Re: [political-research] America Seeks to Boost White Population
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who precisely are you claiming is controlling Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson,
Sumner Redstone or Mort Zuckerman?
REPLY
It's not a who, it's a what. What's controlling them is the same thing that
controls quislings and lackeys throughout history--a cowtowing to the dominant
powere structure for one's own personal gain, and in the case of the above, a
twisted sense that they will be safe from Jew hatred by virtue of their kow
towing. As deplorable as they are, they are still tragic.
In the United States, in the year 2007,
Americans are firmly committed to the concept of building a society on the
basis of talent and achievement, not ethnicity or religion. Israel and Zionism
are hopelessly mired down in ethno-religious concepts straight from the Old
Testament. The mainstream Israel lobby, including AIPAC, has emphasized these
chosen people themes in its campaign to win the support of Christian
Armageddonists in the United States. Americanism and Zionism are fundamentally
incompatible, as are American and Israeli strategic interests in a number of
important spheres. I really see nothing controversial in the above statements.
The Jerusalem Post just boasted that Jews dominate Vanity Fair's most recent
survey of the American power elite -- they comprise more than 50% of the list,
according to one of Israel's leading newspapers. Many of them are pro-Israel
activists and militants. The neocons have in fact been the dominant political
faction during the Bush 43 years, with the support of powerful neocon media
owners and controllers. Who precisely are you claiming is controlling Rupert
Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson, Sumner Redstone or Mort Zuckerman? Do they have
names? Let's see the hard data.
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sean, you take Jewish messianic ethnic supremacism
far more seriously and gravely than pretty much any Zionist does today or in
the modern era. Day to day Isreali concerns are much more mundane and vulgar,
just like Americans' interests are vis a vis the founding principles (and
myths) of America. Just like the average American has probably not read more
than a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the average Israeli has read next to
nothing of Herzl, and probably hasnt a clue who Moses Hess was.
Despite your reverance for America's America's core ideological values which
you hold up as so superior to Isrealis, America, lest you forget, was founded
upon the ethnic cleansing/genocide of entire nations, and built upon chattel
slavery, with a body count in the millions (continuing to this day).
Israel is a classic colonial settler state (read someone like the fine scholar
Maxime Rodinson on this rather than or in addition to the endless obfuscations
of the Shlomo Avineris, who refuse to call a spade a spade lest they get run
out of their universties on a rail). It is comparable to the South African
apartheid regime, or probably more accuartely, the Ian Smith regime in
Rhodesia. Except unlike those two regimes (and in similarity with the European
settler state called America), the Jewish settlers became, through force, the
majority (as are the Europeans in America).
This is pure politics, economics, and brute force at work. These ideological
obfuscations about the Old Testament are as minor as the grand narrative yths
of America. Zionist Jews are doing nothing more than playing the same game
learned at the heels of the Europeans who perfected the art. The tragedy is
that Jews once played a great role in the global game of social justice. But
for those who didnt perish at the hands of the white European Nazi slime now
find themselves enslaved to the white Christian American death machine.
And those handful of Jewish neoconservatives who some continue to insist are
wagging the American dog? Just lackeys, nothing more, nothing less.
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The United States has suffered periodic eruptions of
xenophobia and racism, but generally America's core ideological values are not
ethnic nationalist or ethnic supremacist. Zionism has its roots in the
messianic ethnic supremacism of the Old Testament and modern Jewish ethnic
nationalists like Moses Hess. See: !{book; Shlomo Avineri; 1985; Moses Hess:
Prophet of Communism and Zionism; New York University Press}.
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who do you think the Zionists learned their ideology
from?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Why Americanism and Zionism are radically different
ideologies.]
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader:
Israel seeks to boost Jewish population (AFP)
via Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict on 10/16/07
AFP - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged Jews worldwide
Re: [political-research] Re: America Seeks to Boost White Population
to be attacked. The self-hating Jew surrounds
the peak of the developments.
I am very, very pleased that Sean introduced me to voices like: Phil Weiss,
Richard Silverman, Glenn Greenberg and others.
Did you already witness Sean McBride-the -antisemite times over at cia-drugs?
Personally I found it much more interesting than the Chip-Chippie tune by
Chip-Chippie and friends.
I think I need to dive a little into the intellectual origin of the theories.
Religion - Nation
Utopia - Machiavellism
Complex matters.
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the United States, in the year 2007, Americans are firmly committed to the
concept of building a society on the basis of talent and achievement, not
ethnicity or religion. Israel and Zionism are hopelessly mired down in
ethno-religious concepts straight from the Old Testament. The mainstream
Israel lobby, including AIPAC, has emphasized these chosen people themes in
its campaign to win the support of Christian Armageddonists in the United
States. Americanism and Zionism are fundamentally incompatible, as are
American and Israeli strategic interests in a number of important spheres. I
really see nothing controversial in the above statements.
The Jerusalem Post just boasted that Jews dominate Vanity Fair's most recent
survey of the American power elite -- they comprise more than 50% of the
list, according to one of Israel's leading newspapers. Many of them are
pro-Israel activists and militants. The neocons have in fact been the
dominant political faction during the Bush 43 years, with the support of
powerful neocon media owners and controllers. Who precisely are you claiming
is controlling Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson, Sumner Redstone or Mort
Zuckerman? Do they have names? Let's see the hard data.
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean,
you take Jewish messianic ethnic supremacism far more seriously and gravely
than pretty much any Zionist does today or in the modern era. Day to day
Isreali concerns are much more mundane and vulgar, just like Americans'
interests are vis a vis the founding principles (and myths) of America. Just
like the average American has probably not read more than a quote from Thomas
Jefferson, the average Israeli has read next to nothing of Herzl, and
probably hasnt a clue who Moses Hess was.
Despite your reverance for America's America's core ideological values
which you hold up as so superior to Isrealis, America, lest you forget, was
founded upon the ethnic cleansing/genocide of entire nations, and built upon
chattel slavery, with a body count in the millions (continuing to this day).
Israel is a classic colonial settler state (read someone like the fine
scholar Maxime Rodinson on this rather than or in addition to the endless
obfuscations of the Shlomo Avineris, who refuse to call a spade a spade lest
they get run out of their universties on a rail). It is comparable to the
South African apartheid regime, or probably more accuartely, the Ian Smith
regime in Rhodesia. Except unlike those two regimes (and in similarity with
the European settler state called America), the Jewish settlers became,
through force, the majority (as are the Europeans in America).
This is pure politics, economics, and brute force at work. These
ideological obfuscations about the Old Testament are as minor as the grand
narrative yths of America. Zionist Jews are doing nothing more than playing
the same game learned at the heels of the Europeans who perfected the art.
The tragedy is that Jews once played a great role in the global game of
social justice. But for those who didnt perish at the hands of the white
European Nazi slime now find themselves enslaved to the white Christian
American death machine.
And those handful of Jewish neoconservatives who some continue to insist are
wagging the American dog? Just lackeys, nothing more, nothing less.
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The United States has suffered periodic eruptions
of xenophobia and racism, but generally America's core ideological values are
not ethnic nationalist or ethnic supremacist. Zionism has its roots in the
messianic ethnic supremacism of the Old Testament and modern Jewish ethnic
nationalists like Moses Hess. See: !{book; Shlomo Avineri; 1985; Moses Hess:
Prophet of Communism and Zionism; New York University Press}.
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who do you think the Zionists learned their
ideology from?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Why Americanism and Zionism are radically
different ideologies.]
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader:
Israel seeks to boost Jewish population
Re: [political-research] America Seeks to Boost White Population
Who do you think the Zionists learned their ideology from?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Why Americanism and Zionism are radically different ideologies.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Israel seeks to boost Jewish population (AFP) via Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict on 10/16/07 AFP - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged Jews worldwide to migrate on Tuesday as his government unveiled new incentives to woo back expats and reverse declining immigration. Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict Subscribe to Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [political-research] America Seeks to Boost White Population
Sean, you take Jewish messianic ethnic supremacism far more seriously and
gravely than pretty much any Zionist does today or in the modern era. Day to
day Isreali concerns are much more mundane and vulgar, just like Americans'
interests are vis a vis the founding principles (and myths) of America. Just
like the average American has probably not read more than a quote from Thomas
Jefferson, the average Israeli has read next to nothing of Herzl, and probably
hasnt a clue who Moses Hess was.
Despite your reverance for America's America's core ideological values which
you hold up as so superior to Isrealis, America, lest you forget, was founded
upon the ethnic cleansing/genocide of entire nations, and built upon chattel
slavery, with a body count in the millions (continuing to this day).
Israel is a classic colonial settler state (read someone like the fine scholar
Maxime Rodinson on this rather than or in addition to the endless obfuscations
of the Shlomo Avineris, who refuse to call a spade a spade lest they get run
out of their universties on a rail). It is comparable to the South African
apartheid regime, or probably more accuartely, the Ian Smith regime in
Rhodesia. Except unlike those two regimes (and in similarity with the European
settler state called America), the Jewish settlers became, through force, the
majority (as are the Europeans in America).
This is pure politics, economics, and brute force at work. These ideological
obfuscations about the Old Testament are as minor as the grand narrative yths
of America. Zionist Jews are doing nothing more than playing the same game
learned at the heels of the Europeans who perfected the art. The tragedy is
that Jews once played a great role in the global game of social justice. But
for those who didnt perish at the hands of the white European Nazi slime now
find themselves enslaved to the white Christian American death machine.
And those handful of Jewish neoconservatives who some continue to insist are
wagging the American dog? Just lackeys, nothing more, nothing less.
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The
United States has suffered periodic eruptions of xenophobia and racism, but
generally America's core ideological values are not ethnic nationalist or
ethnic supremacist. Zionism has its roots in the messianic ethnic supremacism
of the Old Testament and modern Jewish ethnic nationalists like Moses Hess.
See: !{book; Shlomo Avineri; 1985; Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and
Zionism; New York University Press}.
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who do you think the Zionists learned their ideology
from?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Why Americanism and Zionism are radically different
ideologies.]
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader:
Israel seeks to boost Jewish population (AFP)
via Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict on 10/16/07
AFP - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged Jews worldwide to migrate on
Tuesday as his government unveiled new incentives to woo back expats and
reverse declining immigration.
