon Israel--as holy ancestral land. Also, we wonder if a chances of a longterm stable order is possible in the region. Only time will tell, but much of it will have to do with Kosovo's rapprochement with Serbia which doesn't seem likely any time soon.

At any rate, humanitarian intervention can be win/win if the conditions are favorable. It can be good for the liberators and for the liberated. The French were deliriously happy to be liberated from the Germans in WWII. But, it's true enough that no amount of idealism, goodwill, and planning can make an intervention work if the conditions are hostile. For example, it would be stupid to try liberating Tibet from China though the Tibetans are badly oppressed. Tibetans would welcome us but a major war would break out between US and China. And, Sudan is such a messy tribal hellhole that one wonders if any military intervention in Darfur can really do any good. It may actually make things worse.
After all, it would have been better for the US not to get involved in Somalia.

Anyway, the real problem is not "to intervene or not to intervene". The real problem is a fundamentalism that says NEVER intervene or ALWAYS intervene. America must carefully pick and choose good deeds around the world. Generally, it's not wise to intervene even if the cause seems just. But, when it's bound to be a cakewalk and win many friends for the US(and achieve a morally worthy goal), it's may well be worth it. Just look at the triumph in Grenada. One may argue that American intervention in Grenada was necessary because it was in our hemisphere but even if it weren't, it would have been a great success.

(19). In a way, victory of the Allies in WWII paved the way for the fall of communism. Prior to WWII, communism had been limited to the USSR. Though there was much appeal of communism in intellectual circles around the world, it was not seen as a grave threat to the Western or American ideal. And, prior to WWII, Stalin wisely focused most of his energies on building up his own country. But, upon the defeat of the Nazis, USSR was catapulted in the eyes of the world community as the OTHER superpower. In having done most to defeat Nazism, it was seen as the hope of mankind. Also, with the waning overseas power of Western democracies and their loss of empires, the future of mankind seemed to belong to communism--popular among Third World intellectuals and activists--whose capital was in Moscow. Moscow also came to control Eastern Europe. And then, China fell under communism. For this reason, the Soviets became far more conscious of their image around the world. If the West fought an essentially defensive role in the cold war, Soviets went on the offensive--both in charm offensive and muscle power. Soviets sent arms and aid to many leftist or anti-capitalist movements around the world. Unlike the US, Soviets really couldn't afford this indefinitely. So, people of Eastern Europe actually fared better than people in the USSR. Life in Eastern Europe was far from rosy but was still the best that communism could offer since Soviets hoped to convince their neighbors that communism isn't so bad. Soviets lavished Cuba and North Korea with subsidies, sent tons of aid to China before the Sino-Soviet rift, sent much aid to the Middle East and India. Soviets could hardly afford to do this as their own people lived in shabby housing, had minimal health care, and had to stand in lines for hard bread, tough meat, and toilet tissue. Though US spent far more in foreign aid and military actions overseas, the percentage of US spending in relation to its overall economy was much less than what the Soviets were spending. US could afford to spend much money on foreign aid whereas Soviet Union was struggling just to house and feed its own people. For the US, doling out foreign aid was the natural outcome of its economic bounty; it was like a rich man donating lavishly to charity. For the USSR, it was more like a poor man pretending that he could afford to be lavishly generous. It was all a charade. USSR was not a worker's paradise but a prisoner's dump where people had no freedom, hardly any basic goods, and led miserable lives. It was because of their victory in WWII that Soviets felt compelled to compete with the US on the world stage. And, that's what bankrupted the Soviets much faster than otherwise might have been the case.

(20). Buchanan keeps talking of American imperial overstretch after WWII or since the Cold War, but US never really had an empire--unless we argue that US in and of itself is an empire of sorts. Soviet Empire was truly an empire. Russians ruled over many non-Russians who were kept within the empire by force. The "Soviet" identity proved to be less powerful than the various nationalisms suppressed by communism. The populations within the non-Russian republics was larger than the population within the Russian republic by the 1980s. (To be sure, US itself will seem more like an empire if Mexicans continue to pour into SW territories and if blacks keep multiplying like rabbits. The idea of 'empire' has less to do with land mass than the nature of ethno-political composition. So, if a huge nation is composed of a people who feel united by a strong sense of race, ethnicity, nationality, and/or ideology, it cannot be said to be an empire--consider Australia. It's an empire when one group of people rule over other people who don't share the same identity or values--like when the British ruled over India. So, a giant country made up of one people is not an empire, but even a relatively small territory can be said to be an empire if one group of people rule over many others. The land mass that Romans ruled was smaller than the US, but it was an empire because Romans ruled over many eoples. Thus far, most Americans have felt as members of one united nation. But, if Mexicans keep pouring into the SW territories and don't assimilate, this will create a 'empire' dynamic within America itself; and if rap music and Afrocentric mentality continue to grow, it will also fuel the notion of US as an empire than a republic. Many Americans may feel alienated from Mexicans-Americans and Mexican illegals in the SW territories and vice versa, just as Russians and peoples in the non-Russian republics never really felt they were part of the same nation. Non-Russians felt they were being kept within the empire by force. This kind of mentality may develop within the US. All of SW territories may become to the US what Kazakhstan was to Russia.) Also, Soviet Empire stretched up and down nearly all of Eastern Europe. And, Soviets had client states--Cuba and North Korea--which were dependent on the USSR for everything.
This was not the case with the US. US didn't hold Western Europe hostage as USSR did with Eastern Europe. US was a nation of united peoples who wanted to be part of the same country. And, if America had troops stationed overseas, it was at the behest of the governments who wanted American protection. It was not as though US invaded those nations like Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The only nations which came under the political thumb of US were Germany and Japan, but only because they'd been the bad guys in WWII. Still, both Japan and Germany respected and liked the US and appreciated American military presence on their soil as a bulwark against communism. Today, if Japan and Germany really want US military gone from their soil, US will leave. An empire exists only when a nation IMPOSES its will on other nations. One could argue that such is the case of US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, but US went into Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11, and the US doesn't want to stay there any longer than we have to. And, though we could argue that oil was an important factor in the Iraq War, it's also true that Saddam Hussein has been a dangerous troublemaker in a very important region and had to be removed one way or another. So, US went to liberate, not to impose its imperial will. US wants Iraq to be prosperous and independent in the future as a free and sane country. Indeed, US has never stood in the way any nation's rise as long as it posed no danger to the world order where all peoples could travel and trade in peace. US had nothing against Germany and Japan growing into giant economies in the postwar order. And, US would have no problem with China if not for the fact that China is still run by an autocratic regime that cannot be trusted.
Americans have devised and maintained a world order, but a world order is not the same as an empire. The cold war was about the American world order--based on freedom of nations and peoples--versus the Soviet empire--based on coercion and slavery.


(21). While it's true that Hitler shared and tapped into the feelings of many Germans that Poles had stabbed them in the back after WWI--Poland, liberated from the Russians by Germans, took German lands after Germany's defeat in WWI--, Hitler wasn't reasonable about Poland. If anything, he was far less reasonable about Poland than Poles had ever been about Germans. All said and done, Polish claim on German lands were petty nationalistic affairs whereas Hitler had a grand and dangerous design for all of Eastern Europe. It's possible that if Poland hadn't been situated where it was, Hitler wouldn't have bothered much about the grievances arising from land claims. Of course, Hitler and Germans sincerely wanted to reclaim territories like Danzig, but Poland's importance for Hitler had everything to do with where it was--between Germany and Russia. (Buchanan argues that Poles were not noble victims but nasty imperialists in their own right, as Poles only made up 69% of the population of Poland and ruled over many non-Poles--especially on its eastern area. But, was it wrong for Poles to insist on holding onto areas which later became parts of USSR? The last thing Poles wanted was to have communist Russia right next to Poles. If Poles had let its eastern lands 'go free', they would surely have been gobbled up Soviet Union. So, from the Polish point of view, it was better for Poles to control areas populated by non-Poles as a bulwark against communism. If those areas fell to the Soviets, areas mainly populated by Poles would directly face a vast communist empire. Similarly, if Poles had let Nazi Germany reclaim certain territories, Nazis would have been better positioned to invade Poland. If Poles had given Danzig back to Germany and allowed a railway connection between Germany proper and Eastern Prussia, Poland would be even more vulnerable to German attack and of being cut off from the sea. Would Israel allow a special railway between Gaza and West Bank? Canadians trust Americans, but suppose US was ruled by a dangerous dictator who demanded a special US-controlled highway/railway between US mainland and Alaska! If Poles had acceded to German demands, the Nazis would have been much better positioned to move armies back and forth to eventually attack Poland and other nations.)
Suppose Poland lay south of Germany than east of Germany. Sure, Germans still would have wanted German lands back, but picking a fight with Poland would not have been the main priority for Hitler. Poland mattered to Hitler mainly because it stood right between Germany and the USSR. Hitler's grand dream was to topple the communist regime in Russia--which he saw as a Jewish order which decimated the previous German-dominated elite that had once governed Russia--and also to take the vast lands to create a new German empire.
Hitler knew that this was a crazy, almost impossible dream. But, he was a dreamer and didn't think like a normal person. Also, dreamer or not, people flush with success tend to get over their heads. Through most of the 1930s, Hitler thought he would never achieve all he wanted to achieve. But, when he saw the easy fall of Czechoslovakia and Poland, the weakness of democracies, and then the tremendous victory over France, he began to believe in the impossible. Also, he was surprised at how easily Stalin had fallen for the bait of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. And, he was assured of German superiority when he saw how the Russians had struggled against Finland. His earlier doubts no longer mattered. He felt destiny favored him. In this sense, Bush is more comparable to Hitler than to Churchill. Not morally as Bush is decent enough if shallow guy. But, after the easy victory over Afghanistan he too grew overconfident and thought he could remake the world--or at least the Middle East via Iraq. Afghanistan was Bush's France. It made him feel invincible, as though history had chosen him for a great task. So, Bush rushed into Iraq to write another great chapter in history. Bush may see himself as having stood up to great evil in the figure of Saddam Hussein just like Churchill stood up to evil Hitler, but that's where the analogy breaks down. Churchill, as stubborn and passionate as he was, knew his nation was caught in a struggle with no sure victory. Churchill was an heroic pessimist whereas Bush, like Hitler, fell into the reverie of heroic optimism. Bush, like Hitler, thought goddess history was on his side. If snow froze the Germans, sand blew into Bush's eyes.

Anyway, the importance of Poland was its geographical location. Though Hitler wasn't sure if he could ever embark on the great war with the USSR, he wanted to lay the grounds for such possibility. And, he knew it had to go through Poland. That's why he first approached Poland on friendly terms for an alliance against the USSR. Poland wisely declined as it didn't want to get caught between a war between two mighty nations. If Poles had gone along with Germany as a military ally against Russia, German troops would have to cross--essentially occupy--Poland(just as Germans had done in Belgium) in case of war. If Germans won, Poland would be an island--if allowed semi-political independence--surrounded by the vast German empire. If Germans lost, Soviets would steamroll right through Poland, and Poland would be a vassal state of Russians--as things indeed turned out. So, Poles didn't want to get caught in a conflict between Germany and Russia. Poles feared the Germans and hated the Russians. The last thing Poles wanted was to side with Germany against the Soviets--thereby justifying future Soviet hostility against Poland--or side with Soviets against Germany--thereby giving the Germans the excuse to attack Poland. Poles simply wanted to left alone. It was just their bad luck that they happened to be coyote caught between a tiger and a bear. And, Poles read Hitler correctly; they knew he was not a man to be trusted. They knew that Hitler despised Slavs. (And, indeed, look at what happened to all those who trusted Hitler. Chamberlain got egg on his face, and Stalin found his country attacked despite the pact.) While it's true that Poles were no saints, they were not the bad guys as Buchanan makes them out. Yes, Poles played the jackal in tearing away a piece of Czechoslovakia upon the German invasion of the latter, but it was nothing compared to dirty tricks pulled by other nations. After all, it was the big imperialists powers which had carved up the world, it was the Anglo-Americans who had broken every treaty with the Indians and taken SW territories from Mexico and then Hawaii, it was the Italians who had taken South Tyrol, and so on. It was Germany which took the main carcass of the Czech kill while Poland merely got a morsel. Yet, Buchanan fumes more about petty Polish misdeeds--relatively speaking--than the much greater trangressions of Hitler. Buchanan's picking on Poland is the worst part of the book, and surely Poles and Polish-Americans will hate Buchanan as they have a right to. Buchanan's argument is like defending the deeds of a murderer by saying that the victim wasn't such a saint himself. So, if Bob killed James, Buchanan as lawyer would argue that though Bob shouldn't have done what he did, James was a womanizer and owed Bob $20. So, Bob the murderer isn't so bad, and James wasn't so good. It's fair game for Buchanan's to detail the problems, flaws, and even crimes of the Polish government, but to use those as excuses for Hitler's aggressions is beneath contempt. It's the same kind of mentality that got OJ Simpson off the hook--an argument based on prejudice than fair-mindedness. A genuinely fair-minded reading of WWII is necessary because the event has been reduced to a cartoon story of good vs evil. There was a rough good/evil dynamic in the war, but as Hunter Davies has said, it was 'no simple victory'. Buchanan almost reverses the cartoon history where Germany is almost always right--even under Hitler--and everyone else is wrong.

Anyway, because of Poland's geopolitical significance to Hitler's grand plan, Poland was doomed no matter what Chamberlain or Churchill did. The ONLY thing that could have stopped Hitler was a show of real power, something that failed to materialize in 1939. He saw democracies as paper tigers, especially after France fell quickly and the disaster at Dunkirk for the Brits. And, he came to believe that the Soviet Union was a weak giant--all quantity and no quality--because of poor Russian military performance in Finland and also because Stalin had purged the military of its most skilled officers a few yrs back. Poles hoped that Hitler would come to his senses and not start a war in Europe. But, Hitler was hellbent on carrying out his mission. Hitler didn't only invade Poland but gave half of it away to the Soviets. Everything that the Poles feared eventually came to pass--not because of the actions of Poles, English, French, or Soviets. It happened because of Hitler, and he alone must bear the blame. It doesn't matter that certain national grievances addressed by Hitler were valid. Hitler wanted MORE than what Germany was due. Think of the Godfather where Michael Corleone wants to protect his father after the attempted assassination. So, it's understandable that he wants to kill the corrupt police chief and Sollozzo. But as time passes, he wants much more; he wants it all. Indeed, evil people who wrap themselves in JUST CAUSES are the most dangerous. This can be said of any number of sociopaths, megalomaniacs, lunatics, and madmen in history. Just look at Mao Zedong. Yes, China had been humiliated by foreign powers, was mired in great poverty, and naturally wanted to stand up in the world. And, Mao played on all these themes. But above all, he was a megalomaniac radical who thought he had all the answers, and so, any number of people should be sacrificed to fulfill his vision. So, despite the justness of some of Mao's call for national renewal and social justice, Mao's China was an evil nation. Same can be said of any number of black leaders in the US and Africa. Yes, Mugabe had been a freedom fighter who resisted British imperialist rule. Yes, he was the father of a new and independent Zimbabwe. But, this is precisely why people like him are more dangerous. They are essentially evil men who've taken up causes with moral validity. Because of the flag, symbols, and causes they wrap themselves around in, many observers see them as heroes than for what they really are. This was also the case with Idi Amin, a man still revered in many parts of Africa today. And, US has plenty of black demagogues who hide behind just causes and valid grievances to promote their own power, glory, and evil vision. Just look at Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan, and the way he speaks of the history of racial injustice in the US. Much of what they say has historical and even some moral validity, but we must not lose sight of their OTHER agenda which is vile. Hitler was exactly this kind of figure. Much of what he promoted and fought for had moral validity. Germans had been unduly punished after WWI. The punitive economic depression suffered by Germany had been devastating. And, redrawing of the borders after WWI had left many Germans unhappily trapped in hostile non-German countries. And, so on. So, Germans had just grievances, and if Hitler had ONLY focused on those matters he wouldn't have been dangerous. But, he wanted MORE. Indeed, the issues of national grievance were secondary to his Grand Vision. So, he used and exploited valid causes and demands to set the grounds for what was his ultimate Grand Vision. Germans, fallen under his spell, believed that Hitler was merely a modern Bismarck who wanted to restore that which rightfully belonged to Germany. But, Hitler wanted more. He didn't just want to restore German glory but to expand it into Eastern lands. And, even Buchanan seems to be unsure on this matter. On the one hand, he says that even though Hitler had a grand vision, he was not a madman but a pragmatist who just got caught up in developments beyond his control. So, Hitler was as pushed--as much as he pushed Europe-- into WWII. Buchanan argues that if Poles had given what Hitler wanted--Danzig and a connection between East and West Prussia--, Hitler would finally have been satisfied, and there would have been no more war. But, he must not really believe this because he later says that in the case of war between Germany and the USSR, the West should have remained neutral. Wait a minute, why would there have been a war between Germany and the USSR if Hitler would have been satisfied with Danzig and a rail connection between East and West Prussia? Buchanan contradicts himself on this matter at every turn. On the one hand, he says Hitler stumbled into WWII because Poles and the Brits insulted him and made him lose face. In order to reclaim his manhood, he felt compelled to invade Poland so as to save face--as though Hitler hadn't made leaders like Chamberlain lose face earlier. (By the way, did Chamberlain declare war on Germany after he'd been insulted by Hitler's reneging on the Czech deal? No. If Chamberlain could swallow his pride, why couldn't Hitler? Why was it okay, according to Buchanan, for Hitler to invade Poland just to save his face? Buchanan's defense relies on declaring madness on the part of his client Hitler. Since Churchill was not a madman, he must judged as a sane person, but since Hitler was funny in the head he cannot be judged by normal standards. But, even this argument is rather disingenuous when Buchanan spends many pages arguing that Churchill was a warmongering lunatic himself while Hitler was generally sensible. So, if Hitler is allowed the insanity plea, why not make the same for Churchill?)

But, Hitler did worse than invade Poland; he handed the eastern half of Poland--and Baltic states--to the USSR. But, of course Buchanan has an excuse for that too: Since UK and France refused to treat Nazi Germany with respect, Hitler was FORCED to ally himself with Stalin. (He could also argue that Hitler only temporarily gave those parts to Stalin as he meant to take them back in the war against the Russia.) And, why did Germany attack the USSR according to Buchanan? It was because Brits gave the Germans a hard time. So, at every turn, Buchanan portrays Hitler as a figure who's reacting to events than making them happen. He's a responsive than aggressive. For awhile, Hitler had been able to play such game because Germany had indeed been wronged after WWI. So, Hitler initially started out by reacting or responding to all the wrongs committed against Germany. But, Hitler clearly shifted course and began to act proactively and aggressively. Asking for Sudetenland was to redress the wrongs of Versailles Treaty, but invading all of Czechoslovakia was clearly a proactive decision to invade another country. Asking for the return of Danzig was reactive, but invading all of the western half of Poland was clearly aggressive and proactive. After all, Hitler could have chosen to ONLY take back German-dominated lands in Poland; and there was no need to sign a pact with the Soviets that put half of Poland under the iron rule of Stalin. Buchanan's characterization of Hitler as a man who was always reacting to the aggressions of others is ludicrous. It's like the rationale employed by Mugabe. He started out as a independence fighter reacting to the imperial rule of the British. But, once he became the ruler of Zimbabwe he's been in control and has done as he chose. He kicked out the white farmers. He's killed his opponents in order to keep his power. He's ruined the economy. But, even today, he uses the same paradigm. He's just a patriot reacting to the imperialist aggressions of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and George W. Bush. And, enough blacks in Africa still seem to agree. Some Western people were blind to the true ambitions of people like Hitler, Mugabe, and Mao because of stupid guilt feelings. Guilt over the Versailles Treaty blinded Brits to the true nature of Hitler. Guilt over Western imperialism made many white people blind to the true madness of people like Mugabe and Mao. Especially because people like Hitler, Mugabe, and Mao had been expert at playing on Western liberal guilt--explaining all their actions as mere reactions to Western evil--, many fools in the West came to regard these megalomaniacs as merely passionate leaders who wanted to restore pride and respect to their peoples. But, some people were motivated by something other than guilt in supporting or apologizing for tyrants. Some people were really motivated by idealism, vision, power, or romanticism. So, if some Western liberals respected Che Guevara or Mao out of guilt, others supported those leaders as Promethean figures creating a new and better world molded by god-men. And, Buchanan's apologies for Hitler are in this category Though Buchanan knows Hitler to have been an evil man, he still admires Hitler as a defender of white man's civilization and the enemy of communism. He especially feels this way because of what's happening to the West today, with its vulgarized culture and its demography being rapidly overturned. Buchanan wonders why white folks had to fight white folks when Hitler, no matter how evil, didn't want to fight the Brits or other Western Europeans. So, the way Buchanan tells it, the West should have let Hitler do as he pleased against Easterners just as Germans never interfered with British and French actions in Africa, Asia, Middle East. But, this is where Buchanan makes a fatal flaw. He seems not to regard Eastern Europeans as white people. In this regard, Buchanan is more an "Aryanist" than a White-ist. Buchanan regards Eastern Europeans as white ONLY when compared to actual Asians and Muslims. But, when compared to German or "Aryan" whites, Eastern Europeans are the 'Asiatic Horde'. So, Buchanan looks at WWII and wonders... 'look, the Aryans were attacking the Asiatic Horde and defending Europe against barbarism, so why did the UK and France have to declare war on fellow (properly)white nation Germany?' (In truth, it wasn't so much Western civilization vs Eastern barbarism, but Central European barbarism vs Eastern European barbarism--one where the East had the moral upper-hand since Germany attacked first unprovoked.) This is rather like Charles Lindbergh's loathsome argument that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because what Germans had done to the Jews was no different than what Americans were doing to the 'yellow-bellied Japs.' According to Lindbergh, Americans were right to kill bushels of those subhuman Jap savages to make the world safe for white folks, and Germans had merely done the same thing to those lowlife Semitic bastards. So, Americans and Germans really should have been allies. Germans should have killed Jews and Asiatic Russians, and Americans should have killed a whole bunch of 'yellow-bellied Japs.' But, guess what? Germany and Japan were allies. Of course, many American Firsters would have argued that Germany's alliance with Japan existed only because Hitler had been pushed into it due to lack of support or cooperation from Western Democracies. (But in fact, Western governments had been accommodating to Hitler until the late 30s!) America Firsters may argue that it was because the UK and US--controlled by warmongering evil Jews--rebuffed fellow white Germans that Germans ended up in crazy alliances with Japan and, for awhile, with Stalin, and so on. Now, I'm not going to argue that Jews are saints in this world. Jews were among the biggest villains of the 20th century. Their role in the criminal enterprise of communism needs to be told--almost impossible with Jewish control of media and academia in the US and due to the politically correct anti-'hate speech' laws in Europe. ("Hate speech" can be anything critical of minorities.)
Still, Lindbergh was stupid to draw the analogy between what US did in Japan with what Germans did to the Jews. It's true that Pearl Harbor made Americans furious, and many Americans were in genocidal mode and wanted to kill as many 'yellow-bellied Japs' as possible. But, this was wartime lust for vengeance. There was no ideological blueprint for wiping out the Japanese race. In contrast, Nazis really had genocidal plans for the Jews and the Russians. Now, it's possible that Hitler may not have decided on the Final Solution had his war plans had gone accordingly. Even evil men can be capable of magnanimity upon great triumph, but it's also true that Hitler had long considered carrying out radical solutions to be rid of the "Jewish Problem." American blood lust against the Japanese was a matter of passion than ideology. After all, though Japanese-Americans were mistreated--dispossessed and imprisoned--, they were not killed by the Americans nor regarded as 'subhuman'.
Anyway, the argument that Hitler posed no threat to white people only makes sense if we regard Eastern Europeans as non-white people, which is crazy. So, if anyone ruined the white race, it was Hitler who first violated the rule of 'ape shall not kill ape'-- in this case, 'ape' being white folks--by attacking white people in the East. Buchanan may argue that Czechs and Poles weren't likable and even nasty, but same could be said of any number of Germans who were notorious for their arrogance, contempt, haughtiness, anality, and pride. At any rate, all peoples are made up of good and bad, and there was no reason for Germans to take lands to the East other than those that were overwhelmingly Germans. It was Hitler who committed the greatest crime against white people because, like Buchanan, he had a narrowly selective definition of white folks. Any white person who considers Eastern Europeans as the 'Asiatic Horde' needs to have his head and eyes examined. Besides, 50 yrs from, Eastern Europeans may well be more white than Western Europeans as whole chunks of Western Europe is now being swamped by Muslims and blacks.

(22). Buchanan strongly disagrees with John Lukacs who has argued that Nazism, rather than communism, posed the greater threat to Western Civilization because nationalism was the primary force in the 20th century. Buchanan thinks this is nonsense. Buchanan thinks communism was the much greater threat because it was expansive/aggressive in its universalism, attractive to intellectuals, thinkers, and artists in the West, and appealing to the masses of poor or underprivileged around the world. In contrast, Nazism and Fascism were essentially nationalist or particularist movements with little appeal outside their borders. In other words, Latin Americans, Chinese, or Africans were much more likely to be wooed by communism calling for anti-imperialism and the 'brotherhood of man' than by Nazism which said 'Aryans are the greatest.' As Nazism and Fascism were about 'my people, my country,' they could have little appeal outside their own nations. There is much truth to this. And, it may have been truer in the Christian West. There were many tenets that Christianity and Marxism had in common. In some ways, Marxism was an aggressive militant form of Christianity trying to create a secular Heaven on Earth. Also, because of the cult of rationalism and enlightenment-ism at the core of radical materialist leftism, many intellectuals of the West were more likely to be drawn to Marxism than to Fascism or Nazism which dabbled in the occult and dark irrational forces. To be sure, there were plenty of Western intellectuals who had rejected rationalism as simplistic and were fascinated with the irrational, but they didn't want the irrational forces to be exploited or manipulated to create modern tyrannies. In other words, Hermann Hesse was not Rudolf Hess. Since the way most people see the world is shaped by what they learn in schools or see/hear in the media, the Left was bound to have a greater influence over the people in times to come. Still, it must be said that the majority of left-leaning people in culture and media were not of the RADICAL leftist sort. They were liberals or social-democrats but many were also anti-communists. Still, many liberals were fellow-travelers who had fallen for the 'popular front' line promoted by Moscow. And, liberal influence in Europe and America had the effect of weakening the people's resistance to communism and other forms of radical leftism either out of social/historical guilt or naivete. In some cases, leftists infiltrated or came to own/run institutions of great power. They sabotaged national security from within. Also, their influence had made people less alarmed about the spread of leftist power. So, there was a great leftist danger to the West--as there still is today, what with most of the academia and much of the media in the US being run by Gramscian leftists.

But, there is something to Lukacs's argument. Nationalism, not communism, was the more powerful agent in the 20th century. Even communist nations were ultimately moved and energized by nationalism. Domestically they practiced communism, but in world politics they acted no differently than other countries--for self-interest. The idea of international gbrotherhood of manh was either a naive dream or a charade. The only way Soviets could maintain their empire was by force. Perhaps the most powerful force that brought the end of Soviet Empire was nationalism. It got more difficult for the Soviets to maintain the facade of communist brotherhood in regards to Eastern European nations that simply wanted out. Nations like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc, all wanted to break away from the Soviet Union. We like to think that they did it for liberty and democracy, but it had a lot to with pure and simple nationalism. And, the Soviet Union crumbled because it was a prison-house of nations. Russians couldn't impose their order indefinitely over non-Russians except by force, and the Russians had lost the will and stomach. Russians came to fear that its Muslim-heavy republics would all turn into internal Afghanistans. It was better to let them go.
And, what has been the greatest challenge for both Yeltsin and Putin? Dinky little Chechnya, and why? The power of Chechen nationalism. And, what has been the great event in Europe of the 1990s? The war in Yugoslavia, and why? Nationalism. Of course, the supposedly post-nationalist Western Europeans could glibly feel superior and more civilized, but the fact is their nations came to be at peace because they had gone through similar bloodbaths in earlier stages of history. Recall that Britain was mired in Ireland well into the 1990s, and Spain still has problems with its Basque regions. Also, the rise of immigrant populations has changed the political dynamic in Europe, giving boost to nationalist parties. So, even as communism is dead in Europe, nationalism lives on.

