Sean 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 email@example.com, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. >