Pat Buchanan is dangerous for reasons not often discussed...

[PCIntern]

One of them, and perhaps the most insidious one, is that he is the seemingly appointed purveyor of World War II and Holocaust Revisionism. It may take 300 years, but I am willing to bet that the object of this movement is to ultimately almost totally downplay the Evil of the Axis (not Bush II's, the 'other' one) and question the need to have gone to war with the Germans and the Japanese. If you think that this cannot happen, regard this: a couple years ago, my kid came home with the thought that Genghis Kahn was not so satanic because he, according to one of her classmates, had no choice but to exterminate whole villages and towns because he did not have a large enough army to watch over the conquered lands. So, in the much much later words of the Corleone family, "It was just business." Of course, growing up in my household, she knew better, but it's all out there and these young people have no idea how horrible those times were. After all, it's not on the Gameboy, so how should the masses know?

It will take a little longer, but eventually these isolationist fascist/racist/misogynist/anti-Semitic bastards, if they get theri way, are going to have the world convinced that due to Roosevelt's foreign policies, we were deserving of the Pearl Harbor attack, that the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and 'the like' were not only not massacred almost in toto, but that those 'few' who were killed brought it on themselves, that Hitler only wanted limited land to sustain his growing population and 'superior' culture, and that America should have listened to Charles Lindbergh (not played by Jimmy Stewart) and stayed home.

On edit: what is in here that was worth an 'unrec'? Is this DU or Freep City?

[imdjh]

1. History lose their zest over time, with or without revisionists.

Depending upon who the revisionist is, and whether the event was revizzed by the time we got it, or how many times it was revizzed.

I was 40 years old before I even thought to question Exodus. I just assumed that it was a folk history of an actual event that pretty much happened as told, without the magic of course. Then one day while killing time on the internet a lightbulb went off in my head, "Hey! I wonder if the more culturally advanced and geographically stable Egyptians bothered to write anything down on the subject?" Well, sure enough they did and not surprisingly, their story is a little different from what the Hebrews told. According to the Egyptians, the Hebrews were guests in the country, beneficial guests, who got pushy and the benefit no longer outweighed the potential cost. So they were asked to leave. Of course, we should have suspected the Biblical version, if not for the wrath of God aspect, for the curious part where the Egyptians supposedly gave their gold, jewelry, and other stuff to the Hebrews in the send-off.

Given the scope, accuracy, and redundancy of modern information systems, it's doubtful that another version of the Holocaust will replace the one we know, much less another version sympathetic to the Nazis. Even Genghis Khan hasn't managed to lose his reputation in the way that Alexander The Great has. But World War II will fade in importance over time. World War I already has. The US Civil War has not only faded in importance, the losing side's version is slowly but surely being purged in favor of the victor's tale, as usually happens. Five hundred years from now, World War II and the Holocaust will be something perhaps skimmed in high school but not really studied by anyone other than history buffs and college students writing a paper. The Germans and the Jews will probably be referred to as tribes which once lived in Europe before the Earth Federation was formed in the 23rd Century.

[RagAss]

4. 500 years from now there won't even be a beetle crawling on this earth.

[imdjh]

6. Revelation? nt

[PCIntern]

7. "Pushy Jews"?????

OK....

[imdjh]

17. Actually, pushy Hyksos

Some of the identity is backward projected. The most documented Exodus was of the Hyksos people and the stories are so similar that many Rabbinical scholars consider it a given that the story of the Hyksos is the story of the "Hebrews" an identity which did not yet exist.

[dorkulon]

12. I'm sure the Egyptians' version of events is objective and unbiased.

No cultural biases there, right. The guests who wouldn't leave! How rude!

[PCIntern]

14. LOL...

"WTF...I mean...WTF??"

It wasn't until I read 'Mein Kampf' that I found the error of my ways;;; :sarcasm: of course!!!

First, they have the temerity to build all those funny-looking pyramids, and then they won't even leave! Some Noive!!!!

[imdjh]

19. You haven't been keeping up.

The latest thing is that the pyramids weren't built with slave labor. I find that difficult to believe. But that is what some folks are saying. I ca't speak to that part of it.

However, as you can see in my response above, the Egyptian version is much more plausible. And when you think about it, the Biblical version has two aspects which give some support to the Egyptian version. 1- Moses, regardless of how the Bible version claims this came about was a Hebrew who had political power, and 2- didn't you ever wonder where slaves got all that gold to make the golden idol while Moses what up on the mountain? How many slaves can you think of who had gold jewelry to make into an idol. Now do you seriously believe that the Egyptian people gave all their jewelry to the Hebrews on the way out? I suppose if you believe that God was sending magical terror down on the Egyptian people they might, but if we try to view this as something that might actually have happened, the Egyptians handing over their wealth to people who are already leaving doesn't make a lot of sense.

Oh, about Mein Kampf. You are not funny, and if you can't have an adult conversation about an historical subject, then best to keep your mouth shut than to sound like an idiot.