Things you can do from here:
Visit the original item
on Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict
Subscribe to Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict using Google Reader
Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite
sites
-
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
-
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
Re: [political-research] An Unanswered Question to Tigerbengalis
Not sure why you are asking me that, or its importance. Of course the Israel Lobby tops the list, since Israel wants America to bomb Iran. And of course neo-con propaganda outlets also top the list, since that is who Bush/Cheney have hired to be their point people for their war. All administrations hire propaganda outfits to flack for them. Reagan used New Rightist ones, Clinton used Hollywood liberal, ACLU'ers and others in the liberal establishment. If this is supposed to prove that the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog, it doesn't, any more than Susan Sarandon eas running things in the Clinton years. Here's a good update on the Iran sitch from Sy Hersch, including hired flunky Podhoretz doing his usual nonsense on behalf of the Empire. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An unanswered question to Tigerbengalis: Which major lobby in American politics, other than the Israel lobby (including neoconservative outfits like Freedom's Watch), has been aggressively agitating for an American war against Iran? So far you have not mentioned a single name. - Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
Re: [political-research] On the Death of the Democratic Party
Anyone who ever thought the Democratic Party was or could be a vehicle for an anti-war movement is either delusional or lacking in a basic understanding of recent or distant history. The DP has backed (and often directed) EVERY imperial adventure from the post-WWII period (which is the era of the modern Democratic Party. And anyone would be hard-pressed to lay blame on the Israel Lobby for Korea, Iran 1953, Guatemala 54, Bay of Pigs, Indochina, Serbia etc. The DP effectively destroyed from within anti-war factions in 68 (McCarthy) 72 (McGovern), 84 (Jackson), 2000 (Dean) ad nauseum. And what was the source of the most vicious hostility and slander against Nader's campaigns? Not the right, but the liberal left. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically, the Israel lobby has managed to kill both the Republican and Democratic Parties -- impressive work. Billmon, via Glenn Greenwald: [BEGIN] It is a stunning testament to the political devolution of this country that the most effective anti-war movement in America is inside the walls of the Pentagon or buried deep in the bowels of the CIA! But that is the reality, thanks in no small part to the Dems and the Israel lobby. I had hopes once that the Democratic Party could be reformed, that progressives could burrow back in or build their own parallel organizations (like MoveOn.org or even Left Blogistan) and eventually gain control of the party and its agenda -- much as the conservatives took over the GOP in the 1980s and '90s. But I think we've run out of time. Events -- from 9/11 on -- have moved too fast and pushed us too far towards the clash of civilizations that most sane people dread but the neocons desperately want. [END] - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
Re: [political-research] Re: On Ethnic Nationalism and Genetic Science
In this instance I'll second Sean's comments below. BTW, are you referiing to Google's Larry Page? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am much more interested in talent and creativity than ethnic purity, and talent and creativity emerge among all ethnic groups. I prefer meritocracies and talentocracies to ethnocracies. I believe in judging peoples as individuals, not as members of ethnic groups. Ethnic nationalism is a crutch for people who lack confidence in their ability to compete as individuals in societies based on talent and achievement, not ethnic affiliation. I've read much of MacDonald's writings -- do you really regard him as intellectually difficult or challenging? I don't. For a student of intellectual history, his basic ideas can be figured out quite quickly. I understand very well where he's coming from. Larry Page, who is Jewish, is doing much more interesting work than Kevin MacDonald. Those who get bogged down in theorizing about the genetics of ethnic groups shouldn't complain when others achieve greater success by paying attention to issues and fields of much greater import. Europe went down the ethnic nationalist route last century, and the results were disastrous. The results are not likely to improve on a second try. Get mixed up with Nazis, and people will understandably wonder if you are a Nazi. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Don't ethnic nationalists, ethnic supremacists and racists tend to gravitate strongly towards genetic research into ethnic traits and ethnic behavior? Isn't Kevin MacDonald himself associated with white ethnic nationalism? Rushton also? Weren't white ethnic supremacists (Nazis) with a strong interest in genetic science responsible for the Holocaust? Isn't MacDonald heavily preoccupied with the negative and destructive effects of Jews (not just Zionists)? Am I missing something here? I think you're pushing this ethnic nationalist thing way too far. Are all ethnic nationalists equivalent to Nazi war criminals in your book? What about the ethnic nationalists behind the English Empire or the Roman Empire? The Renaissance coincided with an explosion of European ethnic nationalism. The current decline of nationalism with the rise of Globalization hardly feels like a worthy successor to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment - more like a return to the Dark Ages, I'm afraid. Rather than putting Kevin MacDonald in your ethnic nationalist cubby hole, you could try actually reading something he has written :-) Failing that you could continue your strict no read policy and instead read the article by Frank Salter already referenced. This neatly picks out the talking points that MacDonald's critics focus on. If you will just read this one short article about Kevin MacDonald, then we could then discuss whatever you think is offensive. In answer to your question, yes, Kevin MacDonald thinks that the Jewish/Gentile problem is much bigger than just the problems associated with Zionism. I think that you know enough of the relevant history to know that this is true. After all, modern Zionism arose as an attempt to deal with the terrible problems of the Diaspora, and the constant conflict between Jew and Gentile. It was a saying of the Zionists that the world was divided into those countries in which the Jews could not live, and those which they could not enter. In Herzl's succinct summary: When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. [Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, pg 23] Tim Howells tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Ethnic nationalists have a proven history of using genetic science to promote ethnic supremacist myths, and to justify discrimination against and even the extermination of ethnic outsiders (including entire inferior ethnic groups). Genetic science was an important factor in producing the Holocaust. As we speak, some ethnic groups around the world (including in Israel) are developing biological weapons that target specific ethnic groups for genocidal elimination. It is easy to understand why ethnic nationalists pursuing genetic research on ethnic issues are subjected to harsh questioning. Ethnic nationalists who demean ethnic outsiders on the basis of genetic science are usually one or two steps away from committing violence against those ethnic outsiders -- that's the historical pattern. Could you give an example of what you are talking about? In this context it seems as though you may be referring to MacDonald or Salter. It is not good to leave a nebulous accusation like this hanging. I could easily come up with dozens of specific examples of Zionists demeaning ethnic outsiders
Re: [political-research] Re: On Ethnic Nationalism and Genetic Science
Tim, there are plenty of Americans who think that someone's Nazi sympathies, like Macdonald's, are the serious issue, not his lame and hateful ideas. You might want to take note that Nazism always was and remains an enemy of America (the real America, not Cheney's America, not Macdonald's dream of a white America, or any other traitors.) . tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Get mixed up with Nazis, and people will understandably wonder if you are a Nazi. Again, please clarify. Please state who you are referring to. Please state what Nazi associations you are referring to. You throw the Nazi slur around very casually. If you mean that there is a reference to MacDonald on some neo-Nazi website somewhere, that is an extremely lame attempt to dodge these difficult and important issues. Tim I am much more interested in talent and creativity than ethnic purity, and talent and creativity emerge among all ethnic groups. I prefer meritocracies and talentocracies to ethnocracies. I believe in judging peoples as individuals, not as members of ethnic groups. Ethnic nationalism is a crutch for people who lack confidence in their ability to compete as individuals in societies based on talent and achievement, not ethnic affiliation. I've read much of MacDonald's writings -- do you really regard him as intellectually difficult or challenging? I don't. For a student of intellectual history, his basic ideas can be figured out quite quickly. I understand very well where he's coming from. Larry Page, who is Jewish, is doing much more interesting work than Kevin MacDonald. Those who get bogged down in theorizing about the genetics of ethnic groups shouldn't complain when others achieve greater success by paying attention to issues and fields of much greater import. Europe went down the ethnic nationalist route last century, and the results were disastrous. The results are not likely to improve on a second try. Get mixed up with Nazis, and people will understandably wonder if you are a Nazi. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Don't ethnic nationalists, ethnic supremacists and racists tend to gravitate strongly towards genetic research into ethnic traits and ethnic behavior? Isn't Kevin MacDonald himself associated with white ethnic nationalism? Rushton also? Weren't white ethnic supremacists (Nazis) with a strong interest in genetic science responsible for the Holocaust? Isn't MacDonald heavily preoccupied with the negative and destructive effects of Jews (not just Zionists)? Am I missing something here? I think you're pushing this ethnic nationalist thing way too far. Are all ethnic nationalists equivalent to Nazi war criminals in your book? What about the ethnic nationalists behind the English Empire or the Roman Empire? The Renaissance coincided with an explosion of European ethnic nationalism. The current decline of nationalism with the rise of Globalization hardly feels like a worthy successor to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment - more like a return to the Dark Ages, I'm afraid. Rather than putting Kevin MacDonald in your ethnic nationalist cubby hole, you could try actually reading something he has written :-) Failing that you could continue your strict no read policy and instead read the article by Frank Salter already referenced. This neatly picks out the talking points that MacDonald's critics focus on. If you will just read this one short article about Kevin MacDonald, then we could then discuss whatever you think is offensive. In answer to your question, yes, Kevin MacDonald thinks that the Jewish/Gentile problem is much bigger than just the problems associated with Zionism. I think that you know enough of the relevant history to know that this is true. After all, modern Zionism arose as an attempt to deal with the terrible problems of the Diaspora, and the constant conflict between Jew and Gentile. It was a saying of the Zionists that the world was divided into those countries in which the Jews could not live, and those which they could not enter. In Herzl's succinct summary: When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. [Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, pg 23] Tim Howells tim_howells_1000 timothy.howells@ wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Ethnic nationalists have a proven history of using genetic science to promote ethnic supremacist myths, and to justify discrimination against and even the extermination of ethnic outsiders (including entire inferior ethnic groups). Genetic science was an important factor in producing the Holocaust. As we speak, some ethnic groups around the world (including in Israel) are developing biological
Re: [political-research] Re: Wikipedia on Jacob Schiff
Tim-- Glad you brought up the fine scholar Sutton. From his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks: However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a very great role in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism. It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks. The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/appendix_02.htm tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LeaNder wrote: Admittedly I have a moral problem here. I guess I do not need to explain it further, do I? My central question would be, could he foresee the results of his actions, that is the rise of the communists? He does not feel like somebody, who would support it, considering his occupation and status. I checked in Google Scholar.So yes, willful ignorance. What books/experts/authors would you recommend on the issue. Jacob Schiff was pretty much at the center of a revolution in US affairs that occurred between the Civil War and The beginning of World War I. This was when we were transformed from a democracy into a plutocracy. For a brief introduction that manages to hit many of the big issues with great clarity see The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. His online essay Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy covers some of the same material. The financial powers that consolidated their control of the United States during this period appear to have gone on to fund both the Communist Revolution in Russia, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. See: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Anthony Sutton Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Anthony Sutton Conjuring Hitler: How Britain And America Made the Third Reich, Guido Giacomo Preparata I haven't read the last yet, but it looks very interesting, and I have it on order. We've discussed Sutton here before, and I know you and Sean have an aversion because you associate him with the CIA Drugs crowd. Try not to hold that against him - this is not his fault! Sutton is actually a very fine scholar. Tim Howells I guess we have approached the center of earlier allusions, I never quite understood. LeaNder wrote: ... But I find it hard to consider this as double loyalty.Admittedly, I still wonder why Tim picked this example. Schiff'sactions were supportive of his countries politics. So politicians atthe time probably considered them utterly loyal.
Re: [political-research] Re: Wikipedia on Jacob Schiff
Who cares what Wikipedia says? They're not an authority on anything. For god sakes, they let Chip Berlet write tons of their stuff. No, I'm not aware that quite a few major Jewish scholars make the claim you attribute to them. And in fact, most serious scholars tend to trace modern communism back to communalistic Christian movements. But you sean, re argiuing that Schiff (a Jew) was a major factor in the deaths of 100 million people, through a line of spurious reasoning leading from a cash contribution to deaths that were attributable to complex global events over decades. One could just as easily (and more effectively) attribute the Soviet terror of the post 1918 era to the anglo american attempts to drown the revolution in blood. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't Wikipedia report that Jacob Schiff supported the Russian Revolution as part of a particularist Jewish agenda? Should Wikipedia revise these passages or not? Schiff, an international banker, was the foremost leader of the Jewish lobby in his time, according to Wikipedia. Are you aware that quite a few major Jewish scholars argue that Marxism and Communism were essentially secular iterations of Jewish messianism? (This is NOT to argue that the Jews are responsible for Communism, which is indeed an antisemitic belief.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim-- Glad you brought up the fine scholar Sutton. From his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks: However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a very great role in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism. It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks. The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/appendix_02.htm tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LeaNder wrote: Admittedly I have a moral problem here. I guess I do not need to explain it further, do I? My central question would be, could he foresee the results of his actions, that is the rise of the communists? He does not feel like somebody, who would support it, considering his occupation and status. I checked in Google Scholar.So yes, willful ignorance. What books/experts/authors would you recommend on the issue. Jacob Schiff was pretty much at the center of a revolution in US affairs that occurred between the Civil War and The beginning of World War I
Re: [political-research] Re: Wikipedia on Jacob Schiff
Wikipedia doesnt cite a single source in the article regarding the speculations as to Schiff's motivations. Howeverif Schiff did contribute money to overthrow the vicious, Jew-murdering Tsarist dictatorship, that's admirable. To consider Schiff to be in any sense a major factor in the Bolshevik revolution though would be absurdly simplistic and reductionistic--to date, I've only heard that claim from those with an overall anti-Semitic agenda. The article also points out that Schiff was not an admirer of the Soviet regime. I have no reason to doubt that. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't name a single specific fact that Wikipedia got wrong about Jacob Schiff? Until you can rebut Wikipedia's entry on Schiff with facts from highly reliable sources, we can tentatively assume that they are true. Jacob Schiff attacked the Russian government with a conspicuous Jewish agenda specifically in mind, and in the process no doubt provoked the wrath of many Russians against himself and everything he stood for and was associated with. (Again, for the benefit of ethnic cultists and collectivists with major cognitive impairment: Jacob Schiff DOES NOT equal the Jews.) With regard to Antony Sutton: is it fair to say that Sutton is arguing that the Anglo power elite was more responsible for Communism than the Jewish power elite? Does Sutton have any hard numbers regarding the comparative involvement and financial contributions of both groups to the establishment of Communism as a major world movement? I would especially like to see the financial numbers presented in a simple list. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who cares what Wikipedia says? They're not an authority on anything. For god sakes, they let Chip Berlet write tons of their stuff. No, I'm not aware that quite a few major Jewish scholars make the claim you attribute to them. And in fact, most serious scholars tend to trace modern communism back to communalistic Christian movements. But you sean, re argiuing that Schiff (a Jew) was a major factor in the deaths of 100 million people, through a line of spurious reasoning leading from a cash contribution to deaths that were attributable to complex global events over decades. One could just as easily (and more effectively) attribute the Soviet terror of the post 1918 era to the anglo american attempts to drown the revolution in blood. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't Wikipedia report that Jacob Schiff supported the Russian Revolution as part of a particularist Jewish agenda? Should Wikipedia revise these passages or not? Schiff, an international banker, was the foremost leader of the Jewish lobby in his time, according to Wikipedia. Are you aware that quite a few major Jewish scholars argue that Marxism and Communism were essentially secular iterations of Jewish messianism? (This is NOT to argue that the Jews are responsible for Communism, which is indeed an antisemitic belief.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim-- Glad you brought up the fine scholar Sutton. From his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks: However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a very great role in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered
Re: [political-research] American Jewry: Interests and Intents (w/ Help from Ha'aretz)