And, when we consider the Sino-Soviet rift or the war amongst communist Vietnam/Cambodia/China, it's even clearer that the idea of international communist brotherhood was shallow. This isn't to suggest that communists didn't believe in communism but merely to point out that all communists were national communists. Even communists who wanted to transcend nationalism soon found it to be impossible. Most Latinos rejected the Argentinian Che; though many Latinos admired Castro, Che, and Hugo Chavez from a distance for their anti-Americanism, most don't want to live under the rule of 'international' or pan-Latinism. Simon Bolivar failed because he failed to understand the great diversity among Latin-American populations; the idea of forging Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela into a single bloc was a joke.

Any Georgian or Armenian communist in the USSR could figure out that a Russian communist had more power than a non-Russian communist. Jews found this out too. Though the Bolshevik takeover of power was largely a Jewish affair, Jewish influence eventually lost out to the numerically greater gentile forces. Same happened in postwar Eastern Europe. Many Jewish communist leaders who'd been installed by Stalin were eventually purged and removed by national communists who turned out to be anti-Jewish. In time, even left-wing Jews came to embrace Jewish nationalism in the form of Zionism. Many Eastern European Jews who'd once dedicated their lives to the idea of brotherhood of man departed Europe for Israel to set up a Brotherhood of Jews. And, though Jews in the US constantly yap about equality of man, it's obvious to any honest observer that Jews in the US--liberals and neocons--really support domestic and foreign policies that favor Jewish interests either directly or indirectly. A 'direct' example is using the media to make Americans sympathetic to Israel and hostile to Muslims; an 'indirect' example is promoting illegal immigration so as to turn US into more of a mixed nation where no single united homogeneous majority can come together to take on the Jews--as happened in Germany and Russia. Jews remember that Austro-Hungarian empire was the safest place for Jews prior to WWI--not because gentiles loved Jews but because a mixed bag of gentiles within the empire was too busy hating one another to unite against the Jew. So, Jews want 'multiculturalism' and the balkanization it causes in the US because various bunches of gentiles will be too busy distrusting one another to unite against the Jew. This is why Jews love it when they see whites and Hispanics at loggerheads over the immigration issue. And, Jews also want to monopolize the elite position--morally as well as financially and intellectually--traditionally held by WASPS. To do this, Jews have used the black race card to imply that WASPS have been American Nazis. And so, the Jewish media and academia have undermined the moral authority and confidence of the Wasps. Now, why haven't Wasps used the Jewish communist card to argue that the crimes of Jewish communism were actually closer to Nazism. Communists were the greatest killers of the 20th century, and the people who played the most crucial role in establishing the monstrous system in Russia were the Jews--with great moral and financial support from Jews all over the world. But, WASPS don't discuss this grim truth because Jews own the media and control who gets to say what, which is why even Buchanan's books tread very carefully on Jewish issues. Buchanan the bear knows he can get away with insulting Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Poles, Muslims, Hispanics, and etc, but he better not mess with the pack of Jewish wolves. Also, Jews have cleverly used the Holocaust card to the point where anyone critical of Jews is automatically labeled an 'antisemite' and is blacklisted from respectable community--though one can say hateful things about non-Jews(unless black or gay), support the far left, condemn the US, mock Christianity, etc and still be part of the respectable academic or intellectual community. (Suppose Norman Mailer had been a gentile who wrote an essay celebrating the beating/killing of a Jew as a great heroic and liberating act. Would such person have been embraced by the literary world? Of course not. But as a Jew writing 'White Negro', he could get away with glorifying black assault on a middle class white goy.) One can make a vile Hollywood movie where Muslims are nothing but evil terrorists and still be invited to parties and given funds to make more movies. Or, one can make movies where Christian conservatives are all 'fascist' psychopaths and still be showered with critical praise and awards on Oscar night. One can write articles saying that the Japanese and Chinese are out to rule the world and be considered a 'leading intellectual'. But, if you dare say anything critical of Jews, you are in BIG trouble. You're an hairy beast, a subhuman, a creature who's 'rabidly and virulently' 'obsessed' about Jews. (By the way, why shouldn't we be 'obsessed' with the Jews when it's only natural to be worried and concerned about people with great power. Isn't the world 'obsessed' with the US because it's so powerful? Weren't Jews 'obsessed' about Germany when it came under the Nazis, grew powerful, and persecuted Jews? Wasn't the American press--dominated by Jews--'obsessed' about the rise of Japan in the 1980s? I recall the 'hysteria' vividly. Japan was supposed to buy up half of American by 2000. And, isn't The New Republic--a liberal Jewish magazine--'obsessed' about rise of China, especially as it sells weapons to Iran, an enemy of Israel? And, aren't Jews 'obsessed' about Iranians? And, through the influence of Jewish-run media, haven't we all become 'obsessed' about Iran? Liberal Jews say that it was stupid for Americans to fear communism since there was little chance that communist would attack the US directly, yet we are supposed to fret about Iran, a country that has no hope of attacking the US whether it has nukes or not. At worst, Iran is a threat to Israel, but why should we care? Jews said it's not OUR problem if millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians died under communism, so why should we care if millions of Jews die from an Iranian attack? Jews, who are 'obsessed' about all their perceived enemies, big or small, real or imaginary(consider Woody Allen and many other neurotic Jews), are hypocritical when they complain that 'antisemites' are 'obsessed' about Jews.
If Jews had the power and talent of insignificant Bangladeshis or Burmese, I would indeed find the 'obsession' with Jews rather pointless; why all the fuss about a powerless or inconsequential people? But, Jews are the richest, most powerful, most influential, and most anointed--largely thanks to the Jewish run media--people in the most powerful, influential, and the richest country in the world. Does it not make sense to be 'obsessed' with Jewish power? If The New Republic can 'obsessively' go on and on about Iran, Lebanon, China, North Korea(hated because perceived as an ally of enemies of Israel), and so on, why is it wrong for non-Jews to be 'obsessed' about Jews? Of course, Jews can say they themselves are not dangerous or evil like all the other peoples, such as 'racist' WASPS, 'Islamo-fascist' Iranians, cruel Chinese, terrorist Muslims, greedy and corrupt Russians, and so on. Well, well, talk about self-obsession of the most sickeningly narcissistic kind. So, Jews are sooooo perfect and deserve the right to 'obsessively' criticize and pontificate on the rest of us sinners or beasts--for our own benefit, of course--but, we cannot criticize the perfect Jews; it looks as though Jewish influence has rubbed off on Obama though blacks need no help in the moral-narcissicism department. Every Jew acts like he's Moses with the sacred truth received from God and history while the rest of us are lowly Golden Calfers who must do as the Jews say lest we offend God's Truth and come to a bad end.
This is why Jean-Luc Godard got sick of all the Jewish crap, what with Jews now being the most powerful people on the world acting as though they are saintly creatures preaching the ONE and ONLY TRUTH to the rest of us. Secular Jews have done to history what religious Jews had done to spirituality. In the past, Jews came up with the idea of one and only God, and more recently, Jews have come up with the narrative of one and only history--the Judeo-centric history. Whether it's the history or culture of Poland, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Palestine, America, etc, etc, everything is seen through the prism of Jewish interests, Jewish sanctimoniousness?
This is why Buchanan's book is necessary, but Buchanan is too afraid to take on Judeo-centric history with real balls. Also, his view of history can be just as ludicrous. According to Judeo-centric view of history, Jews have only been good guys or noble victims in 20th century. We are not told that communism came before Nazism and that communism was the creation of vicious rabid and virulent radical Jews. And, even the crimes of communism has been blamed on goyim by fixating on Stalin. It's not mentioned that Stalin got his ideas from evil left-wing Jews, nor is it mentioned that many Jewish victims of Stalin were the very people who set up the monstrous system. Suppose Hitler killed Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels. Would the latter have been poor noble victims of Nazism? No, they were victims of the monstrous system they helped to create. And, most Jewish victims of Stalin had played a crucial role in creating a murderous system. When Stalin was killing millions of Christians, communist Jews gleefully went along, confiscating Christian property, and dynamiting Churches--10,000s in Russia and Ukraine. But, Jewish-controlled history has whitewashed the Jews of any blame in communism. There is something similar afoot in what Buchanan does, trying to whitewash Germans for much of the horrors of WWII. So, according to Buchanan, Germany blundered into war in both WWI and WWII because other nations were no better or even worse. Or, if it hadn't been for the stupid British policy on Poland, there would have been no Holocaust. This is rather like saying there would have been no Great Famine in the Ukraine if European nations had been nicer to Stalin. Or, it's like saying the Cultural Revolution happened because US and USSR hadn't send Valentines to Mao.
Both the Judeo-centric view and the Germano-phile view of Buchanan are far from the whole truth. They are both founded on notions of ethno-narcissism.

Anyway, it makes sense to be 'obsessed' with Jewish power because we must be mindful of the thoughts and interests of the powerful. The Jewish mind is powerful, brilliant, creative, devious, noble, evil, good, bad, and everything in between. Because of tremendous Jewish power and influence, when Jews are good they can be VERY GOOD and when they're bad they can be VERY BAD. What a Jews says or does--good or bad--is more likely to ripple around the world through movies, TV, newspaper articles, books, radio shows, magazine articles, and etc than what a white goy says or does.

This is why it makes no sense for white Americans to mainly focus on illegal immigration and Hispanics. The conflict between white Americans and Hispanics is EXACTLY what Jews want(and have created). Jews helped to create a situation where US would be flooded by illegals whose growing presence would rile up Mexican nationalism within the US. As Lukacs said, nationalism is a powerful force, and even Mexican-Americans--legal citizens--are siding with Mexican illegals against white America. But, why were illegals able to come to the US in such huge numbers without being stopped along the border? And, how come law officials are not allowed to capture and send back illegals? Because ours is a nation of lawyers than of laws(policemen have guns but must obey those who wield the pen), and guess who the most powerful lawyers are? And, guess what they've done with our laws? They've made it impossible for law-abiding people to enforce basic laws which have become cluttered with legalisms. So, more and more illegals have been coming to the US with impunity and use every loophole in the law devised by lawyers--recall that most politicians are essentially lawyers in government. And, what does this do, especially with newcomers being introduced to multiculturalism--also devised largely by Jewish radicals? It creates conflict between whites and illegals and immigrants. THIS is exactly what the Jews want. Jews figure that if whites are too busy worrying about illegals/immigrants/non-whites, Jews can just sit back and watch as Jerry Springer watches goy fight goy. (This is what Mel Gibson meant by "Jews start all wars.") So, those who really really want to do something about illegal immigration should focus less on the illegals themselves and ask why the laws and enforcement in this country have been rendered so ineffective? It's because the enforcement of the laws has been tied up and obstructed by actions of lawyers. Just as lawyers can use all sorts of bogus tactics to stretch a case to infinitum, the top lawyers and judges of this country--many of them Jews--have used their power to tie up all anti-immigration laws with all sorts of legalisms, emotional pleading, and obstruction. So, policemen and immigration official cannot arrest people who are illegally in this country. Lawmen hand-cuffed by The Law--devised by Jewish lawyers--cannot hand-cuff the real criminals and illegals. Most illegals--even criminals--cannot be deported. So, if you want to do something about illegal immigration, don't focus on the legs coming across the border. Focus on the brains that forbid our hands from building walls along the border and arresting illegals in this country. And, whose heads are doing lawyerly tricks to hamper our laws?

Anyway, there is much validity to Lukacs's argument that Nazi-led domination of Europe would have been more dangerous due to its greater longevity and stability. Hitler understood the power of nationalism, which is why his alliances were nation-based than ideology-based. As such, they were bound to be more enduring. Consider the alliances or friendship among Germany, Italy, Spain, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, etc. If Mussolini hadn't been such as a darned fool, Greece may have joined also. Even with Germans being dominant and calling the shots, it would have been an alliance of separate nations, each with its sense of uniqueness and importance. So, as long as they went along with German's macro-policies, they would have carried on as independent nations. There was less inner-tension within the Nazi dominated order than in the Soviet-dominated communist order because communism ideologically suppressed nationalism even as Russians imposed their nationalism on others.
Also, theoretically, all peoples were supposed to be equal under communism, an ideal which was at loggerheads with the reality. In contrast, the hierarchism of Nazism didn't hide the fact that some nations were more equal than others--a fact that still governs the world today. As such, smaller nations allied to Nazism understood the bargain more clearly--respect Germany as top dog and Germany will go easy on you. (One of the reasons why the UN remains to be an ineffectual farce is its notion that all nations are equal under its roof.) So, there was greater hypocrisy on the part of Soviet communism. Non-Russian nations and republics under Soviet rule were bound to feel resentful and seek independence from international communism which was just a cover for Russian imperialism.
Also, many peoples didn't even like internationalism; they didn't want to bother with other nations and wanted to be left alone--just like families want to live in their own homes and mind their own business. Liberal and leftist historians would have us believe that Nazi Germans intended to rule over all of Europe as imperialist overlords, but this wasn't uniformly the case. Germans wanted lands in the east occupied by Russians and wanted to be the dominant power in Europe respected/feared by smaller and weaker nations. Other than that, Hitler wanted to leave most nations alone and let them do as they please--as long as they did not get in the way of German ambitions in the east. So, Germans would not have ruled over Hungarians or Romanians or others in the way that the Soviets came to rule over those folks. And, it is precisely for this reason that the Nazi-dominated order might have been more long-lasting had it won WWII. There would have been fewer contradictions within itself. In many cases, Hitler was content with friendly governments--even non-fascist--as long as they didn't stand in the way of German ambitions. Germany would not have invaded Norway had it not been for the British threat. And, Germany had no desire to take Switzerland. And, if Italy had not turned against Germany, Hitler would not have sent German troops to occupy northern Italy to stop the Allied advance. Hitler had no particular grand design for Czechoslovakia. Poland was a special case because it stood between Germany and the USSR. If Poland had been somewhere else, Hitler could have tolerated whatever regime that ruled that country--as long as it wasn't communist. And, even though Germans occupied France, there was no effort to Nazify France--despite the fact that many pro-Nazi French came out of the woodworks. Rather, Hitler wanted France to be governed by those who were either pro-German or at least not anti-German. It's possible that had Germans prevailed in the East and war came to an end, Hitler may have restored French independence as long as its rulers were pro-German. So, imagine a scenario where Hitler defeats the USSR. Hitler would not bother with relatively weak or small neutral nations like Switzerland and Sweden which would continue to do business with Germany. Spain, Portugal, and Italy would be German allies or friends. Greece would be problematic under Italian rule, but it's possible that some kind of Greek sovereignty may be re-established in the future. Most Eastern European nations would be independent though decidedly deferential toward Germany. Hitler may eventually allow limited sovereignty to the Czechs. The Balkans would be far more problematic with pro-German Croats caught in violent clashes with Serbs and other groups. Poland tragically would have been reduced to a wasteland. And, Russians would be in big trouble.
Suppose Hitler had killed the Jews or drove them to some region in Siberia. Suppose Hitler would have killed ungodly numbers of Russians to establish a German empire. Had Hitler prevailed in the East and created a new order, it may well have been more enduring because Hitler better understood what makes civilizations last through the ages. People believe in racial, cultural, and national identity. With a basic sense of racial, cultural, and national identity/unity intact for most nations, the new German-dominated order would have been more stable than the communist order of the postwar era. Recall that Poles, East Germans, Hungarians, and Czechs rebelled against Soviets for national independence. Communism had tried to impose, more or less, a monolithic order on all of the Soviet Empire, and this only led to countless frustrations. Though Eastern European nations under a Nazi dominated order would not have been democratic, the people of each nation would have enjoyed a modicum of national self-hood, pride, and independence. In a way, it was communist ideology that undid communism. Its call for international brotherhood pretended that diverse peoples could all live harmoniously under one happy umbrella. In truth, the problems of communist internationalism were evident from the beginning when Lenin and Trotsky held power, which is why communists resorted to ruthless means to hold the empire together. And, remember that Trotsky's attempt to spread communism to Poland was an utter failure; so was his hope that Germany would follow the example of Russia. Hitler, on the other hand, didn't believe in such nonsense as international brotherhood. He knew that each people wanted their own nation, their own culture, and their own sense of self. So, what Hitler envisioned for Europe was more an Order than an Empire. It would be an Order dominated by Germans rather than monolithic empire where everyone has to submit to the same ideology. So, most Europeans nations would be to Germany what Taiwan or Japan is to the US--fully sovereign but linked to the American world order and respectful of American dominance in the Pacific. Hitler didn't want Germans to meddle in the business of every nation like Soviet Union meddled in every Iron Curtain nation. Recall that Russians insisted that all Iron Curtain must be communist whether it was pro-Russia or not. But, Hitler did not insist that every nation take up fascist ideology--if only because Nazism was unique to Germany--as long as they remained pro-German or neutral.
Another truth that made Hitler's Order more formidable was the understanding that diversity usually destroys a civilization. This didn't mean that there should only be Germans within the Germanic civilization, but Hitler was certain that race, culture, and land must generally be unified for a civilization to enjoy longevity. As Hitler noted, North America had the upper-hand over South America because the majority of North Americans were Northern European whites. There had been a greater sense of unity, brotherhood, pride, and shared values and glory and trust among white Americans than among the diverse Bolivians, Brazilians, or whatever. And, whites in Australia who made up the overwhelming majority were far better positioned to rule eternally than whites in India who were outnumbered zillion to one. And, Roman Empire fell because it was ultimately impossible for Romans to maintain order, unity, and peace among so many different peoples with different identities, languages, and values. Sure, it lasted long enough thanks to the Roman idea of citizenship and the force of Roman arms. But, it too crumbled. But, why has China have lasted so long? Why Japan? Unity of land, race, and culture. So, Hitler was not going to make the same mistakes of other empires. To create a new German order in the East, he was going to have to wipe out entire peoples. This was a horrible truth but a truth indeed. The only empire that is certain to last indefinitely is one unified by people of same race and culture. This was precisely why Hitler's Eastern war was morally unjustifiable and not worth doing. BUT, if it had to be done, the ONLY way to do it right--the goal being a 1000 year Reich--was to wipe out the indigenous populations and replace them with Germans.(To be sure, Russians were racially similar enough to Germans that Hitler could have opted to forcibly Germanize the Russians but his crazy racial theories forbade this.) So, Hitler said 30 million Russians would have to be killed in the short-run. Rest would be enslaved and kept illiterate and worked like cattle. They would all be worked to death eventually until much of Russia came under total German colonization. Horrible? Yes. The correct way to found a nation-empire that lasts forever and ever? Yes. Perhaps if Russia had been inhabited by only a few million aboriginal peoples--like US or Australia--, Hitler's plan might have been justified. Besides, in such cases, the aboriginals might have been spared and placed in special reservations as happened in the US and Australia. But, there were a lot of Russians to kill, and if Hitler had won in the East, the mass slaughter would have made the Holocaust look like a picnic.
Being the Germano-phile that he is, Buchanan doesn't seem to care if indeed this would have been the fate of the Russian 'Asiatic horde.' Buchanan is a Christian of the Teutonic Knight school. Anyway, this terrible new order would have had a longer lifespan simply because there would have been less inner-contradictions. Communism fell apart largely due to the contradictions of nationalism within the Soviet Empire. Non-Russians couldn't stand Russian rule, nor did they much care for one another--consider the hatred between Azeris and Armenians. They all wanted to go their own way. (If EU is far more appealing, it's because it's about voluntary membership and comes with lots of financial goodies--something which communism did not offer. Also, the sovereignty of each nation is still maintained) But, there would have been less inner-contradiction within the German Order because Germans would have wiped out most Russians in Eastern Lands; also, the relationship between Germany and its satellite neighbors would have been one of loose linkage than iron-clad control; such would have been far more tolerable for most Europeans than being ruled under the iron boot of monolithic and conformist communism. Indeed, even as Hitler loathed Franco, he left Spain alone to do as it pleased. And, as long as Sweden did business with Nazi Germany, there was no insistence that Sweden become an Aryan dictatorship. As perverse as this may sound, Nazi Germany's relationship to most European nations would have been more similar to the one between US and Western European nations than between Soviet Union and Eastern European nations. Remember that US too did not insist that all European nations be like the US or agree with everything American--as long as they respected the new world order created and maintained by America. So, it didn't matter to the US that Spain was still run by a dictatorship until the late 1970s. US didn't meddle with the fact that Greece came under military rule in the 70s. US could tolerate much anti-Americanism and strong presence of communists in European nations. This was one great advantage US had over the USSR. The US world order gave far greater leeway to its allies and friends than the Soviet Empire did to its allies. To be sure, USSR had 'friends' that were not communist but there was always the specter of communist ideology that said the whole world must be made communist. USSR often tried to maintain good ties with governments of non-communist nations while, at the same time, providing support to communist insurgents in those nations. It was this agenda--no matter how cynical or corrupted--to make the entire world communist that made communism ultimately far less appealing to most nations. Each nation wanted to progress, grow richer, and grow more powerful but it also wanted to maintain its unique sense of self, tradition, heritage, and culture. Communism suppressed those elements. So, it's ironic that communism, which argued that capitalism would fall due to inner-contradictions of class, eventually fell because of the inner contradictions of nationality. Communism suffered the same fate as imperialism. Nationalism trumped both. The understanding of Hitler was that it's better to have linkage-alliances than rule over a diverse empire; and if an empire must be built, it must be RACIALLY and CULTURALLY monolithic. Ideological monolithism could not hold diverse peoples together forever. But, racial monolithism would survive everything. Just look at China, which is 95% of Han ethnic stock. Whether it was 'feudal', KMT-ruled, communist ruled, or capitalist-communist ruled, it's the same mono-racial Chinese empire-nation-state that is bound to last for another 1000 yrs. This is what Hitler wanted in the East, and his formula for a long-lasting civilization was the correct one. But, it was immoral because his plan was to invade Russia and eradicate its tens of millions of people.

Suppose I want to create a 1000 yr Polish order in Bolivia. Suppose different proposals are put on the table. One is to have Poles invade Bolivia militarily and rule over the mostly Indian populace through control of elite institutions. Poles once did that in the Ukraine. It is indeed what the Spanish whites did, but look what's happening today. Bolivia is reverting to its old ways of Indian domination.
Suppose another proposal calls for large Polish immigration to Bolivia and racial mixing. This will lead to some infusion of Polish blood and culture into Bolivia, but one can hardly call it a Polish civilization. Another proposal calls for a wholesale invasion and either wiping out all or most of the Indians or driving them out into neighboring territories. And, the idea is to repopulate Bolivia with ONLY Poles. The final method is the only sure method, but the question is, 'is it worth doing?' No. So, Hitler was right about a wrong. He was right in the Machiavellian sense but it wasn't worth doing in the first place as he would have had to kill too many people in Russia.
Of course, one could argue that German victory in the East might not have been so bad. Germans may have eventually realized that they cannot do without Russian labor. So, perhaps most Russians would not have been killed. Perhaps, many Germans would have developed bonds with Russians, just as many Southern whites grew a certain affection for them musical and watermelon munching 'Negroes'. Perhaps in time, Hitler and firebrand Nazis would have died and been replaced by more moderate and 'krunchy con' Nazis. Perhaps, Germany would have liberalized and democratized, like Spain did so in the late 1970s and military ruled Taiwan did in 1988. But, that's all idle speculation. The fact remains that Hitler and his fellow radicals really meant business when in the East. That was their main dream. And, a man like Himmler would have done anything to make his evil dreams come true.

In the modern world, nothing is more natural than the nation-state, and nationalism appeals to nationalist sentiments of every people. Hitler understood that the alliances within his world order would link the nationalisms of various peoples. It would have been a non-democratic version of what US practiced in the post-war era--a system that has endured despite the ups and downs. America played the dominant role on the anti-communist sphere, but US did not violate the nationalisms of non-Americans. Though America 'spiritually' promoted democracy, there was no aggressive attempt to impose the American-style political system on the rest on the rest of the world--with the exception of neo-conservative Democratic Fundamentalism. Both communism and Democratic Fundamentalism ran into trouble because they violated the sense of nationalism on the part of the impacted populations. Though both ideologies claimed to seek liberation for mankind, they had the effect of imposing one national will on another nation. For the most part, Hitler tried to avoid such in his world order. He wanted alliances and didn't really care for the nature of the governments allied with Nazi Germany. So, he even allowed half of defeated France to be ruled by the French. Hitler only wanted his neighbors to be not anti-German whereas Soviet communists ideally wanted all their neighbors to be communist. Marxism pretended to be beyond-nationalism and for a universalist empire suppressing nationalism in other nations. It created a world empire where humanity was officially united as comrades but were, in reality, internally divided. Soviet communism increasingly appeared hypocritical since Russians revived much of their Great Russian chauvinism and imposed its national culture on others.
Because Hitler didn't suppress nationalism but encouraged it among his allies--as long as it wasn't anti-German--, his world order was more appealing to the peoples of German allies. (Anti-Jewish sentiments went well with nationalism in each nation because the people felt threatened by both the universalism of Jewish-dominated communism and globalism of Jewish-dominated capitalism. Notice that Buchanan's nationalism brings together strands of both anti-socialism/internationalism and the anti-capitalist-globalism.) As long as German troops weren't on their soil indefinitely, the peoples of nations friendly to Germany would have had less reason for resentment than the peoples living under the Soviet dominated order. (Recall that the French Resistance was also more nationalist than ideological. The reason why there were so many Jews in the Resistance was not simply because many Jews were on the Left but because Nazis targeted Jews. French Jewish leftists resisted Nazism more for the sake of 'racial' or 'national'--Jewish--survival than in the name of Marx and Lenin. It's possible that had the Nazis not been anti-semitic, far fewer Jews--even leftist Jews--would have joined the Resistance.)
Hitler was willing to leave neighboring nations alone as long as they did not stand in the way of German ambitions in the East. Still, he wanted governments in those countries to be either neutral or friendly to Germany. Had Germany prevailed, this Nazi-dominated world order would have been more long-lasting precisely because Germans would have been less meddlesome in neighboring countries--with exceptions being Poland and Czech region--than the Soviets turned out to be. Indeed, if US had been a nation of radical universalist ideology and had tried to impose an harsh order on Western Europe and other allies, the US empire would have been just as unpopular and doomed as the Soviet empire. But, US only sought a general or broad likemindedness--anti-communism--on the part of its allies. US didn't require all the world be Americanized--and even if such were to come to pass, it would have been through economic and cultural exchange than through political policy. It was precisely because George W. Bush acted pushy and aggressive that Western Europeans came to see him as Eastern Europeans had seen Khrushchev or Brezhnev. This isn't to say Bush was a tyrant but simply to point out perceptions matter in politics. During the Bush II yrs, Bush acted as if promoting American political ideology as the only one for the whole world.

Anyway, Hitler's European order would have been more enduring not because of greater persuasiveness nor oppressiveness but because it would have been more hands-off. Stalin was a control freak who wanted to control every aspect of life in his empire, and though his successors were more tolerant, the template had already been set and couldn't be reversed. The areas where Hitler would have been hands-on would have been Poland and huge areas of the Soviet Union. In those areas, his New Order would have been more enduring than even Stalinism because Hitler would have been even more ruthless and would have left nothing to chance or naVve idealism. Though Stalin killed over 25 million and created a vast totalitarian state, something of the Russian people, heritage, culture, and tradition survived--as well as the idealistic notion that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS. In time, Russian people and Christian culture would outlast communism. Today, communism is gone but Russian nationalism is alive and well. Hitler understood that race, land, and culture are more important than ideology. So, he would have totally wiped out the Russian race and culture. Then, he would have replaced Russian people and culture with German people and culture. That would have been enduring. And, though Nazism was an ideology, it was an ideology rooted in the eternal themes of race, culture, and land. As such, it would have a longer and deeper appeal than an ideology that called for universal justice. Communism, in contrast, was essentially a state of mind or a mood of history, and unstable as such. But, race, culture, and land are forever. Nazism was rooted in things that really existed in reality than in the mind. Communism was also imposed on--against--the natural impulses of man. Of course, one could argue that Nazism would have faded too, as people naturally desire greater social and political freedoms. But, the themes of nation, race, and land would have remained strong. China and Russia are now essentially capitalist but the themes of race, culture, and land still remain strong in both nations.

