@ Armor

1) I cannot speak to any of your opinions about 'Jason', nor do I speak for him.  You have to take these up with him, not in an insulting rant addressed to me.

2)  I have clearly explained why I considered  Buchanan anti-semitic, and I have also stated that his views on that score have moderated considerably in recent times, at least his public views.

3)  I have never called Buchanan a "racist", and I have never heard him talk about immigration and other issues in a 'racist' way.   You ought to be ashamed for even suggesting that I did. Buchanan talks in terms of 'culture' (particularly in terms of "Third World cultures" that are at odds with American values and the 'creed' of its Constitution).  By contrast, you have formulated your objections on numerous occasions in 'racist' ways on this blog, and there is no point in repeating all this.  You simply refuse to make the proper distinction - which Buchanan does make - between race and culture.

4) I agree with you that immigration in both Europe and the USA needs to be curtailed drastically from its recent levels.  And you know very well that I think that immigration needs to be legal, decided 'democratically' by the parliaments of host countries, exclusively 'controlled' by host countries (not imposed on them by outsiders nor immigrants themselves), and needs to be 'structured' in the interests of the host countries and of nobody else.  I believe in cultural self-determination.

5)  I also agree with you that we should only punish "actual crimes" (in the sense of deeds), and not any "thoughts".  It is irrelevant whether these thoughts are bad or not.  The fact that you even mention the word "bad" in this context, suggests that you seem to realise that your racism is "bad".  But, I agree that it should not be punished. It should be stoically 'endured' by sensible people. Because I do not want to give the power to any government to label thoughts in any way, in order to prevent abuse of governmental power and persecution of political opponents.  It would be the end of 'democracy'.

6)  I cannot comment on Buchanan's purported 88 % number.  I have no idea what it pertains to.  Which election, where, and when?

7) Did I claim that the article was about "Buchanan's racism"?  I did NOT.  So, why do you feel a need to tell me that?   

You claim to make "valid points". Well, then, try making valid points, instead of mixing apples and oranges, fighting strawmen, and descending in the gutter. 

But as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, his blase attitude, often breaking into outright apologia, is most certainly not the product of any naivete, but rather of his well documented anti-Semitism.

The enemy of my enemy an all...

.

• Why do we associate waryiness of Muslims with racism.  There are many Muslims who are White. It's their ideology that makes them dangerous and that same ideology is incompatible with integration into a Western society/culture.
•  Arabs who constitute a sizeable portion of Muslims are also Semites. 
• Mein Kampf, which was required reading in Third Reich Germany was voluntarily sought after in the Middle East and was translated into Arabic. 

Thanks. I was going to respond to Armor, but decided against it.

...all Buchanan's fault.

@ Armor

Given your persistant refusal to make the proper distinction between culture and race, i.e. your racism, I am convinced that it is also futile to try to debunk your manifest anti-semitism.  But, perhaps others are more open to reason... 

1)  Buchanan was often called an anti-semite in the past, decades ago, because he used to make numerous anti-semitic statements.   Specifically, he tended to give credence to absurd conspiracy theories, and was also given to expounding on false (in the sense of historically-unbalanced) views w.r.t. the enduring Arab-Israeli conflict.  I believe that his anti-semitism was rooted in a certain kind of 'Roman Catholicism' of Buchanan's youth (in WashingtonDC) which mainstream catholicism has left behind long ago.  His close association with Richard Nixon also must have been a major contributing factor.

In recent times, Buchanan appears to have tempered his anti-semitism considerably.  In part, this is probably due to the rise and challenge of islamism.  But, the main reason is that Buchanan has justifiably become deeply concerned about the dangers of large-scale immigration from third world cultures, and especially about the effects of illegal immigration on the American social fabric.  Even Buchanan has come to realise that 'jews' do not present an immigration problem, nor an assimilation-problem, in the USA. 

2) It is true that jews tended to vote 'left' in American elections in the past (for understandable historical reasons), and they still represent an important component of the Democratic Party's 'coalition'.  But that is such a big amalgam of different special-interest groups, that picking out 'the jews' would be unfair.  Moreover, the voting picture has been changing dramatically in the past decade or so.  To illustrate, the political standardbearer of 'jews', senator Joe Lieberman has just endorsed Republican John McCain for the coming presidential election.  And I would expect Republican Rudy Giuliani to get most jewish votes in, for instance, the primaries in New York and Florida.  So, it would appear that your perceptions of political sympathies of 'jews' are outdated and perhaps wrong.  They are certainly selective and unfair.  Jews are pretty much politically as diverse and divided as any other groups of Americans.  But then, you take a very 'European' perspective on jews, which is very different from the reality in America.  But remember, this article is about Buchanan and his book.  In some ways, Buchanan seems to be as ignorant and confused about Europe, as you clearly are about American conditions.  

3) Turning to European conditions, it is absurd - as you clearly do - to focus on 'jews' in the context of third world immigration.  Jews come in all 'shapes and forms and opinions'.  AND, they are an absolute TINY minority in Europe.  The leftist immigration policies of recent decades in Europe have been pursued by NON-JEWISH European elites which have nothing to do with 'jews'.    You are simply scapegoating.  In fact, you are allowing a much 'older' form of racism ('European' anti-semitism) to feed  - and fuse with - your much more modern current racism (with the latter having been induced by genuine immigration problems).

For anyone who thinks it will be a good think or won't matter one way or the other when whites become dispossessed minorities in their own rightful homelands should heed the example of Detroit, Michigan, USA. Once majority white-a thriving manufacturing powerhouse that contributed significantly if not decisifively to the Allied victory in WWII. Now majority black- a third-world sh*thole with large sections resembling Dresden after the RAF got done with it. Enough said.

Why should Buchanan worry about islam in Europe? I live in Europe and I don't worry about that. Islam is a nuisance, but it is not a danger to my life.

Jason: " He's deeply anti-immigration, but in a not-so-well-concealed racist way."

Your racism is not so well concealed either.

" he makes allusions to the coming horror when whites are no longer the majority ethnic group in America "

Google "the color of crime" and you will see that a huge part of crime in the USA is already committed by blacks and Hispanics. But you already know that. It is getting worse all the time thanks to immigration. You have to be crazy or malevolent to support the displacement of the whites by third world immigrants, especially when you are aware of the crime figures.

" But as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, his blase attitude, often breaking into outright apologia "

It is very unlikely that he supports islamic terrorism ! A blase attitude about islamic terrorism is the right attitude. The media likes terrorist attacks because they are spectacular, but street crime by immigrants is far more common and claims more victims.

" his well documented anti-Semitism "

In what way did he ever harm the "Semites"? I don't think he ever did. But people like you, who support immigration from the third-world, are deliberately destroying the lives and the future of white people. If this is not a racial attack, I wonder what is. Besides, you are incredibly dishonest about it. Why are you anti-white? What are your arguments in support of immigration?

I doubt Buchanan is naive about Islam. He's deeply anti-immigration, but in a not-so-well-concealed racist way (i.e. he makes allusions to the coming horror when whites are no longer the majority ethnic group in America). That's why he undoubtedly sees Islam as an "existential danger to Europe".

But as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, his blase attitude, often breaking into outright apologia, is most certainly not the product of any naivete, but rather of his well documented anti-Semitism.

The enemy of my enemy an all...