[Touchdown]

25. That is not true. The Pyramids were built by slaves.

The Pyramids were necessary for the God Ra's Spacecraft to have a landing pad. Ra was an alien parasite called a go'auld that took over an egyptian boy's body. He ruled with ruthless abandon using stolen technology invented by the ancients, a tribe of early men who built a wormhole generating gate system throughout the universe, which the Egyptians called the "Portal To Heaven". The discovery of such a portal was found in 1928, at Luxor. It's now installed in a top secret room at NORAD.



It's all true! I swear!:crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Some corrections from that thing called history

not that most people know this

The word AVADIM, does not mean slaves, but corvee labor. There was no slavery in Ancient Egypt, but there was covee labor, which is the same way many a cathedral was built during the middle ages. It is voluntary. not slavery.

Oh and there is more... there is a mention of the Haviru, well after the period of Ramses II, and these days the invasion of Canaan, as seen in the biblical stories, actually was the hill country people taking over the valleys, like Jesreel, and we are starting to think that the Exodus is more about the relationship of a seventh century BCE Israeli King, well after David, the first one we might be able to confirm, and Egypt. It also has a little do do with the other popular religion of the Hebrews, and that is Ba'al. (It involved human sacrifice, but guess what the golden calf is all about? Ba'al)

[imdjh]

18. The difference is that the Egyptian version doesn't involve magic. You be the judge.

In the Bible version, a god send plagues to murder and punish the evil Egyptians who enslaved the Hebrews, the Egyptians then turned around and gave the Hebrews their gold and jewelry as they allowed the Hebrews to leave with everything that wasn't nailed down. God parted the Red Sea and then swamped the Egyptian army.

In the Egyptian version, the Hyksos were originally drought refugees who built themselves quite a life in Egypt, but then wanted political power, and the Egyptian army drives them from the land. No plagues, no magic, no parting of the Red Sea.

Change this story to any other two people and tell me which one you would be more inclined to believe.

[dorkulon]

20. I'm not trying to defend or legitimize the biblical narrative.

It's not a binary choice. I'm sure both stories are largely false. What bugs me a little is that you seem to think it's okay to drive people out of a nation because they seek political representation.

[imdjh]

23. I don't know why you would think they are largely false.

We're wandering from the point that the importance of events fades over time, but we can discuss it academically.

I don't know why you would think that either story is largely false since the fact that there are two accounts of the same event would suggest that it actually happened. The essentials are in agreement: the Hyksos/Hebrews came from outside of Egypt and were allowed to take refuge in Egypt. Either as free workers or slaves, they stayed for a long time, and worked. They eventually left and not on good terms. In my opinion, the stories are largely in agreement, it's the details which differ.

What bugs me a little is that you seem to think it's okay to drive people out of a nation because they seek political representation.

You're reading that into it. What I said was that "in the Egyptian version" the Hyksos pushed for political power and were driven out. I was writing from the Egyptian perspective. Egypt was a monarchy, and monarchies as a rule do not like to share power too widely. Even though the Hebrews had lived in Egypt for hundreds of years, it appears that they were never "citizens" as we think of it today. In the Bible version, we are given to believe that the Hebrews live close by or mixed in with the Egyptians, but in the Egyptian version you get the impression that the Hebrews had settled only as far inside Egypt as they needed to be to have water and farming/ranching and we apart from the Egyptians. Something else on which the Bible version and the Egyptian version concur is the Egyptian concern about the rise of power. In the Bible version it's because the Hebrews were reproducing to such a size that the king feared if they sided with an enemy, and in the Egyptian version it's pretty much the same idea, ie that their numbers and power were increasing.

[PCIntern]

24. Oh...

so they were increasing in number AND were 'pushy'.

All the more reason for enslavement and arbitrary death. :sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

2. k&r

I do think that one of the most insidious effects of the likes of Buchanan is to portray the world as one that is constantly under threat by Evil Foreigners outside, and by 'enemies within', especially immigrants, Jews, gays, and anyone whose skin isn't white. And his WW2 narratives just feed into this.

[Towlie]

3. He could hardly do more damage to our country than what he inadvertently did in 2000.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/

Voters confused by Palm Beach County's butterfly ballot cost Al Gore the presidency, The Palm Beach Post concluded Sunday.

...

The newspaper's review of the overvotes found 5,330 Palm Beach County residents invalidated their ballots by punching chads for Gore and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. The hole voters punched for Buchanan was located just above Gore's on the two-page ballot.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Keeping Him Off Teevee Doesn't Keep Him Silent

Nor any other holocost deniers...it just makes them "martyrs" for those who not only want to believe but perpetuate the lies and hate. Outta site, outta mind also isolates many on this side from seeing the ugly and then confronting it.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think there's a difference between not banning someone from TV, and making them a long-term

political commentator.