Christianity along with Islam is an ideology that has lasted a long time, but unlike communism Christianity is rooted in something basic and eternal--spiritual longing of man. Even so, Christianity has faded in new Europe. It too is a passing ideology or a state of mind; meanwhile, European race, culture, and land remain. To be sure, the modern liberal order has waged war on racial consciousness, nationalism, and culturalism, and Europeans seem to have accepted the conceit of modernity for now, but growing tides of foreigners and their strange/hostile ways may awaken the Europeans to renewed sense of racial consciousness, nationalism, and culturalism.

Lukacs is right on an host of issues. Remember that the British alliance with the Soviet Union was PURELY pragmatic, but, otherwise, the two nations shared nothing. Nazi appeal to Britain--had it been accepted by the British--would have been far more long-lasting: "You keep your empire, we keep ours, and we are racial friends forever." After WWII, British-Soviet alliance couldn't last. Without Germans as the common enemy, they disagreed on just about everything. But, had Britain allied with Nazi Germany, their alliance may have lasted a long time. Nazis would have appealed to shared European-ness, shared whiteness--or even Aryan-ness--, shared world domination. Communism tried to overthrow the world capitalist order. Nazism wanted an alliance of European world orders--British, French, and German. Though Hitler had little respect for democratism, he didn't insist that France and Britain adopt the Germanic system of government. Had he been assured of British or French alliance or at least neutrality, he might never have fought a war in the west.

To be sure, nationalisms can butt heads with other nationalisms, and that's what brought down Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Nazi German wanted an alliance with certain European nationalisms but waged a grand war on the Russian nationalism. Russians rose up to defend their motherland and smashed Germany. And, Japanese nationalism wanted to defeat Chinese nationalism and then took on American nationalism. So, nationalism, if it turns imperialist, is no guarantee for world peace; indeed, it can be the cause of great wars. Still, if any long-lasting peace is to be achieved, nationalism(s) MUST be taken into account. There is peace in Asia now because China and Japan mutually respect one another's nationalism. (Japanese Prime Ministers' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine continues to be a problem because the Chinese see it an insult on Chinese nationalism, and Japanese see Chinese criticism as interfering in Japanese nationalism.)
EU was possible because each European nation retained its sovereignty. The nations of former Yugoslavia are on better footing today and may work together in the future because each people have a land to call their own. Paradoxically, people within a community work together and respect others better if each family has a place to call their own. The reason why there was so much enmity in Soviet apartments was because many families had to share the same kitchen and other such necessities. Everyone got in each other's way using the same shared space. Today, people don't mind traveling around freely in EU because each people know that their homeland is secure and sovereign whether they are away from home or other people are vising and working in their nation. Today's EU is about the free movement of individuals than migrations of entire peoples.


Anyway, if Britain had sought an understanding with Nazi Germany, the two Orders might have continued to co-exist peacefully in the manner that the French and British empires had found a way to get along without getting entangled in major wars. Though French and British competed for world empire, they had an ideological agreement. They believed in the white man's burden. So, long as they didn't get in the way of each other, they could divide up the pie. But, British imperialism could not coexist with Soviet communism. Soviet communism was ideologically anti-imperialist--or anti-Western imperialist--and would have spread 'world revolution' to overthrow British and Western European imperialism; and then it would have tried to replace the old world order with what was essentially Soviet imperialism. There was a similar incompatibility with the British world order and the American world order after WWII. Americans, like the Soviets, were anti-imperialist and did much to undermine and overthrow European imperialist systems. Americans were no friends of the French and English during the Suez Crisis. The ONLY time Americans supported European imperialists was when the latter was the only hope against communism. So, US supported the French and the British, respectively, in Vietnam and in Malaysia. Otherwise, US was also dedicated to ending European imperialism. But, unlike the Soviets, US wanted this process to be as painless as possible; the last thing US wanted was for non-whites around the world to become militant guerrilla revolutionaries killing white colonialists. Instead, US wanted Europeans to realize that the writing was on the wall, and it would be good for all peoples--Europeans, Americans, non-whites--if imperialism came to an end. This is partly due to American idealism and partly due to the cold war. With Soviets winning the hearts and minds of non-whites around the world with anti-imperialist slogans, US needed a counter-offensive with its own brand of anti-imperialism. Unlike the Soviets however, US sincerely did want to see newly free nations ruled by democratic governments rather than mere puppet states run by communist hacks. Of course, leftists and grumpy Euro-phile far-rightists will disagree and argue that US was only interested in American economic dominance in the world and preferred pro-American puppets. But, in fact, US supported friends who were not hostile to US political and economic interests than puppets who were bound to an American ideology.

Anyway, if the genie had appeared before Hitler in 1939 and asked him what he wanted, Hitler would have said he wanted the lands to the east and an ALLIANCE with the French and English empires--and neutrality with most European nations on condition that they defer to Germany. If such had been granted to Hitler, the new order may well have long-lasting.
Now, suppose the same genie had appeared before Stalin and promised to fulfill his greatest wish. Stalin would have the entire world order under communism with the capital in Moscow. Stalin wouldn't merely have wanted an alliance with the Brits and the French but to have them Soviet-ized like Russia. But, this world order would have been filled with insurmountable internal tensions. Nationalism, more powerful than communism, would have torn this system apart as indeed happened between Soviet Union and China, and between Soviet Union and Eastern European nations, and between China and Vietnam.

To a large measure, Hitler could have roughly gotten what he wanted if he hadn't attacked the USSR. Nazi Germany would have been the dominant force in nearly all of Europe west of the Soviet Union. But, because Hitler thought mainly in terms of race--and was hungry for the vast lands to the East--, he couldn't accept 'Asiatic' Russians as permanent allies on equal footing. Had Hitler not been afflicted with such racial views, the new order based on Nazi-German and Soviet alliance might have lasted much longer than communism. Indeed, consider the fact that Stalin was very happy with his alliance with Nazi Germany. Whereas Stalin looked upon capitalist democracies as unstable, unpredictable, and difficult to deal with, he saw Nazi Germany as a nation he could deal with on an easy-to-understand basis.


Though Nazism was less appealing as an all-encompassing ideology to most people around the world than communism or democratism, the nature of its core sentiments--nationalism--was more appealing in each individual case. (Communism appealed to intellectuals and to the stomachs of workers but not to the hearts, minds, and souls of the masses seeking a cultural and historical identity.) Why did the Russians rise up and fight heroically in WWII? For communism or for the Motherland? Why was Ho Chi Minh much revered by the Vietnamese? For his Leninism or for his nationalism? Why did Americans enter WWII? To spread democracy or to avenge America by destroying the "yellow-bellied Japs"? The big mistake of Hitler was that, instead of fanning nationalisms around the world to his side, he stirred up nationalisms of powerful nations against Germany. He initially succeeded in linking German nationalism with Italian and Spanish nationalisms. He even had many admirers in Greece, and Greece would have been pro-German had it not been for stupid Mussolini invading Greece. Also, Hitler masterfully linked German nationalism with Hungarian, Slovakian, and Romanian nationalisms. Even many in occupied French believed Nazi domination in Europe was a better guarantee for French nationalism than looming communism or internationalism. He also found common ground--even if mostly economic--with neutral nations. His big diplomatic dream was to link up with British nationalism. He also hoped to link up with Polish nationalism. Once all the anti-communist nationalisms were linked up, he could ake on the Soviet Union. But, his anti-Jewish ideology caused many problems because many prominent, powerful, and influential people in the US, UK, and France were Jews. Also, many French and Anglos believed that rising German nationalism would threaten their own national power. So, Hitler found it impossible to link up with British nationalism. And, Poles wouldn't take the bait. So, Hitler pulled off the most masterful diplomatic achievement of the 20th century--much greater than Nixon going to China, which, in retrospect, didn't do much good for the US. Though Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were ideological enemies, they found it possible to link their NATIONALISMS together. Whatever their differences, it would be Great German power and Great Russian power mutually respecting one another. This was a great diplomatic coup that shocked the world, one that also sunk the hearts of many Jews around the world. Many Jews had felt pride in the Soviet Union as a radical Jewish accomplishment. Even though Stalin came to power and removed many Jews, Jews were still powerful in the Soviet government. Many Jews had seen the Soviet Union as the the great hope against anti-semitic Nazi Germany. But, Stalin indicated that he preferred and trusted radical right German nationalists over fellow communist Jews. It was as though Stalin chose Russian nationalism over ideological communism. But, Hitler threw it all away. He destroyed his greatest and most awesome achievement by attacking the Soviet Union. In doing so, the mighty nationalism of the Russian people was no longer linked with that of the Germans but arrayed against it.

In the end, it was not communism or democracy that destroyed Hitler. It was Russian nationalism, British nationalism, and American nationalism. In turn, the British Empire would be vanquished by the rising tide of Third World nationalisms. And, Soviet Empire would also crumble and fall due to myriad nationalisms of non-Russians who demanded national independence. And, if America falls, it will be due to the rise of non-white nationalisms among blacks and Hispanics--sentiments fanned by left-wing and liberal Jews who want to turn US into a squabbling 'universal' nation so that they, the Jews on top, can glibly look down on goyim bashing one another while they themselves enjoying riches, power, and privilege. It's the Jerry Springer trick. Just as liberal and left-wing Jews once encouraged nationalisms around the world against the US in places like Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, and China, they are now encouraging nationalisms WITHIN the US against whites. First, the liberal Jews changed immigration policy in the 1960s to bring in masses of non-whites. Liberal Jews, as lawyers, also made it nearly impossible for lawmen to arrest and deport illegal aliens. So, US now has a very large non-white population which is growing exponentially. Through multiculturalism, liberal and left-wing Jews intend to turn non-whites into Viet Congs, Che Guevaras, and Mao Maos against white folks, white tradition, white power, and etc. Obama is multiculturalism lite. He's a radical wolf in sheep's clothing. A nation fixated on the feel-good Afro-cool-and-soulfulness of Oprah and Will Smith is unsurprisingly fixated on Obama as 'some kind of wonderful'. He's really subverting everything that has been honorable and serious in American politics and culture. His wife is a black nationalist, pure and simple. His closest friends are radical leftists, Marxists, and Afro-centrists. But, the media are also made up of closet-radicals. So, they are all working together to push Obama as some mainstream candidate when he's closer to Henry Wallace or Alger Hiss. We must also keep in mind that there is a kind of radical or even communist chic among the educated, sophisticated, and influential. Just as Chinese today still think Mao is 'cool', many American capitalists and privileged think that Marxism is cool. Though successful as businessmen, they've been culturally raised to think that capitalism, corporations, middle class-ness, bourgeois-ness, and etc are all lame or even evil. So, even as--or especially because--they succeed as capitalists, they wanna prove that they are really badass hip and cool radicals. For many affluent white folks, Marxism and Afro-philia offer themes of radicalism, commitment, 'social justice', danger, the cutting edge, and so on. So, Obama is the Afro-Marxist Buppie. There's some edgy blackness, some edgy radicalism, and the self-satisfied air of affluence and sophistication.


Anyway, had Hitler played his nationalist card more carefully, his world order would have been more enduring. Indeed, that is the unwitting thesis of Buchanan's book. He proves Lukacs's point by arguing that had the Poles and the British favorably reacted to Hitler's offers, there would have been a much greater chance for long-lasting peace for everyone. Had Brits cut a deal with Hitler, there's no question that there would have long peace between UK and Germany, unlike the enmity between UK and USSR soon after WWII. But, Poland is still another story. Because Hitler saw Poland as a bridge to the eventual prize of Russia, it's doubtful that Poles could have done anything to save itself from being caught in the middle of a war between giants.

Anyway, there is something timeless--politically, culturally, and psychologically--in nationalism whereas radical leftism is about The New. Everything 'new' soon becomes 'old', but what is timeless is timeless forever. To be sure, there are new cultures and new nations, but the desire to belong to a nation or a culture is eternal. People who suppress or forget this are bound to fall and fade... just as whites in Europe and US are falling in power and fading into history by adopting radical anti-nationalism and anti-racism.

Ideologies come and go, but but ART is forever. Nationalism was more in tune with the soulfulness and imagination of a people, and as such, held greater emotional sway over a people than idea-centric communism did(at least in the long run). You have to think like a communist to be a communist, but you only need feel like a nationalist to be part of a nation.

(23). There is a theory floating around that Germany attacked Russia to persuade Britain to give up the fight against Germany--if not surrender to Germany. This argument has some validity based on two premises. One is that Hitler sincerely didn't want to defeat UK. He admired the British, and the last thing he wanted was to see the British defeated, conquered, and humiliated. To the very end, Hitler wished only to PERSUADE the Brits to stop fighting Germany. The argument suggests Germany could have defeated UK if Hitler REALLY wanted to but chose not to because he wanted Britain as an ally in the new world order.

The other premise suggests that Britain was unbeatable, and Hitler was growing panicky. He had underestimated the power of the British air force while estimating the power of the Luftwaffe. Also, Hitler came to the realization that with British naval superiority, invasion of Britain was impossible. Also, it dawned on Hitler that if the war continued with the Brits, Germany would be seriously damaged by British bombers. It would be a long war of attrition that would wear out and bring about the downfall of both the German and British empires. Therefore, Hitler took a huge gamble in attacking the USSR to demonstrate German might and to gain access to unlimited natural resources and slave labor. Such victory would have persuaded the British to end the war, to make up with the Germans, and rule the world together. Just as Darth Vader in Star Wars didn't want to kill Luke Skywalker but only bring him to the Dark Side, it could be that Hitler wanted to win over the hearts and minds of the British. Some Brits were tempted by this promise of sharing the world with the Germans, but far more Brits--those who mattered anyway--came to see Nazi Germany as pure evil and a threat to British national power. "What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?"
Buchanan thinks the Brits should have 'lost their soul' to 'gain the world'. To be sure, one may also ask: "What does it profit a man to gain his soul by losing the world?" After all, US had no compunction about siding with evil Maoist China in order to realign the world order in the 1970s. If it was okay--even good, as most historians see it--for US to have sided with a regime that killed around 50 million of its own citizens and gave moral/military support to the grisly Khmer Rouge, would it have been so unforgivable for the British to have sided with the Germans or at least to have remained neutral in the late 30s and 40s? If Nixon groveling before Mao was a great moment in history, why was Chamberlain such a fool for having tried to make peace with Hitler? If anything, Chamberlain had better grounds for his actions. Another European war would have been devastating to Britain whereas Chinese mischief was limited only to parts of Asia which didn't threaten the major American interests. Even if Chamberlain had been wrong, he tried to prevent a catastrophe for all of Europe whereas the purpose of Nixon's groveling before Mao was vague--and utterly nihilistic. What did US gain from Nixon's trip to China? Many Americans saw it positively for two naive or stupid reasons. One was the Christian missionary impulse of Americans wanting to build a bridge between two great nations, and the other was the leftist/liberal conviction that Maoism had been, overall, good for China.

But, it seems the main reason why Hitler chose to attack the USSR was twofold. First, Hitler probably devised the Nazi-Soviet pact as the first step in defeating the USSR. "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer." And, Hitler probably thought Stalin agreed to the pact for the same reason. Though historians believe (probably correctly) that there had been no Russian plan to attack Germany, a man as paranoid as Hitler could only have suspected such on the part of the Russians--'if we don't attack today, they will attack us tomorrow.' Besides, one didn't need to be particularly paranoid to believe that Stalin was capable of anything. Stalin was the man who killed his fellow comrades; he betrayed and killed some of his most loyal associates. He attacked Finland for no justifiable reason. So, why would Hitler trust a man like Stalin?
That a man as paranoid and suspicious as Stalin trusted Hitler up to the start of Operation Barbarossa is an enigma, but perhaps there was a simple reason. Perhaps, there was an inferiority complex at work. Just as Hitler was desperate to win the trust, friendship, and support of the Great and Noble British, Stalin may have prized an alliance with great and advanced Germany. Hitler's recognition of Stalin must have boosted his sense of ego. Here was a mighty advanced Western/Central European nation recognizing 'backward' USSR and singing praises to Stalin as a great leader. Stalin saw most people in the USSR as grubby lowlifes who needed to be treated like cattle. He saw them as dirty, uncouth, uncultured, illiterate, lazy slobs who needed to be whipped into shape. So, he modeled himself on Ivan the Terrible, a man who ruled by terror in a land where man-beasts understood nothing but fear and power. And, Stalin had no particular love, pride, or attachment to Georgia. He saw fellow Georgians as cutthroats, bandits, and drunkards. Hitler, in contrast, had a genuine love of his own people--Austrians and Germans--and was proud to be member of his racial/cultural club. The ONLY people Hitler may have admired more than Germans/Austrians were the British, a small island people who had conquered the world and been avoided race-mixing in general. Anyway, Stalin felt no particular pride in being part of the Soviet order made up of Russians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Georgians, Kazakhis, Chechens, Turkmens, Azerbaijanis, Uzbekhis, etc. He was proud of Soviet Might but not of its culture, civilization, and etc. The Russian he admired most of Ivan the Terrible who treated Russians as dogs and children. Though a devoted communist, a part of him was 'bourgeois' and hungry for respectability. So, when Hitler offered an olive branch, Stalin took it as a valentine. It was as though a short ugly disgusting guy had been kissed by a woman he had thought unattainable. It was as though a much neglected and maligned nobody had been invited to an exclusive club of gentlemen. To many in France and Britain Hitler was a gangster and a criminal, but to Stalin Nazi Germany was the civilization of the future. Stalin couldn't have failed to notice that Nazi Germany was not generally ruled by fear. People were literate, healthy, well-read, happy. The streets were clean, factories efficient and well-managed. Though Hitler was a dictator, he didn't have to whip his people like cattle like Stalin did with his. So, for Stalin, Nazi Germany was an higher civilization. But, despite Hitler's smoke-and-mirrors, this feeling was not reciprocated. The object of Hitler's love and devotion was Britain, not Russia. So, though Hitler maintained his manners and smiles with Stalin until June 1941, he really saw Stalin/USSR as a swarthy, ugly, and smelly dance partner who was stepping on his toes. Stalin, full of admiration for Germany and Hitler, couldn't see clearly. He had no idea how much Hitler really hated the Slavs. Like an evil husband wants to be rid of his fat ugly wife to take full possession of her property, Hitler married Stalin so that the communist order/Russians could be attacked and uprooted from the East, with all the bounty falling on the laps of Germans. (There is a running theme throughout the 20th century. Stalin's love for Germany was unrequited, and Germans attacked the USSR. Germany's love for UK was unrequited, and UK fought Germany. UK's love for US was unrequited, and US did everything to undermine the British Empire during and after the war. Anglo-American love for Jews has been unrequited, and liberal/left-wing Jews are doing EVERYTHING to destroy the white race and power.)

Anyway, Hitler devised the Nazi-Soviet pact merely as a preparation for eventual war in the East. Prior to this pact, he had entertained the notion of German-Polish pact--also intended as preparation for a war on the East. And, Hitler thought that Stalin made the peace for the same reason--to eventually attack the West. And, Hitler grew more nervous as Stalin kept chiseling away at bits and pieces of territory between Germany and Russia. (Major crises erupting over mere inches of territory is not uncommon in history. Russians and Chinese fought bloody battles in the late 60s over little dots of land. Especially for a man as paranoid as Hitler faced with another paranoid in Stalin, every little move by the Soviets would have set off alarm bells.) The invasion of Poland brought German and Soviet forces right next to one another. This was Hitler's gambit, to pull--and overstretch--the Soviets closer to the West so as to strike them easier. Anyway, after the invasion of Poland, Hitler was faced with grave problems in the West. France and UK had declared war on Germany, and Hitler feared that their military power would grow stronger. So, he had to strike fast and furious. The war on France was a major triumph, and Hitler thought that alone would make the British 'come to their senses' and side with Germany or declare neutrality. Instead, Churchill said he would fight Germany to the very end, and most British were behind him. So, Hitler knew that it would be drawn-out war. And, if it continued year after year, he would forever lose the chance to recognize his greatest dream--the conquest of the East. The war with Britain would drain Germany and divert German forces to the West. And, as Britain and Germany were destroying one another, USSR would sit back, enjoy the fight among the 'Aryan' brothers, and keep building its industry and military into the mightiest power in Europe. Hitler had seen Russian weaknesses in the Soviet war with Finland; he also knew that Stalin had weakened the Soviet military with great purges. But, he knew that time was on USSR's side. A new generation of military officers were being trained, and great factories and armaments were going up all over the USSR. If Hitler expended much of German energies against Britain, he would forever lose the chance to win against USSR. Even if Germany might eventually win over Britain after a long bloody war, USSR would, by then, be too powerful for Germans to take on.

So, it's as though Hitler heard the Elvis song "It's Now or Never" in his head when he decided to attack the USSR. Of course, Hitler would have preferred to have both hands and both feet free to take on the USSR. As it happened, one of the hands was grappling with UK.
But, Hitler saw the war with the UK as an advantage in his preparation for war with USSR. Hitler knew that the great lesson of WWI for Germany was 'never fight a two-front war'. And, it was precisely Germany's war with UK that convinced Stalin\and most of the world--that there would be no German attack on the USSR. Stalin thought, "Hitler's would have to be insane to even think of attacking us. He may be mad but he's not crazy." And, Hitler probably wanted others to think exactly in this way. He probably felt that no one would suspect him of being capable of doing something so totally 'crazy and stupid'. But, that was the precisely the advantage of being at war with the UK and then suddenly attacking the USSR. He would do that very thing that seemed most reckless, stupid, and crazy since no one would expect it. Indeed, this was one of the German advantages in the war with France. Germany attacked through 'impossible' terrain that defied all conventional or 'sane' analysis. Hitler needed an element of surprise in attacking the USSR and his war with UK provided the cover. As long as Hitler was in a major war with UK, Stalin felt safe. (Similarly, 9/11 succeeded because the idea of attacking skyscrapers with airplanes seemed like pure fiction, even science fiction. SO CRAZY that no one took such threat seriously.) So, Hitler's 'craziness' and 'stupidity' were, in a way, quite brilliant in a reckless way. After all, let's recall that Hitler almost succeeded in defeating the Soviets in the first 5 months of the invasion. Hitler had, indeed, read Stalin's mind correctly.

Anyway, the notion that Hitler attacked the USSR primarily to defeat or dissuade UK from further fighting seems essentially wrong. Hitler attacked the USSR because he wanted the lands to the East. If Hitler could indeed have lived without defeating the Soviet Union, there was no need for an Eastern War in order to come to a peace agreement with the Brits. After all, prior to Operation Barbarossa, Hitler controlled or guided much of Europe west of USSR. UK was isolated. If Hitler had held steadily what he already had, UK would have had to come to the table eventually--not least because its own people would have grown weary of war and material shortages. Germany couldn't invade Britain, but Britain could not take an inch of continental European. UK was a bulldog leashed to its own doghouse. Though its air force was wreaking havoc on Germany, Hitler could have pulled all the resources together toward building a mighty defensive air force to shoot most British airplanes out of the air, in which case, Brits would have eventually given up the campaign as ineffective and expensive. Brits gained certain advantages over the Germans only because Hitler directed most of his war plans toward invading the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1941. If instead of building tanks to invade Russia, Hitler had built more ships and aircraft to take on the UK, the Brits would have had to come to the table. Just as US saw Germany as the MAIN enemy in WWII and Japan only as an afterthought(to finish off once Germany had been defeated), Hitler built up his war machine mainly to take on the USSR, not the UK.

Buchanan argues that Hitler feared the possibility of Stalin switching alliances; then, Germany would be sandwiched between UK and USSR. But, this seems unlikely. Stalin knew that Hitler was master of much of Europe. Whether USSR could win a war with Germany or not, the last thing Stalin wanted was to give Hitler a reason to attack the USSR. Even a wounded tiger can be ferocious; a cornered wounded tiger would be more dangerous still. Though Stalin gained much from WWII, it's not a war he wanted. The last thing he wanted was to give Hitler an excuse to pick a fight with the USSR. Stalin thought his side might lose or it might only be Pyrrhic victory. (The eventual victory was, in some ways, Pyrrhic. Though USSR won great respect and gained great territory in the war, the war decimated an entire generation of men. Male population among working age Soviets was reduced to only 1/3 of the whole. Also, ideological hubris unleashed by the victory made Soviets waste a great deal of money all over the world to win the cold war--or at least to maintain parity. And, Eastern Europe proved to be indigestible and, like so many African and Asian colonies of Western imperialists, proved to be more of a drain and a headache than a boon or benefit.)
Stalin was only too happy to see German soldiers diverted to occupying France and fighting Britain. Stalin thought rather like Buchanan; if Buchanan believes the Democratic West should have sat back and let Nazis fight the Soviets, Stalin believed that the Soviet East should sit back and enjoy the spectacle of UK and Germany bashing one another.

Also, a peace between UK and Germany in 1939 or 1940 would not necessarily have prevented a war that came to destroy tens of millions of lives. Even with peace between UK and Germany, there might still have been a war in the East. That still may have led to the deaths of 5 million Germans, 6 million Poles--Jewish and gentile--, and 27 million Soviets. That alone would have led to a war killing 38 million people. So, the disaster of WWII would have been, more or less, the same. At most France and Britain would have been spared the disaster, but their losses in WWII were relatively limited compared to what happened in the East.
At most, one could argue that a great war in the East might have been averted had UK and France remained neutral because Stalin would then have been far more wary of Hitler's Germany. It was because German military was occupying France and engaged with UK that Stalin let down his guard. It was this lax vulnerability on Stalin's part which emboldened Hitler to strike at the USSR. But, suppose Germany had been at peace with France and Britain. Stalin would have eyed every German military movement and development along the Soviet borders with much greater trepidation. Stalin may have prepared his country for all-out war with Germany. That may have dissuaded Hitler from attacking USSR since he wouldn't have had the element of surprise. He would not have been able to sucker-punch Stalin. And, even if Hitler had attacked, a much better prepared Soviets may have fended off the Germans in the first week and sent a clear message to Hitler that an immediate ceasefire was the best thing for Germany. And, a less damaged USSR would have been less hellbent on total revenge.(On the other hand, maybe not. Japanese attack on the US was nothing like the violence Germans unleashed on Russians, but that didn't restrain Americans from killing 100,000s, if not millions, of Japanese civilians. And, Americans had nothing 'personal' against North Koreans in the Korean War but their bombing campaigns wiped out 100,000s in mere days.)

Anyway, the argument that Hitler attacked the USSR mainly to defeat or dissuade UK sounds like the latest version of Anglo-centrism or Anglophilia. Notice that Lukacs is an admirer of Churchill and Ian Kershaw is British. Their arguments over-exaggerate the importance of the Brits. It's like saying Joe Frazier took on George Foreman because he wanted to dissuade a weaker boxer not to fight him. This is like saying that a wolf having some trouble with a coyote picked a mortal fight with a bear to dissuade the coyote to stop fighting. The revisionism arguing that Hitler attacked the USSR to dissuade Britain puts Britain at the center of the universe. It implies that the great war in the East was merely a sideshow to the greater and more significant war between Germany and Britain. It portrays Britain as a great mighty noble beautiful queen. She was so great and invincible that Hitler had to go on a Quest to the East to defeat the Dragon and obtain the Holy Grail/Ring of Power to finally win her approval.

This form of narcissism may appeal to Anglophiles, but surely Russians--and Germans--laugh at this. To be sure, Lukacs's argument isn't so simple. In his book "June 1941", he was less interested in Grand Plans than in states of minds shifting day by day. He admits that Hitler's war on the East was part of a grand plan. Such, he says, is 'true but not true enough' in explaining why the war happened there and then in June 1941. So, Lukacs isn't saying there would have been no war between Germany and USSR if Britain had not been at war with Germany. He's saying that it wouldn't have happened the way it happened. In world politics, nothing is done for a single reason. We need only look at Iraq War which resulted from the convergence of many factors, developments, and objectives. It's true that Neocons had wanted to remove Hussein from office and turn Iraq into a model democracy. Neocons gained great power in the Bush administration. So, is that why the Iraq War happened? Lukacs might say, 'that's true but not true enough'. For the Iraq War to become a reality, there needed to be 9/11, lots of oil in Iraq, the rising threat of Iran, and other factors. So, the reason why the Iraq War happened in 2003 is not only because of a single Grand Ideological Plan but due to many other reasons. It's possible that there may have been an Iraq War eventually, but it wouldn't have been possible in 2003 had it not been for 9/11 and the quick victory in Afghanistan which gave Bush the confidence he needed. So, even if Hitler had always nursed a Grand Plan to attack the East, the way and why it happened in June 1941 must be seen in the larger context. The war with Britain had SOMETHING, if not everything, to do with it. So did the fact that Stalin kept chiseling away pieces of territory which made paranoid Hitler even more paranoid.