I love the Captain's claim below: I am not anti-Semitic, but neither am I stupid. Too may one-liner responses possible to even no where to start. Captain May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Cascadian, There is no issue that has brought so much friction to the many groups I have led as the issue to whether or not it is fair to discuss Jewish ethnicity as a factor in United States or world affairs. Anyone who attempts to do so, under what ever terms, is automatically labeled an anti-Semite. When I began my mission of conscience four years ago I was very sensitive to that accusation, but have it had hurled in my direction so many times over those four yours that now I consider it an irrelevant canard. If Bush had shown a consistent pattern of taking advice from or giving appointments to any other group, be it Catholics, Irish, Mormons, Germans, blacks -- ad infinitum -- there would be a never ending discussion about among our intelligentsia and their mainstream media. Why should it be any different for Jews, who are the chosen people for King George? Candidly, the knee jerk reaction of Jews to any discussion of the Jewish interest or influence is a strong argument for those who argue that Jews are the most ethnocentric of people. The of avoidance of Jewish topics by the mainstream media is a strong argument for those who argue that Jewish ethnic interests dominate it. Again, as I wrote below, I am not anti-Semitic, but neither am I stupid. This week has been marked by the admission of Alan Greenspan that the Iraq war was largely about oil. Regardless of what you think the cohesive force in the media is, it is clear that they have made a coherent effort to avoid such a fundamental truth for five years now. Since the war began, I have been publishing opinion pieces, arguing that the war objectives were oil and Israel. I am pleased for the belated corroboration of the Jewish former chairman of the Federal Reserve about the oil. I am likewise pleased for the corroboration of around one third of the people of Israel (according to Ha'aretz) in my view that American Jewry (their words) has its own political agenda, and that leading us into the quicksand of a Middle East war is the most important point in that agenda. I strongly recommend that all read the short and strong article, then ask whether I am anti-Semitic for discussing topics and using terms that are considered fair game by a Jewish newspaper: Poll: 71% of Israelis want U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html Is it possible that we Americans have been victims of an effort to make us in capable of having a conversation about the all important topic of a Jewish interests and intents? We are about the only people in the world who do not believe so. We close one eye when we look at the world, then praise ourselves for our insight and humanity. Best regards, Captain May A Cascadian wrote: Re: Bush Names Jew as Attorney General I really opposed the title of this. I suggest we instead focus on his history in regards to connects and actions and not his religious affiliation. His connections and actions will show if he is a Corporatists or connected with PNAC. Captain May wrote: Bush Names Jew as Attorney General I have not been able to confirm this report, but it is certainly interesting. We know that Chertoff, who heads up Homeland Security, is a Jewish Zionist. We know that the neoconservative movement is, in large part, simply Zionism by another name. We know the Zionists in the US media were crucial to selling the 9/11 treason and the global war against Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Iran). I have no problem with the United States electorate, asking strong questions about the loyalties of John F. Kennedy as he, a Catholic, ran for the presidency in 1960. I believe it's only prudent to consider the current candidacy of Mitt Romney with a consideration of his status as a Mormon. Is it prejudiced, bigoted or unreasonable to have doubts, even fears about the appointment of so many Jews to positions prominence in the Bush administration -- especially positions that will become crucial if Bush is to establish an outright tyranny through dictatorship? I'm not anti-Semitic, but neither am I stupid. I want to see more facts about this latest Bush League appointment, including whether or not he is Jewish. By the article and link below. It is quite clear that he is playing ball with the demonization of Arabs, which is the foundation of the global war on terror. I need to read his op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, which is also cited. My gut feeling is that this guy is a Zionazi. Regards, CPTMAY - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play
Re: [political-research] American Jewry: Interests and Intents (w/ Help from Ha'aretz)
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What specific points in the post trouble you? How about the fact that 71% of Israelis want the United States to attack Iran RESPONSE Show me hard evidence that Israeli public opinion (which you might want to compare with American public opinion on this same issue) has any effect on American policy. In the absence of such evidence, I'm not troubled. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...and that the Israeli government and the Israel lobby are the chief ringleaders of the campaign to expand the disastrous Iraq War to Iran? RESPONSE Show me hard evidence that tney are influencing actual policy. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How exactly should most Americans respond to that data? RESPONSE First show some data. Calling your opinions data without serious evidence and then appealing to Americans is demagogy, Sean. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May has been worried that the perps behind 9/11 may well engineer a nuclear 9/11 Part II to kickstart a war against Iran and to justify the creation of a permanent police state in America. Doesn't he have good cause to worry about this, particularly in light of outrageous statements coming from neocons like Stu Bykofsky, who offered al-Qaeda a list of American targets to hit? RESPONSE More demogogy. Show some serious data, before you appeal to have good cause to worry. Standard demogogy is to take weak evidence and sensationalize it. You are doing nothing different than the perps involved in the Niger uranium scam did--weak evidence, loud claims. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it your opinion that Americans who are upset about the effects of the Israel lobby and the neocons on American interests and quality of life are antisemitic? REPLY Show me where I said anything of the sort. Your continual putting words in my mouth is tiresome. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be preoccupied primarily by insults and threats to your narrow ethnic interests -- your political agenda is predominantly ethnocentric. REPLY Again, tiresome ad hominem attack--show me where I am defending my narrow ethnic interests and how my political agenda is predominantly ethnocentric (and please Sean, cut the nonsense and just say Jew.) Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would most Americans be interested in hearing rants about the problems of Irish or Hispanic ethnic nationalists when their nation as a whole is being severely damaged by the policies of the 43 administration? REPLY Look at the hysterical, xenophobic and scary response against the Hispanic-organized day of protest on immigration recently that your poor beleaguered ethnicity-blind americans engaged in by the millions, ranting about how the Mexicans were going to seize America. Why are you whitewashing the rampant white ethnic xenophobia in America, and putting it all on a handful of Jews? Hmmm? What specific points in the post trouble you? How about the fact that 71% of Israelis want the United States to attack Iran, and that the Israeli government and the Israel lobby are the chief ringleaders of the campaign to expand the disastrous Iraq War to Iran? How exactly should most Americans respond to that data? May has been worried that the perps behind 9/11 may well engineer a nuclear 9/11 Part II to kickstart a war against Iran and to justify the creation of a permanent police state in America. Doesn't he have good cause to worry about this, particularly in light of outrageous statements coming from neocons like Stu Bykofsky, who offered al-Qaeda a list of American targets to hit? Is it your opinion that Americans who are upset about the effects of the Israel lobby and the neocons on American interests and quality of life are antisemitic? You seem to be preoccupied primarily by insults and threats to your narrow ethnic interests -- your political agenda is predominantly ethnocentric. A strong case could be made that is is precisely this kind of ethnocentrism which has helped generate antisemitism in all time and places for thousands of years. Would most Americans be interested in hearing rants about the problems of Irish or Hispanic ethnic nationalists when their nation as a whole is being severely damaged by the policies of the 43 administration? People mired down in ethnic politics tend to lose all perspective on the negative effects of their behavior on ethnic outsiders. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the Captain's claim below: I am not anti-Semitic, but neither am I stupid. Too may one-liner responses possible to even no where to start. Captain May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Cascadian, There is no issue that has brought so much friction to the many groups I have led as the issue to whether or not it is fair to discuss Jewish ethnicity as a factor in United
Re: [political-research] Re: Wikipedia on Jacob Schiff
Do you really equate one rich Jewish guy with he financiers of a radical political movement, and with responsibility for having murdered 100 million innocent civilians in the 20th century (a claim, by the way, bandied about by the neo-fascist right, which attributes all war deaths in the 20th century--including all of WW2--to communism). Your reasoning is now coming almost verbatim from the Protocols... Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it your opinion that the financiers of a radical political movement which murdered 100 million innocent civilians in the 20th century are not responsible for the consequences of their actions? Were the financiers of Nazism responsible for the crimes of the Nazis? Some very wealthy, powerful and respectable people have financed acts of genocide and democide throughout history. In fact, can you name a major act of political mass murder in history which wasn't financed by the wealthy and powerful? A bit more on Schiff from Wikipedia: [BEGIN QUOTE] During the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 and 1905, in perhaps his most famous financial action, Schiff, again through Kuhn, Loeb Co., extended a critical series of loans to Japan, in the amount of $200 million. He was willing to extend this loan due, in part, to his belief that gold is not as important as national effort and desire, in helping win a war, and due to the apparent underdog status of Japan at the time; no European nation had ever been defeated by a non-European nation before then. It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of taking revenge, on behalf of the Jewish people, for the anti-Semitic actions of the Tsarist regime, specifically the then-recent pogroms in Kishinev. [END QUOTE] According to Wikipedia, Schiff was the foremost Jewish leader of his era. LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, Tim, I guess I better admit that I am prejudiced towards your comments. It simply feels too close to Nazi lore to me. And yes, I did ignore the second paragraph Sean send: From his base on Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader in what became known as the Schiff era, grappling with allmajor issues and problems of the day, including the plight of RussianJews under the tzar, American and international anti-Semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism. He also became the director of many important corporations, including the New York City National Bank, the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Admittedly I have a moral problem here. I guess I do not need to explain it further, do I? My central question would be, could he foresee the results of his actions, that is the rise of the communists? He does not feel like somebody, who would support it, considering his occupation and status. I checked in Google Scholar. So yes, willful ignorance. What books/experts/authors would you recommend on the issue. I guess we have approached the center of earlier allusions, I never quite understood. LeaNder wrote: ... But I find it hard to consider this as double loyalty.Admittedly, I still wonder why Tim picked this example. Schiff'sactions were supportive of his countries politics. So politicians atthe time probably considered them utterly loyal. Barbara, you are once again withdrawing into your willful ignorancemode. As you know perfectly well, and as I explicitly spelled out foryou in a previous post, I was talking about the impact of Schiff's actions, which he took on behalf of the Russian Jewish community, on RUSSIA and not the impact of those actions on the United States. But in any case your assumption that Schiff's actions weresupportive of US policies is also completely wrong. In fact Schiffpressured President Taft to abrogate treaties that the US had signedtogether with Russia, and when Taft refused Schiff stormed out of theroom and started working feverishly to defeat Taft in the nextelection. This was ultimately accomplished by convincing TeddyRoosevelt to run again on a third party ticket, splitting theRepublican vote, and allowing the political featherweight, WoodrowWilson to waltz into the White House. There were other more important reasons why Schiff and other majorfinancial forces turned against Taft, but for Schiff, the Russian issuewas a factor. Tim Howells - Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
When you belueagured Russian or Polish nationalists or patriots or whatever you wish to call them are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Russian or Polish Jews (their fellow countrymen), how is that nationalistic or patriotic? You are purveying the same anti-Semitic canard that they do--that the Jews are now real Russians or Poles (or humans) and therefore it is the duty of real Russians or Poles to slaughter them. And Tim, for all you complaints about criticiams not backed up by data, you continue to throw around phrases like in fact this occurs regularly, causing severe problems both for those [Jewish] communities and the host countries. Where is the data showing Jews supposed conflicting loyalties causing severe problems for host countries in history? Is Mein Kampf your source book? tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tigerbengalis wrote: As to your incredible claim that Jewish participation in anti-tsarist efforts fueled anti-Semitism among Russian patriots, that would be laughable if it wasn't, again, a tired anti-Semitic canard. Are you completely unaware that no doubt part of the reason there was Jewish participation in anti-Tsarist movements was the longstanding vicious anti-Semitism of Russian patriots who periodically conducted massacres of Jewish communities? Do you have no inkling of this, or is EVERYTHING in history attributable by you to Jewish deviance and manipulations. Instead of using an emotionally charged term like patriots I should have said nationalists. My point is not that Jews are bad and Gentiles are good. My point is that it is possible for the problem of conflicting loyalties to occur within diaspora Jewish communities, and in fact this occurs regularly, causing severe problems both for those communities and the host countries. Tim Howells More Jew-baiting blather, tim. none of these examples indicate any pattern of loyalties to the global Jewish community conflict with loyalty to one's homeland. As to your incredible claim that Jewish participation in anti-tsarist efforts fueled anti-Semitism among Russian patriots, that would be laughable if it wasn't, again, a tired anti-Semitic canard. Are you completely unaware that no doubt part of the reason there was Jewish participation in anti-Tsarist movements was the longstanding vicious anti-Semitism of Russian patriots who periodically conducted massacres of Jewish communities? Do you have no inkling of this, or is EVERYTHING in history attributable by you to Jewish deviance and manipulations. Its really getting tiresome. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LeaNder wrote: Tim Howells wrote: The dual loyalty problem we see now in the States has recurred many many times in history, starting long before the beginnings of modern Zionism. The problems arise when loyalties to the global Jewish community conflict with loyalty to one's homeland. Any examples before Zionism? Am I correct you basically have McDonald in mind and US immigration? Well, Zionism has always been around in one form or another, but if we stick with pre-Israel, we could begin with the takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. Jews were very active and influential in the communist parties in Eastern Europe and also in the USSR. See, for example, The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland by Jaff Schatz. Jews were attracted to the universalism of communist ideology, which seemed to be an antidote for anti-Semitism. However, when East Europeans saw so many in their local Jewish communities collaborating with the Soviet invaders in setting up tyrannical puppet governments, this actually fueled anti-Semitism. Jews were also very active in the communist party in the United States and in the Soviet espionage revealed in the Venona Tapes. This includes the betrayal of our nuclear secrets to the Soviets, enabling them to develop nuclear weapons. Prior to the establishment of the the Bolshevik regime in Russia, Jewish anger regarding anti-Semitism under the Tsar led them to fund and participate in revolutionary movements in Russia. One American mega-financier, Jacob Schiff went so far as to provide such massive funding to Japan for a war with Russia, that they were able to defeat the Russians, wreaking significant damage on the country and greatly weakening the government. See for example, The Transfer Agreement , by Edwin Black. Again, quite naturally, these things fueled anti-Semitism among Russian patriots. Nathan Rothschild played a key roll in the defeat of Napoleon by Britain. He was assisted by an intelligence network in France that was far more effective than any capability possessed by the British government. This was based primarily on his extensive contacts in the very wealthy and powerful Jewish community in France, including family connections, which
Re: [political-research] Blackwater = Mossad
What are Erik Prince's connections to the Mossad? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Since Blackwater is a Christian Zionist op, the appellation Mossad is probably pretty close to the truth. Erik Prince is a Mossad tool, as are all Christian Zionists.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Iraqis round on Blackwater 'dogs' after shooting - AFP via mossad - Google News on 9/18/07 AFP Iraqis round on Blackwater 'dogs' after shooting AFP - 2 hours ago BAGHDAD (AFP) -- Hated by Iraqis who refer to them as Mossad, Blackwater contractors are also mistrusted by fellow private security guards operating in ... Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on mossad - Google News Subscribe to mossad - Google News using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
More Jew-baiting blather, tim. none of these examples indicate any pattern of loyalties to the global Jewish community conflict with loyalty to one's homeland. As to your incredible claim that Jewish participation in anti-tsarist efforts fueled anti-Semitism among Russian patriots, that would be laughable if it wasn't, again, a tired anti-Semitic canard. Are you completely unaware that no doubt part of the reason there was Jewish participation in anti-Tsarist movements was the longstanding vicious anti-Semitism of Russian patriots who periodically conducted massacres of Jewish communities? Do you have no inkling of this, or is EVERYTHING in history attributable by you to Jewish deviance and manipulations. Its really getting tiresome. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LeaNder wrote: Tim Howells wrote: The dual loyalty problem we see now in the States has recurred many many times in history, starting long before the beginnings of modern Zionism. The problems arise when loyalties to the global Jewish community conflict with loyalty to one's homeland. Any examples before Zionism? Am I correct you basically have McDonald in mind and US immigration? Well, Zionism has always been around in one form or another, but if we stick with pre-Israel, we could begin with the takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. Jews were very active and influential in the communist parties in Eastern Europe and also in the USSR. See, for example, The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland by Jaff Schatz. Jews were attracted to the universalism of communist ideology, which seemed to be an antidote for anti-Semitism. However, when East Europeans saw so many in their local Jewish communities collaborating with the Soviet invaders in setting up tyrannical puppet governments, this actually fueled anti-Semitism. Jews were also very active in the communist party in the United States and in the Soviet espionage revealed in the Venona Tapes. This includes the betrayal of our nuclear secrets to the Soviets, enabling them to develop nuclear weapons. Prior to the establishment of the the Bolshevik regime in Russia, Jewish anger regarding anti-Semitism under the Tsar led them to fund and participate in revolutionary movements in Russia. One American mega-financier, Jacob Schiff went so far as to provide such massive funding to Japan for a war with Russia, that they were able to defeat the Russians, wreaking significant damage on the country and greatly weakening the government. See for example, The Transfer Agreement , by Edwin Black. Again, quite naturally, these things fueled anti-Semitism among Russian patriots. Nathan Rothschild played a key roll in the defeat of Napoleon by Britain. He was assisted by an intelligence network in France that was far more effective than any capability possessed by the British government. This was based primarily on his extensive contacts in the very wealthy and powerful Jewish community in France, including family connections, which provided not only intelligence but crucial logistical support in the defeat of their own country. Tim Howells Is this double loyalty in any way connected to possibly support for Jewish people e.g.threatened by Holocaust or earlier by pogroms in Russia? Would try to help them to get out of the respective ountries mean double loyalty? But if you were Irish and tried to save your family from starvation and help them to leave for the States, that wouldn't be quite the same? Admittedly I may have a rather broken relation to loyalty to my homeland. I am not even sure what it could possibly mean. That's no doubt a post WWII Germany problem. What immediately comes to mind is Vaterlandsverrat: treason against the home country. But that term only triggers images of a madly screaming German Nazi judge. I am still very interested in what attracts you so much to racist theories. Why do you consider it such an important field, and what would be the difference e.g. with the theories supported by the AEI. - Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Is Messianic Ethnic Nationalism Good for All Ethnic Groups?
