So if I connect the dots in your equation below, it boils down to a
claim that this most dangerous movement (and I don't dispute its
dangerousness, although perhaps its "mostness") is driven by "Jewish
ethnic nationalism and passionate Israeli patriotism."

A) not true, not by a longshot. That's way too simplistic; and B) its
identical to both Macdonald's pseudo-arguments and as well, Im afraid
to say, those in Mein Kampf relative to the Jewish/Bolshevik
conspiracy for world domination.

Hitler espoused pleanty of fine sounding anti-capitalist arguments; so
should I, as a committed leftist, have supported him back then over
the centrist parties, with their imperial traditions and lack of
anti-capitalist platforms?

Buchanan emulates the arch-conservative American first-ers circa 1940
who opposed American overseas involvement. Was that a better choice vs
FDR's interventionist liberal platform, which took a huge toll on
American life and resources (and in the process established america as
the dominant world power).
These are complex, often contradictory issues. These "who do you
prefer" thought games make little sense to me.

--- In, Sean McBride
> 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
> 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:                           
> 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