Patrick J. Buchanan has morally and intellectually shot himself in the head


…by Jonas E. Alexis


Pat Buchanan, to his credit, has said many good things over the years. He was one of the first observers to ever write devastating but reasonable things about the Neoconservative ideology.[1] He has also said some historically defensible things in books such as Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.[2]

But Buchanan has morally and intellectually shot himself in the head when he brazenly or gloriously started implying that people are not to be viewed on equal terms. Here is Buchanan at his best:

“Looking back over the history of a Western Civilization, which we call great, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?

“They conquered in the name of the mother countries all the lands they discovered, imposed their rule upon the indigenous peoples, and vanquished and eradicated the native-born who stood in their way.

“Who, during the centuries-long discovery and conquest of the New World, really believed that the lives of the indigenous peoples were of equal worth with those of the colonizers? They believed European Man had the right to rule the world.

“Beginning in the 16th century, Western imperialists ruled much of what was called the civilized world. Was not the British Empire, one of the great civilizing forces in human history, a manifestation of British racial superiority?”[3]

Buchanan concluded his article by saying: “‘All men are created equal’ is an ideological statement. Where is the scientific or historic proof for it? Are we building our utopia on a sandpile of ideology and hope?”[4] The implication is that all men are not created equal.

Right here Buchanan seems to destroy virtually everything he has written. If all men are not created equal, how can Buchanan be indignant when the Neoconservatives invaded Iraq and totally destroyed men, women and children? Can Buchanan seriously condemn Abu Ghraib by using the same incoherent principle that he is articulating here? If civilization is built on “racial superiority,” as Buchanan implies, isn’t he agreeing with Darwin and his followers here? Isn’t he proposing some kind of survival of the fittest? If so, then who are “the fittest”? Buchanan and his intellectual antecedents? The Neoconservatives? The Israeli regime?

Whether Buchanan likes it or not, he has locked himself in a moral intellectual matrix. E. Michael Jones has already pointed this out about two years ago.

If Buchanan wants to say that the Robert E. Lee statue should not have been removed, that is a legitimate claim which can be defended. In fact, “A majority of Americans want to preserve Confederate monuments. The Aug. 18-21 poll found that 54 percent of adults said Confederate monuments “should remain in all public spaces” while 27 percent said they “should be removed from all public spaces.” Another 19 percent said they ‘don’t know.’”

No one in his right mind would argue that those adults are neo-Nazis or racists. There is also the legitimate point that if you start to take down a statue that the politically correct culture does not like, then where do you stop? Do you stop at Robert E. Lee? As Michael Hoffman has recently pointed out, what about the statue of slave owner David Levy Yulee? Hoffman writes:

David Levy Yuleee was one of the tens of thousands of Judaic slave-owners of Sephardic-Judaic descent who bought, sold or traded in black slaves in the western hemisphere…In the year 2000 the Florida Department of State designated Yulee a ‘Great Floridian’ and ‘award plaques in his honor’ were installed.

“Yulee’s statue is in Fernandia, Amelia Island, Florida. Needless to say it is untouched. No calls from Republican scalawags or Antifa terrorists have been issued for its removal. Neither the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), both of which are recent recipients of millions of dollars in “anti-racist” donations from Apple Computer CEO Tim Cook, and 21st Century Fox movie mogul James Murdoch (son of Rupert), have raised the issue of the statue’s removal. In the halacha of the Babylonian Talmud, there is one law for gentiles and another for Judaics…”

If Buchanan wants to take that route, then he would have done a much better job. But his central premise seems to be that “the lives of the indigenous peoples” are not to be placed on the same moral platform “with those of the colonizers.” If “all men are created equal” is an ideological principle, not a universal law which binds all human beings together, then we are in big trouble.

And if Buchanan really believes that, then he is implicitly making the case for the Israeli regime, the Neoconservatives in America, and indeed warmongers virtually everywhere. (I will expand on this notion in the future in an article on Aristotle, Darwin, and Kant.) Perhaps it is high time for Buchanan to seriously reflect on these issues and flesh out his arguments consistently and logically.

[1] Patrick J. Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2004).

[2] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008).

[3] Pat Buchanan, “If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?,”, August 15, 2017.

[4] Ibid.