Sean I have said more than once on the list that I am a critic of Zionism. But that means nothing to you, since anyone who doesn't subscribe to your theories is a Zionist agent. Discussion is impossible since your narrow mindset and obsession with ethnicity--mainly Jewish ethnicity--filters out the substance of whats said. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you are doing here is throwing around the antisemitism smear to avoid engaging in a rational dialogue on the role of ethnic nationalism in contemporary politics. The Israel lobby has pushed Jewish ethnic nationalist issues to the front and center of American politics - deal with it. Why are the following questions so difficult for you to address? Do you think French ethnic nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen have as much right to run France as a French ethnic nationalist state as Jewish ethnic nationalists (otherwise known as Zionists) have a right to run Israel as a Jewish ethnic nationalist state (that is, a Zionist state)? If not, why not? How about Germany? Britain? Sweden? Austria? Europe as a whole? The United States? Is ethnic nationalism as good them as it is for Israel? On what grounds could Zionists and supporters of Israel possibly object to the expression of messianic ethnic nationalism in *all* other nations? I know what your problem is: you are unable to acknowledge what kind of state Israel really is. You're in a state of denial, lashing out at anyone who points out the true character of Zionism. Since the Israel lobby was the prime mover behind the foreign policy disaster in Iraq, and is now frantically agitating to magnify the disaster by expanding the war to Iran, you are going to be hearing many pointed questions coming from more and more Americans about the destructive role of Israel, the Israel lobby and Jewish ethnic nationalism in American politics. No comment on the fate of those high-level AIPAC officials? The Forward has an interesting article on the topic this week. The Israel lobby certainly hasn't been good for them -- it ruined their lives. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean, your disdain for Jews taints each successive post more and more. I don;t even think you realize it. It seems that it is you who is obsessed with ethnicities. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can see that you angry and upset about the enemies of your ethnic group -- that comes through loud and clear in your posts -- the violent emotion and aggression -- even when the thinking is muddled and opaque. Most Americans from most ethnic groups are not in this state of mind -- they don't feel like the entire world is out to get them and their ethnic group. In fact, they barely think about their ethnicity at all. Most Americans have gotten beyond all that. They haven't created dense interlocking networks of organizations to promote their ethnic interests, to beat down their ethnic enemies and to control the American political process on behalf of their ethnic agenda. Let's make this simple: Do you think French ethnic nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen have as much right to run France as a French ethnic nationalist state as Jewish ethnic nationalists (otherwise known as Zionists) have a right to run Israel as a Jewish ethnic nationalist state (that is, a Zionist state)? If not, why not? How about Germany? Britain? Sweden? Austria? Europe as a whole? The United States? Is ethnic nationalism as good them as it is for Israel? On what grounds could Zionists and supporters of Israel possibly object to the expression of messianic ethnic nationalism in *all* other nations? Let there be no misunderstanding -- I would like to replace ethnocracies with talentocracies all over the world. But the Israel lobby, especially in the United States, seems to be on a different track entirely, and is stirring up the primitive ethnic and religious juices of everyone it encounters. Will some American ethnic groups begin to rev up their political energy simply to act as a counterbalance to the destructive influence of the Israel lobby in American politics? I don't want this to happen, but I think it could, given current trendlines. Either the Israel lobby is going to smarten up and back off, or we are going to be entering interesting times indeed. Have you been following the fates of the two high-level AIPAC officials who have been charged with spying for Israel? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethnic nationalism is good for Israelis, but bad for Europeans and Americans -- isn't this your belief? RESPONSE Where have I ever said this? What I do say is that making direct comparisons between various nationalisms renders the analysis meaningless given the vast differences in socio-political-economic-geographic-historical context. So you really see
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Tim If you can't grasp the specious narrow bigotry (as well as analytical uselessness) of a statement such as Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... than I really can't help you. How in the world does my saying: I actually don't think we understand the root causes of anti-Semitism -- I think humans haven't developed a scientific understanding of the dark depths of this species soul. Hence, religion's prominence and persistence, as a way to find explanations to the unexplainable. translate into your claim that I do indeed view antisemitism as mysterious, inherent and timeless.? Because I don;'t subscribe to the half-baked theory of resource competition as an explnation (and ultimately, a justification for anti-Semitism) largely promulgated by a vicious anti-Semite and racist like Kevin Macdonald? Like Sean, you view and read every statement through some set of Jew-demeaning blinders. I can't debate or argue much of anything with you if you persist in making such blatantly false readings based on your narrow preconceptions. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TigerBengalis wrote: It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). Here is the passage I cited from John Spritzer: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why do you object to this statement? It seems to summarize your own views of antisemitism very well. Here is something you posted on a previous thread: I actually don't think we understand the root causes of anti-Semitism -- I think humans haven't developed a scientific understanding of the dark depths of this species soul. Hence, religion's prominence and persistence, as a way to find explanations to the unexplainable. Obviously you do indeed view antisemitism as mysterious, inherent and timeless. I think that Spritzer has displayed deep insight here, and he has corroborated the insight with many important sources. I don't think that you are a religious fundamentalist, so probably you could quibble with the reference to religious leaders, and I would agree that strictly speaking this puts it too narrowly. Obviously this attitude can be, and is shared by secularists. Tim Howells If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest I read the above two essays, plus his essay on american democracy. The most important article is the one on Jewish elites. His conclusion is dead on: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why is this such an essential, almost sacred doctrine? Why for example can TigerBengalis never, never under any circumstance concede that antisemitism has ever in one single case been the result of resource competition? The answer is that if this were so, then the problem would be solvable - you just find some just resolution and antisemitism goes away. Then an essential dynamic that sustains and nourishes and unifies the Jewish community is lost. Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life. I don't know how to resolve all this of course. Spritzler's other two essays that I read are weaker. In particular, as Sean will be quick to point out, the National Interest article misses a massive split in the US between predominantly Jewish and predominantly Anglo
Re: [political-research] The Root Causes of Antisemitism
More anti-Jewish bigotry too blatant (and too lacking in even a faint semblance of understanding of world history) too respond to. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ancient Jewish religious writings, which comprise the core of much of the Jewish tradition, portray world history as an endless succession of violent conflicts between one ethnic group -- the Jews -- and all the other ethnic groups -- the nations. Perhaps this ideological meme, which has persisted for thousands of years, helps to explain much of the history of antisemitism. Much of the conflict, which is based on religious myths and superstitions, is self-generated and self-perpetuating. The only mystery here is why some people created this meme in the first place, and why they have clung so ferociously to it for so long. Even the minds of quite a few secular Zionists, like David Ben-Gurion, have been controlled by these myths and symbols. Some Jews are trapped in an infinite negative feedback loop. Many Jews are trying to escape the loop. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TigerBengalis wrote: It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). Here is the passage I cited from John Spritzer: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why do you object to this statement? It seems to summarize your own views of antisemitism very well. Here is something you posted on a previous thread: I actually don't think we understand the root causes of anti-Semitism -- I think humans haven't developed a scientific understanding of the dark depths of this species soul. Hence, religion's prominence and persistence, as a way to find explanations to the unexplainable. Obviously you do indeed view antisemitism as mysterious, inherent and timeless. I think that Spritzer has displayed deep insight here, and he has corroborated the insight with many important sources. I don't think that you are a religious fundamentalist, so probably you could quibble with the reference to religious leaders, and I would agree that strictly speaking this puts it too narrowly. Obviously this attitude can be, and is shared by secularists. Tim Howells If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest I read the above two essays, plus his essay on american democracy. The most important article is the one on Jewish elites. His conclusion is dead on: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why is this such an essential, almost sacred doctrine? Why for example can TigerBengalis never, never under any circumstance concede that antisemitism has ever in one single case been the result of resource competition? The answer is that if this were so, then the problem would be solvable - you just find some just resolution and antisemitism goes away. Then an essential dynamic that sustains and nourishes and unifies the Jewish community is lost. Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life. I don't know how to resolve all this of course. Spritzler's other two essays that I read are weaker. In particular, as Sean will be quick to point out, the National Interest article misses a massive split in the US between predominantly Jewish and predominantly Anglo elites
Re: [political-research] Is Messianic Ethnic Nationalism Good for All Ethnic Groups?
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: American troops are now bogged down in the Middle East primarily because of the efforts of the Israel lobby and Jewish ethnic nationalists like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Natan Sharansky, Benjamin Netanyahu and Michael Ledeen. And yet you reserve most of your moral outrage and words for those who have opposed this lobby. Why? RESPONSE That's pure sophistry, and indeed a bit Goebbelsian, Sean. First you blame Jews for the war, and then, when your Jew-baiting is challenged, you shift and claim the challenger is defending the war and opposing the anti-war forces. Nazi propagandists painted anyone who opposed their racial theories as being against Germany. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For which group or faction of Jews do you presume to speak when you complain about disagreements with the Jews? RESPONSE No idea what youre talking about--I'm complaining about your and Tim's obsessive Jew-baiting. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...do you agree that Zionism is poorly conceived at the root, and should be discarded entirely, just as Europe and the United States have discarded all forms of ethnic nationalism? RESPONSE Please tell me your joking about that claim about Europe and the US. -- 1. For which group or faction of Jews do you presume to speak when you complain about disagreements with the Jews? (It is clear from your overall rhetorical patterns that Jews and the Jews are interchangeable terms for you -- you view the Jews as a unified entity, one with which you identify in a strongly emotional way.) 2. Regarding your disagreement with Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism): do you agree that Zionism is poorly conceived at the root, and should be discarded entirely, just as Europe and the United States have discarded all forms of ethnic nationalism? What would be the consequences for the state of Israel of expunging Zionism from the Jewish tradition? 3. The obsession with Jewish ethnic interests is coming from the mainstream Jewish establishment worldwide -- they are ones who are supporting AIPAC and the dozens of other components of the Israel lobby. Why do you spend much more energy in attacking those Americans who are opposing organizations like AIPAC than in attacking AIPAC? The Israel lobby has pushed the volatile issue of Jewish ethnic nationalism to the front and center of American politics. American troops are now bogged down in the Middle East primarily because of the efforts of the Israel lobby and Jewish ethnic nationalists like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Natan Sharansky, Benjamin Netanyahu and Michael Ledeen. And yet you reserve most of your moral outrage and words for those who have opposed this lobby. Why? 4. Would you be interested in sharing with us your reading list on Jewish controversies? What books and authors have most influenced your thinking? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean I have said more than once on the list that I am a critic of Zionism. But that means nothing to you, since anyone who doesn't subscribe to your theories is a Zionist agent. Discussion is impossible since your narrow mindset and obsession with ethnicity--mainly Jewish ethnicity--filters out the substance of whats said. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you are doing here is throwing around the antisemitism smear to avoid engaging in a rational dialogue on the role of ethnic nationalism in contemporary politics. The Israel lobby has pushed Jewish ethnic nationalist issues to the front and center of American politics - deal with it. Why are the following questions so difficult for you to address? Do you think French ethnic nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen have as much right to run France as a French ethnic nationalist state as Jewish ethnic nationalists (otherwise known as Zionists) have a right to run Israel as a Jewish ethnic nationalist state (that is, a Zionist state)? If not, why not? How about Germany? Britain? Sweden? Austria? Europe as a whole? The United States? Is ethnic nationalism as good them as it is for Israel? On what grounds could Zionists and supporters of Israel possibly object to the expression of messianic ethnic nationalism in *all* other nations? I know what your problem is: you are unable to acknowledge what kind of state Israel really is. You're in a state of denial, lashing out at anyone who points out the true character of Zionism. Since the Israel lobby was the prime mover behind the foreign policy disaster in Iraq, and is now frantically agitating to magnify the disaster by expanding the war to Iran, you are going to be hearing many pointed questions coming from more and more Americans about
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Tim-- It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest I read the above two essays, plus his essay on american democracy. The most important article is the one on Jewish elites. His conclusion is dead on: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why is this such an essential, almost sacred doctrine? Why for example can TigerBengalis never, never under any circumstance concede that antisemitism has ever in one single case been the result of resource competition? The answer is that if this were so, then the problem would be solvable - you just find some just resolution and antisemitism goes away. Then an essential dynamic that sustains and nourishes and unifies the Jewish community is lost. Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life. I don't know how to resolve all this of course. Spritzler's other two essays that I read are weaker. In particular, as Sean will be quick to point out, the National Interest article misses a massive split in the US between predominantly Jewish and predominantly Anglo elites. On the other hand his point about missing the moral aspect of the issue is well taken, I think. The most central issue, and the hardest for me, is the issue of democracy. I'm still grappling with the demographic issues, discussed e.g. by Kevin MacDonald in The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World. Is Israel wrong for wanting to remain a Jewish state? Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance? I find these difficult issues. Tim Howells - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Not sure why you are asking me, if indeed you are--I don;t recall making the claim Jewish ethnic nationalism is good and European ethnic nationalism is bad. However, with respect to your narrow binary thinking--that complex historical realities are reduced to being good for everyone or it is good for no one, again, as with Tim, I can't help you out of that fly bottle. If you consider the Lakota nationalism of Tatanka Iyotake on par with that of the enemies of his nation, or that it is good for eveyone or good for noone, irrespective of real life history, then we are not dealing with serious historical analysis, much less reality. If that is strained sophistry, so be it. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I am curious: why is Jewish ethnic nationalism good and European ethnic nationalism bad? Can you explain, without resorting to strained sophistry? My opinion is that either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one -- one has to choose. One cannot select ethnic nationalism for one's own group and deny it to others, without getting oneself into a major pickle indeed. Could it be that Zionists have dug themselves into a deep hole regarding the modern Western democratic values they prize so highly in the United States and Europe? One doesn't need to be a prophet to see how this particular dialectic is going to play out -- elementary checker-playing skills will do. Regarding Spritzler: I don't know who he is, and haven't read his writings -- no opinion so far. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim-- It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest I read the above two essays, plus his essay on american democracy. The most important article is the one on Jewish elites. His conclusion is dead on: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews, and that gentile antisemitism is mysterious, inherent and timeless. Why is this such an essential, almost sacred doctrine? Why for example can TigerBengalis never, never under any circumstance concede that antisemitism has ever in one single case been the result of resource competition? The answer is that if this were so, then the problem would be solvable - you just find some just resolution and antisemitism goes away. Then an essential dynamic that sustains and nourishes and unifies the Jewish community is lost. Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life. I don't know how to resolve all this of course. Spritzler's other two essays that I read are weaker. In particular, as Sean will be quick to point out, the National Interest article misses a massive split in the US between predominantly Jewish and predominantly Anglo elites. On the other hand his point about missing the moral aspect of the issue is well taken, I think. The most central issue, and the hardest for me, is the issue of democracy. I'm still grappling with the demographic issues, discussed e.g. by Kevin MacDonald in The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World. Is Israel wrong for wanting to remain a Jewish state? Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance? I find these difficult issues. Tim Howells - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Again can't respond--you're rambling reply has no logical coherency and structure, other than the unifying thread of hostility towards Jews. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's try this again: On what conceivable grounds can Jewish ethnic nationalists in Israel and the Diaspora (and that includes all Jews who support Zionism) object to various forms of white ethnic nationalism in the United States and Europe? The truth is, they have no grounds whatever -- they are standing on thin air -- and this reality is going to catch up with them eventually, probably sooner rather than later. Jewish ethnic nationalists at high levels of the official Israeli government have made racist statements on a regular basis that are more inflammatory than those coming from most white ethnic nationalist leaders in Europe (like Jorge Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France). If the American and European white majority treated Jews the same way that the Jewish majority in Israel is treating Palestinians and Arabs, you would get the point quite quickly. Zionism is facing some insurmountable internal contradictions, and quite a few bright Jews have begun to figure this out and are looking for a way out of the box. Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with modern Western democratic values. And ethnic nationalists of all stripes will *always* tend to strongly polarize the entire world against themselves -- this is an ironclad law of human nature. Ethnic nationalists will always rub ethnic outsiders the wrong way. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure why you are asking me, if indeed you are--I don;t recall making the claim Jewish ethnic nationalism is good and European ethnic nationalism is bad. However, with respect to your narrow binary thinking--that complex historical realities are reduced to being good for everyone or it is good for no one, again, as with Tim, I can't help you out of that fly bottle. If you consider the Lakota nationalism of Tatanka Iyotake on par with that of the enemies of his nation, or that it is good for eveyone or good for noone, irrespective of real life history, then we are not dealing with serious historical analysis, much less reality. If that is strained sophistry, so be it. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I am curious: why is Jewish ethnic nationalism good and European ethnic nationalism bad? Can you explain, without resorting to strained sophistry? My opinion is that either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one -- one has to choose. One cannot select ethnic nationalism for one's own group and deny it to others, without getting oneself into a major pickle indeed. Could it be that Zionists have dug themselves into a deep hole regarding the modern Western democratic values they prize so highly in the United States and Europe? One doesn't need to be a prophet to see how this particular dialectic is going to play out -- elementary checker-playing skills will do. Regarding Spritzler: I don't know who he is, and haven't read his writings -- no opinion so far. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim-- It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest I read the above two essays, plus his essay on american democracy. The most important article is the one on Jewish elites. His conclusion is dead on: Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders that the attacks on Jews can only be explained by the notion that gentiles harbor an irrational hatred of Jews
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethnic nationalism is good for Israelis, but bad for Europeans and Americans -- isn't this your belief? RESPONSE Where have I ever said this? What I do say is that making direct comparisons between various nationalisms renders the analysis meaningless given the vast differences in socio-political-economic-geographic-historical context. So you really see Sitting Bull's nationalism as no different than Custer's? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My argument is easy to understand: either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one. RESPONSE Thats a claim (more like a slogan), not an argument. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one ethnic group tries to gain a competitive advantage over other ethnic groups by playing the ethnic nationalist card, then all other groups are quite likely to play the same card in their relations with that ethnic group. Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. RESPONSE That claim is so abstracted from real life history it becomes meaningless. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rarely am I accused of being an unclear thinker and writer -- thanks for the novel experience of being charged with incoherence! :) RESPONSE The real test would be if you have any credentials of being described as clear and coherent. I'd be happy to see them. However, the evidence for the opposite is your continued attempts to bait me as some sort of Zionist-ethnic nationalist (who apparently isn't one of the quite a few bright Jews you extol below) when I have made zero claims to being anything of the sort. Your incoherence is rooted in your insistence of blindly classifying anyone who doesnt subscribe to your evil Zionist Jews wagging the global imperialist tail theory as being in some Zionist-Likudian-conspiracy camp. Oh well. Happy New Year. Be specific: what is illogical in the questions I have raised about ethnic nationalism? Is ethnic nationalism good for some groups and bad for others? That point of view appears to be implicit in your posts on this subject. Am I wrong? My argument is easy to understand: either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one. If one ethnic group tries to gain a competitive advantage over other ethnic groups by playing the ethnic nationalist card, then all other groups are quite likely to play the same card in their relations with that ethnic group. Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. Rarely am I accused of being an unclear thinker and writer -- thanks for the novel experience of being charged with incoherence! :) Your response was too brief to be accused of coherence or incoherence. I think we've encountered an interesting mental block here. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again can't respond--you're rambling reply has no logical coherency and structure, other than the unifying thread of hostility towards Jews. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's try this again: On what conceivable grounds can Jewish ethnic nationalists in Israel and the Diaspora (and that includes all Jews who support Zionism) object to various forms of white ethnic nationalism in the United States and Europe? The truth is, they have no grounds whatever -- they are standing on thin air -- and this reality is going to catch up with them eventually, probably sooner rather than later. Jewish ethnic nationalists at high levels of the official Israeli government have made racist statements on a regular basis that are more inflammatory than those coming from most white ethnic nationalist leaders in Europe (like Jorge Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France). If the American and European white majority treated Jews the same way that the Jewish majority in Israel is treating Palestinians and Arabs, you would get the point quite quickly. Zionism is facing some insurmountable internal contradictions, and quite a few bright Jews have begun to figure this out and are looking for a way out of the box. Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with modern Western democratic values. And ethnic nationalists of all stripes will *always* tend to strongly polarize the entire world against themselves -- this is an ironclad law of human nature. Ethnic nationalists will always rub ethnic outsiders the wrong way. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure why you are asking me, if indeed you are--I don;t recall making the claim Jewish ethnic nationalism is good and European ethnic nationalism is bad. However, with respect to your narrow binary thinking--that complex historical realities are reduced to being good for everyone or it is good for no one, again, as with Tim, I can't help you out of that fly bottle. If you consider the Lakota nationalism of Tatanka Iyotake on par
Re: [political-research] On the Jewish/Gentile Problem ; Jewish Religious Supremacy?
for Israelis, but bad for Europeans and Americans -- isn't this your belief? My argument is easy to understand: either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one. If one ethnic group tries to gain a competitive advantage over other ethnic groups by playing the ethnic nationalist card, then all other groups are quite likely to play the same card in their relations with that ethnic group. Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. Rarely am I accused of being an unclear thinker and writer -- thanks for the novel experience of being charged with incoherence! :) Your response was too brief to be accused of coherence or incoherence. I think we've encountered an interesting mental block here. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again can't respond--you're rambling reply has no logical coherency and structure, other than the unifying thread of hostility towards Jews. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's try this again: On what conceivable grounds can Jewish ethnic nationalists in Israel and the Diaspora (and that includes all Jews who support Zionism) object to various forms of white ethnic nationalism in the United States and Europe? The truth is, they have no grounds whatever -- they are standing on thin air -- and this reality is going to catch up with them eventually, probably sooner rather than later. Jewish ethnic nationalists at high levels of the official Israeli government have made racist statements on a regular basis that are more inflammatory than those coming from most white ethnic nationalist leaders in Europe (like Jorge Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France). If the American and European white majority treated Jews the same way that the Jewish majority in Israel is treating Palestinians and Arabs, you would get the point quite quickly. Zionism is facing some insurmountable internal contradictions, and quite a few bright Jews have begun to figure this out and are looking for a way out of the box. Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with modern Western democratic values. And ethnic nationalists of all stripes will *always* tend to strongly polarize the entire world against themselves -- this is an ironclad law of human nature. Ethnic nationalists will always rub ethnic outsiders the wrong way. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure why you are asking me, if indeed you are--I don;t recall making the claim Jewish ethnic nationalism is good and European ethnic nationalism is bad. However, with respect to your narrow binary thinking--that complex historical realities are reduced to being good for everyone or it is good for no one, again, as with Tim, I can't help you out of that fly bottle. If you consider the Lakota nationalism of Tatanka Iyotake on par with that of the enemies of his nation, or that it is good for eveyone or good for noone, irrespective of real life history, then we are not dealing with serious historical analysis, much less reality. If that is strained sophistry, so be it. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I am curious: why is Jewish ethnic nationalism good and European ethnic nationalism bad? Can you explain, without resorting to strained sophistry? My opinion is that either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one -- one has to choose. One cannot select ethnic nationalism for one's own group and deny it to others, without getting oneself into a major pickle indeed. Could it be that Zionists have dug themselves into a deep hole regarding the modern Western democratic values they prize so highly in the United States and Europe? One doesn't need to be a prophet to see how this particular dialectic is going to play out -- elementary checker-playing skills will do. Regarding Spritzler: I don't know who he is, and haven't read his writings -- no opinion so far. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim-- It's next to impossible to even respond to your narrow and silly stereotypes of Jews in general (when you favorably cite the silly passage Jews conclude from what they are taught by their religious leaders... and of me (Probably Tiger is not conscious of this, but he has lived and breathed this culture his whole life...). If you are at this stage of the game grappling with the difficult issue you claim to be wrestling with (Was the US (pre 1967) wrong for wanting to preserve white european predominance?) then I can only wish you the best of luck. If you find that question can be magically and reductionistally made parallel to the Israeli situation, well then I'm sure you will find all your answers to rationalize your opinions in the sources you are citing here. Lotsa luck. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Howells wrote: John Spritzler http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/ is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ ) who is tackling
Re: [political-research] Re: John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Sean, your disdain for Jews taints each successive post more and more. I don;t even think you realize it. It seems that it is you who is obsessed with ethnicities. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can see that you angry and upset about the enemies of your ethnic group -- that comes through loud and clear in your posts -- the violent emotion and aggression -- even when the thinking is muddled and opaque. Most Americans from most ethnic groups are not in this state of mind -- they don't feel like the entire world is out to get them and their ethnic group. In fact, they barely think about their ethnicity at all. Most Americans have gotten beyond all that. They haven't created dense interlocking networks of organizations to promote their ethnic interests, to beat down their ethnic enemies and to control the American political process on behalf of their ethnic agenda. Let's make this simple: Do you think French ethnic nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen have as much right to run France as a French ethnic nationalist state as Jewish ethnic nationalists (otherwise known as Zionists) have a right to run Israel as a Jewish ethnic nationalist state (that is, a Zionist state)? If not, why not? How about Germany? Britain? Sweden? Austria? Europe as a whole? The United States? Is ethnic nationalism as good them as it is for Israel? On what grounds could Zionists and supporters of Israel possibly object to the expression of messianic ethnic nationalism in *all* other nations? Let there be no misunderstanding -- I would like to replace ethnocracies with talentocracies all over the world. But the Israel lobby, especially in the United States, seems to be on a different track entirely, and is stirring up the primitive ethnic and religious juices of everyone it encounters. Will some American ethnic groups begin to rev up their political energy simply to act as a counterbalance to the destructive influence of the Israel lobby in American politics? I don't want this to happen, but I think it could, given current trendlines. Either the Israel lobby is going to smarten up and back off, or we are going to be entering interesting times indeed. Have you been following the fates of the two high-level AIPAC officials who have been charged with spying for Israel? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethnic nationalism is good for Israelis, but bad for Europeans and Americans -- isn't this your belief? RESPONSE Where have I ever said this? What I do say is that making direct comparisons between various nationalisms renders the analysis meaningless given the vast differences in socio-political-economic-geographic-historical context. So you really see Sitting Bull's nationalism as no different than Custer's? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My argument is easy to understand: either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one. RESPONSE Thats a claim (more like a slogan), not an argument. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one ethnic group tries to gain a competitive advantage over other ethnic groups by playing the ethnic nationalist card, then all other groups are quite likely to play the same card in their relations with that ethnic group. Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. RESPONSE That claim is so abstracted from real life history it becomes meaningless. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rarely am I accused of being an unclear thinker and writer -- thanks for the novel experience of being charged with incoherence! :) RESPONSE The real test would be if you have any credentials of being described as clear and coherent. I'd be happy to see them. However, the evidence for the opposite is your continued attempts to bait me as some sort of Zionist-ethnic nationalist (who apparently isn't one of the quite a few bright Jews you extol below) when I have made zero claims to being anything of the sort. Your incoherence is rooted in your insistence of blindly classifying anyone who doesnt subscribe to your evil Zionist Jews wagging the global imperialist tail theory as being in some Zionist-Likudian-conspiracy camp. Oh well. Happy New Year. Be specific: what is illogical in the questions I have raised about ethnic nationalism? Is ethnic nationalism good for some groups and bad for others? That point of view appears to be implicit in your posts on this subject. Am I wrong? My argument is easy to understand: either ethnic nationalism is good for everyone or it is good for no one. If one ethnic group tries to gain a competitive advantage over other ethnic groups by playing the ethnic nationalist card, then all other groups are quite likely to play the same card in their relations with that ethnic group. Live by ethnic nationalism, die by ethnic nationalism. Rarely am I accused of being an unclear thinker and writer -- thanks
