Sean Why are you requesting a comparison of the relative threat value of these two individuals (both of whom I consider to be dangerous, in various ways).
McDonald is a white Christian nationalist who is also considered as someone attempting to provide an academic justification for anti-Semitism. Abrams is a Jewish neo-con who has helped orchestrate various American imperial endeavors. So you are now asking, in effect, who's worse, this white guy accused of bigotry, or this bad Jew who is playing a role in nasty American policies. Why are you asking, and making this particular comparison. Rather than, say, which is worse, home-grown neo-nazi ideology or neoconservativism. I still dont know what the point of comparing is, though. Of course, on a day to day basis, neocons are costing huge loss of life etc, and are leading a disastrous policy. Macdonald represents a future threat (perhaps a scenario in which America abandons Israel and its Jewish population, and uses Macdonald as the intellectual justification, and hangs the Abrams'es of the world out to dry?) Yet you feel the need to single out a Jewish neo-con to compare to a protoNazi. Why? Are you saying current American policy (which has hardly changed in decades, despite the current ascenency of neocons) is a Jewish scheme ? Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm...Still no responses to my questions to Michael Pugliese about ethnic nationalism, the neocons and related topics? No interest in real dialogue on these matters? Why? Who is a bigger threat to Americans and the world: White ethnic nationalists like Kevin MacDonald? Or Jewish ethnic nationalists like Elliott Abrams? Abrams occupies a high position in the Bush 43 administration, was a key ringleader of the disastrous Iraq War, is a leading agitator for a war against Iran, is a fanatical ethnic nationalist and a leader of an ethnic nationalist movement, neoconservatism (the Likud wing of Zionism), which is trying to stir up a holy war between the United States and Muslims (and Russians, and the Chinese, and Europeans, and God knows who else) worldwide. So: MacDonald or Abrams? About whom should we be more concerned? Again, this isn't a rhetorical question -- I am curious to see some creative thinking (not canned agitprop) about these issues from Michael Pugliese, Joe Jackson, tigerbengalis or anyone else. What I think is going on is that even asking these questions is highly alarming to the neocon camp -- the neocons (and their secret sympathizers) tend to become hysterical and even violent when confronted with the bizarre and indefensible self-contradictions in their belief system. They are in denial. Am I wrong? This kind of irrationality is more typical of cults (especially ethnic cults) than of reasoned and reasonable political philosophies. Neoconservatism is a messianic ethnic cult, one which is actively promoting world war, apocalyptic violence and global chaos. Neocons are ethnic Armageddonists. I personally believe, on purely rational grounds, that the neocons are a much bigger threat to the general well-being of Americans and the world than Kevin MacDonald. Please correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps I have overlooked something. To reiterate where I am coming from on these matters: I would prefer to live in a world in which ethnic, nationalist and religious divisions fade into insignificance, and in which the values of creative individualism and meritocracy dominate human culture worldwide. (And I know that many Jews agree with me -- these are core values in the best of the Jewish tradition.) But to achieve this state of affairs will require mutual disarmament among all ethnic groups. To lay down one's ethnic arms unilaterally, while some other ethnic groups are arming themselves to the teeth, would be a suicidal act. Yes? No? The neocons seem to be demanding that all ethnic outsiders commit suicide -- now wouldn't that be a convenient state of affairs for the neocons. --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.