Banning him might make him a martyr; but using him as a professional political commentator gives his views respectability that they don't deserve.

After all, people with extreme left views don't usually get to be on TV constantly with people listening to their comments. But many on the far right do, especially it seems in America - doesn't this give a sort of message that being far-right is respectable in a way that being far-left is not?

[KharmaTrain]

10. The Pitchfork Pat "Respectability" Boat Sailed in 1992

Sad to say, Buchanan isn't the extreme right. Bring on someone from Stormfront or Freeper if you want the lunatic fringe...but again, opinions that need to be constantly challenged and debunked. If not their memes fester and echo...the birfers are a case in point. Many here laugh and ridicule them (and rightfully so), but these asshats in their little dark basement continue to spew their lies...whenever they're exposed they fold like a deck of cards.

While I found much of what Buchanan said about Judge (soon to be Justice) Sotomayor to be racist, it also helped solidfy my support and respect for her. Seeing this schmuck with ears spew made me realize how far the majority of this country has come but that it wasn't that long ago view like Buchanan's were the norm, not the on the edge and moving further away.

There's no equity game with the corporate media...it's their rules and their definition of what's "fair". Yes, you rarely see a Paul Krugman yet a Noam Chomsky, but to rely solely on the networks for information or opinion shows says something about the viewer not the spewer.

Cheers...

[Jawja]

13. Yes. Having him as a regular

"main stream" pundit makes his views appear to be legitimate and important.

[imdjh]

30. The weird thing about him is his lucid interval.

Every now and then, he'll say something demonstrating common sense in a sea of crackpottery. I can't remember or quote one of these lucid intervals, but I do recall feeling that he had had one or two.

[lunatica]

8. While holocaust victims still live that event has been forgotten by whole generations

Ask any kid in school nowadays what the Vietnam war was.

History can be forgotten quite easily without even really trying. That's why it keeps getting repeated.

[dorkulon]

11. Who's forgetting the holocaust?

It's got to be the most well-known historical event in America's admittedly paltry understanding of the world. It's still a major subject of movies, documentaries, etc. To say it has been forgotten by generations is, I think, quite an overstatement. Hitler remains THE conversational touchstone for evil, murderous tyrants (see Godwin's law), and it's not because he was mean to his troops.

I don't mean to diminish the idea that we shouldn't forget, but we certainly haven't forgotten. If anything, Americans should do more to remember our own crimes against humanity.

[lunatica]

15. I've met dozens of people over the years who didn't have a clue

about the holocaust. And those were only the ones I know about when the subject came up. I'm not making this up. My own kids in high school didn't learn anything about it until I told them. And everyone knows who Hitler is because everyone is taught about WWII, but the story of the Holocaust itself is rarely told in schools.

Don't underestimate the ignorance of large swaths of Americans

[imdjh]

26. There are a lot of forces working against the Holocaust, bigger ones than deniers.

The Holocaust is still fresh in the memory because there are still survivors, but even that is simply an obstruction to the forces which tend to want to bury such things in the pages of books, where we can find them if we want to, but where we don't have to look at them, and more operatively hear about them.

1- Hitler will be remembered as a monster, but the German people were getting off the hook before the war was even over. They were, after all, more or less distant cousins to most of the people fighting against them. The history of European wars, including the American Revolution, is one of swift reconciliation and return to business as usual. The German people and Italian people were not conquered, they were "liberated" along with France and Poland.

2- Young people can try to understand something horrible, but if they didn't actually live through it, they get tired of hearing about it. Many adults get tired of hearing about it. They aren't denying it, they're just tired of hearing about it. How many people roll their eyes when a parent starts a Great Depression story they have heard a dozen times?

This is pretty much true about a number of historical events. People get tired of hearing about it. They might well know about, have even passed a test about it, but they don't want it to be the common shorthand of context for present and future events.

[defendandprotect]

16. K&R -- agree Buchanan is a fascist and has been permitted to spew his

fascist ideas over a generation and more on TV, put there by the right-wing

GE and kept there.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Who nowadays hates the Athenians for the genocide of Milos? nt

[Johonny]

27. Genghis Kahn was not satanic

He was horrifically brutal. But there's no indication he worshiped Satan or that Satan had anything to do with him. He wasn't even Christian and had no notion of Satan. You kid was right.

[PCIntern]

28. It was a manner of speaking...

a 'joke' if you will...

That someone that evil, that abusive of human life, might be referred to as 'Satanic' in common speech.

[imdjh]

29. He was the salt of the earth. Or was it that he salted the earth?

[tblue37]

31. If you are aware of the _Harper's Magazine_ statistics page,

where they list all sorts of intersting umbers, you might like to know that according to their numbers, the probablility that a man alive today is a direct descendent of Ghengis Khan is 1 in 200. I am fascinated by that statistic.

Of course, the probability would go up if the man happens to be of Asian origina, and down if he happens to be of western European or Native American origin, but the numbers are still fascinating.