Re: [political-research] John Spritzler on the Jewish/Gentile problem
Apologetics for anti-Semitism and Polish murderous pogroms by a homophobic blogger are big issues of interest on this news-group? tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Spritzler is a very interesting blogger (found via xymphora) who is tackling the big issues of interest on this news-group. I will have to really study and think about this, but I have to say at this point that Spritzler articulates my own thoughts on these issues very, very well. How Jewish Elites Use Anti-Gentilism to Control Ordinary Jews The Israel Lobby and the National Interest Tim Howells - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
Re: [political-research] The Israel Lobby: Some Key Components (Update)
What do items on a list have to do with a grasp of complex 20/21st century global geopolitics? Profits from the development and exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves (perhaps the last the planet will have) are estimated in hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Dick Cheney effectively took control of America in late 2000, as the representative of those interests, and he and those interests are more powerful than any combination of names on your list if not the whole list. TIKKUN?? Come on. The strategy was to knock over Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The game plan still is in operation. Why in God's name would we be invading and slaughtering Arabs and Americans in a largely desert part of the globe other then for oil? American ruling powers have no interest in Israel making a lasting peace, because Israel is NECESSARY as a belligerent police force on behalf of energy interest. The ONLY interest washington had was to keep Israel out of the Soviet sphere and the non-aligned movement--a strategy that was successful (not that the Soviets didnt try.) But again, I suppose you will continue to hold to the view that global geoplitics and the the centrality of the energy sources that fuel American economic and imperial power are no match for a list of scheming Jews. especially that war mongering Rabbi Michael Lerner! Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are precisely 162 items on the list (and there are many, many more out there -- I didn't even list the Israeli PACs (political action committees), which usually hide under innocuous and misleading names. By all means lay out the components of the oil lobby for us, or any other lobby that captures your interest. Last I checked the oil lobby wasn't agitating for World War III/IV and Armageddon in cahoots with messianic Christian fundamentalist crackpots like John Hagee. Oil people tend to be very level-headed -- you need to be to succeed in business in the real world in competition against other hard-headed pragmatists. It's interesting that George W. Bush, who has royally pissed off the oil interests in the Bush 41 inner circle, has been a complete failure in every practical business enterprise he has been associated with -- he's basically a religious fanatic with misplaced delusions of grandeur who is presiding over the most incompetent and destructive administration in American history. Without the help of the Israel lobby, this nightmare (and the Bush 43 administration) would have been over a long time ago. The lobby is continuing to protect him and Cheney with the hope that they will launch a Shock and Awe campaign against Iran. (And to repeat once again -- the great majority of Jews are as unhappy with this administration as I am. The Israel lobby most assuredly does not = the Jews.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're absolutely right--that dinky, powerless little oil industry ain't no match for the combined might of Tikkun, the Ayn Rand Institute, AND Las Vegas! (are Elvis impersonators included in this list?) Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [A request: let's see the key components of the oil lobby, along with a rational analytical explanation of how the oil lobby is more influential in contemporary American politics than the Israel lobby. Which media outlets, for instance, does the oil lobby control?] # The Israel Lobby: Some Key Components (Update) 1. 700 Club 2. AAJC (American Alliance of Jews and Christians) 3. ABC News 4. ABC Nightline 5. ACPR (Ariel Center for Policy Research) 6. Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies 7. ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith) 8. AEI (American Enterprise Institute) 9. AFSI (Americans for a Safe Israel) 10. AIM (Accuracy in Media) 11. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) 12. AJC (American Jewish Committee) 13. AJC (American Jewish Congress) 14. American Friends of Likud 15. American Thinker 16. Arutz Sheva 17. ATC (American-Turkish Council) 18. Atlas Shrugs 19. AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism) 20. Ayn Rand Institute 21. B'nai B'rith International 22. Bar-Ilan University 23. Benador Associates 24. Betar 25. Bilderberg Group 26. Birthright Israel 27. CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) 28. Campus Watch 29. CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) 30. CBS News 31. CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) 32. Chabad-Lubavitch 33. Christian Coalition of America 34. Christian Zionists 35. CJC (Canadian Jewish Congress) 36. CNN 37. CNP (Council for National Policy) 38. Commentary 39. Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 40. CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) 41. CPD (Committee on the Present Danger) 42. CSP (Center for Security Policy) 43. CUFI (Christians United for Israel) 44. David Horowitz Freedom Center 45. DEBKAfile 46. Defense Policy Board 47
Re: [political-research] New Israel Lobby book by Mearsheimer and Walt reviewed by NY Times
From the blog of Michael A. Hoffman II, Nazi scum. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: New Israel Lobby book by Mearsheimer and Walt reviewed by NY Times via On the Contrary by Michael A. Hoffman II on 9/6/07 A Prosecutorial Brief Against the Israeli Regime and Its Supporters Editor's Note: A review by William Grimes of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's newly published The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy appears in today's editions of the New York Times. We have reproduced the review below, following our commentary. The headline of the review, A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters is subtly tilted against the authors. It should have been headlined, A Prosecutorial Brief Against the Israeli Regime and Its Supporters, rather than against Israel. The Times' accords George W. Bush the distinction of opposing the Iranian regime while allegedly supporting the Iranian people. The Times should have extended the same distinctive benefit of the doubt to Mearsheimer and Walt. Having said that, this initial review (the Times will publish another one by a different and likely more jaundiced reviewer in a future edition) is something approaching a balanced assessment. It is marred by distractions, such as the predictive programming embedded in the reviewer's omniscient assertion that most Americans are pro-Israeli. We also can't help discerning the creeping semi-literacy that has slowly eroded the Times' once formidable use of the English language. I refer to Grimes' use of the neologism, unignorable, a non-word inspired by the tech-manual scribbling of computer geeks who have appended the suffix, able to hundreds of words, reflective of our growing American intellectual laziness. In that slothful sense Grimes' review fails in that he does not scruple to quote one major argument of Mearsheimer and Walt. His central antidote to their work is his suggestion that Americans have too much emotional affection for the Israeli entity to detach from it. This is not an argument, it's a crystal ball prognostication. Grimes also fails to observe that Mearsheimer and Walt's antagonist, Alan Dershowitz, our nation's self-appointed Grand Inquisitor, is fresh from his triumphant interference in the tenure process at DePaul University, where he helped ensure the termination of Dr. Norman Finkelstein's professorship at that institution. Grimes also damns Mearsheimer and Walt's book with faint praise. He makes it appear cold, statistical, academic and therefore, unappealing. To his credit, however, the Times' reviewer briefly notes, though without naming the culprits, that the authors have been boycotted by institutions that are supposed to be champions of free inquiry. Allow this writer to fill in the blanks: the City University of New York, the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs and three organizations in Chicago turned down or canceled scheduled public events with the authors. A book can't change the masses. The masses no longer read books. They are in thrall to television, movies and talk radio. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is intended to educate the current American elite and the future elite among today's university students. While this volume will not necessarily spark a revolution, it will gnaw, in the boardrooms, judges' chambers and among the middle and upper classes generally, at the foundations of Israeli prestige, as Jimmy Carter's Peace not Apartheid book did, and that's better than nothing. With typical hyperbole, the hysterical Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations compared the Mearsheimer/Walt book to Hitler's big lie, charging that its aim is to intimidate Jews and silence them. Observe the Judaic mentality at work: Hoenlein's powerhouse umbrella organization has done everything in its power to keep the book from being published. Mearsheimer and Walt have never tried to do anything similar to Zionist books (ADL's Abe Foxman has issued a book-length diatribe against them), and yet they are the ones accused of silencing and intimidating people. The tragedy of it all is found in the question that no one is asking: where is the Palestinian lobby in America? Answer: it doesn't exist. Hence, even if tomorrow utopia dawned, and every American pledged to support the Palestinian cause, there would be no political, financial or lobbying vehicle to channel that support into legislative muscle on Capitol hill. Some of the Israeli grip on the American ship of state is not due solely to pernicious Israeli lobbying, it's also the fault of Arab-American torpor. Sad to say, thus far U.S. Arabs have not approached anywhere near the energy and organizing ability of American Judaics. But let's see what there is to celebrate, rather than always
Re: [political-research] Dick Eastman Apologizes for His Antisemitism
He's still an asshat, no doubt still an anti-Semitic moron, and probably has a closet full of porn. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My comment: Dick Eastman deserves some credit for acknowledging and apologizing for the antisemitism which disfigures quite a few of his posts. (And Mark Bilk and I deserve some credit for confronting him about this antisemitism.) No one is beyond redemption -- perhaps Eastman will begin to think more clearly about these issues in the future. A basic rule of thumb: judge people as individuals, not as members of ethnic, religious or national groups. Don't attack entire groups of people on the basis of ethnic, religious or national stereotypes. It's the American Way. All forms of obsessive ethnic and religious bigotry are much like alcoholism -- the victims of this disease need help. Deep inside all bigots know that they have a psychological problem and that this is no way to live. Dick Eastman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dick Eastman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: When I attacked Jewish culture in my last post -- I crossed over into Hitlerland. Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:55:48 -0700 I have let myself become unjustly critical of Jews as a group -- greatly harming the effort of bringing to justice individual (Jewish) perpetrators of specific monstrous crimes and social problems Mark Bilk warned me this would happen. As some find it hard not to blame the white man in general -- so this white man has gone and slandered innocent Jews (by bunching them with the guilty ones.) Guilt belongs only to individuals. Collective guilt is unjust. And to attack a people and their entire culture is to engage in collective guilt. I probably won't quit posting -- never seem to be able to do that for long. But you and I know that I have a problem. It doesn't matter how right I am on some things -- better to let the guilty go free than to condemn the innocent. Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington p.s. in case you are confused -- I am referring to my post: Re: Weaponized Porn -- letters and responses -- oi vey! - Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [political-research] The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
Still waiting for the irrefutable proof that The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op. I'm not sure how listing names amounts to irrefutable proof that a major newspaper is an operation of a foreign government. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can think of six major items of proof off the top of my head: 1. A.M. Rosenthal 2. David Brooks 3. Judith Miller 4. Michael Gordon 5. Thomas Friedman 6. William Safire The New York Times has prominently promoted the neoconservative agenda for decades now, including most recently the Iraq War, by offering leading neocons a prominent voice on its pages, both in reporting (Miller and Gordon) and in the op-ed section (Rosenthal, Safire and Brooks). Please don't try to make the argument that the Times is simply being balanced by presenting both liberal and conservative views -- the Times rarely publishes the views of traditional conservatives. The predominant weight of the New York Times was behind the Iraq War -- at no time did this supposedly eminent journalistic institution perform due diligence in questioning the neocons about their crackpot logic for the war. They were given a free ride. Compare the Times on the run-up to the war with the honest reporting and analysis at Knight Ridder. The New York Times and the Washington Post are two neocon peas in a pod. No matter: mainstream media outlets are history. If they hadn't burned themselves with dishonest journalism, and ruined their credibility on the rocks of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, the Internet would have taken them down anyway. No loss here whatever; all gain. New York Times hirelings are not competitive in the free marketplace of ideas. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Elsewhere, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact? REPLY Can you provide the irrefutable proof for your statment above re: The New York Times? [The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a liberal institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007 The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page, the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007 Things you can do from here: Visit the original item on Consortiumnews.com Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. - Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
Re: [political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
Short answer--no. Unless you want to throw out pretty much all of the history of the Middle East for past century plus, including its role in great Power machinations, the waning of the Ottoman Empire, compounded by the discovery of oil reserves, the betrayal of Arab national aspirations by the British in the 1920's, and finally, european anti-Semitism, triggering the rise of Zionism, transforming into the Holocaust and post WW2/cold war global intrigues. So no, Sean, this is not about ethnic conflict, much less genes. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding the big picture here: Isn't the battle between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East a classic example of an ethnic conflict over territory and resources -- perhaps one of the preeminent examples of ethnic conflict in all of world history? And isn't this struggle, on the Jewish side, framed by the myths and symbols of the Old Testament and Torah, which are themselves cast as a struggle for territory, resources, wealth and power vis-a-vis other ethnic groups -- the nations? What is remotely controversial about the notion that ethnic groups in general throughout history have competed against one another for territory, resources, wealth and power? Isn't this the main theme in human history? And would it come at all as a surprise that this behavior is driven by genetic factors? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly have no clue what you are talking about, as usual. An excellent source re that conflict is Robert I. Friedman's biography of Meir Kahane (The False Prophet, pg. 91 - 95). Kahane was in the middle of the fight. The source of the conflict was indeed the fact that more and more jews were moving into inner city teaching jobs that had previously been held primarily by blacks. If you have any facts to the contrary (ha ha ha) please enlighten us. Tim Howells REPLY Tim, it's unseemly to adopt a smug attitude when you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Jews were most definitely NOT moving into inner city teaching jobs that had previously been held primarily by blacks, for the simple fact that the main issue is that hardly ANY teaching jobs in New York City--including in the inner city, were held by blacks. This very complex situation arose in a context where Jews were the dominant force in the Board of Education and the Ford Foundation sponsored a community control experiment precisely to address the LACK of Black teachers and community input of inner city education. Many at the time consider the whole debacle as one self consciously instigated by McGeorge Bundy and the Ford Foundation, which funded some of the worst opportunists in the Black community and set in motion a conflict that pitted ultra nationalist Blacks against a largely white union whose opportunist leader exaggerated and exasperated supposed anti-Semitism in the Black community. End result--a weakening of both the union and a decimation of the community control movement--typical Ford Foundation divide and conquer policy (this was in 1968). - Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. - Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Re: [political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