Comments Closed


  1. This is the result of reading selective history. Ask him to go back a few hundred years and people of Europe did not even know what bath or cleaning is other then taking a dip in water where as at that time people in China and Egypt knew dozens of products to keep clean, talk of culture!

  2. Jonas, it’s easy to whip up an exciting headline by bashing Buchanan. The harder thing to do, would be to ask him what he meant by his rather ambiguous comments that appeared in an otherwise pretty decent article. I don’t know what he meant, and I don’t assume. He may have purposely been ambiguous, to see what people say in response. I do know that Buchanan asked a good question, about where the statue-bashing will end. And now it’s statues of Catholic saints being vandalized, as reported on yesterday. The particular statue that they mention, was defaced last Thursday. So who’s next?

    • Bashing Buchanan? What does that mean? Buchanan wrote an article and I responded to it. Why don’t you seriously focus on what I said and respond to them in a logical manner? Where am I wrong? You mean to tell me that Buchanan could not take the time to define what he meant? He wanted to be that ambiguous?

    • A friend of mine recently sent an article by Tom Piatak in which he basically defends Buchanan. You can read the article here: Here’s my response:
      I’m not sure if Piatak understands why the Church did not accept the egalitarianism of the French Revolution. He would do well to read E. Michael Jones’ Barren Metal on this very issue.
      He also does not address some of the central issues that Buchanan himself raises. Instead of leaving the average reader bewildered, Buchanan should address the issue once more so that his position will be clearly defined. He doesn’t need a person like Piatak to defend him, since Buchanan is still alive and well.
      We all know that “Pat is an honorable and decent man,” as Piatak says, but ideas, as Richard Weaver put it, have consequences. This is one reason why E. Michael Jones criticized Pat. Didn’t Jones know that Pat was “A Christian gentleman who is far more forgiving of the many political figures and writers who have attacked him…?”
      If Piatak thinks that Buchanan “deserves better,” if he is “an honest intellectual in public,” then let Buchanan himself produce his own ideas unambiguously. We want this honest intellectual to be intellectually and morally logical. Buchanan cannot remain silent on this issue forever.

  3. There are men and women out there that speak profoundly to the truth at times, Buchanan and PC Roberts come to mind, but they don’t name names. They get to the next to the top rung of the ladder and leave you hanging on politically correct names and phrases, so you have to figure it out, while most people would rather blame the Left, Right -of-center, Repugs, Dems etc.

    Quite tiring to be sure, sick of it really. Where are the Irvings, Malcolms, Zundels, Mullins and Pounds of yesteryear who spoke the truth? Or are they all waiting for retirement, like Helen Thomas, to FINALLY call a spade a spade. Lot of good that’s gonna do.

  4. Shades of grey. Is Buchanan stating history, or making an argument for white supremisim? Honestly, it’s all a cultural madness. One can say the British were savage conquerers who happened to be lucky. Oh, and by luck white. But they weren’t the only lucky savages writing history. We’re arguing ourselves to a boiling point which will produce only one winner, and that winner is not in the physical fight, but on the sidelines, and a patently white minority racist by nature. When the race war is over, and we look up at the winner (by default), and ask, why didn’t you fight, and die with the rest of us? They will lie, and tell you they are a race superior, one neither white nor black. but an odd super color they call “chosen”. They are unto themselves, different, special they will say. Is it semantics, or is it Semitics. I keep getting the two tangled up. What ever “chosen” is, it is not a race, and there are laws against questioning the color chosen. One may not ask. Chosen by who? So if they are not a race, and by law we can’t discuss the Chosen. What business do they have in a race war? Well war is a business. Isn’t it? “There you go again Ollie”.

  5. In a future world where intellectual prowess is the determiner of success, Mr. Buchanan will have to drastically change his conclusion. The most recent Regeneron Science Talent Search has, after a very rigorous selection process, named 300 top high school scholars. More than 180 of these scholars have unmistakably South Asian or Northeast Asian family names. It would appear that the apparent ascendancy of a certain group is but an accident of time. Certainly during the Dark Ages Christian Western Europeans were very low on a world scale of accomplishment while the Moorish ruled Iberian Peninsula was a beacon of learning and culture as was the Byzantine Empire. Egypt was once a world leader in accomplishment as were Assyria, Persia, China, various Indian cultures and some American cultures and others. One should not reach conclusions about superiority of a certain culture based on a chronocentric outlook.

Comments are closed.