Are you aware that billionaire Haim Saban just hosted a meeting at the Saban
Center for Middle East Policy which included Avigdor Lieberman, who is
notorious for his racist views? He is Israel's David Duke -- actually, his
racism exceeds that of David Duke.
Saban was able to induce some of the most powerful members of the American
government, American power elite and Democratic Party to attend the meeting
with Lieberman.
For the full details, see:
http://www.google.com/search?q=haim+saban+avigdor+lieberman
So apparently the current value system, as promoted by billionaire oligarchs
like Haim Saban who dominate the "liberal" Democratic Party, asserts that
Jewish racism is good and worthy of unlimited sacrifice and support by
Americans, but that all other forms of militant ethnocentrism are evil,
criminal and should be exterminated.
Why are so many leading members of the Democratic Party going along with this
bizarre ideology? Probably an instinct for self-preservation. Either go along
or else.
The Saban/Lieberman alliance should be a huge story in the American
mainstream media, but for the most part they are censoring it. It is
impossible to discuss this state of affairs in an honest way without doing
enormous damage to Israel and the Israel lobby. The American mainstream media
are an arm of the Israel lobby. Hence the silence.
How much longer will the world go along with this double standard? Not much
longer, I would bet.
By the way, I doubt that an explosion of European ethnic nationalism is an
effective way to deal with the problems that Haim Saban and Avigdor Lieberman
pose for Europe and the United States. It's difficult to see much of a future
for ethnic nationalism as an organizing principle for human societies.
Messianic ethnic nationalist movements have a strong tendency to polarize the
entire world against themselves and to self-destruct at this stage of human
civilization.
Apparently MacDonald wants to answer Lieberman's militant Jewish
ethnocentrism with an even more militant European ethnocentrism. Perhaps the
more effective policy is to give extremists like Lieberman enough scope to
destroy themselves. Sometimes I wonder if this has been covert American
strategy at the highest levels since at least the 1950s. Such a strategy would
explain many things that are otherwise unexplainable.
No person in his right mind wants to be highly conspicuous in American
politics on matters of ethnic self-obsession and ethnic militancy. Do you
really envy the neocons? Would you want to dig yourself into the hole they are
digging themselves into? Are David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz on a winning
trajectory? Ethnic messianists typically lose all touch with the real world.
The ideals of the university, which emphasize meritocracy over ethnic
affiliation, provide a better model for the future of humankind than squabbling
ethnic nationalisms. I savor ethnic diversity -- it is stimulating and
creative. What I truly detest, however, is being harassed and bullied by
zealots and gangsters from this or that ethnic group -- and in that I am hardly
alone.
tim_howells_1000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MacDonald is grappling with the real issues, which are very
difficult and painful ones indeed.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WestSurvive.htm
Excerpts:
Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?
Kevin MacDonald ===============================================
I just recently learned that the neocon patriarch Leo Strauss was a follower
of Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was deeply ethnocentric, believing that Jews were
shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of
Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to
flourish, stating, for example: "These natural and fundamental distinctions
embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being
nurtured by the differences in soil and climate."7 What is striking is that
virtually the entire organized Jewish community in the United States is allied
to the Likud party and the settler movement in Israel, whose leaders openly
idolize Jabotinsky.
As a European in a society that is rapidly becoming non-European, I can
sympathize with Jabotinsky's envy of the native Slavic peoples he observed in
the early twentieth century. He wrote:
I look at them with envy. I have never known, and probably never will know,
this completely organic feeling: so united and singular [is this] sense of a
homeland, in which everything flows together, the past and the present, the
legend and the hopes, the individual and the historical.8 Every nation,
civilized or primitive, sees its land as its national home, where it wants to
stay as the sole landlord forever. Such a nation will never willingly consent
to new landlords or even to partnership.9
===============================================
Indeed, hatred toward all things European is normative among a great many
strongly identified Jews.11 I recently came across the following statement by
Dov Fischer, vice-president of the Zionist Organization of America, in the
Forward, a very prestigious Jewish publication, in 2002:
Although we appreciate a half-century of West European democracy more than
we appreciated the prior millennia of European brutality, we recognize who they
are, what they have doneand what's what. We know, if they don't, that they
need Arab oil more than they need Jewish philosophy and creativity. We remember
that the food they eat is grown from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish
blood they have sprinkled onto it. Atavistic Jew-hatred lingers in the air into
which the ashes rose from the crematoria.12
===============================================
An excellent example of an ethnically conscious wealthy Jew is Haim Saban,
who was recently profiled in the New York Times. Mr. Saban controls the largest
media company in Germany. Saban has stirred controversy in Britain, where he
publicly expressed interest in buying ITV, the country's biggest commercial
network, while accusing its competitors, including BBC News, of pro-Arab
coverage. He views his acquisition of a dominant position in German media as
benefiting Israel in the long run. Obviously he thinks of media ownership as
not simply a way of making money, but of influencing content by promoting
Jewish causes. The Times describes him as "perhaps the most politically
connected mogul in Hollywood"and that's saying a lot. He is described as
"throwing his weight and money around Washington and, increasingly, the world,
trying to influence all things Israeli. `I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is
Israel.'" To that end, he has become one of the largest individual donors
to the Democratic Party and its candidates in the country, giving millions
over the past decade$7 million in just one donation to the Democratic National
Committee in 2002. He hobnobs with John Kerry and he vacations with Bill
Clinton. It is certainly striking that Bill Clinton is on record as expressing
very positive attitudes about massive immigration and the impending minority
status of his own people, while maintaining a close relationship with a wealthy
Jewish ethnic activist intent on advancing the interests of Jews. One could say
virtually the same thing about the entire political class in America. This is,
I think, a parable of our times.
===============================================
The point is that Jewish elites have been hugely influential in advancing the
interests of their people. This is surely a goal to emulate.
The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostatea nation
that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens.
From an ethnic point of view, a major problem with massive immigration is that
there is likely to be an increase in ethnic competition. Multicultural
societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become a
cauldron of competing ethnic interests.
In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are
better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and the
ability to develop and control economic resources. They differ in their degree
of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group
interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ
in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible
parenting. And they differ in the amount of land and other resources held at
any point in time and in their political power.
Given these differences, it's difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations
among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource
control is very difficult, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of
Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law.18 And
accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have
recently lost land or numbers; nor is it likely to be acceptable to groups with
relatively low numbers and control of resources; nor would a status quo be
likely to be acceptable to groups prone to high fertility. Yet the
alternativethat all humans renounce their ethnic group loyaltiesseems utopian
to say the least.
And given that some ethnic groupsespecially ones with high levels of
ethnocentrism and mobilizationwill undoubtedly continue to function as groups
far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by
some groups means only their surrender and defeatthe Darwinian dead end of
extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian
competition in which ethnicity plays a very large role.
The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place
themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies
will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically
conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans' promotion of their own displacement
is the ultimate foolishnessan historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.