handled this affair. As I do not have knowledge about the history of taxes here in Germany or in Europe generally. All I know are respective models over the ages, but I have not really a chronological grasp on matters. After I read the book on the larger topic, I admittedly had a flight of the imagination. Since the whole community was taxed and not the single person. This gave the Jewish communities the change to demand more from the better off and less or nothing from the poor. And this in return may well have led to a resentment from poor Russian masses. A resentment that is easy to stir a little more by interested parties. But this is just a guess. I haven't studied it as close, as I would liked to. Now watch Israels demand that Palestinians control their own affairs or at least stop the suicide bombers. Hierarchies are necessary in our modern world, but they also offer the main handles for power players: Control. Israel's demands to the Palestinians, at least concerning the complaints that make it to the news can be reduced to one thing: They do not control their masses hard enough. Wikipedia is sparse on the topic: Shtadlan - kahal Ghetto Generally historically there are both demands from outside and from inside. Initially Christians seem to have lived in these Jewish quarters as students lived in the predominantly Turkish Berlin-Kreuzberg.. BUT Turks and students moved there since it was a cheap part of Big-City. In Italy you can observe that the Church occasionally did not like the Christian's intermingling with Jews. The fear probably was their sheep could be attracted by proximity. [Take a look at the Israeli laws of conversion] And you will have a real problem if you put the complicated European Jewish Ghetto history under the diverse religious and national powers in a simple two sentence statement. Here in Cologne center was a Jewish quarter with the Miqwe (the ritual bath) that has been excavated and restored only a couple of years ago. But more often you simply find a Judengasse (that is a Jew's lane/Jew lane - deriving its name from the fact that Jews lived there.} But admittedly I did not read your whole exchange with tigerbengalis. Only Sean's comment on tigerbengalis led me back to take a closer look, since it made me wonder. But basically. Collectivism vs individualism: Even as an outsider I can easily see that it is much easier to survive in some cases with-a-little-help-from-your-friends. But in my case these friends belong to all kinds of ethnic, religious or secular humanist groups. For the very simple reason, I can meet interesting people on all layers and in all societies as I do not like some in most of them. From this point of view I can understand Sean's fascination of the chances the web seems to offer in this respect. Collectivism is an important matter as far as common interests are concerned. Individualism is partly a myth - if I consider the increasing pressure to conform in our societies. Be a cog not sand in the gearbox of the world, function according to mainstream standards. I may have mentioned this before, but my favorite quote in the larger context stems from a lecture of b the head of theater sciences here in Cologne: Today artists try to look as bankers and bankers at least in their spare time try to look as artist. Finally I think you somehow have to integrate the Haskalah into your system which pushed - concerning your statement - in the opposite direction: Haskalah / Jewish Enlightenment As long as the Jews lived in segregated communities, and as long as all avenues of social intercourse with their gentile neighbors were closed to them, the rabbi was the most influential member of the Jewish community. In addition to being a religious scholar and clergy, a rabbi also acted as a civil judge in all cases in which both parties were Jews. Rabbis sometimes had other important administrative powers, together with the community elders. The rabbinate was the highest aim of many Jewish boys, and the study of the Talmud was the means of obtaining that coveted position, or one of many other important communal distinctions. Haskalah followers advocated coming out of ghetto, not just physically but also mentally and spiritually in order to assimilate amongst gentile nations. Now that I allowed all scripts I hope this arrrives as I send it! -jo - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
Leander I will revise the point then; the argument by Tim (echoing Macdonald) that the supposed highly collective and exclusive nature of Jews was an exculpatory factor in the responsibility for their genocide on the part of Nazi Germany reminds me of similar claims with respect to the treatment of African slaves. Not even the Protocols ever claimed Jews could read minds, so I certainly won't try to convey that impression LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In New World America during colonialism/slavery, the same fears existed concerning enslaved Africans, hence the brutal suppression and monitoring of all aspects of slaves' lives. I suppose Tim would find this brutality understandable and excusable, since those poor slaveowners were faced with the constant worry of having to deal with the highly collective and exclusive Africans in their midst. Yes, they even feared drums, as I learned on UBM's site (Undercover Black Man) maybe they felt it had qualities that would be helpful for riots. But let me be frank, I have not much appreciation for statements like: I suppose Tim. One can suppose all one likes, the problem starts when we assume we can read other people's minds. What I detest about this devise, is it's manipulative aim. And yes, in my case it works contrary to the intention. Without any consideration as who uses it and why. I prefer straightforward fights. -jo --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were attempts along these lines: e.g. the Spanish Marrano. The problem is, after the conversion there was still suspicion and partly it was justified, some Jews simply disappeared behind a Christian mask, practicing their religion privately. In New World America during colonialism/slavery, the same fears existed concerning enslaved Africans, hence the brutal suppression and monitoring of all aspects of slaves' lives. I suppose Tim would find this brutality understandable and excusable, since those poor slave owners were faced with the constant worry of having to deal with the highly collective and exclusive Africans in their midst. Tim: It is true that the antisemitism faced by Jews in the Ghettos was of a different nature, and was not based on resource competition. The issue of the highly collective and exclusive nature of Jewish identity was a constant though. I will be happy to stand corrected if you have evidence to the contrary. Tim, apart from the fact that all groups still seem to have tendencies to move into the same areas (Little Italy?), or are forced to move into certain quarters because of cheap rents, or since others want to keep them out of their quarters - I learned e.g. that in Seattle my girl friend did not move into a section of town, when she learned that Blacks weren't allowed to move there - something that can be observed even in our decades. Certain quarters of Cologne are dominantly populated by Turkish Germans. Concerning Jewish Europeans there no doubt were municipal and Church orders that led to the institution ghetto just as much as Jews mainly did not want to convert in masses (exception Spain, with the resulting partly justified distrust concerning the Marrano). Generally: the highly collective and exclusive nature of Jewish communities reminds me very much of the constant demand over the centuries by German antisemites, or put less controversially: the authoritarian view: All would be fine, if only Jews would convert or assimilate, that is merge with the masses around them. This of cause would have made a Jewish quarter unnecessary. But I think to blame the Jews for collectivism and seclusion may well mirror a complicated pattern of distrust, suspicion and envy over the ages considering their special status that I admit may have provided partly advantages or seemed to provide advantages from the point of view of the people outside the communities. See below concerning Russia, it is still a thesis on my mind, or a flight of the imagination, if you will. There were attempts along these lines: e.g. the Spanish Marrano. The problem is, after the conversion there was still suspicion and partly it was justified, some Jews simply disappeared behind a Christian mask, practicing their religion privately. Consider the psychological forces in play: If your parents were practicing Jews, the society forced you not only to convert but to also assume the idea that not only were they wrong but possibly in league with the devil. One of the obstacles for the state authorities - or the intellectuals that represented their views, and that are the voices we read - obviously must have been the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath vs the Christian Sunday, in a time when the usual work week was six days
Re: [political-research] Understanding Antisemitism (A Brief Bibliography)
Ginsberg makes the oh-so-shocking discovery that Jews over the ages have often sought to ingratiate themselves with ruling elites. and then he outdoes Abe Foxman and the ADL for catastrophe mongering about the imminent grave dangers American Jews face. All backed up by the sloppiest of analysis. Not very impressive. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we see your complete list? What books have you read on my brief bibliography? Have you read Ginsberg? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would add to the top The Jewish Century byYuri Slezkine, a book almost criminally distorted by Macdonald in typical fashion in one of his essays. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To respond myself to my request to tigerbengalis: here is a list of a few books I've found to be useful for understanding antisemitism. If I were to pick one book that best discusses the subject, it would be Benjamin Ginsberg's the Fatal Embrace, which may have some prophetic implications for developments in the United States. nml 1. book; Alan E. Steinweis; 2006; Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany; Harvard University Press 2. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Anti-Semitism Before the Holocaust; Longman 3. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews; Cambridge University Press 4. book; Alexander Cockburn, ed.; 2003; The Politics of Anti-Semitism; AK Press / Jeffrey St. Clair, ed. 5. book; Arno J. Mayer; 1990; Why Did the Heavens not Darken? : the Final Solution in History; Random House 6. book; Arthur Blech; 2006; The Causes of Anti-Semitism: A Critique of the Bible; Prometheus Books 7. book; Benjamin Ginsberg; 1993; The Fatal Embrace : Jews and the State; University of Chicago Press 8. book; Dennis Prager; 2003; Why the Jews? : The Reason for Antisemitism 9. book; Ehud Sprinzak; 1991; The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right; Oxford University Press 10. book; Elliott Horowitz; 2006; Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence; Princeton University Press 11. book; Israel Shahak; 1994; Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years; Pluto Press 12. book; Israel Shahak; 1999; Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel; Pluto Press / Norton Mervinsky 13. book; James Carroll; 2002; Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History 14. book; Jonathan Cook; 2006; Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State; Pluto Press 15. book; Joshua Trachtenberg; 1984; Devil the Jews 16. book; Kevin B. MacDonald; 1998; Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism; Praeger Publishers 17. book; Max Wallace; 2003; The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich 18. book; Norman F. Cantor; 1994; The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews; HarperCollins 19. book; Norman G. Finkelstein; 2005; Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History 20. book; Norman Rufus Colin Cohn; 1996; Warrant for Genocide: the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion 21. book; Peter Schäfer; 1997; Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World; Harvard University Press 22. book; Peter Schäfer; 2007; Jesus in the Talmud; Princeton University Press 23. book; Philip Roth; 2004; The Plot Against America: A Novel 24. book; Yehoshafat Harkabi; 1988; Israel's Fateful Hour; Harper Row /nml - Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. - Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
Re: [political-research] Understanding Antisemitism (A Brief Bibliography)
Finkelstein's work is consistently solid, particular the one on your list, which I highly recommend. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we see your complete list? What books have you read on my brief bibliography? Have you read Ginsberg? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would add to the top The Jewish Century byYuri Slezkine, a book almost criminally distorted by Macdonald in typical fashion in one of his essays. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To respond myself to my request to tigerbengalis: here is a list of a few books I've found to be useful for understanding antisemitism. If I were to pick one book that best discusses the subject, it would be Benjamin Ginsberg's the Fatal Embrace, which may have some prophetic implications for developments in the United States. nml 1. book; Alan E. Steinweis; 2006; Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany; Harvard University Press 2. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Anti-Semitism Before the Holocaust; Longman 3. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews; Cambridge University Press 4. book; Alexander Cockburn, ed.; 2003; The Politics of Anti-Semitism; AK Press / Jeffrey St. Clair, ed. 5. book; Arno J. Mayer; 1990; Why Did the Heavens not Darken? : the Final Solution in History; Random House 6. book; Arthur Blech; 2006; The Causes of Anti-Semitism: A Critique of the Bible; Prometheus Books 7. book; Benjamin Ginsberg; 1993; The Fatal Embrace : Jews and the State; University of Chicago Press 8. book; Dennis Prager; 2003; Why the Jews? : The Reason for Antisemitism 9. book; Ehud Sprinzak; 1991; The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right; Oxford University Press 10. book; Elliott Horowitz; 2006; Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence; Princeton University Press 11. book; Israel Shahak; 1994; Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years; Pluto Press 12. book; Israel Shahak; 1999; Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel; Pluto Press / Norton Mervinsky 13. book; James Carroll; 2002; Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History 14. book; Jonathan Cook; 2006; Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State; Pluto Press 15. book; Joshua Trachtenberg; 1984; Devil the Jews 16. book; Kevin B. MacDonald; 1998; Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism; Praeger Publishers 17. book; Max Wallace; 2003; The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich 18. book; Norman F. Cantor; 1994; The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews; HarperCollins 19. book; Norman G. Finkelstein; 2005; Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History 20. book; Norman Rufus Colin Cohn; 1996; Warrant for Genocide: the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion 21. book; Peter Sch�fer; 1997; Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World; Harvard University Press 22. book; Peter Sch�fer; 2007; Jesus in the Talmud; Princeton University Press 23. book; Philip Roth; 2004; The Plot Against America: A Novel 24. book; Yehoshafat Harkabi; 1988; Israel's Fateful Hour; Harper Row /nml - Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. - Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
Re: [political-research] Understanding Antisemitism (A Brief Bibliography)
You're using (again) neocons interchangable with Jews, and youre using Jewish neocons as intyerchangable with Jews in general (which I dont believe Ginsberg comes anywhere near doing, btw). Don't believe the hype--Ginsberg is simply marketing himself as someone who is fearless in looking at very difficult subjects, while claiming to be revealing some dark secrets (We Jews had a hidden agenda when we supported civil rights for Blacks!). Fact is, the politicking on the top was never a secret, and the fact was (and largely remains) that the majority of the Jewish community was honestly commited to civil rights, even while harboring pretty much the same silly prejudices of pretty much any white American. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please give an example of Ginsberg's sloppy analysis, with a verbatim quote. He strikes me as someone who has a mind like a laser beam and who is fearless in looking at very difficult subjects. A truth seeker; the real deal. The ingratiation of the neocons with the Republican Party: might this be the most extreme example to date, in all of world history, of the phenomenon Ginsberg discusses? That case could be made, easily. And what has been the result? And your full bibliography? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ginsberg makes the oh-so-shocking discovery that Jews over the ages have often sought to ingratiate themselves with ruling elites. and then he outdoes Abe Foxman and the ADL for catastrophe mongering about the imminent grave dangers American Jews face. All backed up by the sloppiest of analysis. Not very impressive. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we see your complete list? What books have you read on my brief bibliography? Have you read Ginsberg? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would add to the top The Jewish Century byYuri Slezkine, a book almost criminally distorted by Macdonald in typical fashion in one of his essays. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To respond myself to my request to tigerbengalis: here is a list of a few books I've found to be useful for understanding antisemitism. If I were to pick one book that best discusses the subject, it would be Benjamin Ginsberg's the Fatal Embrace, which may have some prophetic implications for developments in the United States. nml 1. book; Alan E. Steinweis; 2006; Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany; Harvard University Press 2. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Anti-Semitism Before the Holocaust; Longman 3. book; Albert S. Lindemann; 2000; Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews; Cambridge University Press 4. book; Alexander Cockburn, ed.; 2003; The Politics of Anti-Semitism; AK Press / Jeffrey St. Clair, ed. 5. book; Arno J. Mayer; 1990; Why Did the Heavens not Darken? : the Final Solution in History; Random House 6. book; Arthur Blech; 2006; The Causes of Anti-Semitism: A Critique of the Bible; Prometheus Books 7. book; Benjamin Ginsberg; 1993; The Fatal Embrace : Jews and the State; University of Chicago Press 8. book; Dennis Prager; 2003; Why the Jews? : The Reason for Antisemitism 9. book; Ehud Sprinzak; 1991; The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right; Oxford University Press 10. book; Elliott Horowitz; 2006; Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence; Princeton University Press 11. book; Israel Shahak; 1994; Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years; Pluto Press 12. book; Israel Shahak; 1999; Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel; Pluto Press / Norton Mervinsky 13. book; James Carroll; 2002; Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History 14. book; Jonathan Cook; 2006; Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State; Pluto Press 15. book; Joshua Trachtenberg; 1984; Devil the Jews 16. book; Kevin B. MacDonald; 1998; Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism; Praeger Publishers 17. book; Max Wallace; 2003; The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich 18. book; Norman F. Cantor; 1994; The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews; HarperCollins 19. book; Norman G. Finkelstein; 2005; Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History 20. book; Norman Rufus Colin Cohn; 1996; Warrant for Genocide: the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion 21. book; Peter Sch�fer; 1997; Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World; Harvard University Press 22. book; Peter Sch�fer; 2007; Jesus in the Talmud; Princeton University Press 23. book; Philip Roth; 2004; The Plot Against America: A Novel 24. book; Yehoshafat Harkabi; 1988; Israel's Fateful Hour; Harper Row /nml
