Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Weekly Standard vs. Winston Churchill and Pat Buchanan on Immigration
It should come as no surprise that the Weekly Standard, which proclaimed Winston Churchill Man of the Century and whose editor says he prefers John Kerry to Pat Buchanan came out with a negative review of Pat's Last Book; Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,even calling parts of it "outrageous, if not despicable."
What is particularly amusing, however, is how the reviewer Winston Groom accuses Buchanan of hypocrisy because he mentions Churchill's immigration policy;
"Had Churchill endured in office," Buchanan writes, "London would look entirely different today." When, in 1955, Churchill retired as prime minister, he "was no longer able to lead a campaign to 'Keep England White'—an astonishing slogan in a day when Dr. Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi whom Churchill detested, was starting out in Montgomery." Only after Churchill left office, Buchanan declares, was Britain "on its way to becoming the multiracial, multicultural nation of today."
What smarmy cheek from the man who has written The Death of the West, bemoaning the doom of Western Civilization because of the population explosion among so-called "dark peoples," and State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, in which he forecasts the end of life as we know it, owing to the flood of immigrants across the Mexican border and from Asia! Winston Churchill had many faults, all of them meticulously scrutinized by serious historians; but his reputation doesn't warrant being besmirched by a goat-roper like Patrick Buchanan.[World War II Revised , By Winston Groom, August 11, 2008]
Groom thinks that opposing Third World immigration is such an inexcusable position to take, and/or that Pat's sole purpose is to"smear" Winston Churchill rather than simply make an honest appraisal of his place in history; that those lines must be pejorative
In full context, what Pat wrote was,
In 1968, Enoch Powell...would take up the banner of [restrictionist Lord Robert Gascoyne-Cecil] Salisbury and Churchill and deliver his "Rivers-of-Blood" speech. By then, time had passed the restrictionists by, and England was on its way to becoming the multiracial, multicultural nation of today, no longer Churchill's England.
It's hard to see how anyone outside of the Weekly Standard could view this as celebrating England's demographic transition. Pat has called The Rivers of Blood Speech "prophetic" where Powell "spoke truth to power."
The opening page of The Unnecessary War says that "Having lost the will to rule, Western man seems to be losing the will to live as a unique civilization as he feverishly indulges in La Dolce Vita, with a yawning indifference as to who might inherit the earth he once ruled."
Buchanan attributes this change as a not so good outcome of the"Good War." Peter Brimelow calls this Hitler's Posthumous Revenge.
What Groom fails to see is that rather than viewing Churchill as some monster, Pat sees him as a "Great Man at the cost of his country's greatness."
For more on this, see my VDARE.com column, Buchanan On World War II, The National Question And Hitler's Posthumous Revenge