(24). Buchanan is eager to carp on the moral inconsistencies on the part of Churchill. For instance, Buchanan takes issue with the fact that Churchill, after having condemned Stalin for attacking Finland, praised Stalin and USSR to high heaven in the war against Nazi Germany. If Stalin was such a bad guy and if USSR an evil nation, how could they suddenly have become good guys just for fighting Nazi Germany? Isn't evil evil whatever the circumstances? True enough, but there was a consistency in Churchill's world view even though his praise of Stalin and USSR was embarrassing. Even an evil nation has the right to defend itself from being attacked, subjugated, enslaved, and/or wiped out. So, Churchill understandably sided with the Finns and condemned Soviet aggressors. Similarly, Churchill sided with the Russians against the invading Germans. Whether the Soviet were ideologically evil was beside the point; the real point was that the people of USSR had, at the very least, the basic right not to be enslaved and/or wiped out by a foreign power. The German war on USSR was genocidal in intent. The war became an issue of Russians(and others in the USSR)fighting for their motherland. Recall that many non-Russians in the USSR initially welcomed the Germans as liberators but soon realized that the Germans regarded them as subhuman. So, Churchill was not praising communism or Stalinism but merely praising the patriotic heroism of Russians who stood up against an enemy hellbent on wiping them out. Churchill knew that communism was a great evil; even so, he still regarded the people in the Soviet Union as full-bloodied human beings who should not be enslaved or wiped out. At the very least, they had the right to rule over their own lands. So, there was a consistency in Churchill's support of Finland against Soviet Union and Churchill's support of Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Also, as UK was at war with Nazi Germany, it would have been stupid for Churchill not to draw USSR to his side. And, let's recall that whereas UK lost its imperial glory after WWII, it was the USSR that truly suffered the great losses of the war. So, in the end, the war did end up with two monstrous giants exhausting one another--for the Soviet victory was, in the long run, only a Pyrrhic one. As for Eastern Europe falling under Stalin's control, there was nothing that could be done. If anyone is to blame, it's the US. Of course, American belatedness was understandable given the fact that no nation--especially a democracy--wants to suffer heavy casualties. But, if US had invaded continental Europe much earlier and pushed eastward and northward, it's possible that all of Germany and much of Eastern Europe could have been conquered/liberated by US and the Brits before the Soviets even got to the borders of Romania and Poland.
But, even after Hitler declared war on the US, US essentially played 'wait and see'. FDR essentially fought an 'isolationist' war. He wanted to play vulture than eagle. US would swoop down in a major way only when the Germans were decisively on the ropes. By the time US invaded in Normandy, the fate of Eastern Europe had been sealed. The Soviets were closing in fast, and US and UK took their time in their eastward and northward thrust. Some historians say that Americans could have taken all of Germany before Russians came anywhere near, but US chose to let Russians do most of the heavy fighting. This lay-back-and-see attitude was perhaps understandable in Europe as Germans were a formidable opponent--just consider the millions of Soviet casualties and over 300,000 American deaths even though US entered relatively late.
But, that kind of approach was indeed foolish in Asia where FDR, in order to reduce US casualties, called on the Soviets--who had already lost over 20 million lives--to fight the Japanese in China. That ensured communist takeover of Asia, something that would have a far more grievous impact on long-term US foreign policy than the fall of Eastern Europe to communism. US didn't fight a single battle with communists in Europe, but in Asia there was the bloody Korean War and Vietnam War, both made near inevitable by events unleashed by Soviet invasion of Asia(at the behest of FDR)that facilitated communist takeover of China and division of Korea.

Churchill cannot be blamed for Eastern Europe's fall to communism. If anyone could have stopped it, it was the Americans but Americans didn't do anything about it. FDR acted like 'isolationist' Pat Buchanan; for the most part, he sat back and allowed the two monstrous giants maul one another with chips falling where they may. Prior to the Normandy Invasion, the main US involvement in the war comprised supporting UK and sending aid to the Soviets. Stalin was frustrated by the slowness of Americans to join the fight on the continent as he wanted to get the war over as quickly as possible. (Of course, it would prove to be to Soviet advantage as belated American invasion gave Stalin ample time enough to move ever westward and claim greater amounts of territory than he ever thought possible. Similarly, though Stalin was initially reluctant and even angry about FDR's request for Soviets entry into the Asian war, it turned out be a great boon to the Soviets as it gave them a giant foothold in Asia.). By the end of the war, UK was bankrupt and Churchill had run out of chips at the poker table. Even so, his quick turn against the USSR after the end of the war proved him to be consistent once again. During the war, there had been nothing he could do about Soviets rolling over Eastern Europe, but after the war Churchill rallied the free world against what he saw as Soviet tyranny over nations that longed to be free.
From the time Nazis moved into Czechoslovakia and Poland, Churchill had been consistent. He disliked non-democratic nations and knew all about the imperfections of Czechoslovakia and Poland. But, he believed that all nations--well, at least European nations--had a right not to be conquered and enslaved, let alone wiped out, by other nations. So, he opposed Germany's actions against Czechoslovakia and Poland. And, he had always opposed the Soviet Union on these grounds as it was a gulag of nations. And, he opposed Soviets when they attacked Finland. As much as he loathed the Soviets, he had to side with them when Germans waged a genocidal war against the Soviets. But, if UK and Nazi Germany had not been at war, and if Soviets had struck the first blow to conquer/enslave Germany, Churchill would surely have called for an alliance with Nazi Germany against Soviet aggressors--not because Churchill respected Nazism but because even Nazi Germans had the right to defend their Fatherland. If the end-product of such war would have been Soviet defeat and Nazi Germans ruling over vast Eastern territories, then Churchill would have declared a cold war against the Nazi German order. At any rate, all of the mess of WWII could have been avoided if Hitler had been more of a diplomat/statesman than a visionary artist. Hitler wanted to make history like Coppola made "Apocalyse Now". Despite Coppola's craziness, art is make-believe and real people don't die. Hitler made a war movie with real people and real nations.

At every turn, Buchanan apologizes for Hitler by putting ALL the burden of proof on others. So, when Hitler's Germany was weak and not ready for war, Buchanan blames the West for not having been tough enough in stopping Hitler. When Hitler grew powerful and dangerous, Buchanan blames the West for frustrating Hitler into an 'unnecessary war'. Maybe, democracies did react poorly and stupidly to Hitler, but why were they forced to react at all? Because Hitler knew only one song: 'I did it my way'.

Also, why is Buchanan so harsh on Churchill's diplomatic praise of Stalin when he himself never said anything really critical about Nixon's praise of Mao? At the very least, UK was locked in a major with Germany, and USSR seemed the only counterweight to German power. So, even if Churchill played the whore, it was for national survival. But, how does one justify Nixon's trip to China. Though the Vietnam War was a major headache, it was a limited war that didn't in any way threaten the security of America itself. And, though it was part of the cold war, it was a sideshow that didn't involve the US and USSR directly. Also, China was the main sponsor of North Vietnam and supplied the most aid. And, Mao had killed even more people than Stalin, and in the early 70s the crazy Cultural Revolution was still going strong. So, what was Nixon, the democratic president of the most powerful nation on Earth, doing going over to kowtow before a murderous commie-emperor? Churchill's playing whore was somewhat understandable since UK was financially drained and in a do-or-die war with Germany. What was the urgent reason for US to go bowing before Mao? And, Nixon's praise for Mao and communist China was even more mind-boggling and idiotic than what Churchill said of Stalin's USSR. (At least, Churchill bit his lips and crossed his fingers as he sang praises to Stalin.) Nixon and Kissinger really seemed starstruck by Mao and Zhou and genuinely convinced that Madame Mao's Red Ballet was some great work of art.
At the time, China was weak, backward, and poor while US, despite all its domestic and international problems, was rich and powerful. But, in the idea that China could be used as a counterweight against the USSR--a notion Chinese were well aware of and merely manipulated--, US went kneeling before China. It was like a rich man kowtowing before a hobo.
Also, if it was okay for Nixon to disregard moral scruples for the purpose of geopolitics, why was it wrong for Churchill to have done the same? Why doesn't Buchanan write a book called 'Unnecessary Peace. How Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Sold America to the Lowlife Murderous Chinese Who Skin Dogs and Boil Cats Alive'? THAT would be a better book.

And, it's rather funny that Buchanan should be emphasizing moral scruples on international matters when he has stated over and over that the ONLY thing that should matter for American diplomacy or foreign policy is American self-interest. Buchanan wants US foreign policy to be like that of China, a nation that happily does business with Sudan despite the fact that Sudanese are committing genocide. Also, Buchanan has been utterly insensitive toward Ukrainians, a people who suffered a fate under Soviet communism that was comparable to what Jews suffered under the Nazis. In the 1930s, Russian and left-wing Jewish communists carried out policies that killed as many as 5 million Ukrainians. So, it's understandable that Ukrainians want to break out of Russian domination, but Buchanan disregards Ukrainians as fellow human beings. He wants Ukraine to be a playground for Putin. True, Putin isn't all bad and has done much good that should recognized and praised, but Russians should realize that their poor relations with many of their neighbors are the result of the long history of Russian bullying which reached its zenith under communism. At the very least, Churchill bravely spoke up for those who'd fallen under the Iron Curtain. Buchanan has zero sympathy for non-Russian republics being bullied by Russia. Just like American blacks who support and admire any black dude(no matter how crazy)--American or African--who embodies black power, Buchanan has the hots for any white strongman as long as he's not communist.
Now, this isn't to defend Bush's policy on Russia. Americans and Western nations have done much to squander Russian goodwill in the 1990s. Seeing Russia as the sick man of Europe, America and Europeans thought they could expand their influence right up to the Russian borders with Russians being too poor, drunk, and weak to do anything about it.
It could even be argued that NATO should be scrapped. It's an anachronism in the post-cold-war world. And, even with Putin's bad boy antics--some of which is for show for the domestic audience--, a major war in Europe is unlikely.

(25). Why does Buchanan raise a big fuss over Churchill not giving a damn about Poles under Stalinist tyranny when Buchanan himself doesn't give a damn about Poles under Nazi tyranny? If Buchanan had ever expressed sympathy for Poles under Nazi oppression, his outrage over communist takeover of Poland would have some validity. But, Buchanan insults and mocks Poles for not having given into Hitler's demands. He, in effect, argues that Poles triggered the war with Germany because Poles were unreasonable about Hitler's reasonable demands. The way Buchanan tells it, Poles drove Hitler crazy and to war--as though
Hitler needed encouragement or provocation in the warmongering department. If a democratic Germany had pressed certain demands for the return of German territories from Poland, Buchanan's argument would be more valid. But, given the nature of Hitler's regime, its rhetoric about 'Aryan' supremacy, its constant taunting and mocking of weaker nations, its openly imperialistic designs, and what it did to Czechoslovakia--initially demanding only Sudetenland and then taking it all--it only made sense for Poles to not give into Hitler's demands. Poles read correctly that Hitler, if given an inch, would take the mile.
Also, was it so horrible for Poles to rule over non-Poles? US took the SW territories--far bigger than Danzig--from Mexico, but I don't think any American would give up those territories back to Mexico if Mexico demanded the return of their land--especially if Mexico was ruled by an Adolfo Hitlerez.

Also, though Churchill realized there wasn't much he could do about the fall of Eastern Europe to Stalin, he sincerely agonized over it--as when Poland had fallen under Nazism. But, Buchanan ONLY agonizes over nations like Poland fell under communism; he shows no sympathy for Poles under Nazi rule, a fate he seems to suggest that the Poles deserved for having been ruled by a sinister chain-smoking womanizer. The way Buchanan tells it, Beck's smoking and personal lifestyle made him worse than Hitler. (By the way, if Buchanan despises Beck for his foibles and personal vices, why was he so admiring of Savimbi of Angola, a murderous and unscrupulous thug? Simply because Savimbi was a political dependent of Apartheid South Africa. Due to his disregard for all peoples who are not Anglo or Germanic, Buchanan's morality play outside the Anglo-Germano sphere is one of pure cynicism. If any thug, no matter how vile or murderous, is good to Anglo-Germano political or economic interests, he's a good guy according to Buchanan. But, a political and national hero, if he happens to be up against Anglo- or Germano power, is a lowlife.)

It must also be said Poland did better under communism than it would have done under Nazism. Now, it cannot be said that ALL Eastern European nations would have fared worse under Nazism than under communism; one could argue that Hungary and Romania probably would have been better off with close alliance with Nazi Germany than under communist rule. But, Polish communism was RELATIVELY mild, Soviets didn't regard Poles as subhuman despite the long/bitter enmity between Poles and Russians, Poland wasn't completely wiped off the map, and there was stability/order/basic necessities of life under communist rule. Poland, if not all Eastern European nations, would have fared far worse under Nazi rule. It might have been wiped off the map, and its people would have been turned into slaves. Communism meant slavery in the figurative and even in the actual sense for many of its victims, but Nazism meant slavery in the OFFICIAL sense. Soviets subjugated the Poles but still upheld the notion of equal dignity of all men regardless of nationality. In contrast, the Nazis lorded over Poland, officially telling Poles that they were less than human and only good for slave labor. Poland, after 50 yrs of Nazi rule, would have been decimated of its people, pride, and culture. Of course, Buchanan doesn't care because he shares the German prejudice against Poles. He even mocks the notion that Poles regarded themselves as a 'warrior race'. But, it wasn't the Polish warrior race that started WWII but the Germanic warrior race--despite Buchanan's disingenuous scapegoating of Poles. Also, though the notion of Poles as a 'warrior race' may be laughable given the fact that Poland fell to the Germans in 3 weeks, it must be acknowledged that Poles were the bravest warriors throughout the entire war. Though out-classesed, out-manned, and out-equipped by the Germans, Poles put up a tough and hardy fight--against both German and Soviet invaders. And, the Polish underground was far more active, bold, and inspiring than the so-called French Resistance. And,, consider that even after 5 yrs of German rule, Polish Home Army mounted the heroic Warsaw Uprising. Perhaps, Poles were 'stupid' and 'pigheaded' for fighting against a far more powerful enemy, but it is truly the stuff of legend, and the ONLY reason why the world knows little about it is (1) Soviet domination of Eastern Europe for 50 yrs which suppressed Polish nationalism and (2) Jewish-control of Western media and academia which unfairly portrayed Poles as nothing but dumb moronic antisemites. As though Poles hadn't been wronged enough by Nazi Germans, Soviets and their left-wing Jewish collaborators, and the Western Jewish-controlled media, we now have Pat Buchanan jumping on the bandwagon of Polish-bashing. How many people does it take to screw Poland? Count all the scoundrels in the world.

Buchanan gets more worked up over what Churchill SAID about Poles than about what Nazi Germans did to Poles. He blames the Soviets for not helping the Home Army in the Warsaw Uprising but says absolutely nothing about what the Nazis did to the Home Army. It's the same Germanocentrism over and over. Buchanan blames everyone--Churchill, Poles, Russians, Czechs, etc, etc--but never Germany or the Nazis. The Germans are always reacting to the unreasonable actions, deed, and utterances of others. Why did Germany invade Poland? Because Poles were unreasonable, and the Brits insulted Germans. Why did Germany invade the USSR? Because Britain wouldn't come to its senses and make peace with Germany. Why did the Holocaust happen? Because Russians were too indecent to just surrender, volunteer to be slaves of Germans, end the war quickly by losing, and make Hitler happy and generous enough to let the Jews live.

There is absolutely no sense of personal or national responsibility expected of Germans from Buchanan. It's as though Germans are the supermen who are beyond good and evil. For all his professed Christianity, Buchanan is downright Nietzschean when it comes to Germanic glory. Perhaps, Buchanan has a similar personality as Hitler. Remember that in his final days in the bunker, Hitler blamed EVERYONE but himself. He blamed Poles, Brits, Americans, his generals, and his very own people. His own people had gone to the gates of hell and back to fight his wars and die for him, yet he still blamed everyone but himself. He alone was innocent. The world came to ruin because the world was too stupid to understand HIS genius, HIS vision, HIS truth.
It's not enough that Buchanan calls Hitler odious or evil. All said and done, "Unnecessary War" is an apologia for Hitler at his worst. It's one thing to defend certain aspects of Hitler's ideas or policies--revival of economy, national confidence, a creative combining of socialism and capitalism, sound foreign diplomacy in the beginning, anti-communism, etc--, but WWII happened not because of a series of accidents that were beyond anyone's control--as with WWI--but because Hitler wanted to play the mad artist with history. He chose to paint with blood and sculpt with bones. Of course, it was not a simple case of evil Hitler-and-his-allies versus saintly rest-of-the-world. Not everyone and everything in Nazi Germany and its partners were evil, and there was much that was flawed and evil about the Allied powers. But, one thing is clear. Between 1933 to 1945, mighty Germany came under the rule of a crazy artist/visionary. Politics should never be a personal art project.

This is why John Lukacs is a better historian than Buchanan. It's not just a matter of moral sense but temperament and personality. To be sure, Lukacs, being half-Jewish and nearly killed by Nazi Germans, has biographical reasons for his appreciation for Churchill and others who stood up to Hitler. (Churchill was especially principled because he could have chosen to "gain the world and lose his soul" by siding with Hitler. In contrast, Stalin chose to "gain the world and lose his soul--what little he had left" by siding with Hitler and then chose to fight Hitler ONLY because Hitler reneged on their settlement. There was nothing principled about Stalin's fight with Hitler whereas Churchill chose to fight Hitler because he had come to realize the unique evil of the Nazi regime. Of course, there's the theory that the main reason why Churchill stood up to Hitler was because he was chummy with some rich Jews.) But, the crucial difference between Lukacs and Buchanan is that of caution and thoroughness. Lukacs turns over and examines every stone, painstakingly and carefully arrives at guarded conclusions, and leaves the argument open for further discussion and debate. Lukacs, though fully aware of the evil of Hitler and Stalin, also sees certain extra-human qualities in them that may explain their spectacular rise to power. So, when Lukacs calls Hitler a 'planetary genius', he's not making a moral judgment but assessing Hitler's qualities as an original, ambitious, and big-thinking visionary leader. Many historians believe that everything about an evil man must be awful, stupid, loathsome, disgusting, and lowly. Lukacs disagrees and understands that Hitler's rise can only be explained by taking into consideration some of the genuine--even admirable--qualities possessed by Hitler. And, he also understands that Nazism appealed to many Germans because it seemed reasonable and constructive at the time.

Buchanan, unlike Lukacs, is highly selective in his approach, righteous, grandstanding, and populist. He growls and snarls like a wolf that wants to have the entire carcass for itself. He howls and barks at opposite views and produced an exercise in polemical bloodbath than a contribution to constructive argument. Still, if this is a necessary book, it's because so much writing on WWII has been equally lopsided, simple-minded, self-righteously moralistic, etc. Much of the history of WWII has been Judeo-centric, which is why any public library will have more books on the Holocaust than all the other aspects of the war put together.
And, consider the fact that the worth of nations during the war era is based on their relation to Jews. There is no discussion of how Fascism and Nazism grew and gained power in response to communism which was essentially a left-wing Jewish ideology which had killed 20 million people before Hitler began to drop bombs on Poland. That Jews were one of the great victims of WWII is without question, but all of this needs to be put into some kind of historical CONTEXT. For example, we know that millions of innocent Germans perished after WWII due to the expulsion of Germans from in Eastern lands. As evil and horrible as this crime was, it must be told in the context of WWII where Germans conquered and oppressed non-Germans--and where German inhabitants naturally collaborated with German conquerors. And, though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous evils, they too must be seen in the context of the Pacific War; they could be justified as 'necessary' or 'vengeful' evils.
Though it would be outrageous to suggest that the Jews deserved the Holocaust--after all, most Jews were not communist--, it must still be said that Jewish involvement in the vast criminal enterprise of communism did prepare the grounds for extreme antisemitism all over Europe. And, even those who didn't particularly hate Jews per se were pushed toward supporting the radical right in fear of the communist threat.
So, to explain the Holocaust purely in terms of noble, perfect, innocent, and saintly Jews ambushed by Germans just for the hell of it is very bad history. And, it makes little sense to blame conquered peoples for having collaborated with the Germans when plenty of Jews collaborated with conquering communists. Just consider the number of Polish Jews who happily collaborated with Soviet invaders in 1939 and went whole hog in rounding up and killing Christian Poles. And, just consider the number of Jews--even non-communist Jews--who collaborated with the murderous Soviet regime in the enslavement and mass killings of tens of millions of Christian Russians, Ukrainians, and many other ethnicities.
That Jews had been victimized by Nazi Germans does not make them noble, good, or saintly. It merely means they were victimized by an evil ideology that held sway over many people. If Europeans today were to kill 5 million Muslims, it would be horrible crime; but, it still wouldn't mean that Muslims are better, nobler, or more innocent than the rest of humanity. Jews got victimized not because they were good, but because Nazis were evil and hated Jews whether individual Jews were good or bad.

(26). Buchanan seems baffled by why the West regards Nazism as worse than communism. Though the current assessment on the two great ideologies of the 20th century isn't entirely fair, it's not hard to understand why Nazism is seen as the greater evil.
First, Western Europe--richer, more powerful, more influential, and more consequential than Eastern Europe--experienced Nazism firsthand. World history has been Western-centric for a long time. Secondly, Jews--the most powerful and influential people in the postwar era--were its main victims. So, Jews had a 'personal' interest in vilifying Nazism as the greatest evil of all time.
Thirdly, academics and journalists who cover and record history tend to be liberal or leftist.
Fourthly, Nazism was more nakedly honest about power and politics, perhaps too honest for comfort. An ugly woman would rather be told by Oprah that she's beautiful than be told the truth that she's ugly. Nietzscheanism was always far more brutally honest than Marxism. So, the ugly side of Nazism is plainer to see than the ugly side of communism. Also, the West--religious or secular--has been deeply impacted by Christian moralism and feels more comfortable with passionate egalitarianism than with brash narcissism. Communist icon was the overall-wearing worker demanding equality. The Nazi icon was the proud Aryan claiming superiority.

Anyway, just as the party in power gets the blame--fairly or unfairly--for all the social and economic woes, the power that oppressed a certain people is hated more by that people. It's all relative.
To the non-white world, Nazism could appear good or bad. It was bad if non-whites fixated on the racial aspects of Nazi ideology which said whites were racially superior to non-whites, implying that white people had a right to rule over non-white people. But, for non-white peoples who were not under the imperialist rule of whites, Nazism could be inspiring as a developmental model. Indeed to an extent, Nazi Germany appealed to both to Imperial Japan and Nationalist China. The Japanese were bothered by Nazi ideology on race but also found much to admire in terms of national renewal, national unity, and standing up to the capitalist-imperialist-democratic West. Before the full Japanese invasion of China, key figures in Nationalist China--including Chiang Kai-Shek --looked to Nazi Germany as a social, economic, and political model. And, even if the Japanese and Chinese rejected the Nazi notion that whites were superior to non-whites, the theme of special pride in one's nation, race, and heritage was appealing and understandable to many non-whites. Chinese, after all, had thought they were the best in the world for 1000s of years. And, the Japanese had their own unique racial consciousness based on their own tradition and heritage. And, many other non-whites also had a very special sense of their own national or racial greatness or destiny. So, even if they disagreed with Nazi notion of racial or national superiority, the idea of 'a world of our own' was appealing to many. Also, Nazi Germany was bound to be inspiring because Germany had been a late-comer in the great powers game. And though it was defeated by Western capitalist-imperialist powers by WWI and suffered horrible economic depression, it made full economic recovery and had become, almost overnight, the most powerful nation on the European continent under the Nazi regime. For weak and backward non-white nations--at least those with no love for communism or western imperialism--, fascism seemed the preferable model for national development. For these nations communism was too radical and capitalism was too synonymous with Anglo or French(and later American) domination in the world. Also, the elites of these nations wanted to modernize yet didn't want to relinquish full political power to the uneducated and unwashed masses. Democracy seemed too reckless and destabilizing while old-style monarchy had become passe. So, the idea of a modern leader who could both control the masses and lead them to the future was an appealing idea.
They sought the Third Way, and fascism seemed to be the way of the future--not least in Latin America.

If Hitler had not been reckless and hadn't waged war on the USSR, it's possible that much of the non-white world might have looked to Hitler for inspiration--not because they would have agreed with his racial ideology but because the Germans had proven that a late-comer in the geopolitical game could rise up and make a difference in the world. Also, Hitler had shown the world that the great imperialist powers were paper tigers. This isn't to suggest that Hitler would have played a leading role in 'liberating' non-white masses from European imperialism but merely to point out that he unwittingly had such effect nevertheless. Had Hitler been smarter, he should have drawn closer to China than to Japan. Chiang hated communism and considered himself a modernizing rightist. He wanted China to become something like an Asian Nazi Germany--a proud, independent, and powerful nation--though not so much along racial lines. If Hitler hadn't been so shortsighted, he never would have forged a close alliance with Japan. Without such a iron-clad alliance, Japan would not have attacked the US\drawing Germany into the war as well. And, if Germany had been close to China, it's possible that Japan would have thought twice about escalating tensions in China.

Anyway, consider that many Latin American nations--even long after WWII--admired much about Nazi Germany. This wasn't primarily about race--as Latin-America was largely racially mixed or non-white--but about national, economic, and social power. Many Latin-American leaders hoped to create a clean, efficient, disciplined, orderly, and productive modern nation. Peron of Argentina was a self-styled fascist of sorts though left-leaning on economic policies. Alas, the national character of Latin Americans was such that, despite all their pomp and noise about the order, they remained backward, divided, and stagnant.
And, there was much appeal of Nazi Germany in the Middle East because Nazis supported Arab nationalism against what Arabs considered the two great evils: British/French imperialism and Zionism. Because Middle Easterners experienced oppression mainly in the form of British or French colonialists or Jews flooding into Palestine and grabbing more of that Holy Land, many Arabs even today don't regard Nazism as a great evil in the way that Europeans do. French, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegieans, etc had lived under Nazi rule. Jews were gassed by the Nazis. In contrast, Middle Easterners had to live under the military authority of Brits or the French. And, they were helpless to do anything about the rising tide of Zionism. So, though it may be shocking for Westerners to see so much 'antisemitism' in the Middle East, the Arabs see through a different lens. For them, Brits and the French were the occupiers on their soil--while Nazis sided with Arab nationalism--and the Jews were the robbers of Arab land. For Palestinians, there can't be anything worse than Zionism. Palestinians may consciously know that Nazis killed 6 million Jews, but having long suffered under the Israelis, many Palestinians can only think, "We know why." (Many commentators have attacked Arab/Palestinian leaders for having cooperated with the Nazis, but all people will work with enemies of one's enemies. Anti-royalist American colonialists welcomed the support of the French king during the War of Independence. US sided with murderous Stalin during WWII. Nixon--with support of US liberals--sided with Maoist China, one of the most evil nations on Earth, to counter the rising Soviet threat. And, Israel was closely allied with Apartheid Africa in the 80s. So, Arabs/Palestinians were no worse in this regard.)
Every people tend to make their own suffering the focus of Great Evil in the world. Though black slavery and racial discrimination in the US were hardly the worst things in human history, many American blacks seem to think they suffered more than any other people. Consider the fact that from 1865 to 1965, the entire number of blacks lynched amounted to no more than 1,500. Now, consider the fact that a single pogrom in Eastern Europe could kill over 2,000 Jews. Consider that within a decade, Stalin and his left-wing Jewish henchmen killed 20 million people--more people than all the blacks in the US in the 1930s. Consider that at least 80 million Chinese died horrible deaths in the 20th century. Consider what happened to countless innocent peoples caught between the monsters of Nazism and Communism in WWII. And, consider the plight of blacks in Africa under black rule where millions routinely die from tribal wars in any given year. Yet, American blacks seem to think NO ONE understand suffering like American blacks do.
And, consider Taiwan. We tend to think of all Chinese as hapless victims of evil Japanese, but many Taiwanese didn't think so. Japanese rule in Taiwan was relatively mild and happy--when compared to Korea or Indonesia--, and it came to be replaced by the brutal and corrupt rule of the Nationalists upon Japan's defeat. The Nationalists treated the Taiwanese as lowly collaborators and bled them dry. And, when Nationalists were preparing to move en masse to the island to escape the communist takeover of the mainland, there was a massacre leading to the death of tens of thousands. So, Taiwanese don't necessarily see Japanese rule as the darkest period in their history; indeed, many Taiwanese want to be completely free from China. And, consider the fact that Lee Kuan Yew has a certain fondness for the Japanese as well. For Lee, Japanese threw out the haughty British imperialists and had been relatively decent in Singapore. And of course, Lee even came to respect the British as well--as least of the Old School kind--, not because Lee thought imperialism was nice and dandy but because the British understood--and spread--discipline, order, propriety, sobriety, dedication, and commitment that Lee sees as the hallmark of civil service and national virtue.