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
The difference being, of course, that the Wright Brothers early work got off the ground. But if youre eagerly awaiting the imminent arrival of Jurassic Park, be my guest--but make sure you stay in at night! Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a feeling that you're not going to be a mover and shaker on the cutting edge of genetic research and genetic engineering. This is like pooh-poohing the field of aeronautical engineering as having little potential just after the Wright Brothers' early flights. This is a field of endeavor that is just getting started and which, in combination with artificial intelligence, has unlimited possibilities for speeding up the evolutionary curve and generating entirely new life forms. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually its kinda been dead in the water once the hoopla over the human genome sequencing passed and scientists got down to nuts and bolts. Anyway, we can already program life forms with the same skill that we now create computer programs, and in fact have done it for quite a while. It's called basic training. http://www.goarmy.com/life/basic/index.jsp Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behavioral genetics is yesterday's flash in the pan rock star? I doubt it. There is a huge momentum in this field that will carry it forward for decades and centuries to come. It is possible that we will learn how to program life forms with the same skill that we now create computer programs. In fact, all life forms may essentially be tweakable computer programs. There is tremendous excitement about this field at elite universities and research centers all around the world -- many of the best minds are attracted to it. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's nothing wrong with the article, any more than there is nothing wrong with an article with an article from 2002 promoting a new rock group that's being touted as the next supergroup, but which winds out disappearing from public view within a few years. Same with the attempts by Hamer discussed in the APA article--it just never panned out, an in fact has hit a brick wall, although silly press hype about Hamer's work at the time (Gay gene found!!) were not really Hamer's fault. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
If you really believe Zionism is equivalent to Nazism, I really don't know what to say. It's like asking me to reconstruct reality for you. And if you DON'T recognize that the US has effectively functioned globally as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, then you might at least review the past two centuries of American history. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zionism by definition is Jewish ethnic nationalism -- if you're a Zionist, you're a Jewish ethnic nationalist. The equivalent to Zionism in Europe would be Nazism. Ethnic nationalism -- especially messianic ethnic nationalism and ethnic cultism -- is completely incompatible with American and modern Western democratic values, which is why Israel and Zionism are on a collision course with pretty much the entire world. If America formally defined itself as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, you'd get the point real quick. It's no wonder that Israel is increasingly reaching out to the worst crackpots on the American scene (like Christian Armageddonist John Hagee) to prop up its declining support among mainstream Americans, mainstream Christians, traditional conservatives and traditional liberals. Ethnic nationalists tend to be on the same page only with themselves; ethnic nationalism is intrinsically divisive and self-ghettoizing. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands
Re: [political-research] Washington Times
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: White ethnic nationalists like Kevin MacDonald, Patrick Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have strongly opposed self-destructive American meddling in Mideast politics, and made accurate predictions about the disastrous course of the Iraq War. They may be wrong about ethnic nationalism, but they sure as hell got it right about the neocons and Mideast politics. REPLY A good 5 or 6 billion or so other people on the planet got it right about the neocons and Mideast policy, yet you continue to push to the forefront fascists, neofascists and protofascists as worthy figures. Hitler was spot on about any number of failings of European capitalism and imperialism. Sure, he may have been wrong about ethnic nationalism Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've had it w/your ideological obsession. On 7/9/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:If white ethnic nationalists had heavily infiltrated the White House, and if George W. Bush was a white ethnic nationalist, this article might be scary. But they haven't. Instead, George W. Bush is a Christian Zionist, and neocons (Jewish ethnic nationalists) have heavily infiltrated the White House and set the United States on a path of self-destructive murder and mayhem in the Middle East, creating the worst foreign policy catastrophe in American history. Priorities, my good fellow, priorities. Not all threats are equal. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://georgearchibald.typepad.com/george_archibald/2007/04/06/index.html -- Michael Pugliese -- Michael Pugliese - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. - Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Actually, as far as I understand, ALL aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are ENTIRELY the outcome of genetic factors. Genetic factors being understood here as that which puts together a human being. All its saying is that we are who/what we are. You seem to be leaning towards the pop version of current science which has embued mass consciousness with the notion that certain genes cause certain things. Genes don't by and large cause anything, certainly not behavior, individual or collective. Genes encode proteins. With some variations (hence, Darwinism) we all react/behave/respond roughly the same (whether as individuals, and moreso as groups) to the same stuff. And those variations (see Lewontin) are more pronounced within populations than between them. So Sean and Jean and Bean McBride are more likely to have differing outlooks on ethnicities and levels of xenophobia than any of them is compared to a random other anywhere on the globe. What does any of this have to do with some supposed genetic theory of Jewish behavior, a la Macdonald? Nothing. He's making it up as he goes along. But, you may argue, arent there things like Tay Sachs, and sickle cell disease, real life physical differences tied to certain populations? Yup, and they are complex and interesting, and have zero to do with Macdonald's claptrap. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might well be -- I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are strongly influenced by genetic factors. Why should this be so difficult to believe? Why are some fruit flies more adventurous, more possessed of the pioneering spirit, than others? Well, behavioral geneticists have been able to identify the precise genes which produce the Christopher Columbus personality type among fruit flies. Why are tigers more aggressive than rabbits? Did they learn the behavior from a book? Can human beings overcome genetic predispositions through cultural conditioning and will power? Probably to some degree. But we may all be on rather short leashes. There is something about extreme xenophobia that is strongly suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorders -- I'm betting on a genetic origin for the mindset. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's as good as it gets, he says, everything else is likely worse. That means perhaps hundreds of genes influence each of our personality traits ever so slightly. In fact, the work is so difficult from a molecular biology point of view, Hamer is all but abandoning it. After 10 years or so, it's quite clear to me that at least for most traits there are a very large number of genes involved, he says. The only area he'll continue working on is sexual orientation. There he feels there's a better chance of finding just a few key genes. Blurring lines between 'normal' and pathological The difficulty of the work isn't stopping others who anticipate the promise of a greater
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of solid and reputable scientific articles exploring the genetic basis of mind, personality and culture -- right? Do I need to Google up all the cites here, or do you acknowledge this? REPLY Actually, if youre talking about serious research on a genetic basis for any of those things among a specific group, no, I dont acknowledge it. Google away. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regard to MacDonald: this discussion would be much more meaningful to me if you and Tim anchored your disagreements around particular direct quotes from MacDonald. REPLY Quotes mean nothing to me; I'm not interested in a textual analysis of someone claiming to be doing science. I'm interested in proof of their scientific claims. Macdonald has zero. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find MacDonald, even in his white ethnic nationalist mode, to be less offensive and dangerous than militant Jewish ethnic nationalists like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, who have access to the mainstream media. REPLY Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you actually compared MacDonald's language to their hate speech against Muslims? I know naked incitement to genocide when I see it. The Israeli government and the Israel lobby are not only permitting this kind of hate speech among pro-Israel extremists in America, but are actively encouraging it. REPLY The vast majority of hate speech (and violence) against Muslims is committed by non-Jews (including fellow Muslims). Coming in a distant third are the Zionists. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald is strictly small change compared to this xenophobic political machine, in terms of representing an immediate extremist threat to humanity. And he has the virtue of being much smarter than Horowitz and Pipes. The neocons are uniformly the dumbest group of pseudo-intellectuals on the American scene, pure agitprop bots. REPLY Make up your mind. The neocons have held power for a decade; Macdonald is, you claim, small change. Whose the dummy? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I strongly condemn, it goes without saying, attempts by anyone to use MacDonald's writings to stir up hatred against Jews or any other ethnic groups, or to use them to violate the civil rights of anyone. REPLY Disingenuous. MacDonald's writings ARE hatred against Jews. - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
There's nothing wrong with the article, any more than there is nothing wrong with an article with an article from 2002 promoting a new rock group that's being touted as the next supergroup, but which winds out disappearing from public view within a few years. Same with the attempts by Hamer discussed in the APA article--it just never panned out, an in fact has hit a brick wall, although silly press hype about Hamer's work at the time (Gay gene found!!) were not really Hamer's fault. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: [political-research] Understanding Messianic Jewish Ethnic Nationalism
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So: for tigerbengalis: One of the most influential Jewish leaders in America has himself clearly portrayed Jewish history as a series of violent confrontations with evil ethnic outsiders. He is obviously obsessed with his own narrow and selfish ethnic interests, and couldn't care less about the ethnic interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans or Europeans. Answer: Francis Fukuyama and the Trilateralists (the whipping boys of anti-imperialists until the neocons took over that honor) portrayed American and western imperialist history (body count: tens of millions) as a messianic trend to civilize the world. All this moron Podhoretz is showing with his own messianic propaganda babblings is that he's a good American, attemptiong to link Israel's messianic mission with America's. (Fukuyama, by the way, has become a critic of the neocons). Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what grounds can the Jewish political establishment complain about the militant ethnic nationalism of any other ethnic groups in America, including white ethnic groups, without appearing to be absurd hypocrites? Am I missing something obvious here? Enlighten me. Answer: America is a democracy, and anyone can complain about whatever they want. Sean, once again I'm going to have to succumb to Godwin's law, and opine that you are doing just what early 20th century Nazis did--declare that the Jewish establishment has no moral authority to complain about anything,m since they have their own dirty laundry. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In some ways, white ethnic nationalists like Kevin MacDonald are preferable to Jewish ethnic nationalists like Norman Podhoretz and Elliott Abrams, because they have opposed disastrous neocon military aggression in the Mideast and have supported the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are America Firsters, not Israel Firsters. Their militant ethnocentrism is in alignment with the American ethnic majority. Answer: Godwin's Law again. Hitler was a Germany Firster. Sean, I will never choose a fascist like Macdonald, no matter how much pro American rhetoric he spices his nonsense with. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the odds that the neocons are going trigger a massive wave of anti-Semitism all around the world, and especially in America? I place those odds at well above 80%. What do you think? Why aren't more American Jews worried about this problem and working to fix it? Why are they permitting the neocons to set the agenda for the Jewish establishment? Answer: If you read up on public opinion, rather than singling out an entire ethnic group and holding them responsible for America's foreign policy. you would find sizable opposition to neoconservatism (in gerneral and its Jewish reps) as well as the same in Israel, where there is a good deal of anger against the neocons on the part of the Jewish Israeli citizenry over such things as the recent disastrous Lebanon war. The real question is--given how easily anti-Semitism is triggered, why aren't YOU eager to oppose the clearly anti-Semitic, and white supremacist writings of Macdonald (who is also quite active with the racists of Vdare). - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
Re: [political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is true that the antisemitism faced by Jews in the Ghettos was of a different nature, and was not based on resource competition. The issue of the highly collective and exclusive nature of Jewish identity was a constant though. Reply: Tim, again with the Macdonaldesque anti-Semitic twist. Even while acknowledging that the Holocaust had nothing to do with Macdonald's pseudo theory, you still feel compelled to point out this supposed anomaly in Jewish identity. - Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Re: [political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
Tim-- That view (conflict over resources) seems to have only marginal validity only in quite ancient times during the period of an extant Israelite nation and in very recent times with the establishment of the same on land long occupied by indigenous Palestinian Arabs. The vast bulk of intervening bouts of anti-Semitism are each complex and specific to the time and places; eg, Middle Ages and the denigration of Jews who were needed to perform the forbidden dirty work of capital accumulation (usery),l enabling Christians to wash their hands of same; Russian pogroms (were Jews in the shtetls any sort of competition or threat, or merely convenient scapegoats?); Nazism (where is the competitive threat to germans, and to whom, since both Jews and Aryans are both German citizens?). I actually don't think we understand the root causes of anti-Semitism -- I think humans haven't developed a scientific understanding of the dark depths of this species soul. Hence, religion's prominence and persistence, as a way to find explanations to the unexplainable. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tigerbengalis Below you are displaying the very same disingenuous victim mentality that Macdonald promulgates in his magnum opus of racialistic fascist pseudo-scholarship. To wit-- according to Macdonald, down through millenia, all historic instances of anti- Semitism/repression of Judaism--from ancient through modern times, were valid, justifiable collectivist responses to supposed exploitation of non-Jews by a Jewish race guided by a Protocols style master eugenic plan of subjugating (through selective inbreeding) the gentile world. There are some grains of truth in there but also substantial misrepresentation. A more accurate summary of KM's views would be the following. Antisemitism is the result of the competition for resources between ethnic groups - Jews and Gentiles. The conflicts that arise are real - they are not delusions or fantasies. However, given the nature of ethnic conflict, exagerated and fantastic ideas do arise and are exploited to demonize the other side (e.g. the Protocols and the depictions of Gentile societies found throughout the Old Testament and the Talamud). I think that that is a fair, nutshell statement of KM's thesis. What is your view on the root causes of antisemitism? Tim Howells - Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.
Re: [political-research] Kevin MacDonald Stormfront - Google Search
Hey, for today's chic young goose-stepping barnyard hipster, what's not to love :) Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.google.com/search?q=Kevin+MacDonald+Stormfront Results 1 - 20 of about 10,400 English pages for Kevin MacDonald Stormfront Neo-Nazis love him.. -- Michael Pugliese - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
Re: [political-research] Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
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.
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
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 political-research@yahoogroups.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
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
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 DO. 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: 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
