You have misframed the issue.

Elliott Abrams is part of a powerful political movement, driven primarily by 
Jewish ethnic nationalism and passionate Israeli patriotism, which is stoking 
hatred against Muslims, Arabs, Europeans, Russians, the Chinese, mainstream 
Christians, traditional liberals, traditional conservatives, and many other 
groups.  It is by far the most virulently xenophobic and dangerous political 
movement I have encountered in my lifetime, and it has dominated the Bush 43 
administration.

The neocons are already responsible for the $2 trillion catastrophe in Iraq, 
the ruination of hundreds of thousands of lives, the undermining of the U.S. 
Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they are just getting started.  They have 
major plans to impose a global military dictatorship on the world, and to crush 
any Americans who get in their way.  They are in the habit of issuing 
bloodcurdling terrorist threats against their political opponents which match 
in extremism anything ever uttered Meir Kahane or Irv Rubin.

And Kevin MacDonald or Patrick Buchanan are anywhere near to this class of 
destructiveness?  Why would you think that?  From the standpoint of the 
American interest, if one were forced to choose between Buchanan and Abrams, 
wouldn't Buchanan be the better choice?  Will the United States be able to 
survive much more of neocon schemes and policies?  I doubt it.  And once all 
the damage is tallied up, it is quite possible that the neocons will have 
succeeded in triggering a major wave of global anti-Semitism.  The anger 
against the neocons coming from the American foreign policy establishment these 
days is electric and palpable.

tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:                                  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.   
     
                       

Reply via email to