Anyway, Nazism got the worst rap because it negatively affected those in the West who wield the pen. Intellectuals wielded their pens against the sword that had loomed over their heads. Even the thoughtful John Lukacs understands that while Bolshevism was oppressive to his kind--Jewish folks--, Nazism was downright murderous. And, Lukacs feared Nazism precisely because he saw it as a more workable system. To understand this, we need only to look at today's China which follows the fascist model--nationalism, mix of capitalism and socialism, preservation/revival of tradition alongside embrace of modernity, etc--in contrast to the fully communist China of yesteryear. Communism soon reaches an economic plateau, runs out of ideological steam, and stagnates and rots. But, because the fascist model allows a degree of social and economic pluralism, a degree of social freedom and dynamism, and a degree of economic linkage/co-existence with the rest of the world, it has a far better chance of re-energizing itself as time goes on. Notice that both North Korea and Cuba have been dead ends while China re-invented itself time and time again since the early 80s under a form of social-national-capitalist ersatz fascism. Red China had been totalist, xenophobic, radical, and trapped in its own ideology and mindset. But, quasi-fascist China is rising fast and linking up to the rest of the world, at least economically. Lukacs has indeed written that the new China could be far more potentially dangerous than Maoist China or the old Soviet Union.
Communism reaches an economic plateau, and as the state owns and runs everything there is little room for economic initiative, energy, or vitality--after the initial slave-driven fanatical stage. Communism also puts the rest of the world on guard; it doesn't say, "let's share the world. Because the goal of communism is to ultimately turn the entire world communist and/or to keep one's communist order pristine and uncontaminated by capitalist--often merely a euphemism for 'foreign'--influences, it's much harder for the rest of the world to trust or co-exist peacefully with communists. To be sure, Stalin did opt for co-existence and cooperation with Hitler but that was Stalin the NATIONAL communist in action.

Had it not been for Hitler's aggressiveness, Nazi Germany would have been far more appealing and enticing as an ally and partner to other nations--unless their elites happened to be influenced by Jews who understandably couldn't stand Hitler and his cohorts--than Soviet Union could ever have been. Indeed, it took a war with Germany to bring UK and USSR together. Had Hitler not been a warmonger, UK surely would have preferred closer ties, politically and economically, with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany than with the Soviet Union. The ideology of Nazism accommodated 'that is yours' and 'this is mine'--as long as Hitler didn't get too greedy. It may have been this non-messianic aspect of Nazism that lowered Stalin's guard and made him deal with Hitler. Though Nazis later tried to take Russian lands, there had been no attempt on the part of the Nazis to spread the Nazi faith to other lands. Nazism was ideologically opposed to communism but didn't attempt to turn non-Germans nto Nazis. Indeed, Soviet communists felt much greater ideological threat later from the communist Chinese who wanted to lead the worldwide communist movement and from the Americans,who also espoused an idealistic mission to convert the world to 'freedom and liberty'--though Americans weren't radical/ruthless and fought the spread of communism defensively. While it's true that Italian Fascists and German Nazis wanted a larger slice of the world pie, they didn't want everything nor want to convert the entire world to their ideology. So, once both nations could be satiated with their 'place in the sun,' they could eventually be content and let things as they were in the world. Communists, in contrast, could only opt for peaceful co-existence as a tactical measure. The nature of their ideology called for the complete communization of the entire world. To be sure, Soviet leaders came to realize that WORLD REVOLUTION is an impossible, stupid, and wasteful dream as years went by, but their ideology knee-jerked into actual policy whenever there seemed to be another communist or anti-American victory around the world. In a way, a quick and decisive victory for the US in Vietnam might have been better for the USSR in the long run. It was the long and painful US defeat that emboldened Soviet leaders to send more aid, equipment, and troops--by hiring Cubans and North Koreans--all over the world. Even lazy and corrupt Brezhnev couldn't resist the dream of expanding Soviet power when the Uncle Sam seemed to be on the ropes. Soviets dreamed of more Vietnams in the 70s and 80s, but this only led to Soviets getting mired in Afghanistan and pouring precious money into the toilet-bowls of Asia, Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Instead of helping to boost Soviet power, they drained the Soviets of unsustainable precious resources. When its own citizens had to stand in line for hours to buy toilet tissue, it made little sense for Soviets to be supporting world revolutions.

When Hitler offered peace to Britain, he really wanted an Anglo-German good-will alliance that would last forever. Such was not the case between Germany and USSR. Still, it was true enough that there were some people with whom Hitler wanted peace and cooperation, even if their political systems were fundamentally different from that of Nazi Germany. In contrast, communists made agreements with non-communists only to buy time. If Anglos had made peace with the Germans, both Buchanan and Lukacs would have been right. The alliance or agreement would have been in good faith, with Anglos holding their empire and Germans building their own but not at the expense of the Brits. Had Hitler prevailed in the East, Lukacs is right that the Germanic dominated order would have been longer lasting than communism.

One areas where Lukacs could be wrong is in his assessment of right-wing radicalism's domestic longevity. Though it may be more dynamic, more productive and powerful--and more dangerous--than a communism, there is also the greater chance that it may face\indeed spawn--greater internal challenges and give into demands for democratic change sooner than communism might. After all, most modern right-wing governments had shorter lifespans than communist nations. The right-wing modernizer Pinochet of Chile ruled from 1973 to 1986; in contrast, Castro ruled from 1959 to 2008, with his younger brother now in power. And, military rule in South Korea lasted from early 1964 to 1988. In North Korea, it's still the same communist system since 1945. And, we must remember that Soviet Union lasted from 1917 to 1991 and was durable and powerful enough to surmount great challenges--Civil War, WWII, and host of other national tragedies. Nevertheless, communism, except for the system built by Stalin, has been unable to grow an economy large enough to pose a grave threat to much of the world. Mao had 100s of millions people and the resources of a vast nation, yet China could barely feed itself until the early 80s when privatization came along. And, even Stalin and his successors lucked out because they just happened to rule over vast territories rich in all sorts of natural resources. Hitler ruled over Germany with limited resources but still built up a mighty industry and military. Imperial Japan had almost no domestic natural resources but still managed to achieve great things.
Could Stalin have done the same in a land the size of Germany or Japan with limited resources and fewer men? Probably not. But, imagine the kind of war machine Hitler would have built up if he had the access to Russian resources!! Russia under German rule might eventually have developed the power of Nazi Germany x 10. This is why Lukacs, in response to Buchanan and Buckley--upon their comments in "Republic, Not an Empire"--, correctly said if Hitler had taken the East, he would have been unstoppable. The Nazi system was more dynamic, efficient, and productive than the communist system could ever be. If Hitler had access to all the resources of Russia, his military power might well have topped that of the US.

(27). Buchanan quotes AJP Taylor's remark about who ended up better in WWII? The submissive Czechs who lost 100,000 lives or the defiant Poles who lost 6.5 million? If we quantify the worth of everything by numbers, of course Czechs got a better deal for their 'cowardice' than Poles got for their 'courage'. But, in the eyes of history, Poles can forever take pride in their fighting spirit against all odds whereas Czechs are only left with shame. And, this goes for the Cold War as well. Minus the Prague Spring of 1968--where Czechs submitted to the Soviet Invasion rather quickly unlike Hungarians in 1956 who really put up a fight--, Czechs hardly gave the Soviets any trouble. Indeed, among Iron Curtain nations, Czechoslovakia was one of the most rabidly communist. In contrast, no nation in the Warsaw Pact gave as much trouble to the Soviets as the Poles. And, no people were as anti-communist as the Poles. This defiance, courage, and will to independence were evident among Poles in both WWII and during the Cold War. But, Buchanan mocks and insults Polish courage in WWII.

Some critics say Poland was a cynical dictatorship in 1939 and deserved no international support; why should UK have offered protection to Poland, a country which not only didn't stand in the way of Germans overrunning Czechoslovakia but took a choice piece of Czechoslovakia for itself? What critics miss or ignore is that the crucial issue wasn't dictatorship vs democracy but the sequence of events. Suppose Hitler had made his demands on Poland before he made it on Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain may have acceded to Hitler's demands on German areas of Poland and then all of Poland. Suppose Hitler then demanded lands from Czechoslovakia. Britain, now more alert to the true nature of Hitler, might have gone to war over Czechoslovakia. So, it's wrong to say Britain was hypocritical for not defending a democracy(Czechoslovakia) while promising to defend a dictatorship(Poland). Britain thought Hitler could be appeased by handing him just ONE MORE Eastern European nation. 'Poland or Czechoslovakia' was less important than the sequence of events. The point is Britain wasn't willing to fall for the same trick twice Also, there are dictatorships and there are DICTATORSHIPS. A dictatorship shouldn't be dangerous to the world as long as it minds its own national business. Recall that even though many nations condemned Germany for Kristallnacht, no nation declared war to save the Jews. As long as the violence, depravity, and such were limited within national borders, most nations weren't willing to fight Germany; this is even true today, which is why the world has done precious little about Sudan--and even less in Rwanda or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The problem usually occurs when the problems of dictatorship--or democracy--spill beyond the borders. (The one great exception is South Africa which was picked on by the world though Apartheid was limited within its borders; still one could argue that there was an 'international' element to it because whites of foreign origin ruled over native blacks.) Poland may have been a dictatorship but it was not an aggressor against other nations. At most, it took a tiny morsel from Czechoslovakia when Germany reclaimed the Sudetenland. Of course, one could argue that Poland itself was an hodgepodge nation with a significant non-Polish population, but Poland still didn't pick fights with its neighbors. Its problems took place within national borders. Also, Poland was under military dictatorship, usually a far less dangerous kind of dictatorship than a spiritual, visionary, or ideological dictatorship. Hitler wouldn't have been so dangerous had he merely been a conventional dictator--like Franco or Pinochet. Instead, he was a visionary dictator who saw history as his conceptual art. Stalin was an ideological dictator who believed that history was a class war culminating in Marx's prophecies; wars among mankind would finally come to an end with the abolishment of classes since class was the main contradiction plaguing mankind by pitting master vs slave(since history was seen as masters waging war on the slaves, communists argued that it was about time history was about slaves waging war on the masters until there were no more masters, in which case there would be no more slaves, and no more wars.) The Japanese were also dangerous because theirs was not your typical military dictatorship; instead, it was a spiritual dictatorship enthralled with the idea that the Japanese were a sacred people of a sacred land--literally speaking--and ruled by a god emperor(a genuine god). So, Japanese thought some divine force would intervene on the side of Japan. The reason why Iranians are dangerous is because theirs too is not your typical dictatorship but a spiritual or theocratic dictatorship which often disregards rational or practical guide to history. And, consider the Alqaeda-Taliban of Afghanistan. They carried out 9/11 because they were driven by a spiritual view of history. God or Allah was on their side. Whatever the material advantages of the Americans, radical Muslims believe they will win in the end because their cause is sacred and ordained by God himself. While Buchanan is right that American geopolitics drove Osama Bin Laden to attack the US, we must not discount that fact that Osama is crazy. If Osama weren't crazy, he wouldn't have perceived US presence in the Middle East the way he did. So yes, Osama reacted to American political/military actions but as a madman, not as a sane person. To a madman, even a non-provocation can be a provocation. But, one thing true about madmen is that if you give them an inch, they take a mile. Osama is the kind who must find some justification, some reason, or some whatever to make a powerful impact on history. The idea that Osama would have been happy forever holed up in a cave in Afghanistan eating simple food and reading the Koran IF Americans hadn't fought the Gulf War is ludicrous. Even minus the US military presence in the Middle East--following the Gulf War--, Osama would have tried everything to stir up as much trouble as possible in the Middle East in order to replace all current regimes with radical Muslim ones; and, he would have used all means to spread the power of AlQaeda in Europe and America for future struggle. Consider that Europe had been seeing mounting Muslim troubles well before the Gulf War. Since the Middle East is important as the world's energy source, Osama's terrorist acts, even if limited only to the Middle East, would have forced US to act to counter terrorism internationally.


Anyway, did Poles get a bum deal in WWII by fighting the Germans in contrast to the Czechs who got a relatively sweet deal for laying down before the Germans? Yes and no. While WWII was raging, Poland was indeed hell itself. But, Poles' experience in WWII is the stuff of legend for eternity. Every Polish family can look back and feel proud that Poles, though vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, put up a brave fight. Poles can take pride in the fact that they were not attacked by one monster but two. And, the Polish Home Army fought both Nazis and communists. Many patriotic Polish heroes have been called 'antisemitic' but what has been neglected is the fact that many Polish Jews happily collaborated with the Soviets to dispossess, enslave, and kill 100,000s of Catholic Poles.
In contrast, what can Czechs say about their role in WWII? That they survived as sheepish cowards? In his book "Right from the Beginning," Buchanan often extols the notion of 'my country, right or wrong.' He says he and his friends all stuck together and got into fights with other boys, win or lose. He thinks such is the essence of manhood. But, he seems baffled and irritated by the fact that untermensch Poles had guts, courage, and stamina. I suspect this is because Buchanan sides with the Germans. He thinks, "My Germanic People, right or wrong." And so, just as he stuck by his brothers and friends in his youth, Buchanan sticks with his Deutschlanders against the Poles even though the Germans sucker-punched Poland first.
But, if Buchanan believes in "Deutschland uber alles", he should at least have enough warrior honor and nobility to understand that Poles felt the same way about their country. Whatever their faults or sins, Poles felt they were fighting for their national honor, spirit, and glory. Now, Germans may say that Poles were ungrateful for what Germans did for them in WWI--liberating Poland from Russia--, but it must also be said that for nearly a century, Prussians ruled over a good deal of Polish territory and took lands from many Polish families. And, during the war, Poles, caught between Germans and Russians, were mistreated by both. So, it's understandable that Poles, upon liberation near the end of WWI, weren't exactly in a trusting or grateful mood in regard to Germans or Russians.

Anyway, is it always better to live as a slave than die as a free man? One can make a powerful argument for either. Though we extol courage, it may indeed be wiser to play the 'coward' and survive. But, we must respect those who prefer to die heroically than live sheepishly. This may even said of Germans who fought bravely as the Soviet forces approached. Perhaps, Germans would have suffered fewer deaths and less destruction had they acted like Italians who shat in their pants, cried for mama, and waved white flags almost immediately. But, Germans were convinced that the Russians, justifiably angry over what Germans had done to their motherland, would come for revenge and would either kill all Germans or reduce them to slaves--what Germans intended to do to Russians. Germans also believed in loyalty, sticking together to the very end. So, Germans preferred to fight desperately to live or die as free Germans--at least in the national if not democratic sense--than become slaves of Russians. So, we can at least understand the German fight to the finish as the Soviets entered Germany. Also, Germans believed in manly honor and fighting spirit. They preferred to die fighting than surrender and beg for mercy. In contrast, Italians switched sides overnight and bowed down before the Allies. Were Italians more honorable for such reason? They sure got a better deal, but the world will forever think of Italians as a bunch of two-faced wussies. In contrast, even those who loathe Nazism must admit that German people and soldiers showed remarkable resilience and courage in the face of doom.
Poles, with far greater justification, did the same when Germans came invading. Though it can be said that Germans--at least Nazi Germans--deserved their punishment, the Nazi-Soviet attack on Poland was unjustifiable on any ground. If Hitler had taken ONLY Danzig and few other German-dominated areas, history may look upon the German attack on Poland as reasonable. But, just as Hitler took all of Czech republic, he took all of western Poland while handing over the eastern Poland to Stalin. This really was an unspeakable crime, but it bothers Buchanan less than Colonel Beck's smoking habit.

Anyway, consider the story of the 300 Spartans. Xerxes promised them life if they bowed down at his feet, but the brave Greeks defied the Persian invaders. They all died fighting. And, though Greece eventually triumphed over the Persians, suppose the Greeks had lost. Should we denigrate the memory of the heroic Greeks who fought bravely, died, and lost? Should we argue that the Greeks should have meekly accepted Persian rule and lived as slaves? Was it wrong for the Greek city-states to come together to fight to remain free men? Of course, we can make moral arguments against the Greeks as Buchanan does against the Poles. Most Greek city-states were not democratic, and even the 'democratic' ones relied heavily on slave labor. And, Sparta was an ancient prototype of what Himmler had in mind for the SS over Russia. A privileged warrior class ruled over vast serf class called the helots in Sparta, and Himmler wanted the SS--'best of the best'--to own and run vast farms whose fields were worked on by Slavic helots.
So, Greeks were far from morally perfect. And, some Greek city-states were imperialists in their own right. Still, who can say that the Greeks--especially Spartans at Thermopylae--were not heroic in their resistance against the Persians? Even had the Greeks lost the entire war, they would and should be remembered as brave souls. Sure, Greeks would have lost far fewer men--win or lose--had they meekly submitted to the Persians--as Czechs did before the Germans. But, they chose to fight and die--win or lose--as Greek warriors than cower and live as slaves of Persians.
Or, consider the Alamo where Americans all chose to die in a fight with the Mexican army. Every American--except Joe Alamo the Negro--fought and died in the battle. Were they stupid and reckless? Sure, we can make such argument. One can legitimately argue that it's always better to live than to die. But, isn't there glory and honor in brave or noble death, especially if one chooses to fight for one's sense of freedom, honor, and glory? And, can't this be said even for the Confederate side? General Grant and General Lee fought for different sides but they felt mutual respect; both understood that the other did it for his sense of lofty goals. If Buchanan understands and even sympathizes with white Southerners who still proudly wave Stars and Bars, why is he so blind to the glory and pride Poles feel in having fought the Germans. Besides, though Poles marginalized Germans in Poland prior to WWII, Germans were not forced to be slaves. In the American South, slavery was a major component of society. If Buchanan can see honor and courage in even a civilization which practiced widespread slavery, why is he so intolerant of Polish flaws and sins which were minor by comparison?

And, speaking of the Alamo, it was Americans who were the real aggressors in the Mexican-American War. Though Americans defended the Alamo, the Mexicans were merely fighting to defend their territory. Yet, I'll bet Buchanan has no problem acknowledging the heroism of the Americans who fought and died at the Alamo. But, Buchanan feels nothing but contempt for Poles. Since antisemitism is taboo, Buchanan has settled on anti-Polism. Buchanan knows he would become a bigger pariah than he already is if he said Jews unwittingly brought upon the Holocaust on themselves by instigating/spreading communism and by manipulating the elites in UK and US towards anti-German policy, thereby confirming Hitler's already anti-Jewish view of the world. Buchanan may feel this way, but he's afraid of Jews as a bear is afraid of a pack of wolves. So, Buchanan has settled for swiping his paws at the Poles, which is just fine with the Jews since Jews hate Poles and have been using the media to spread the greatest slander of the postwar era--that most Poles are rabid and virulent 'antisemites'. Jews choose not to dwell on the Polish Jews' happy and extensive collaboration with the Soviets following the invasion of 1939 and the Jewish collaboration with Stalin in communizing Poland after the war.
Buchanan has a racial hierarchy that favors whites over non-whites but also favoving certain whites over other whites. So, Buchanan will side with white Russians against the yellow Chinese, he will side the Catholic Poles over the Asiatic Russians, and he will side with the Germans over the crude and uncouth Poles--as though Buchanan himself is a paragon of civility and good manners.

Finally, suppose US were a weak nation and about to be overrun by the Chinese or Mexicans whose military is much bigger and powerful. What would Buchanan do? Cower like a Czech or fight like a Pole? Would he rather choose to live as a slave of a Chinaman or a Beaner or fight and die as a free red, white, and blue American? Both options are legitimate. Courage is a hard to come by in face of almost insurmountable danger, and most people would choose to live as slaves. But, let's honor those who chose to fight as free men.

We can say of US what Buchanan has written of Poland. Americans committed many historical 'crimes', 'stole' lands, oppressed minorities, etc. But, if US were to be attacked by another nation, would Buchanan sit on his ass and beg for mercy or choose to fight--and even die--as a free man? Maybe, Buchanan, for all his bluster, is more like a Czech than a Pole. Maybe, he's really chicken.
Even though the red man was once the mortal enemy of the white man, what kind of red man did the white man respect more? The uncle tom Reds who were only happy to toady up to white man in exchange for alcohol and bacon OR fierce warrior Indians who fought for their sacred soil and lost/died bravely? Today, we honor men like Sitting Bull, Geronimo, and Crazy Horse, not toady Indians. Even Andrew Jackson, who hated Indians, respected Indian chiefs who put up a good fight for their sacred 'blood and soil'. Indeed, he respected those Indians more than the ones who settled among whites in the hope of being tolerated as uncle tom Injuns.
Buchanan sees no honor, courage, and glory in the Poles because he sees them as a stubborn obstacle that tripped both Hitler and Churchill into an internecine white war of mutual destruction. But, Poles were only fighting for their national honor, and their ambitions were nothing like that of Nazi Germany which wanted to helot-ize all of Russia.
Anyway, even after taking Poles out of the picture, Hitler could have settled for a Slavo-Germanic-Latin alliance of white folks. But, Hitler, like Buchanan, had problems with certain white folks he regarded as subhuman. And, Buchanan repeats these prejudices by referring to Russians as Asiatic without quotes.

(28). Buchanan accuses Churchill of standing up to Germans when Britain had no means to do so but then later accuses Churchill of NOT standing up to Stalin when, again, there was little Britain could have done. If Churchill was wrong to have stood up to mighty German when it took Poland, why is Buchanan so miffed that Churchill didn't stand up to an even mightier Soviet Union that took Poland? Of course, one could argue that Churchill should have done earlier with Hitler what he later did with Stalin--just accept the consequences.
But, there are crucial differences which must be addressed. Britain gave war guarantee to Poland in the hope of averting a war, not to bring on a war. But, once Germany and Russia were at war, there was really little Churchill could do or say that would have made much difference. It's not as though Britain made a pledge to save Poland AFTER Germany invaded Poland. Britain made a war guarantee BEFORE the invasion in order to prevent a war altogether. In contrast, what could Churchill do or say about the Soviet juggernaut that already swallowed up all of Eastern Europe? Once the war was on--started by Hitler against USSR--, Churchill could only react to history. British war guarantee to Poland was really the last time that Britain took an assertive role. Once Germany invaded Poland, Churchill could only react to history. He could only watch as Germany and USSR divided up Poland. He could only bomb German cities in retaliation of German plan for invasion of Britain. And once Germany and USSR were at war, Churchill could only hope that both parties would destroy one another. Initially, the Germans were so successful that Churchill--and even Hitler--thought the Germans might win by end of the year. So, Churchill and FDR had no choice but to lend their help to USSR; during the first several months of the German invasion of Russia, most people didn't foresee a stalemate but a total German victory. British and American reaction to the German-Soviet war might have been different if Hitler faced grave troubles early on and Soviet Union began rolling back the Germans almost immediately. In that case, Churchill may have been less eager to help the Soviets destroy Germany. But, many observers felt that Soviet defeat was foregone conclusion in 1941--unless Britain and US sent tons of aid to the Russians.

Anyway, Stalin swallowed up Eastern Europe not because Churchill allowed him to but because nothing could be done about it. The goal of the Soviets was to totally defeat Germany, and on their way to Berlin they were going to take everything in their path which was most of Eastern Europe. There was really nothing Churchill could do about this. If anything, he should be given credit for insisting that Western Europe must be liberated by the Western Allies. At the rate at which he was going, Stalin could have taken ALL of Europe. Even with Americans in Germany at the end of the war, Russians were, by far, the most powerful military force in Europe.
Of course, the main reason why Stalin didn't take all of Europe was because Churchill and FDR made sure that Western Europe, at least, would be liberated by UK and US. So, US and UK did more to save Europe from communism than Nazism. Nazism was essentially defeated by Soviet communism, and without US and UK saving Western Europe, all of Europe may well have fallen under Stalin. But, Stalin had other reasons for not taking Western Europe. Despite his huge ambitions he was a cautious man, and he knew that it would have been tremendously difficult for the Soviet Union--powerful but drained by war--to rule over, manage, and take care of all of Europe in the postwar era.

(29). Buchanan accuses Churchill in WWII of having been like a pagan Roman than a Christian Soldier--only a pagan brute could have mass bombed German cities and etc.
But, just WHAT is a Christian Soldier? The Crusaders who laid waste to the Middle East? The Teutonic Knights who burned children alive? The combatants in the Thirty Years War whose bloodbath wiped out 1/3 of the German population? Andrew Jackson's war of annihilation against the Indians? Curtis Lemay's bombing of Tokyo? Truman's order to have Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked? MacArthur's order to bomb every inch of every city and town in North Korea? Johnson and Nixon's bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia? Of course, Buchanan's Christianity is selective. The only people worthy of Christian charity and love are Anglo-German whites. There's not a single mention in the book of all the horrible atrocities committed by Germans who were 1000x the pagan brutes that the Brits were. But, that's okay with Buchanan since Germans mostly killed Slavs, a race of Asiatic beasts. He only invokes Christian morality when the Germans got bombed and died in huge numbers.
There's much to said about Christianity and Christians, both good and bad, but Buchanan gives Christianity a bad name. For him, Christianity is purely a racial identity movement. So, Germans, no matter how badly they behaved, deserved Christian mercy and compassion. But, Slavs who were brutalized and murdered by pagan Nazi Germans? Buchanan sees them as cattle. Some Christian.

(30). The real villains of the 20th century in the West were the Left-wing Jews and Nazi Germans. In some ways, the Left-wing Jews were worse because they began the whole process of radicalization which led also to the rise of Fascism and Nazism in reaction to Jewish-led leftist radicalism. Recall that while communists took power by entirely annihilating the entire status quo, Fascism and Nazism gained prominence with the crucial support of the bourgeoisie and conservative forces. In communist Russia, the bourgeoisie and then all men of property were targeted and destroyed. The goal of communists was to wipe out all enemies of communism. Fascism and Nazism were not as radical as communism but had the virility and the will to fight. But, precisely because they were not truly totalitarian in the communist sense, they had no plan to take complete power and control; they didn't want to own and run the entire economy, control all of culture, destroy all of the old and create something totally new, and so on. They wanted to have the most power to guide the nation to their notion of great destiny. As such, Fascists and Nazis needed the cooperation and support--or at least tacit approval or neutrality--on the various elements in society. Those forces--bourgeoisie, clergy, conservatives, masses, etc--didn't like Fascism or Nazism and would not have supported it IF NOT for the threat of communism, radical internationalism, and/or rabid anti-traditionalism. It was the trouble stirred up by crazy left-wing Jews and their dimwit brainwashed gentile allies which led to much social anxiety and finally persuaded the conservative and the patriotic masses to support of Fascist and Communist movements. And, these were truly popular movements almost from the very moment when they gained power. Indeed, prior to WWII, both Mussolini and Hitler would have won landslide victories--as with Putin in Russia--even if their nations had been democratic. In contrast, after the initial uprising, Bolsheviks had limited popular support and consolidated their power through terror and monopolization of all sectors of society. The Bolsheviks certainly would have lost in free elections in the 1920s and 1930s.
Anyway, the point is leftist radicalism led to rightist radicalism. Similarly, if the radical left had not tried to grab total power in Spain, there never would have been a right-wing reaction. We've seen from the examples of Cuba, Chile under Allende, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez that many so-called Western liberals care less for democracy than for using democracy to bring about socialist domination. Leftists and even many liberals of course prefer democracy over right-wing dictatorship, but they love left-wing dictatorship over 'bourgeois' democracy. 'Social justice' matters more than freedom. Collectivism is valued more than individualism--at least to the extent that collectivism is forced on the unwashed masses while the 'progressive' elite enjoy their individual freedoms as the vanguard of the movement.

