Ah -- you are making little sense.  Clearly this is a highly emotional topic 
for you, and I honestly think that you are incapable of thinking about it 
objectively and clearly.

Commentary is not just any old Jewish magazine, it's the fountainhead of 
neoconservatism and a haven for Jewish extremists and militant Jewish ethnic 
nationalists.  Neocons are militant Jewish nationalists in precisely the same 
way that David Duke is a militant white nationalist.  The only difference is 
that the neocons are much more powerful than white nationalists like Duke, and 
have inflicted much more damage on American interests than Duke and his 
associates could ever imagine.  Commentary is well out of touch with mainstream 
American Jewish opinion (for instance, a large majority of Jews opposed the 
Iraq War).

In terms of their policy objectives, the neocons are arguably more insane than 
even the worst Nazis from the 1930s and 1940s.  They are in bed with Christian 
Armageddonists like John Hagee, who actively wish to see the destruction of the 
world as soon as possible, and I have often heard neocons cavalierly suggest 
nuking Arab and Muslim nations back to the stone age (an act of genocide that 
could involve not six million but tens or hundreds of millions of victims).  
Some neocons are fond of threatening to destroy the entire planet with nuclear 
and biological weapons if Israel is "betrayed" by the West (the policy is 
called the Samson Option).

Do you really want to manufacture lame apologetics for a political movement 
that is this over the edge?  By comparison, Patrick Buchanan is the soul of 
sanity (and I strongly disagree with Buchanan's nativism).

You know, I wonder if it bothers you to call Jewish ethnic nationalists like 
Benjamin Netanyahu, Natan Sharansky, Avigdor Lieberman and Benny Elon by their 
right name -- Jewish ethnic nationalists.  That is what they are.  Either one 
is for ethnic nationalism across the board, or one is opposed to it.  Picking 
and choosing is an exercise in conspicuous hypocrisy, particularly when one is 
motivated by narrow self-interest.

tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:                                  Sean, 
Commentary has for decades been openly identified as a journal with a focus on 
Jewish interests, from a conservative and now neo-con perspective. Your calling 
the "obsessed" is quite offensive. It's like calling People mag "obsessed" with 
celebrities. It's not an obsession if its commonly understood to be  WHAT YOU 

Your comparisons to David Duke are equally offensive (as I find abhorrent most 
neocon ideology). Duke is A fucking KLANSMAN, for Gods sake. I mean come on.

Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
                              Do you actually know anything about the 
intellectual history of neoconservatism, or are you just making this stuff up 
as you go along?  Which neocon sources do you monitor regularly?

Have you read the last few decades of Commentary, which is the lead journal of 
neoconservatism?  I have.  Neoconservatism is predominantly, overwhelmingly, 
not just a Jewish ethnic nationalist movement, but a militantly Jewish ethnic 
nationalist movement -- the Jewish equivalent of David Duke.  Neocons are 
obsessed with the interests and enemies of Israel (and "the Jews" -- a term 
which they use frequently, it flows trippingly off their tongues), and view all 
of history as an interminable holy war between "the Jews" and everyone else in 
the world -- their list of ethnic enemies is endless, and includes many 
mainstream American political leaders and personalities, like Jimmy Carter, 
George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.

How obsessed are neocons with "the   Jews"?  You be the judge.  Here are some 
verbatim titles of Commentary articles:

1. American Jews & Their Judaism (1994)
2. American Jews: Community in Crisis (1975)
3. Anti-Semitism in America (1994)
4. Black Anti-Semitism & How It Grows (1994)
5. Blaming Israel (1984)
6. Christianity and the Jewish People (1975)
7. Civil Religion in Israel (1984)
8. Cynthia Ozick, Jewish Writer (1984)
9. Do the Jews Have a Future? (1994)
10. Europe's Good Jews (2005)
11. Family Values & the Jews (1994)
12. German Culture and the Jews (1984)
13. Ideas of Jewish History (2005)
14. In the Land of Israel (1984)
15. Islam vs. Israel (1984)
16. Israel Against Itself (1994)
17. Israel and the United States: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons? (1975)
18. Israel in the Mind of America (1984)
19. Israel's Rights and Arab Propaganda (1975)
20. Israel: Guilt & Politics (1994)
21. Jewish Cooking in America   (1994)
22. Jewish interests (2005)
23. Jewish Life in Philadelphia 1840-1940 (1984)
24. Jewish Security & Jewish Interests (2004)
25. Jews and American Politics (1975)
26. Jews and the Jewish Birthrate (2005)
27. Manners & the Jewish Intellectual (1975)
28. Marxism vs. the Jews (1984)
29. On Joining the Jews (2004)
30. On Modern Jewish Politics (1994)
31. Pictures of the Jewish Past (1975)
32. The Decline and Fall of Islamic Jewry (1984)
33. The Exposed American Jew (1975)
34. The Israeli Army (1975)
35. The Jew in American Society (1975)
36. The Jewish Century (2005)
37. The Jewish Way of Crime (1984)
38. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars (1984)
39. The Jihad Against the Jews (1994)
40. The Political Dilemma of American Jews (1984)
41. The Return of Anti-Semitism (2004)
42. The Secret of Jewish Continuity (1994)
43. The UN and the Jews (2004)
44. The United States &   Israel (1975)
45. The War Against the Jews 1933-1945 (1975)
46. The Yom Kippur: Israel and the Jewish People (1975)
47. There Are Jews in My House (2004)
48. Why Religion Is Good for the Jews (1994)

Now, if the neocons aren't the most xenophobic and dangerous political lobby in 
American politics, then which group would that be?  Can you name it?  The 
neocons were the ringleaders of the Iraq War, and they are agitating for an 
American war against Iran as we speak, against the best advice of the American 
military establishment and intel community.  Some neocons believe that America 
should preemptively attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

So: Kevin MacDonald or Elliott Abrams?  Who has done more damage to the 
American interest?  Who is the more destructive ethnic nationalist and 
xenophobe?  It's really not a contest, is it.  Kevin MacDonald is politically 
powerless.  Elliott Abrams is substantially running   American Mideast policy 
from the NSC.

tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 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 political-research@yahoogroups.com, 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.


Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

Reply via email to