Sean, I am aware that Tim is no white nationalist, I enjoyed even my
fights with him too much to simplify matters that thoroughly. My
tendency is to complicate and not to simplify anyway. Basically I have
a rather fixed reaction to a category - how to call it? - of National
Socialists (feels like an oxymoron) memes. Meaning I react to certain
ideas or terms strictly as a German. Most of them are harmless, e.g. I
think Webfairy once wrote, and I found it in other US circles: Wake up,
this one has strong Nazi associative qualities for me me too. Wake up to
our brand of reality. Call it a Pavlovian reaction if you like. I can't
help in this context. And I am aware concerning Tim I may be very, very
wrong. After all these years I find it hard to not like him. And already
on cia-drugs he struck me as one of the more interesting voices. I have
no time to go back to find another of these harmless terms. The context:
I think once he answered to a curious kid that today these matters
[?neocon/Jewish power?] could not be addressed in science but one day
they no doubt would be. I am aware my associations may take me too far,
this impression surfaces now maybe since he is attracted to MacDonald. I
wonder how big the step is from wolfs to humans. And I have to admit
that sometimes he feels like a modern Darwinist, that's why the Nazi
association is strong. I can easily admit that MacDonald would range
at the very bottom of things I will read. For one reason; I think his
work would need a deep understanding in many rather diverse fields.
Words are willing and on paper make sense, even if they are in a heavy
conflict with reality. -jo
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> An important point: I don't get the impression that Kevin MacDonald
and his more intelligent defenders are white supremacists or Nazis (and
certainly not Tim). They have probably noticed that Jewish ethnic
nationalists (neoconservatives in particular) have inflicted enormous
damage on American culture and American interests (especially in Iraq),
and are wondering why traditional European ethnic groups in American
politics can't openly organize to defend themselves, and their values
and interests, against these activities. Would Anglo or European ethnic
nationalists who are opposed to American involvement in neocon Mideast
wars be any worse than Jewish ethnic nationalists who are instigating
these wars? Frankly, it's a difficult question to answer. (Actually,
it may be a very easy question to answer.)
>
> I take the position that trans-ethnic universalism will prevail in
America in the long run and will set matters right and put the neocons
in their place (or at least I hope so). One would have to be at the end
of one's rope to fight fire with fire over these issues, revving up one
ethnic lobby to counter another. But it could happen if matters get
much worse. Everyone should play by the same rules when it comes to
ethnic nationalism -- either it's a legitimate activity for all ethnic
groups in America or none. Pro-Israel militants in the United States
are going to have to decide whether they are really committed to the
American dream of creating a harmonious society for all ethnic groups
and religions, or are only using Americans as cannon fodder for an
interminable series of xenophobic holy wars organized around the
preoccupations of an ethnocentric foreign nation.
>
> LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't
deny, I am pleased this debate finally happened and Sean took the
position, I hoped he would. Also I am utterly pleased to read he has
"framed his words carefully". On the -naivete - paranoia axis I have
chosen to lean towards the naivete as far as Sean is concerned. Thus I
do not read this as -
watch-out-I-am-only-paying-deference-to-the-powers. These words point
towards a secret underneath.
>
> But Tim, concerning scientific: From time to time over the last couple
of decades; I read Nazi theses in my field. Many, many started out - in
a field that does not at all suggest this - with a Darwinist position:
The Nazi right-of-the-stronger (slightly reminiscent of =we have to be
willing, morally willing ... Yaron Brook). One could almost call it a
scientific fashion. Although admittedly I haven't read many, only the
ones gy people who made a bigger career in Post war Germany, and that
seemed to have reached post-war Germany completely unharmed by the
conformance practice they had exercised during the Nazi reign.
>
> In your notes over the years rarely - nevertheless - something else
surfaced occasionally, little items that point towards your [?or your
group's ?} will to power. Today it is still like that, but wait till ...
These are sentences I read in Nazi literature over and over again, the
general Nazi threat to their enemies; as I know some of them led to
however postponed realization; which to these guys meant follow your
enemies wherever they are and kill them once you get a chance ... One
example is on my mind shot in Czechoslovakia shortly after the Nazis
were handed power on a silver plate - so to speak.
>
> Don't misuse your intellect in these sick avenues.
>
> -jo
>
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, tigerbengalis
tigerbengalis@ wrote:
> >
> > tim_howells_1000 timothy.howells@ wrote:
> > MacDonald approached these issues from a scientific rather than a
political perspective. What you and most seem to be saying is that the
conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate, so he
has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. I prefer cold
reason at this point. Kevin MacDonald did not organize the world!
Don't blame the messenger. If we are going to avoid apocalyptic ethnic
warfare at this point, it will not be by shutting our eyes and hoping
for the best.
> > Tim Howells
> >
> >
> > Tim--try to maintain your composure and take a breath and see how
you twist this debate using roughly the same m.o. that Macdonald does.
No one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, are saying "the conclusions
he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate." Do you have a
quote indicating anyone saying that, or are you (like Macdonald) just
making it up as you go along? Likewise, no one here, nor any of
Macdonalds critics, have said Macdonald "has to be discredited and his
work has to be rejected." Do you have a quote from anyone indicating
this imperative? Nor is anyone "shutting their eyes," in fact, clearly
Macdonald is receiving a response. Your lament that the "truth" is being
ignored (rather than an unscientific thesis of a bigot is being
rejected) is simple demagoguery.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > TV dinner still cooling?
> > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
> >
>