Anyway, Buchanan's book misses the point by a long shot by focusing most of the attention on Churchill. Churchill may have made blunders, but those blunders had huge repercussions for one reason only: Europe came to be dominated by Left-wing Jew-ism and Nazi German-ism. Without those two virulent ideological strains, all the blunders of Chamberlain and Churchill wouldn't have amounted to a plate of beans. Indeed, consider all the blunders made by De Gaulle, Eden, Thatcher, Kohl, Brandt, etc, in the postwar era. And, consider all the blunders made by European leaders since the end of the Cold War. None of them amounted to much because Europe was a more stable and sane place. So, Buchanan should focus less on Churchill's blunders and ponder more on why those blunders mattered so much. It was because Communism and Nazism had made Europe a very dangerous place. It was because Europe was still reeling from the economic and political aftershocks of WWI. It's like dropping a bottle with water is no big deal, but dropping a bottle of nitroglycerin is a very big deal. Dropping a match in a lush forest is no big deal but dropping it in a parched dry grassland is a very big deal. Politicians always make blunders, but most mistakes don't do much harm. Blunders mattered in 1939 because Europe was a powder keg about to blow up again, and why? Because Left-wing Jews gave us communism in Russia and then tried to spread it all across Europe. That led to a reaction where the radical right offered a counter-ideology in Fascism and Nazism which had elite and mass support because many people couldn't stomach communism for economic, cultural, or national interest. Churchill may have stepped on a land mine but all those mines had been planted by communism and Nazism, but Buchanan only focuses on the fact that Churchill made a misstep. He has little to say about Hitler laying all those mines in the first place.
And, it must be remembered that it was Hitler who started three wars on white people. First, it was on the Czechs. Then it was against the Poles. Finally, it was against the Russians. (He even declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor!)

Also, the slander against Russia as an empire of Oriental Despotism must be buried for good. Yes, it's true that as Russia had been at the outer-reaches of European civilization, it had been less affected by European ideas. And, it's also true that Mongol invasion of Russia and Russia's closer proximity to Muslim peoples of Central Asia had introduced some Oriental ideas, customs, manners, and genes. But, it's more accurate to say that Russia was a European civilization that was behind the times--and in the process of catching up--than an alien or non-European civilization. It's more accurate to say that Russia in the 19th century was a century behind the more advanced European nations than an "Asiatic" or "Oriental" civilization. Japan is, today, an highly advanced nation but it is and will always be Oriental or Asian. China, no matter how rich or advanced it becomes, will always be Asian. But, Russia was always European. It was separated from other Europeans in time and space than in culture or race. Original Russians were viking-like folks, and they had rich and productive relationships with Poles to the west and Scandinavians to the north. Due to the vast distances between East Asia and Russia, there was far more economic and cultural exchange between Russia and rest of Europe. The Russian elite had great respect for French culture, and prior to the disaster of WWI Germans had a profound influence on Russia on every level of society. The real problem of Russia in the 20th century was not 'Oriental despotism' but Left-wing Jew-ism. Prior to communism, Russia had been autocratic but never totalitarian. It had been a civilization of great art, culture, and literature. A nation with a great tradition in its national church. Also, there were great many cultural interactions, exchange, and crossbreeding between Russian and French culture, Russian and German culture, Russian and Polish culture, Russian and Finnish culture, and etc. To be sure, there were many tensions between Russia and its neighbors, but that was as true of rest of Europe. Austro-Hungarian Empire was no less a prison house of nations, albeit one ruled by more enlightened elite. There was great promise for Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. But, the stupid pigheaded arch-conservative aristocratic forces in Germany, Austria, and Russia tried to exploit populist nationalism to preserve their power and privilege. If post-WWI Germany turned democratic--albeit under the weight of crippling Versailles Treaty--, Russia came under the control of Left-wing Jews. One can argue that Lenin, Trotsky, and such ilk were like 'Oriental despots' or Tsars of old, but this is crock. The forces that came to power in Russia were unprecedented, terrifying, and radical. It was a new order hatched by the totalist mentality of the Left-wing Jew that began with Karl Marx. There had been brutal autocrats in Russia before but never anything like Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin. It doesn't matter that Stalin admired Ivan the Terrible and other powerful Russian Tsars. He was shaped by an ideology that was radically new and utterly ruthless. The Stalinist madness we find in George Orwell's 1984 had nothing to do with Orient. It had everything to do with Jewish radicalism. Of course, this system would eventually lead to the extermination of the many left-wing Jews, but its totalist logic remained until the fall of Soviet Union. It was inevitable that Russian communism would have Russian characteristics--just as Italian Fascism and German Nazism were dissimilar due to different national characters--, but communism was an ultra-modern radical Left-wing Jewish ideology. The notion that Russian communism was particularly hideous or brutal because of the Oriental or Tsarist origins of Russian civilization is a canard sold by Jewish intellectuals and historians desperate to pass the blame for the crimes of communism on other people. This way, Jews can salvage their own historical record. Left-wing Jews can say communism would have worked had it not been for the fact that Tsar-like Stalin took over the great movement from decent Jewish communists, and conservative Jews can say Russian communism itself was a continuation of the old Russian ways. But, just compare how the Tsarist police treated Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and others with how the communists treated their prisoners and enemies. The Tsarist police were saints by comparison. Lenin spent his exile reading and writing books, enjoyed frequent visits by his family, or was allowed to just leave the country and cause trouble elsewhere. Compare that to what the NKVD did. And, did Tsar Nicholas set up vast gulags where millions would be worked to death as slaves? What happened in communist Russia had NOTHING to do with "Oriental Despotism" or Russian Tsarism and had everything to do with Left-wing Jew-ism. (Notice that Czechoslovakia, a relatively advanced Central European nation, ended up with the same brutal system when it fell into the hands of communists, Jewish or otherwise.) The Mongols of old had been cruel and ruthless but haphazard and unpredictable. The Tsars had been oppressive but had no intention nor means to control EVERYTHING in Russian society. Then, there was a time of Enlightenment and hope in late 19th century Russia. But, Russian history became diseased with left-wing Jew-ism which was particularly dangerous because it was an intellectually/scientifically-devised experiment using nearly 200 million people as lab rats to create the New Man. Stalin may have aped Ivan the Terrible in style but he got all his ideas from Marx and Lenin--and other Jewish communists.

If Russia made a mistake, it was the same mistake made by Germany and Japan. In the late 19th and early 20th century, all those nations, European or Oriental, were rapidly modernizing. Even China buckled under the pressure eventually, and modernity would have spread to all of Europe and Asia. But, Japanese, though at the forefront of modernity-building in Asia, wanted to preserve its privilege as The dominant power in the region. It also wanted to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it wanted modern wealth and power; on the other hand, it wanted to maintain itself as the sacred land of the Emperor. German aristocratic conservatives had the same idea for Germany--to preserve the old amidst the new. And, the Russian Tsar wanted to maintain his image as the Father of his people. They all played with populist nationalism. Germans and Russians got burned in WWI, and Japanese would eventually get burned in WWII.
At any rate, the problem wasn't European-ism vs Oriental-ism. After all, it was Westernized Japan which learned globe-trotting imperialism from the West and applied it to the less developed, thus more Oriental, China. It was not 'Oriental' China that attacked modernized Japan. (It should also be remembered that Chinese too were conquered by the Mongols and that it wasn't the Chinese who invaded Russia proper. Mongols, unlike Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese, were not a settled people but a nomadic people who violated what we consider as 'Oriental' norms. Mongols, as Asians, certainly had a slavish Asiatic personality, but in many ways they were more like the unruly Vikings than your conventional Oriental who stays rooted to his rice paddy and bows before his emperor who rarely ventures outsides his palace. Chinese and Japanese were essentially a palatial people whereas Mongols were a people of the Tent. (If Mongols fit into any Oriental model, it would have to be the nomadic Arab-Muslim one than the East Asian one.)

Anyway, Russia, Germany, and Japan all played with the notion of having the cake and eating it too. They all wanted to modernize and grow powerful--and be respected by modern democracies--BUT ALSO to maintain the old aristocratic order. In having played this game, Germany was no less 'Oriental' than the Russians. Not for nothing were the Germans depicted as The Huns in WWI. As far as the British public were concerned, Germans were the Asiatic Monsters from whom civilized Europe had to be saved. This Asianization of the enemy is an old European trick borne of legendary threats posed to the West by the Huns and Mongols. (By the way, if it could be argued that Russians are not properly white because they'd once been ruled by Mongols, what does it say about Germans who'd twice been overrun by the Huns, another Asiatic people. Huns even sacked Rome at one point. Historians think the Germanic peoples were pushed toward Rome by the onrush of the Huns. So, just imagine the number of Germanic women who might have been raped by the Huns in ancient times and gave birth to semi-Hun babies. Hungarians--close ally of the Nazis--certain trace their heritage back to the Huns. And, there are some German people who have some Asiatic or Hunnish characteristic as high cheekbones, snub nose, or even slanty eyes. So, who are the Germans to look down on the Russians?

(30). Many commentators on both the right and left have complained that we have a way of Hiterlizing every dictator around the world, exaggerating his threat to world peace to ludicrous levels. This is supposedly the cause of so much war and conflict around the world. Buchanan belongs in this group. (Buchanan doesn't realize that his problem is the very opposite--trying to de-Hitlerize Hitler. If too many people have a way of Hitlerizing too many crises, Buchanan Franco-izes Hitler into just another right-wing statesman who stumbled into war because Western leaders Hitler-ized him. So, Buchanan thinks it was even wrong to Hitler-ize Hitler. He thinks Churchill should have trusted Hitler--like Stalin trusted Hitler until Operation Barbarossa. Some good that did to Stalin.)

But, the criticism that we've been Hitlerizing every tin pot dictator is a vast exaggeration. If anything, the big powers since the end of WWII has overlooked and even befriended many mass murderers, psychopathic tyrants, and such ilk. West did preciously little about Idi Amin or any bunch of African tyrants. The world did nothing while Mao killed tens of millions. The world did nothing when the Khmer Rouge killed 1/4 of their own people. US government sang praises to guys like Mobutu and Suharto--whose invasion of East Timor may have killed 300,000 people. The world did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. Despite all the pro-democratic rhetoric, nothing significant has been done about Iran since the Revolution. And, minus the tepid Bay of Pigs fiasco, US did nothing against Communist Cuba which exported communism to rest of Latin America. Until the late 90s, both Europe and US sat on the sidelines as 100,000s were slaughtered in the Balkans. The world did nothing about the million-plus people who died in the North Korean man-made famine of the 90s. Prior to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the West had been chummy with the bloody tyrant. US has had cordial relations with Saudi Arabia, a nation ruled by a repressive monarchy and a medieval clergy. In 99% of the cases, the world never said anything about all the tyrants, tragedies, and bloodbaths around the world. So, what is all this stuff about Democratic Fundamentalists trying to intervene in all parts of the world to set up Pax America?

In truth, political idealism is diplomacy by other means. The reason why Americans began to pay attention to Darfur is because Sudan grew close to China, a nation regarded as a rival by the US. And, American Jews have been bashing China because China is also chummy with Iran, an arch-enemy of Israel. North Korea also became an issue mainly because Jewish-Americans were angry about North Koreans dealing in arms and technology with Muslim nations such as Pakistan and Iran. Neocon 'democratic fundamentalism' is Zionism by other means. It is not a radical movement to Americanize and democratize the entire world. When has any Neocon ever called for the invasion of Zimbabwe, Congo, or Burma? They are mainly interested in nations that are direct or indirect threats to Israel.
Prior to the Darfur crisis, there had been a long bloody war in southern Sudan. Muslims and Christians were slaughtering one another; there was also a massive slave trade carried out be Muslims. But, this rarely made it into the evening news. You could read about them in Foreign Affairs or Current History, but it was not common knowledge for most Americans. So, why did Darfur become such a major issue recently? Because it offers Americans an opportunity to morally bully and intimidate China, a nation which is making huge inroads into Africa. Also, there is the rising Muslim vs Infidel(often Christian) conflict in Africa, and Sudan is one of the hotbeds of this trend. And, the global-warming crowd focus on Darfur to persuade the world that such conflicts are the result of Western capitalist greed.

At any rate, only an handful of dictators and tyrants since end of WWII had Hitler mustaches painted on them, and purely for political reasons. During the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein had been what Uncle Joe had been during WWII. US and Europe looked the other way when Hussein was gassing Kurds and killing 100,000s. It was only when Hussein invaded Kuwait that he was called an Hitler. So much for radical idealism. Moralist rhetoric in foreign affairs has mostly been about geopolitics and economic interests. And, consider the time when the bloody Mobutu visited the White House, and Reagan sang praises to that thug. And, consider how UK tried to accommodate and roll out the red carpet for Mugabe even into the 1990s when the man was growing even crazier than he usually was.

American Jews know they cannot openly tell Americans--and Europeans--to intervene in The Middle East for the sake of Israel. Even pro-Israel gentile Americans will not accept American boys dying thousands of miles away for another country. So, American Jews--liberals and Neocons--have disguised their Zionism as universal idealism. Jews have a habit of doing this on many other issues. Jews want open immigration for Jewish interests--to bring more Jews into America and to turn US into a neo-Austro-Hungarian Empire so that no dominant homogeneous racial or ethnic group can unite against the Jew--but insist that it's for 'diversity' and 'social justice' for the good of ALL OF US.
Has Buchanan himself fallen for this hype, or is he just too afraid of Jews to state the obvious? Does he REALLY think Neocons want US to fight in every part of the world to spread democracy? In truth, Neocons only spew a lot of empty rhetoric about tyrannies around the world but call for REAL ACTION only in areas that involve Jewish interests. One might argue that Kosovo had little to do with Israel, but it should be seen as a set-up for the eventual intervention in Iraq. Now, this is not to say that Neocons are evil conspiratorial people. In their hearts, I'm sure they really believe that the entire world would be much better if democracy existed everywhere. And, I'm sure they feel genuine sympathy for the oppressed and exploited around the world. Nevertheless, their greatest sympathy and obsession are with Israel and Zionism. They are willing to overlook other nations but not Israel. Israel alone is absolutely sacred.
Now, there were other factors that led to the Iraq War--Big Oil interests, desire for vengeance on the part of Americans, genuine idealistic naivete among some liberals and conservatives, etc. But, it's wrong to argue that Democratic Fundamentalism was the main issue. If so, why didn't the US go into Saudi Arabia, another repressive nation and one that played a much greater role in 9/11 attacks? Why didn't US intervene in Zimbabwe, where people were--and still are--in even worse shape than people were in Hussein-ruled Iraq?

If anything, US and Western nations--as well as the USSR and China--have been accused of overlooking, befriending, and supporting rotten regimes whose human rights record was no better Hitler's Germany. The most shameful was Nixon's trip to China. Nixon met Mao, a man as odious as Hitler, and sang praises to high heaven. Nixon, the most powerful man in the world, rolled before Mao's feet and groveled. At the very least, Neville Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler BEFORE Hitler began WWII and killed millions. By the early 70s, Mao had set up a monstrous totalitarian state and killed tens of millions. Mao supported North Korea in the Korean War and played a major role in supplying North Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge. But, Nixon and Kissinger went as two groveling dogs. They got NOTHING from the meeting except the deluded impression that something important had been achieved. And, the liberal media went wild--just as the media went wild about Chamberlain's 'peace in our time'. Talk about a disgrace. Again and again, US got chummy with vile dictatorships around the world after WWII. When Nixon met Mao, American anti-communism was undermined in the eyes of many people. If communism is so evil and oppressive, what was Nixon doing in China? Also, it's one thing for the US to open diplomatic relations with China since China is a major nation--just as US had no choice but to deal with the USSR--, but did Nixon really have to kowtow before Mao? And, considering the fact that Mao destroyed so much Chinese arts and culture in the Cultural Revolution, did Nixon have to praise Madame Mao's red ballet as among the greatest art forms in the world? It was as if Chamberlain, in his meeting with Hitler, remarked that some trashy painting of Hitler as white knight is the comparable to the greatest works of Michelangelo and Rembrandt.

Also, the main problem with Hitlerizing evil men is not that it leads to democratic fundamentalist interventions--99.9% of the time, it comes to nothing--, but that such rhetoric locates the greatest evil on the right than on the left. It's as though leftism, no matter how extreme, can never be truly evil. This is why Susan Sontag called communism 'fascism with a human face'. In other words, communism is evil not because it's far left but because it's actually far right in the guise of the far left. And, when 'American Spectator' reviewed Oliver Stone's "JFK", it compared Stone to Leni Riefenstahl--Hitler's filmmaker--than to Soviet filmmakers like Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Vertov whose styles were the real inspiration to Stone. And, notice that radical Islam is called Islamo-fascism when, in fact, it has more in common with Marxism. Like Marxism, radical Islam is anti-capitalist, universalist, wretched-of-the-earth-ist, puritanical, and text-bound. Though Marxism was anti-religious, it grew out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and as such, shares the anti-paganism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fascism and Nazism were repressive and repressed but not anti-sensual; they were both imagistic and idolatrous. They were hierarchical and particularist. They were about beauty and brawn. Judeo-Christian systems--including Marxism--are about egalitarianism, universalism, and ideals over idols. So, if anything, radical Islam should be called Islamo-Marxism. Osama's vision of the world has much more in common with those of Franz Fanon and Che Guevara than with Mussolini or Hitler. (And, as religious as Franco was, his Catholicism was a conservative Spanish nationalist, not a radical universalist.) Though Osama's main focus of attention was the Middle East--as Che's was Latin America--, he did foresee an eventual world struggle where Islam would triumph all over the world(especially in Europe where Muslims were far out-breeding the infidels) just as Che took spoke of a day when US would be overtaken and overthrown by the wretched of the earth made of blacks, immigrants from Latin America, and poor whites, all led by radicals like himself.

So, people on the Right should realize that the main problem of Hitlerizing bad people is that we are made to think that great evil is always right-wing. Even Buchanan does this when he calls radical homosexuals 'homo-fascists' instead of 'hommunists' or 'homo-Marxists'. And, Rush Limbaugh calls radical feminists 'feminazis' when, in fact, 'femmunists' would be more appropriate since radical feminism was essentially a movement created and led by radical left-wing Jewesses with Marxist backgrounds. Also, radical feminism has been chummy with communist nations all over the world and has been virulently anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-white-gentile. There's nothing 'Nazi' about radical feminism. It's just Marxism with a pussy.
Because of the way liberals and leftists played the 'red scare' card after the McCarthy, many conservatives have been afraid of being yelling 'communist!' lest they be accused of paranoia, hate-mongering, crying wolf, 'red-baiting', and so on. Because the liberals and left dominate the academia and the media, even the most rabid and virulent left-wing paranoia, hate-mongering, rage, and venom are championed or defended as 'dissent'. So, if Naomi Wolf or Philip Roth says George W. Bush was plotting to set up a fascist state in America, it's no big deal. But, if you say leftists are closet-Marxists, you get accused of 'red-baiting' or being McCarthyite. The climate has changed somewhat. Now, we often have talk radio people calling democrats "Marxists" and "Bolsheviks". (Even though there are some closet-Marxists among Democrats, it's foolish on the part of the Right to call all liberals 'Stalinists' and etc. If Dick Durbin--Senator from Illinois--was stupid to have compared US military with Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, it's equally stupid for conservatives to invoke Stalin--murderer of 20 million--to describe Democrats they don't like. The greatest offense is to the victims of Stalin; to compare Ted Kennedy to Stalin is to suggest that the people of Massachusetts are experiencing something on the order of the Great Famine! On the other hand, the anti-Bush and anti-Right rhetoric, propaganda, and movies by the Left--consider stuff like V for Vendetta, Rap music, Moveon.org ads, and Bourne Supremacy--are so demented, murderous, and over-the-top that many conservatives might justify their own extremism as mere tit-for-tat.)

(31). To what extent did the fall of Russia to communism impact Hitler's view on the Jews?
Recall that Germans and Jews had been great competitors in Russia prior to WWI. Indeed, it's been said that Germans were the Jews of Russia. The Russian government, economy, culture, and military owed a great deal to Germans in the East. But, in the late 19th and early 20th century, Jews in Russia were beginning to challenge German influence and power in Russia. Germans, filled with national pride and even a sense of cultural superiority, were especially sensitive to the Jewish challenge in both Germany and Russia. They saw themselves as the ablest, most orderly and industrious people in Europe. With the rise of racial ideology in the late 19th century, the notion of German greatness took on a racial tinge. If Germans were the best race, then it troubled Germans that Jews--who were often deemed lowly by racial scientists--bested the Germans in many areas, especially in Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany itself. Because Germany and Austro-Hungary did much to liberalize society in the late 19th century--Bismarck and Austrian Emperor were nice to Jews--, Jews gained the freedom to reach the top of many professions which had once been closed off to Jews. Almost overnight, Jewish thinkers, musicians, scientists, mathematicians, lawyers, doctors, artists, etc were beating the so-called mighty Germans. This hurt German pride. It could even be argued that there was less anti-Jewish feeling prior to the liberalization. Germans expected liberalization of society to give the Jews a chance to be like other Germans. In truth, Jews rose far higher than most Germans. Instead of creating equality between Germans and Jews, it disproportionately empowered and privileged the Jews over the Germans. (Similarly, equal access to sports led to the dominance of blacks who are biologically stronger than whites. Legal equality doesn't lead to social equality. Just as the stronger blacks kicked the white man's ass in sports and in the streets, the smarter Jews in business and science kicked the asses of pedantic and thick-skulled Germans.) This was not because Jews were necessarily more driven and industrious than Germans. Germans were known for their work-ethic, drive, ambition, discipline, and devotion. So, it was bothersome to Germans that Jews, once a marginalized people, would beat the Germans in so many prestigious fields. It was one thing for Jews to outperform the lazy Poles or Russians but quite another for Jews to outperform the great Germans? Culturally and socially, Germans were no less driven to succeed and climb the social ladder than Jews. Yet, Jews kicked German ass. There was only one explanation. Jews were either smarter/superior or more clever/venal/sneaky. Just as white pride in the early 20th century had a hard time accepting the fact that Jack Johnson whupped white boys because the black man is stronger, Germans couldn't accept the notion that the funny looking Jews were smarter and superior in intellect to Germans. What was especially frustrating was that even seemingly slovenly Jews were outperforming industrious Germans. Einstein the dropout and slacker did greater work than all those serious-minded German scientists who came to classes on time, respected their professors, and pored through revered texts.
Some Germans dismissed Einstein's genius as "Jewish science." Consider the fact that German nuclear scientists--imprisoned by the Allies after WWII--really thought they were far ahead of everyone else and were later shocked to find out that American Jews had figured it all out and had already made a bomb that worked.
Anyway, as Jews gained more power in relatively liberalized Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, many Germans still took pride in German achievement and dominance in Russia. By the eve of WWI, Russian Jews were challenging German dominance, but Germans had one big advantage\the fact that the anti-Jewish Russian elite preferred dealing with honorable Germans than 'venal' Jews. It was Russian illiberalism that gave an unfair advantage to German businessmen, lawyers, teachers, and advisers in Russia.
But, WWI happened; Russia and Germany became enemies. Two empires which had grown close together with mutual respect through much of the 19th century became bitter enemies promoting their own ethnic nationalism--pan-Germanism vs pan-Slavism. In this catastrophe, German dominance crumbled in Russia. Worse, Russia came under the rule of left-wing Jews. These leftwing Jews didn't just gain dominance but wiped out all opposition, often targeting entire ethnic groups. Among the most tragically targeted were the Germans of Russia. What WWI failed to do, Bolshevism finished off. Stalin especially carried out deportation and enslavement policies against Baltic and Volga Germans which were semi-genocidal in nature.
Though Stalin eventually killed off most of the top Jewish communists, much of the government elite or cream of the crop of Soviet institutions--arts, culture, universities, bureaucracy, etc--were dominated by Russian Jews. The Jewish triumph over Germans in Russia was complete. Not only did Germans lose power and prestige but were enslaved and killed in huge numbers. It's been said that up to 50% of Baltic and Volga Germans may have been died in slave camps.
So, there may have been a special vengeful need on the part of Hitler to invade Russia. Had Germans not been vanquished in Russia by the Jews, he may have felt less murderous hatred.

(32). Buchanan says America avoided most catastrophic wars because of its cautious foreign policy prior to Wilsonism, but it actually had more to do with luck. America lucked out because US was the most powerful country in its hemisphere by far. The levels of destruction in a war usually depends on how the two sides are stacked up against one another. The tragedy of WWI was that the two sides were nearly evenly matched. Had France been much more powerful than Germany or vice versa, WWI would have been over as quickly as the Franco-German war. Notice the quick end of the war between Germany and France in WWII; damage was limited because of the quick victory.
America lucked out because all of America's neighbors were pushovers. The one exception was British Canada in the early 19th century when America was not yet a great power. So, the War of 1812 was a nasty and destructive affair for the Americans. The Brits even invaded and burned down the American capital, and what can be more embarrassing than that? Indeed, the War of 1812 could arguably be called the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history. A young and weak America picked an unnecessary fight with a mighty imperial power and got its ass kicked. Though Americans like to remember the war as a tie, Brits really won as none of American goals was achieved while the Brits swept through and burned many US towns and cities. Just how many American cities and towns did Sunnis and Shiites burn and loot during the Iraq War? Iraq War has been costly and headache-inducing, but the fight took place overseas. The War of 1812 unwittingly invited the British to rip through much of the colonies and terrorize America.
And, recall the Civil War which was horrible and bloody because two sides were evenly matched. Though Union had more industry and more men, nearly all the best commanders were on the Confederate Side. The Union got its ass kicked many times in the war before finally prevailing over the Confederacy through sheer might of numbers and material--as the Soviets did against the Nazis. Pound-for-Pound, the Confederate Army was superior to the Union Army. But, as the yrs wore on, the quantitative advantage of the North couldn't be held back. Anyway, the Civil War was terribly destructive and costly because, like the War of 1812, both sides were roughly evenly matched. But, Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War were cakewalks because Americans were much more powerful than the Hispanic governments. And, the white man's wars against the American Indians--empire building as well as nation building--were essentially 'foreign wars' of conquest which ended quickly because of white man's vast superiority in numbers, guns, and organizational skills. So, it wasn't American wisdom that kept America relatively safe but its sheer supremacy in power--at least after the War of 1812. Now, suppose Mexico has been settled by industrious Germans than Spanish. Suppose German settlers had built Mexico--including the SW territories--into a rising nation to rival the US. Suppose Polk tried to pick a fight with Germanic Mexico to take the SW territories. The war might have been on the scale of WWI. German-Mexicans, industrially advanced, well-organized, brave, and disciplined would have fought tooth-and-nail, and the the Germexican-American war might have lasted 10 to 20 yrs with huge losses on both sides. America lucked out because most of its neighbors turned out to be weak and easy to push around. And when America grew much stronger than Canada, there was no longer a need to conquer Canada since Canada was friendly to the US, British were no longer seen as the bitter enemy, and US grew satiated with vast new territories as it expanded westwards and even took lands from Mexico. (Besides, Canada was seen as a de facto extension of America anyway.)
If the Americas had produced several powerful nations even matched in economic and military power, US foreign policy may have caused just as many problems as those that came to plague Europe. If Hispanic-America has been as rich and powerful as Anglo-America, the Spanish-American war would have been the first catastrophic world war of the 20th century. Recall that Americans were VERY aggressive in the Americas. Recall that US provoked a war with Canada in 1812 and with Mexico in the 1850s. And, even across the Pacific in the 1850s, recall that US put a gun to Japan's head and said 'open up or I'll blow off your head'--like Dirty Harry did with a bank robbing Negro. Except in the disastrous War of 1812, US lucked out because the nations it confronted happened to be weak. Had Japan been powerful in the 1850s, commodore Perry's antics would have started a war that would have done much damage to both nations. Had Mexico been as powerful as the US in the 1850s, the war may have taken millions of lives and lasted a long time. US might even have lost the war and lost territory to the Mexicans.

Now, suppose a single nation in Europe had the advantage over all others as US did in the Americas. All wars would have ended quickly, with the dominant nation beating all the rivals. Also, since that nation would have been so much more powerful, other nations would have tried to avoid wars with it in the first place--just as all Arab nations avoided wars with Israel after the humiliating debacles of 1967 and 1973. The tragedy of Europe was not so much the stupidity or recklessness of diplomacy but the even-matchedness of powers competing for their empire or 'place in the sun.' In the Americas, US soon became the one and only sun. So, Americans could afford to be aggressive and reckless--as they often were. After all, what were the Hawaiians gonna do against the well-armed Americans who arrived in huge ships? What were the Japanese gonna do when commodore Perry came with huge black ships with big cannons that could blow up Japanese cities? US lucked out because US was so more powerful than all the others in its region of influence. But, just look what happened when Japan grew more powerful. It got tired and angry at American 'aggression', 'imperialism', and 'recklessness' in Asia and put up a fight. Japanese had wanted to fight Americans in the 1850s but refrained from doing so ONLY BECAUSE Japan had been weak. But, once Japan grew more powerful and confident, it was willing to take on the 'arrogant' and 'aggressive' Americans.
And, look at the Korean War. Because Americans were so used to being #1 and confident--especially after whupping mighty Japan so handily in WWII--, they thought Korean War would be a cakewalk, even with the prospect of millions of Chinese pouring across the border. But, China under Mao was not China of the 19th century when Western gunboats could easily make the Asiatics kowtow to Western demands. And, though US had tremendous military superiority in the Vietnam War, the war was evenly matched due to Soviet and Chinese aid, high morale among communists, popular support for Viet Cong among peasantry, and better knowledge of terrain by the North Vietnamese guerrillas.

Most of American foreign policy developed in an environment where Americans were surrounded by pushovers. The one major exception was the War of 1812, and it's been one war that American historians have never much dwelt on--even to this day. Besides, since it was Anglo vs Anglo, many Americans consider it more a kind of civil war than a war that resulted from stupid foreign policy. Anyway, it's possible that American foreign policy has been even more reckless and aggressive than that of Europeans. Americans merely lucked out because they were faced with pushovers. Indeed, this had been the case with Europeans in much of the non-white world. With great military and organizational superiority--plus the fact that non-whites had no sense of nationalist ideology--, Europeans got used to waging and winning easy wars and feeling glorious about themselves. What Europeans felt in regard to non-whites peoples all over the world, Americans felt in much of the Americas and in the Pacific. Non-whites and Latin-whites--and Canadian whites--were no match to the Americans.
It may have been this easy victory over the non-white natives which filled white folks--in Europe and America--with much stupid pride. British, who'd been used to kicking black ass in Africa, thought they would have no trouble with the Boers. But, Boers were white folks with guns and fierce nationalist spirit. And, Russians felt so tough because they had conquered vast empty Siberian territories and backward Muslim and Asiatic Eskimo-like peoples. They looked at the map and felt an exaggerated sense of importance. And, the British and the French also overestimated by powers by looking at the map. Their empires extended all across the world. They failed to remember that they had pretty much beaten up non-whites without guns and no nationalist ideology. They had beaten up pushovers, but they just looked at the map and thought they conquered much of the world because they were so great and invincible. Americans felt this way too from whupping Indians, Mexicans, and the decaying Spanish imperialists. The lessons of Civil War weren't properly learned because it was seen as Americans vs Americans. Americans remembered it as brave tough Americans having fought brave tough Americans. But, Americans could lick just about anyone else. And, Japan, a kind of honorary Western imperialist nation for awhile, was also full of itself because it had beaten or whupped pushovers like Koreans and Taiwanese and Chinese. It was the kind of confidence a boxer gets after beating a string of second-rate opponents.
In the Americas, there was only one champion--USA--that no one wanted to mess with.
In Europe. there were many top contenders, and this is what made Europe dangerous. This is why the British were fearful of a single European champion rising to dominate all others. When Napoleon expanded eastward, the Brits fought the French and helped enemies of Napoleon. Most Europeans didn't want an America-like superpower in Europe--a nation that dominated all the others. But, the top European powers were filled with pride and vanity because of their imperialist ventures. The imperial gains gave them a false sense of strength. With modern weaponry they had defeated weak opponents--oftentimes, tribesmen with bows/arrows and spears--, but their eyes just glazed over the vast areas on the map designating their imperial holdings and thought they were high and mighty--or higher and mightier than they actually were. Americans were no wiser than the Europeans as Americans too had been recklessly and aggressively kicking butt left and right. Americans were just luckier because they were the ONLY champ in town.

There was a contradiction at the heart of Europe because imperialism filled each major nation with overblown pride or overheated envy. On the one hand, Europeans wanted to live together in peace and mutual understanding; on the other hand, each major nation measured its true worth by its international might. The French didn't just express pride in being French but in ruling over a great French empire. British didn't just express pride in being British but in ruling over the vast British empire. Russian pride wasn't just about being Russian but ruling over vast non-Russian territories. To belong to a Great Nation Club, you had to have more than your nation--especially since most European nations were small. You had to have imperial holdings. Americans were less imperialistic in the European sense because their own nation was an empire unto itself--vast in size and resources and destined to be a great power. America could be great just by being America. But, no European nation could claim greatness on its own; it could only claim greatness by laying claim to other territories. This was true even within Europe. What was Austria without the non-Austrian parts of the empire? On its own, it was just a little Germanic nation. This is why Europeans were pissed when Americans--and later Soviet Russians--lectured to them about the evils of imperialism. Here was America and the USSR, the products of imperialist conquest, war, and colonialism--giant nations that could be great without overseas imperialist holdings--lecturing to European nations about 'self-determination'. If 'self-determination' was so important, why did white Americans claim and take Sioux, Apache, Crow, etc lands and put Indians in reservations. And, who were the Russians, who ruled over vast non-Russian territories, to lecture about the evil of Western imperialism? And, it especially pissed off the Europeans that both Americans and Russians had 'bullshit' excuses for their empire-nations--democracy or world revolution.

Anyway, it was partly this imperialist mentality that brought upon WWI and even WWII. Imperial holdings made major European powers feel overly confident. British saw their empire on the map and thought they were unbeatable. French folks who had been raised with pride in the great French empire thought they could take revenge on the Germans. Russians were also full of themselves. But, empires produce not only overblown pride but also great anxiety. A nation with imperial holdings frets about all the territories under its domination. It's like a man with investments all over the world worries not only about money in his bank account but also in stocks, gold, future markets, real estate, etc. So, empires made Europeans both more confident and worried than they should have been. In the case of Bismarck, he had just wanted a safe and secure Germany, but Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to Germany to be a great nation among great nations. And, this was a time when greatness was measured by imperial holdings. And, the war began over issues related to empire in its neighboring ally nation. Austrians, both proud and anxious about their empire, felt obligated to demonstrate their power by punishing independent Serbia to keep non-Austrians in the empire in line. Austrians wanted non-Austrians in the empire to learn 'this is what happens to bad little non-Austrians who challenge Austrian authority.' Russians had their imperial pride and anxiety. Their 'greatness' obligated them to do SOMETHING. This brought Germany into the fight. And, the British entered the fight partly due to its pride and anxiety over its imperial holdings. Britain had grown more and more worried about the rise of German might in the late 19th century and early 20th century--and grew alarmed about the aggressive German rhetoric--and saw WWI as an opportunity to finally deal a fatal blow to this upstart nation that may one day challenge British supremacy--as Americans had done in the Americas in the Revolutionary War. Britain didn't want Germany to become the America of Europe.

Would there have been WWI if European nations didn't have overseas empires? There may have been less German envy of the French and the British empires. The British may not have feared the rise of Germany as much--as a challenge to the British Empire. In many ways, Brits saw the rise of Germany as a bigger threat to the British empire than to the British nation.
After WWII, all European nations their empires, and there has been greater peace among them. Instead of each European nation seeking an empire, it drew closer to other European nations. This would have been difficult to pull off if the major European nations defined themselves by their own separate empires. Stripped of far-flung empires, European nations have been trying to create a unified empire of Europe called the EU.

Of course, the Cold War and supremacy of US and USSR also had much to do with peace among Europeans. Still, it was good that European nations lost their empires which once had the effect that the evil ring in Nibelungen had on anyone who possessed it. Today, what's troubling is not the loss of empires but the loss of their own nations to the rise of non-white immigration and high birthrates. The non-white invasion--plus the low birthrates among whites--is turning the West into a demographic colony of the non-white world. Fareed Zakaria commends this and endorses the fact that US is becoming the first 'universal nation'. The FIRST? What about Brazil? Is that a paradise? And, India is a very diverse country made up of various ethnic groups. Some paradise that is. And, just look at the plight of whites in South Africa. South Africa is sadly the template for the future of Europe and America. Physically stronger and more aggressive and far more numerous blacks are mauling and raping whites and Asian settlers. Perhaps, the tragedy of whites in South Africa will not be in vain. The coming holocaust against the whites may finally awaken the white man from his doldrums in Europe and America. Of course, the leftwing/liberal Jewish media will try to cover up that story or try to contextualize it as historical justice against evil 'Aryan' whites.

(33). Buchanan exaggerates the significance of Iraq War, suggesting that it has been for the US what WWII has been for Britain. But, if US survived the War of 1812, the Civil War, the unsettled WWI, the Korean War, and the disastrous Vietnam War, surely the US can survive the Iraq War. Iraq War has done great damage to the Bush presidency, but it's not likely to have longterm effect on the world. There was much greater anti-Americanism during the Vietnam War, but the communist victory and the horrors that ensued--plus the glorious rise of capitalist Asia--proved that Americans had been on the right side of history. Because Bush has stayed committed to Iraq, Iraq may indeed stabilize and become one of the better nations in the region. The longterm effects of the Iraq War in both the Middle East and the world may prove to be positive, but it will take time--just as it took time for Truman to be appreciated. America's main failure in Vietnam was the unwillingness to fight to win. Bush committed himself to win the Iraq War, and American boys may come back home as victors. And, just look at Europe. Despite the widespread anti-Americanism, Germans elected pro-American Angela Merkel. French went with pro-American Sarkozy. And, Italians put pro-American Berlusconi back in power. Europeans hated the manner in which Americans brashly and arrogantly tried to dictate foreign policy, but they also know about the Muslim threat. They can see the large picture and realize that Bush and Americans are not their enemy. Americans can be arrogant/pushy, but we are still friends. It's the Muslims who are really invading much of Europe.

Also, the comparison between UK after WWII and US in the midst of Iraq War is false because there's no nation to threaten the US. After WWII, there was the monstrous Soviet Union to threaten all of Europe. Prior to WWII, UK had to face Nazi Germany. But, there is no comparable nation to challenge or threaten the US despite the Iraq debacle. As Buchanan laid out in 'Day of Reckoning', there is no nation on Earth that can challenge the US economically nor militarily; even the Chinese are far more dependent on US markets than US is on Chinese manufacturing.
The main threat to America is internal, not external. If Buchanan's point is that wars abroad distract us from the wars Americans must fight within, that's commendable indeed. But, Buchanan tries to avoid this issue because he's afraid of being called a 'racist' or 'anti-semite'. He must know that the truly dangerous enemies of America are leftwing/liberal Jewish control of the economy, media, and academia; thuggish black dominance of the streets and their criminal assault on once decent neighborhoods; the tidal wave of illegal--and legal--immigration plus the high birthrate among non-whites; the low birthrate of educated and most intelligent whites, who also happen to be indoctrinated by leftwing Jews who dominate the academia. (Leftwing Jews have castrated white men into metro-sexual white boys and encouraged white women to give birth to non-white babies since whiteness is synonymous with evil; anti-white-male-ism is the new anti-semitism. There was once a movie called 'Revenge of the Nerds'. What we are seeing in the West is the Revenge of the Jews. Leftwing and liberal Jews want to see gentile whites humiliated and turned into psychological and physical slaves of Jews and blacks. Leftwing Jews enjoy watching stuff like "Unforgivable Blackness", a documentary made by pussified liberal white boy Ken Burns that shows Jack Johnson totally humiliating a whole bunch of slow white boys who got beaten up in front of their women who soon went lusting after tougher black men.
So, if that's Buchanan's idea--that our focus on the world distracts us from the wars that must be fought at home--, he has a strong argument. But, he warns us that Neocons will push us to attack Sudan tomorrow, Zimbabwe next, Venezuela afterwards, and etc. NONSENSE. Democratic Fundamentalism is essentially Zionism by other means. No Neocon will ever call for American intervention in Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Bolivia, or Burma. Neoncons may genuinely sympathize with suffering folks around the world, but they only really want to use American muscle for Jewish interests.

The real danger of overseas ventures is they distract us from the real enemies in our midst.
In the 50s and 60s, radical leftists--notably Jewish--IN the US were more dangerous than radical leftists abroad. When foreigners insult or attack the US, we can fire back with words and missiles. But, when anti-American citizens of America spout hatred against this country, their rights are protected by the constitution. We can go after foreign terrorists, but US had to treat people like the Weathermen with kid gloves. Clinton even pardoned one of them--along with some Puerto Rican terrorists. Had the Weathermen been foreign communist terrorists setting bombs in the US, we could have just mowed them down. But, US government and the American people are not allowed to do what is necessary against enemies with US citizenship. These days, even illegal aliens in the US are de facto protected by American laws. So, an illegal Hispanic can go to college, join some radical anti-American group, sing praises to Che Guevara, and call for violence against the US--and get tenure than ten years in prison. This is why the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993 was difficult to deal with. Many involved were American citizens or legal residents.
Just consider Lee Harvey Oswald. Though a communist and anti-American--and even defector to the USSR and a traitor--, he was allowed back to the US and given a pass ALL BECAUSE he was an American citizen.
If a thousand Muslim terrorists were to invade America and burn down a city, we would surely send the National Guard to the area to shoot the scum. But, when blacks burn down entire cities, loot, assault innocent people, and murder whites, there is nothing the US government can do but watch and then provide federal aid to communities burned down by blacks. When Japan attacked and killed 2,500 American at Pearl Harbor, US saw fit to kill over a million Japanese and reduce Japan to rubble. Japan couldn't have destroyed or beaten the US afterwards. Indeed, the attack had been meant to be preemptive--to warn the US from interfering in the Asian sphere. And, even had US not avenged Pearl Harbor, no great damage to the US would have been done. The 'yellow-bellied Japs' were vicious and evil but they were across the Pacific. They could kill and rape the Chinese but couldn't kill a single American child or rape a single American woman. But, because it was foreigners attacking the US, Americans felt justified in totally smashing Japan and killing millions. But, Americans can't do anything about black thugs attacking and raping the white race. Just look at the racial violence stats; there is an ethnic cleansing happening in many communities where blacks are terrifying, beating, raping, and killing whites. Indeed, blacks in the 70s killed far more whites than Japanese did in Pearl Harbor. Black attack on whites did far more damage to property than Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But, since blacks are deemed American citizens, there's nothing that can be done about it.

Indeed, suppose some radical blacks get together and decide to pull a Pearl Harbor against white America. Suppose they attack white areas in the name of 'historical justice' and kill 2,500 whites. Suppose great many blacks cheer and see it as justified. What would white Americans do? Unite to fight and crush black America as they had destroyed Imperial Japan? No, white Americans would just cower in fear, the leftwing Jew media would try to justify the event as terrible but understandable given the history of slavery, and blacks would pretend to condemn the violence while privately giving one another high-fives.
So, the main problem with foreign ventures is they distract Americans from the wars that must be fought WITHIN America. Most Hispanics may be good people, but they arrive illegally in the millions. And, even if most of them come for a new life, their political and social consciousness is being shaped by anti-American ultra-nationalist Hispanics of the La Raza kind. Their heroes are not Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson but Castro, Guevara, Allende, and Chavez. Even Hispanics who become loyal US citizens have children who are taught to hate America in American schools whose curriculum is shaped by leftwing Jews and radical multiculturalists.

It seems that many Americans are deeply angry about all of this but remain silent because it's considered 'racist' to speak honestly about Jewish power, black violence, or illegal Hispanic invasion. But, the pent-up frustrations of Americans must be released somehow, and the Jewish-controlled media and academia have decided to direct American anger at Muslims and the Chinese. Jews hate the Muslims because Muslims oppose Israel, and Jews hate the Chinese because China--and Japan before it in the 80s--stands as a proud example of the power of unity and homogeneity. Also, because of the racial nationalism of the Asians, it's much harder for Jews to penetrate and take over those economies and culture as they've done with more liberalized nations. In the 80s, there was much bitterness between the Japanese and American Jews. Now, it's between Jews and Chinese. Since Jews run the media in the US, they've spread anti-Chinese sentiments far and wide. In the 80s, Jews jewilified the Japanese, and today the Chinese are being jewilified by the Jewish-run media. ("Jewilify" means to vilify a group in the manner that Jews had been vilified in the past by anti-semites.) Jews have made Americans see Asians as the octopus taking over the globe. So, Spielberg's movie 'War of the Worlds' starts with some white guy in a dockyard saying 'half of Korea' in coming to the US. Of course, Jews would deem it 'anti-semitic' for anyone to say 90% of US media is owned and controlled by Jews, or that US is essentially a junior partner to Israel. But, Jews feel no restraint in saying nasty shit about other people. And, many Muslim actors have complained that the ONLY kinds of roles Jewish Hollywood will give them are as swarthy terrorists. Whether it's Chuck Norris killing Muslim terrorists or some terrorist guy blowing himself up in "To Live and Die in LA"(directed by Jewish William Friedkin), Muslims are little more than terrorist killers. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Jews have almost absolute power in the media and academia and have become corrupt, arrogant, and bullying. Even if the Jewish representation in the elite academia is 30%, it might as well be 99% because while Jews can criticize, mock, insult, or write shit about any group--except blacks--, no one is supposed to write or talk about Jewish power, Jewish influence, and the negative impact of the Jews on once powerful and proud white gentile America. America is like a powerful wrestler who can take on any external enemies, but it has cancer growing within that it can do little about. America is forced to treat malignant cancer cells--most notably leftwing Jews, violent/aggressive blacks, and high tide of illegal immigration--as though they are healthy cells all in the name of diversity and historical guilt because the American mind is forcefed the corrosive ideology of the Leftwing Jew. So, even if leftwing Jews attack and demean America and its values, we are supposed to see Jews as saintly victims of the Holocaust and as constructive critics who have our best interests in mind. Even though black males are feminizing white males into white uncle toms and using white women--who increasingly go with the negro--as sex toy sluts, we are supposed believe that every black person is a saint like Martin Luther King Jr--who, by the way, was no saint but a fiendish lout who only invoked pacifism as a Trojan Horse tactic. And, we are supposed to believe that the moment an illegal alien arrives in the US, he or she is no less American than the rest of us. They are called 'undocumented immigrants', a terminological trick pulled off by liberal and leftwing Jews who are good as such things.

Anyway, comparing US with UK makes little sense because they were and are very different nations. America is large and was destined to be powerful and great with or without foreign empires. Britain could ONLY be great by maintaining its empire. So, after losing its empire in the yrs following WWII, Britain was no longer great. But, even if US were to lose its 'empire' abroad, US would still be a great power. Withdrawing from South Korea, Germany, the Middle East, etc will not undermine America's status as a great power. But, when the British withdrew from their empire, they were also withdrawing from greatness.
Just look at China today. It has no overseas imperial holdings but is destined to become a great power. Why? It's a big country with a lot of people. And, the Russians lost their empire--non-Russian republics adjacent to Russia--but Russia can still be great as long as Russians have more kids. Russia is a vast land with limitless natural resources.
But, Britain was limited by its size. And, though its empire belonged to Britain, they were not a part of Britain. Also, British empire was doomed because the Brits were relatively enlightened and educated the native elites to respect freedom and dignity; how could people educated thus endure British rule for long?
If Brits--and other Europeans--made one big mistake, it was not withdrawing from their empires much earlier. Had then been the case, there would have been less cultural and social interaction between Britain and non-whites all over the world. Far fewer Pakistanis and Indians would have come to Britain if Britain cut ties to that area in 1850. It's because France stayed in Algeria--and grew close to it--for so long that the French affectionately--and out of guilt--took in so many Algerians and other North Africans posing as Algerians. Suppose the French had dropped Algeria a century earlier. The bond between France and Algeria wouldn't have been so strong. And, why was America obligated to take in so many Vietnamese in the late 70s and 80s? It was because Americans made a pledge to watch out for those people in the 60s and then abandoned them to the communists. So, Americans felt obligated to take in all those boat people and other refugees.
So, Buchanan is ridiculous to argue that the British empire should have lasted longer. It would have been better if Britain had dropped the empire much earlier.
The reason why Buchanan may suddenly have this affection for the British Empire is because America is no longer what it is. After WWII, when the American star rose as the British sun set, Buchanan was happy to live in a great mighty white country. Back then, American power was white gentile power. But, what has America become since and what will it becoming in the future? The top elite since the 60s have been Jewish, and it's been hellbent on turning US into a white minority nation--and using blacks and browns against whites. Jews will fan white nationalist flames ONLY against Muslims and Chinese. So, if a proud white American waves the American flag to taunt terrorist Muslims or Ming-the-Merciless Chinese, Jews love it. Otherwise, American whites have been castrated into metro-sexual dweebery. The ideal template for the white goy male favored by Jews is Ken Burns who glorifies Jack Johnson who beat up white guys or Chris Matthews who has orgasms over Obama's speeches. Also, the illegal Hispanic invasion seems unstoppable. Even without illegal immigration, legal immigration--much of it from non-white nations--seem unstoppable. And, blacks and browns have babies like rabbits. So, America is no longer a proud white nation. It is still rich and powerful, but it's no longer about white power but Jewish power using blacks and browns against whites, and using blacks, browns, and whites against Muslims and Chinese.
So, Buchanan no longer feels close to what America has become. In the 40s and 50s, he didn't mind US rising at the expense of the Brits. It was one white power overtaking another white power. But, as America has fallen into the hands of Jews and non-whites, Buchanan can no longer feel very proud of America. In contrast, the British Empire--and even Nazi power--represented whites ubers alles. Hitler admired the Brits because a small number of whites ruled over gazillions of darkies. British Empire was, among other things, proof of white man's greatness and specialness. Also, Brits, unlike the French and Spanish, generally didn't mix their blood with the natives.
Just as many American historians in the late 19th century suddenly became Anglophiles in reaction to the tidal wave immigrations from southern and eastern Europe--they even argued that the American War of Independence had been foolhardy(even criminal and fraudulent)and the Brits had been in the right--, Buchanan suddenly has a soft spot for the British Empire when whites were the kings of the world. America, which once seemed destined to be the new Great White Nation around the world, turned into a nation ruled by liberal and left-wing Jews; and once proud white men and women turned into pathetic slaves of afro jungle rhythm, illicit drugs, sewage culture, and miscegenation--mainly with white women going with black males deemed racially superior in studliness and badassness(ironically in the name of racial equality).

Anyway, it's nearly impossible for a relatively small-sized nation to be superpower in today's world. British greatness was really built on sand of easy conquest and rule over ignorant masses of darkies. So was that of the French. British Empire was a small guy wearing a lot of coats and cloaks and looking big on the outside. But, the core body was small. US, in contrast, is genuinely a big guy with or without extraneous clothing. So is Russia. And, so is China. This is something Hitler understood. Though he admired and respected the British Empire, he didn't think it was founded on solid ground. For a nation to be truly great for a 1000 yrs, it must have great land mass and must be populated with a people who share racial, cultural, and/or ideological roots. And so, Hitler wanted to expand eastward and take a huge chunk of territory from the Russians and resettle those areas with Germans. Only that would ensure German greatness forever. Germany today is rich and important--and a major European power--but, it is not a great world power--nor can it ever be such. Great power status is something that is possible for China--if Chinese act wisely--and even for India. But, smallish European nations are limited to being regional powers. They had once been world powers only because the rest of the world was backward, poor, stagnant, and easy to dominate. There had also been fewer moral qualms about imperialism. Hitler regarded Russians somewhat like how the Americans regarded the Indians and Mexicans. Just as Americans felt Mexicans couldn't possibly do much with the SW territories(and thus were in better occupied and developed by American whites), Hitler thought the barbaric Russians shouldn't rule over such vast and potentially rich territory; Germans could do much more. Just as Homo Sapiens had wiped out the Neanderthals, Hitler figured it was time for Germans to wipe out the Russians. (It must be said of Americans that they had NO genocidal intent against Mexicans or even against the Indians who were put in reservations and given aid of some kind or other.)

(34). Buchanan attacks 'democratic fundamentalism', but his own problem is also fundamentalist. His America First-ism is really America Only-ism. The problem with Democratic Fundamentalism is its narrow ideological fixation. Fundamentalism is related to radicalism. It calls for rigid orthodoxy in all cases. Though Democratic Fundamentalism is really Zionism by other means, let us pretend that neocons and some liberals are serious in their commitment to democratize the world or at least get rid of brutal tyrants through military force. The problem isn't so much the ideal or goal but the fundamentalist aspect. That's what makes it dangerous and counter-productive to the US. (After the Cold War, US may be the only super power, but a super power is not a superduper power.) Many non-democratic nations will come to fear America and will unite or work in tandem to make things difficult for aggressively interventionist America as much as possible--as neighboring Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and China have done in response to American actions in Iraq. It's one thing for US to take action in Grenada or even Kosovo. The former was easy to pull off, and the latter had the blessing and support of European allies. The problem of the Iraq War was US pretty much did as it pleased AND indicated that this was only the beginning. Such rhetoric made Iranians even more eager to undermine US efforts in Iraq and alarmed the North Koreans to work full-speed toward attaining nuclear weapons.

But, Buchanan's America First fundamentalism is dangerous because it too is dogmatic and sends a message that may well destabilize the world. If the US government were to take Buchanan's advice, it would declare loud and clear, "US will do nothing as long as US itself isn't attacked." Considering that there are many weak nations neighboring powerful nations all around the globe, such declaration would be a green light for strong nations to intimidate and even invade small nations. Whether bullies or victims--or both--are friends of America, we would be a diplomatic pickle if the world would break out in little wars all over the globe. If US is a friend to bullies, it would make US look bad; if US a friend to victims, it would make US look weak and unprincipled for not coming to rescue its allies. US has many friends in the world because it has stood for international law and order. If US totally rejects its role as world cop, the world is much more likely to plunge into chaos. If US hadn't backed Colombia at all, Chavez's minions in Colombia would have come to power already. If US hadn't been the cop in Europe, who knows what the Soviets might have done. Much of the peace around the world is maintained out of fear of POTENTIAL American retaliation. If Americans openly declare that we will DO NOTHING, then rogue nations--at least 50% of all nations--will feel emboldened to push around weak neighbors. As Teddy Roosevelt, 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' We must speak softly but intimate that our stick MAY BE used. Fear of US reduces chance of violence around the world, and that reduces America's need to get involved in overseas crises.

Buchanan doesn't believe in idealistic interventionism nor in national self-determination--except in cases of Western European nations and America. He believes in big power domination or bully boy politics. He has stated that America's moral support for weaker nations and peoples oppressed by the USSR had been justified ONLY because communism was dangerous to America. So, if Russia had not been communist and committed great crimes against its neighbors, that shouldn't have bothered us any. Indeed, Buchanan even denounces American war of words with repressive or tyrannical nations. He wants Americans to completely look the other way and only deal with a few major giants in the world. He thinks international affairs and foreign policy will be greatly simplified if the entire world was ruled by few superpowers. So, US should dominate all of the Americas, Russia should rule over all of Europe east of Poland and all of Central Asia. He thinks China should rule over all of Asia. Who should dominate the Middle East? Iran? Who should dominate Africa? Nigeria or South Africa?
Buchanan, who calls for 'republic, not an empire' is really for 'limited empires for the big boys'. So, the Americas should be our empire. Asia should be China's empire--Buchanan indicates that in the 1930s, US and UK should have let Asia be ruled by the Japanese. Buchanan wishes that Europe had all been incorporated into a German-dominated empire. The German Ideal having failed, he wants much of Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be part of the Russian Empire or Sphere. This is the state of the world in Orwell's 1984, a very grim one where smaller and weaker nations are slaves to big ones such as Oceania. This is what Buchanan wants all over the world.

It's one thing for US to be careful in its diplomacy with Russia and in its commitment to nations neighboring Russia, but Buchanan doesn't even want to us criticize what is wrong and rotten in Russia.
Buchanan is projecting the bullyboy Arcadia of his youth onto the world stage. In the 40s and 50s, Buchanan hung around the popular big tough guys who dominated the neighborhood. Buchanan hung around the boys who did the beating up than boys who got beat up; as such, he feels contempt for the weak. Even his Christianity was all about white power, national glory, and political order/discipline. It was about being devout in order to smash the enemy and bully the weak. This was also a time when whites had decisive power and advantage over non-whites in America. So, Buchanan subconsciously sees this as the natural way of the world. Big guys or big powers should dominate over smaller and weaker boys and powers. But, it's this bully boy logic that has led to much black-on-white violence in integrated neighborhoods. Black Buchanans look down on white boys as 'faggoty-ass' and 'pussyboy' and pick on them--just as Buchanan and his pals once picked on kids who were 'different'.

It's this kind of mentality that gives Putin a bad name. And, it gave white America a bad name too. Moral sense--for those who have any--make it difficult for decent people to side with bullies or big guys who like to push around little guys. Powerful white America pushing around blacks or insulting helpless Jews was not a pretty sight during the Civil Rights era. Liberalism was right to champion the rights of non-whites against white discrimination and intimidation. Where liberalism utterly failed was in mistakenly seeing whites as eternal bullies and blacks/Jews as eternal victims. Buchanan's old habits make him argue for the white supremacy when he should be arguing for white survival. He's so used to seeing white man on top that he's miffed that white man has lost that exalted status. But, the real issue is that white man is sinking below even equality. In media and academia--and lucrative high-tech and bio-medicine--, Jews now rule over the whites. And, in sports--which has great cultural significance--and in the streets, blacks are whupping whites. Buchanan's moral argument is weak because he sympathizes with the strong over the weak; he waxes romantic about the good ole days when whites were rich and strong and non-whites were poor and weak. Buchanan would be on stronger moral ground IF he sympathized with fellow white folks BECAUSE THEY ARE WEAK. The uncle toms in America today are white. It's whites who are being terrorized by Hispanic illegals in the SW territories. It's whites--at least not the rich ones--who are being beaten up by or losing their girls to blacks. How nice it would be if Buchanan got off his high horse, met with real white Americans, heard their stories on the front line of crime and illegal invasion, and wrote a book on that. Instead, he writes an apologia for Hitler and the British Empire--both symbols of white supremacy than white survival.
The thrust of Buchanan's book is not that white people should have a world of their own just like all non-white peoples do. Instead, he harks back to the old days when whites ruled the world. He shares Hitler's enthusiasm for the British Empire because it, for awhile anyway, demonstrated the superiority of the white man--an idea no less delusional than the Chinese idea that their nation was the center of the world.
Because of his supremacist mentality, Buchanan cannot make up his mind between white republic or white empire. He must know that US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the great Latin America nations could not have been possible without empire building. Had the Brits stuck to 'republic, not an empire' in the 17th century, North America may have eventually been claimed by someone else--Russians or Chinese. On the other hand, empires have a way of being expensive(if over-stretched) or creating entities that may come to challenge the country that created it in the first place. US, the creation of UK, would come to eclipse the mother country. And, China and India, woke by the West, may come to eclipse Western power and affluence. But, that's history, which happens the way no one really expects.

Anyway, it's time to stop thinking in terms of white supremacy. By 'white supremacy', I'm not suggesting that Buchanan and his colleagues believe in slavery, genocide, or discrimination against non-whites but merely that they are uncomfortable with the new order because whites are losing their Top position. Fareed Zakaria is right in his discussion of the RISE OF THE REST. The rise of the non-Western world is inevitable and must be accepted if not welcomed by the West. Also, Latin America, which is rising, can be seen as part of the West too, or at least semi-West--especially in parts of Brazil, most of Argentina, and much of Chile.
The real problem is not that non-Western nations are rising--which can be plus as the West can increase trade with them--but that Western nations are taking in great many non-whites(plus the fact that non-white birthrates in the West are outrageous). Also, the most powerful and richest Western nation--the US--has fallen into the grip of Liberal/Leftwing Jewish Moral Supremacism. Perhaps the pauper-ization of whites in the US is not a bad thing. The long yrs of affluence and comfort has made too many white Americans lax, apathetic, and hedonistic. Such mental weakness and emotional dissipation made white Americans fall prey to Black Physical Supremacist pop culture and Jewish Moral Supremacist politics and ideology. Perhaps, another Great Depression will be good for America. Only such may awaken white Americans. But, they must wake up as little people who need to unite in order to be a big people.

Diplomacy is like a game of poker. The other side mustn't know what cards you hold. Any fundamentalism--democratic or non-interventionist--sends a clear message to other nations by revealing our diplomatic cards. The talk of "Axis of Evil" made North Korea and Iran even more paranoia than they already were. Even before the outcome of the Iraq War, Bush signaled other enemies that 'you are next'. It was then in Iran's interest to undermine US in Iraq and in North Korea's interest to develop the bomb as quickly as possible.
But, to declare a Buchananite non-interventionist strategy also invites trouble in the world. It tells nations all around the world that they can pick on smaller neighbors and that IN ALL CASES, US--and presumably its allies--will do absolutely nothing. Making China lose face in regard to Taiwan via democratic fundamentalism may be stupid but so is making it loud and clear that US will do NOTHING if China decides to invade Taiwan. Buchanan would have the US to pull out entirely from Asia and declare, loud and clear, "Big strong Japan and China can do whatever they wish, and it's Okay with us." So, never mind that many small Asian nations have been close Allies of the US for decades, especially during the decades of the Cold War. Buchanan says we should throw all of them under the Chinese bus. Buchanan is right to say US should not commit itself to the defense of a small Asian country, but, he's wrong to say US should declare non-interventionism as a fundamentalist policy.

Buchanan argues that US meddling in Asia made Japan attack the US, but following this logic, Buchanan should go back to the commodore Perry who forced Japan open in the first place. He should condemn the West for forcing China open. It was not FDR who first meddled in Asia. As in the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, the West meddled with others where ever it went. The Japanese saw themselves as akin to Indians fighting the American cowboys. So, it's not enough to say that Japan fought the US because FDR meddled in Asian affairs. Western foreign policy in the East was a case of meddling over and over. FDR's mistakes was meddling poorly. As we've seen with Hitler and Hussein in the first Gulf War, there are times when strong signals must be sent early on and followed through with decisive action. Hitler should have been warned when he first began to flex his muscles. US should have sent a STRONG message to Hussein the moment Iraq began to amass troops along the Kuwaiti border. The Western stance against Japanese aggression in China should have been much stronger in the late 20s and early 30s; tragically, the West sold Japan iron and oil to build up its war machine to invade China and shared Japan's hunger for Chinese spoils. As with Hitler, the problem with Japan was not that FDR meddled but that he meddled much too late--after making Japan's appetite for imperial expansion grow too powerful.

Also, America First policy would have been disastrous for both the East and West had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor. Without Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany would not have declared war on the US. European war would have been essentially Nazi Germany vs USSR(and to lesser extent UK). Most historians now think that USSR would have defeated Nazi Germany even without US intervention or aid, though it would have taken longer. Hitler planned the 1941 invasion to succeed within the first 6 months. Failing to secure victory in that time, USSR had vast advantages in men, resources, territory, and organization(Stalin was far more ruthless and brutal in pushing his own people than Hitler was with his). America First's non-interventionism would have meant the Soviets eventually taking not just Eastern Europe but ALL of Germany and then possibly all of Europe. Buchanan speaks of Nazi Germany and USSR fighting to a stalemate, but once the Russians got rolling, they were only fixed on one goal--total victory, unconditional surrender, and complete annihilation of Nazism. In wiping out Nazism, Soviets might have conquered all of Europe. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, that may well have been the fate of Europe. Also, had US not defeated Japan in the East, the war in Asia would have dragged on for much longer--Japanese may well have become stalemated in China. Of course, Americans can argue that it's not America's problem what 'Japs' and 'Chinks' do to one another, but the notion that tens of millions more may have died is a grim thought. Still, Buchanan may argue that such is exactly what happened with the rise of Mao, but this was not because of US entry in the Pacific War but its unwillingness to finish the job. Had US resolved to defeat Japan and save China, both Japan and China may well have been great allies of the US in the cold war. But, what did FDR do? He wasn't willing to go all the way. He only wanted to defeat Japan and didn't care for the fate of Chinese. So, he invited Russians to enter the Asian sphere. Chinese communists, empowered in the war against Japan, grew much more powerful with Soviet backing in the north China. That's what sealed China's fate. Similarly, Bush administration focused only on removing Hussein in Baghdad and didn't plan much about controlling and managing the rest of the nation after the US invasion. So, Iraq was soon controlled by radicals, terrorists, and sectarian militias. And, US is facing the same problem in Afghanistan. The emphasis only went into militarily defeating the Taliban and Alqaeda while little thought went into securing civilian order in the nation. FDR only saw far-right Japan as the only danger in Asia. He thought if militarist Japan was defeated, all would be hunky dory. He utterly failed to see the dangers of communism in both Europe and Asia. He not only had no problems with Stalin grabbing all of Eastern Europe but even asked Stalin to enter the Asian sphere--rather like asking a wolf to come help kill the coyote in order to save the sheep.

America First had serious problems too. Its three main components were all bad. There were (1) Germanophiles who wanted Nazi Germany not only to defeat communism but rule over Russians-as-helots and deal with the 'odious' Jews, (2) naive pacifists with good hearts but no brains and (3) dogmatists for whom 'isolationism' and 'nativism' were religions.
All three were wrong because the Germano-philes(1) would have screamed for intervention had Stalin attacked Germany first and was on the verge of taking all of Europe, because pacifists(2) would have wanted US to be militarily weak and even opposed US retaliation against Japan after Pearl Harbor, and because dogmatists(3) would have called for non-intervention regardless of total Nazi or communist victory in Europe.

The dogmatists(3) among the America Firsters were much more principled than the opportunistic and cynical Germanophiles(1), but any fundamental -ism in history and politics is a losing game. No strategy or approach is perfect and works 100%. A nation must always modify/adapt and 'read' its opponents in ever shifting situations. In war, no battle strategy wins all the time. If strategy A is used, the other side adjusts its own strategy to counter A. In boxing, it's said that style makes the fight, and so a boxer must adjust his style in relation to the styles of his opponents. Ali could not have fought George Foreman the way he fought Frazier or Norton. Foreman lost to Ali because he used the same strategy he'd used against all the previous opponents. Ali had studied Foreman, but Foreman had not studied Ali.

Also, every advantage comes with a disadvantage, a fact lost to dogmatists.
Take blacks in the US. Brought as slaves to the US, blacks were a great economic boon to America. But, as the yrs passed, black problem led to the Civil War, Civil Rights movement, race riots, welfare waste, crime, violence, and etc. And, blacks may well come to destroy much of Western civilization--in Europe too, as French suburbs and parts of England are turning into savage wastelands.
Or, consider the Jews. Allowing Jewish immigration has been a great plus in many ways. Jews have played a crucial role in the arts, science, literature, law, medicine, etc. But, Jews have also gained almost supreme power in academia and media and have used those tools to brainwash white gentiles into mindless retarded slaves of cultural sewage and afro-savagery. Liberal and leftwing Jews are doing to white Americans what Jerry Springer does to his white trash guests.

Or, consider Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. People were saying Karl Rove was such a genius, but his narrow way of defining Republicanism pleased only neocon fundamentalists, bible thumping retards, talk radio demagogues, and Old Industry super rich. It alienated suburban conservatives, secular conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and urban conservatives. Worse, Bush didn't even have the guts to match reduced spending with reduced taxes. So, the strategic victories of 2000 and 2004 sowed the seeds for worse defeats down the line.

And, look at Christianity in the West. It was a huge minus for the Romans and may have played a crucial role in bringing down Roman civilization. But, it was a great plus in the dark ages, and Christianity played a great role in the rise of the West in the modern era. European Christians had once been careful to talk the talk but not really walk the walk. But, in more recent times the West has been trying to be more Christian-like in the literal sense both in the religious and secular community. As such, West is committing racial and civilizational suicide because those who act like Jesus will end up like Jesus--whupped and crucified. In the past, Christianity gave moral and spiritual power to the inner life of Western man, but the outer life of Western man was defined by the sword and the gun. But, whether religious or secular--Catholic Church or secular liberals--, Western civilization is trying to open up to ALL peoples. It's no wonder that so many religious folks and secular liberals want open immigration, legal and illegal. "Aren't we all God's children regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, etc?"

For 100s of years, China was the most powerful and richest civilization on Earth, and Chinese felt they didn't need to change anything. But, they declined while the West grew in power. In 1900, it seemed as though China would be weak and helpless for a 1000 yrs, but look how fast it has risen since the 1980s. Finally, China settled on the right strategy. They became more adaptable and less dogmatic.
In 1945, American whites seemed powerful, proud, confident, and invincible, but just look at them today. They've been indoctrinated by leftwing Jews--whose ideology killed a 100 million people in the 20th century--to believe that they, the white gentiles, are guilty for all the sins in the world. Today, even white conservatives will get on their knees and beg for mercy if accused of being 'racist'. When will white conservatives have the guts to say, 'racism is truth since nature made the races differently'? Bigotry--blind hatred or dislike for people who are different--is wrong, but racism is right. If socialism means belief that people should work together, racism should simply mean the belief in the existence of different races. Racism can be false--as in Nazi racial science--, but the notion that racism itself is false is a dirty leftwing Jewish lie. Conservatives will always be against the ropes as long as they accept the use of 'racism' as a pejorative, indeed as the worst of all pejoratives. Why should conservatives use a word as the Left defines it?
It's because white conservatives have allowed the Leftwing Jews--who make up 50% of the top intellectuals in the US--shape and define our terminology that the conservatives have been on the defensive on moral issues. Instead of saying, "I am not a racist", conservative should say, "I'm not a bigot." He should say, "I'm a racist in that I believe races exist, and differences among races may exist and may account for social realities." That is how racism should be defined. Notice that the Left doesn't cower before Rightist terminology. Some rightists argue that socialism is communism, but leftists counter, 'communism is radical socialism, not all of socialism.' So, socialism can be good or bad. One can argue that there are socialist aspects to Western economies--public education, medicare, etc. Similarly, if someone says, 'Nazism is racism', the right should counter, 'Nazism is radical racism, not all of racism'. Just because one believes in the differences among races doesn't mean that one believes that one race has the right to enslave another or commit genocide against other races. Indeed, the call for diversity itself is racist in nature because it assumes that different races have different talents and advantages. If all races were equal, what good is diversity? Diversity may be a plus because Jews can make the atomic bomb, and blacks can win the gold medals in Olympics. We want Jews as doctors or lawyers and blacks as hometown basketball players. And, white women increasingly go with blacks not because black men are racially equal to white men but because white women see black males as the racial superiors of white males. And, notice that mixed-race kids are praised for having a combination of different racial qualities. If races are all equal, why should a mixed-race kid be any different(or better) than mono-racial kids? The mixed-raced kid is said to be racially superior by liberals and leftists because he inherited the best traits from both his parents. How is this possible if races are the same? (Of course, it never seems to occur to liberals that a mixed-race kid may inherit the worst traits of both races. Nevertheless, are Brazilians and Mexicans better than the rest of humanity because they are racially mixed? Are Swedes less-than-human because they tend to be racially more homogeneous?)

Anyway, we need to reject fundamentalism of any kind. The failure of the Iraq War--if indeed it ultimately fails--doesn't prove that all interventions are wrong, no more than a successful intervention proves that all interventions are right. The outcomes of the Korean War and Vietnam were vastly different, and so are the outcomes of Kosovo and Iraq. No matter how talented or intelligent a regime or administration, it cannot succeed all the time. It's like sports where even a good team almost never has a perfect season. In football, winning 10 games and losing 5 is considered very good. Going 12 and 3 is outstanding. Few teams win all 15 games. Also, even losses are rarely total losses. Even a lost baseball game is no disgrace if it was close--besides, it still adds new numbers to overall stats in batting, homeruns, RBI, and etc. Take the Vietnam War. It was not a total loss because it checked the spread of communism within Indochina. Also, the dynamics of North Vietnamese victory unleashed the contradictions between Vietnam and China. Also, American foothold in South Vietnam during the war set the grounds for special relations that have come to fruition recently. And, the Korean War seemed meaningless until the 1960s when the South Korean economy really began to take off and demonstrated to the world that capitalism and alliance with the US is much better than communism and alliance with the USSR.
Somalia was a disaster of US intervention, but Kosovo proved to be, more or less, a success. Under Reagan, Grenada worked but Lebanon failed. Under Bush I, Panama invasion and the Gulf War worked--but left unfinished business as Hussein remained in power. Iraq War is iffy and still to early to call. Even so, it will not have been a sweet victory nor a total loss. Even if Iraq works, it's been one major headache. But, even if Iraq fails, much good has been done in terms of removing Hussein and his sons. Whatever disaster befalls Iraq, it will mainly be about Iraqis killing Iraqis, but even if such happens, it cannot go on forever--just as the Yugoslavian war finally ground to a halt and those Balkan nations are finally making progress. Also, the Iraq War's influence on Libya was positive. Also, the Iraq War tempered the enthusiasm of the neocons in future adventures in nation-building. Also, Kurds gained much from the war, something humanitarians around the world can be happy about. And, though the war's been an headache, it's been a boon for military strategists, historians, analysts, and etc who've gained priceless lessons from the event. The worth of any theory can only be tested in reality, and Iraq has served as a valuable experiment. Does this mean that peoples and nations should be used like guinea pigs? No, it simply means that all great historical events teach us countless lessons, and the Iraq War has humbled and educated Americans in profound ways. The Iraq War did more to boost cautionary foreign policy in the future than all the books written by Buchanan and all the speeches made by Ron Paul. Also, we must keep in mind that Iraq War has been a regular season game. WWII was a superbowl for Nazi Germany and the USSR--even for UK. It was win or lose all. But, US hasn't been in such a war since War of Independence--or perhaps the War of 1812 which could have been far more grievous. To be sure, the American Civil War was a zero sum conflict--especially for the far more vulnerable Confederacy--, but all US wars since have been of the regular season variety. When Germany lost WWII, they lost everything. When US lost the Vietnam war, it was only one war among others. And, whatever happens in Iraq, it cannot be to the US what WWII was to the UK. UK fought for national and imperial survival. It saved the nation at the cost of empire.
This may sound sick but even WWI and WWII were not total losses for Western Man. It is surely one of the five greatest events in the history of mankind--if not the greatest. It unleashed the greatest evil, the greatest heroism, greatest questions, greatest themes, greatest answers, greatest generation. Were they worth the blood and sacrifice? No, but they happened, and we might as well learn something from them--and we are still learning, and this will continue forever(just as we still learn from the great Greek and Roman wars). While the West should have avoided WWI and WWII, we keep going back to those events because--let's face it--, they are fascinating and exciting as historical, moral, military, philosophical, economic, political, etc subjects.

It's often been said that the 20th century was the most murderous century in history, but that is not entirely a fair assessment. If we go by proportional annihilation of populations, previous centuries were no better. It's been estimated that the native American population of the South and Central Americas had once been 60 million. With the invasion of the Spanish and Portuguese--and spread of disease--in the 15th and 16th centuries, 55 million have been estimated to have died. It's been estimated that 90% of North American Indians met the same fate. The earlier Mongol invasion of Europe brought the Bubonic Plague that may have wiped out 1/3 to 2/3 of the European population. The Thirty Years War was, proportionally, more devastating than WWI or WWII. If we go by proportionality, the Bantu tribal wars in Africa were real horrors. Bantus, over the millennia wiped out other ethnic groups in Africa. The Alexandrian, Roman, and Germanic wars were often for total annihilation. Japan was united at great cost of life.
In the 19th century, the American Civil War killed 2% of the population, which in today's numbers would be 6 million. The Taiping Rebellion in China circa 1850 may have killed anywhere from 20 to 40 million people--a number more shocking than Chinese losses in WWII or under Mao if measured proportionally. The Mexican civil wars of the 19th century were bloody affairs, with wholesale massacres a common site. And the Napoleonic Wars that rocked the earlier part of the 19th century were devastating, especially to both the French and the Russians. Proportionally speaking, Russian losses in the Napoleonic invasion was comparable to Russian losses in WWI and WWII.
And, the Greco-Turkic wars in the late 19th century were brutal, with many genocidal crimes on both sides.
Indeed, given the technological advantages of the 20th century, it's surprising that more didn't die. Just imagine the Napoleonic wars with airplanes and machine guns. Just imagine the war of Japanese unification fought with battleships, tanks, and bombers. Even without such technological advantages, people of earlier periods managed to massacre one another in huge numbers. In some ways, people in the past were more vulnerable to the destruction of war because their food production, social organization, and distributive apparatuses were limited in scope and capacity. After WWII, Europe was able to receive tons of food aid from the US. Also, modern farming and food distributive systems meant that recovery could take place quickly. After the terrible tsunami in Southeast Asia, the world was able to send tons of medicine, food, and aid to the region almost immediately. But, even a small military marching through a community--ruining the farm fields, taking cattle, and looting the food in the 18th or 19th century--could push the majority of the people to famine and starvation. And, consider the state of military medicine--or lack thereof--prior to WWI. Most men in the American Civil War died from disease than in battle. As for pandemics and famines in the past, they were far more devastating that most such in the 20th century--though the disasters in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and other commie nations were record-breaking.
The means of destruction in the past were less than in the 20th century but so were their means of recovery. Just compare how the Chinese government has reacted to the cataclysmic earthquake in 2008; no one starved. Everyone got shelter and medical care. In the past, even a much less catastrophe would have wiped out 100,00s or even millions of Chinese. Food was relatively scarce, and there was little left for humanitarian or emergency aid.
It's been recorded that 100,000s of peasants routinely starved to death in Japan in the 19th century though no war rocked the country. But, even after the cataclysmic WWII, relatively few Japanese starved to death despite the widespread hunger, and by 1951, Japanese had full stomachs again.

The 20th century might well have been the most peaceful century had it not been for WWI. Just imagine if Europeans had avoided the war or if Germans had gained a quick victory. Communism wouldn't have triumphed in Russia. There would have been no rise of Nazism in a resentful Germany. Without German alliance, Japan would not have attacked the US. Without Europeans and Americans divided against one another, Japanese would have been warier about reckless aggression in China. China would not have turned communist. There would have been no Korean or Vietnam War.
It would have been a much more humane century. On the other hand, maybe not. If WWI could have been avoided or reduced in terms of destructive impact, it may only have opened the door to more and even greater madness down the line. Without WWI, it would have meant German and Russian monarchs still holding much power in rapidly modernizing and industrializing nations. There still would have been the pressure of nationalism. Marxism and other brands of socialism still would have grown into powerful movements and may have toppled archaic or reactionary regimes down the line.
Just because a person avoids getting into an accident at one intersection on one particular day doesn't mean that he'll be safe in the other intersections.
Anyway, when people look back on the 20th century, they won't pay much attention to the UN charter, Soviet agriculture, Wisconsin dairy farms, German city planning of the 1980s, etc, etc. They'll speak of WWII just as we still speak of the Peloponnesian War. Even though WWII should have been avoided, it's war, folly, heroism, madness, triumph, and tragedy which are the stuff of great history. And, wars--at least great wars--lay bare the essence of history and mankind at their best and worst.
The world, old and new, were made by wars. America was created by war from the moment whites arrived on the land and were met with hostile Indians. American expansion comprised one war after another against Indian tribes. American slavery was the product of war; Africans waged wars on other Africans, captured slaves, and American whites bought them. SW territories were won through war. All nations were created by war. Germany was united by war. China and Japan were united by wars. Wars are violent but often the basis for greater and longer peace. City-state Greeks who failed to unite fought one another until they were finally united by Alexander. Genuine peace arrived in Italy only with the unification wars of the 19th century.
Empires were created through war, and liberation from empire were often achieved through war--Americans from the Brits, Vietnamese from the French, Algerians from the French, East Timorese from the Indonesians, etc.
It just so happened that nations and peoples wanted different things and held different ideas, values, and visions. Peace may have been preferred but wars were inevitable and even Necessary. No war is necessary to all and unnecessary to all, nor good for all and bad for all. WWII may have been Unnecessary to UK, but Russians may well disagree. Unlike the Brits, they opted for peace and accommodation with Hitler and guess what happened? They got jumped, and WWII became the necessary Great Patriotic War.

Are we wiser today? Yes and no. More than anything, most boundaries are settled and all the territories on this planet have been claimed. Imperialism is over, and the concept of fixed nation-states prevail around the world. Where it doesn't--especially in Africa--, there's still much trouble. Bears with full bellies don't want to fight, and most nations are satisfied, more or less, with their territorial and political sovereignty. But, if those things erode in the future, we may well see troubles brewing again.
Because whites have been castrated, pussified, and feminized, I don't see much violent reaction on the part of whites against non-whites who are growing like rabbits in their midst. Whites in both Europe and America have become naively idealistic, coweringly guilt-ridden, or downright apathetic. The real violence in Europe and America will not be white against non-white but non-white against white--instigated by leftwing and liberal Jews--and non-white vs non-white. If white violence and aggression have been curbed and restrained by political indoctrination which has pussified white folks, non-whites feel no such self-restraint in demanding and glorifying their own brands of tribalism. So, there is the rise of black tribalism, pan-Hispanic nationalism with Che Guevara as the patron-saint, and Muslim movements in Europe. Non-whites have been pumped with steroids just as whites have been castrated. If whites have been made to feel guilty and pussyboyish, blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics--even white Hispanics--have been made to feel enraged as victims of the evil white man. And, liberal and leftwing Jews have been the main instigators behind it.
At any rate, perhaps not all is lost. Perhaps, the tide will change again. Sometimes, what seems like the greatest defeat may lead to the greatest triumph. When blacks were brought as slaves to the US, they thought it was the end of the world. Blacks in apartheid South Africa felt the same way. But, compare blacks who suffered under white rule with blacks who were not 'oppressed' by whites. The former are doing not only much better than the latter but are kicking the white boys' ass and getting white women in increasing numbers and taking over Western nations. All the wealth created by white South Africans will fall into the hands of black Africans. In contrast, Africans who had been 'free' under black rule are far poorer. And, suppose Burmese or Bolivians, rather than black Africans, had been brought to US as slaves. The ancestors of Burmese- and Bolivian-American slaves would be living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth--and enjoying all its bounty--while people like Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters would today be half-naked savages running around with machetes hunting for baboon meat.
So, instead of seeing events such as WWII as a total loss, they should serve as lessons and the foundations for the rise of new Western power. Even from great loss, great victory may arise. The lesson to be learned from WWII is the one in "Battle of the Planet of the Apes". Ape Shall Not Kill Ape. Hitler's great crime was waging genocidal wars against fellow white folks--Slavs and patriotic German Jews. (He should have only attacked the leftwing Jews.) Buchanan accuses Churchill of betraying a fellow whitey, but it's Hitler who committed the far greater crime in this department. Buchanan hasn't learned the lesson of WWII. He still narrowly sides with Germans against white Poles and Russians. It's this kind of mentality that led to the decline of the West. Before Buchanan lectures the Brits that they should not have fought their German cousins, he should remind himself that it was crazy for Germans to fight their Polish and Russian cousins. Slavs as the 'Asiatic Horde'? Ape Shall Not Kill Ape. When the likes of Jerry Springer the liberal Jew love to pit 'white trash' against 'white trash', what is Buchanan doing trashing Russians and Poles as untermensch who deserved to have been crushed by Germans?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment