[political-research] Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
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.
[political-research] Re: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons For Michael Pugliese: Why are you more focused on attacking John Sharpe than Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Natan Sharansky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Joesph Lieberman and dozens of other powerful neocons? Let's hope that this question will be met with a reasonable response. Unlike you, I would never align myself w/those to the Right (far, far to the Right) of the neo-cons (Kevin MacDonald, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul)to fight the neo-cons. Back in 1980 when I was a student at CSUN, Tom Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance spoke there, I was active in a group, CED led by Tom Hayden. With help from La Raza and other student radicals, progressives and liberals we quickly organized a very large protest. When the JDL showed up, we chased Irv Rubin across the street. I am beginning to think that you would accept the help of a David Duke front group, No wars For Israel, rather than say Jewish Voice for Peace or Tikkun. The enemy of my enemy is again not my friend.
[political-research] Kevin MacDonald Stormfront - Google Search
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
[political-research] Jewish Ethnic Nationalism and White Ethnic Nationalism
Michael, I am interested in reading your posts here, but I do expect you to make an effort to discuss and defend them in a reasonable and intellectually honest way. You didn't respond to several questions I posed to you earlier. Why? Here is a key point I would like to see you address: how is it possible for those who support Jewish ethnic nationalism (often messianic and militant Jewish ethnic nationalism) to complain about the ethnic nationalism of any other ethnic group? It seems to me that those with this profile have backed themselves into an indefensible corner and are going to be intellectually demolished down the line. Their position is untenable; ludicrous, actually. Am I wrong? With regard to John Sharpe: are you aware that Colin Powell and Wesley Clark, who have occupied the highest levels of the Defense Department, have blamed our current foreign policy disaster in Iraq primarily on the neoconservatives, the JINSA crowd (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, in Powell's words) and the New York money people (the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in Clark's words)? Are you also aware that the American military establishment overall believes that an American attack on Iran would be even a greater disaster than the Iraq War, and that they are convinced, based on overwhelming empirical evidence, that Israel and the Israel lobby are the prime movers behind the agitation for such a war? Are Colin Powell and Wesley Clark anti-Semites? Would you please respond in a meaningful way to all the non-rhetorical questions above? I would like to understand your thinking on these issues. With regard to Joe Jackson: he frankly strikes me as a third-rater, a shallow hack, someone who is incapable of fresh and original thinking of any kind. His memes are tired and irrelevant as a tool for understanding contemporary American politics. I'm curious: has Joe Jackson addressed any of the following topics in his writings, which strike me as being much more urgent for Americans than whatever offense John Sharpe supposedly committed? If he hasn't addressed these topics, why hasn't he? Do either you or Joe Jackson consider Jewish ethnic nationalism, especially radical Jewish ethnic nationalism of the type espoused by Avigdor Lieberman and the neoconservatives, to be a subject that deserves careful scrutiny? Yes or no? *Why* do you think what you think? In your own thoughts and words, please -- no canned agitprop. 1. AEI (American Enterprise Institute) 2. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) 3. Ann Coulter 4. Atlas Shrugs 5. Avigdor Lieberman 6. Benjamin Netanyahu 7. Benny Elon 8. Bernard Lewis 9. Bruce Kovner 10. Charles Johnson 11. Christian Armageddonism 12. Christian Zionism 13. Clash of Civilizations 14. CUFI (Christians United for Israel) 15. Daniel Pipes 16. David Horowitz 17. Douglas Feith 18. Elliott Abrams 19. FrontPage Magazine 20. Greater Israel 21. Haim Saban 22. Hal Lindsey 23. Iran War 24. Iraq War 25. Irving Moskowitz 26. Islamophobia 27. Israpundit 28. Jewish fundamentalists 29. Jewish messianism 30. Jewish Press 31. Jewish segregationists 32. Jewish supremacists 33. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) 34. John Hagee 35. John Podhoretz 36. Judea and Samaria 37. Likud 38. Little Green Footballs 39. Michael Ledeen 40. Michael Savage 41. Mike Evans 42. neoconservatives 43. Norman Podhoretz 44. Old Testament cultism 45. Pamela Geller Oshry 46. Richard Perle 47. Rupert Murdoch 48. Sheldon Adelson 49. Steven Plaut 50. Ted Belman 51. West Bank settlements 52. World War III/IV Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=2766 Catholic publisher's ties to anti-semitic websites A popular Catholic publisher has ties to anti-semitic websites, as well as members of fascist movements - and has received a rating of excellent by a lay site that rates for readers the fidelity of websites to the Catholic Church's teaching http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/
[political-research] Professor Kevin MacDonald's critique of Judaism
George Michael, Professor Kevin MacDonald's critique of Judaism, Journal of Church and State via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Criticisms_of_MacDonald.27s_work http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/JCS48-2006.pdf -- Michael Pugliese
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.
Re: [political-research] Re: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons
On what grounds do you make the charge that I have aligned myself with the far right? I have explicitly, and at great length, rejected the ideology and program of the far right, especially the ethnic nationalist far right. My politics are classically American liberal, in the Jeffersonian sense, in the sense of the geniuses who founded the American Republic. With regard to the neocons, we are faced with a fascinating dilemma. The neocons are dominated by militant and messianic Jewish ethnic nationalists who have been ringleaders of the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in American history (the Iraq War). Not satisfied with this ruinous adventure, they are now agitating loudly for an American war against Iran. At the same time they have been leading an aggressive assault on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Some of the most articulate critics of the neocons have leanings towards the white ethnic nationalist camp -- Kevin MacDonald and Patrick Buchanan are two examples. Which camp is worse: the Jewish ethnic nationalists or the white ethnic nationalists? If you believe that the Iraq War, and current American Mideast policy, are unmitigated disasters, you might well conclude that the neocons are the bigger problem by far. Most critics of the neocons have no white nationalist ties, by the way, and no ethnic nationalist agenda. Most of them are classical American liberals or conservatives who are disgusted by ethnic fascism in all its forms and mutations. Are you more troubled by Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith and Norman Podhoretz or by Kevin MacDonald, Patrick Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts? How do you prioritize your concerns on these issues? What is your basic value system? What's your algorithm? The critiques of the neocons by Kevin MacDonald and Patrick Buchanan have been dead on, don't you think? They've nailed them cold. By the way, the neocons are increasingly getting into bed with white nationalists -- see, for instance, the developing ties of David Horowitz and his associates with David Gaubatz. Much neocon rhetoric and hate speech against Islam and Arabs is straight from the Nazi playbook. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons For Michael Pugliese: Why are you more focused on attacking John Sharpe than Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Natan Sharansky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Joesph Lieberman and dozens of other powerful neocons? Let's hope that this question will be met with a reasonable response. Unlike you, I would never align myself w/those to the Right (far, far to the Right) of the neo-cons (Kevin MacDonald, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul)to fight the neo-cons. Back in 1980 when I was a student at CSUN, Tom Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance spoke there, I was active in a group, CED led by Tom Hayden. With help from La Raza and other student radicals, progressives and liberals we quickly organized a very large protest. When the JDL showed up, we chased Irv Rubin across the street. I am beginning to think that you would accept the help of a David Duke front group, No wars For Israel, rather than say Jewish Voice for Peace or Tikkun. The enemy of my enemy is again not my friend.
[political-research] The Israeli Government and Christian Armageddonists
This is a fallacious argument, unless you are willing to demonize and condemn the Israeli government and Zionism as a whole for its warm and intimate ties with the worst crazies in the Christian fundamentalist world. How consistent are your standards on these matters? We are not responsible for those who use and abuse our writings. (Again, I am making no effort to defend Kevin MacDonald's writings and beliefs. But I have noticed that some of his remarks about the neocons have been right on the money, and that he is more intelligent and better grounded in reality than many of his most emotional opponents.) 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
Re: [political-research] Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
You have misframed the issue. Elliott Abrams is part of a powerful political movement, driven primarily by Jewish ethnic nationalism and passionate Israeli patriotism, which is stoking hatred against Muslims, Arabs, Europeans, Russians, the Chinese, mainstream Christians, traditional liberals, traditional conservatives, and many other groups. It is by far the most virulently xenophobic and dangerous political movement I have encountered in my lifetime, and it has dominated the Bush 43 administration. The neocons are already responsible for the $2 trillion catastrophe in Iraq, the ruination of hundreds of thousands of lives, the undermining of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they are just getting started. They have major plans to impose a global military dictatorship on the world, and to crush any Americans who get in their way. They are in the habit of issuing bloodcurdling terrorist threats against their political opponents which match in extremism anything ever uttered Meir Kahane or Irv Rubin. And Kevin MacDonald or Patrick Buchanan are anywhere near to this class of destructiveness? Why would you think that? From the standpoint of the American interest, if one were forced to choose between Buchanan and Abrams, wouldn't Buchanan be the better choice? Will the United States be able to survive much more of neocon schemes and policies? I doubt it. And once all the damage is tallied up, it is quite possible that the neocons will have succeeded in triggering a major wave of global anti-Semitism. The anger against the neocons coming from the American foreign policy establishment these days is electric and palpable. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Why are you requesting a comparison of the relative threat value of these two individuals (both of whom I consider to be dangerous, in various ways). McDonald is a white Christian nationalist who is also considered as someone attempting to provide an academic justification for anti-Semitism. Abrams is a Jewish neo-con who has helped orchestrate various American imperial endeavors. So you are now asking, in effect, who's worse, this white guy accused of bigotry, or this bad Jew who is playing a role in nasty American policies. Why are you asking, and making this particular comparison. Rather than, say, which is worse, home-grown neo-nazi ideology or neoconservativism. I still dont know what the point of comparing is, though. Of course, on a day to day basis, neocons are costing huge loss of life etc, and are leading a disastrous policy. Macdonald represents a future threat (perhaps a scenario in which America abandons Israel and its Jewish population, and uses Macdonald as the intellectual justification, and hangs the Abrams'es of the world out to dry?) Yet you feel the need to single out a Jewish neo-con to compare to a protoNazi. Why? Are you saying current American policy (which has hardly changed in decades, despite the current ascenency of neocons) is a Jewish scheme ? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm...Still no responses to my questions to Michael Pugliese about ethnic nationalism, the neocons and related topics? No interest in real dialogue on these matters? Why? Who is a bigger threat to Americans and the world: White ethnic nationalists like Kevin MacDonald? Or Jewish ethnic nationalists like Elliott Abrams? Abrams occupies a high position in the Bush 43 administration, was a key ringleader of the disastrous Iraq War, is a leading agitator for a war against Iran, is a fanatical ethnic nationalist and a leader of an ethnic nationalist movement, neoconservatism (the Likud wing of Zionism), which is trying to stir up a holy war between the United States and Muslims (and Russians, and the Chinese, and Europeans, and God knows who else) worldwide. So: MacDonald or Abrams? About whom should we be more concerned? Again, this isn't a rhetorical question -- I am curious to see some creative thinking (not canned agitprop) about these issues from Michael Pugliese, Joe Jackson, tigerbengalis or anyone else. What I think is going on is that even asking these questions is highly alarming to the neocon camp -- the neocons (and their secret sympathizers) tend to become hysterical and even violent when confronted with the bizarre and indefensible self-contradictions in their belief system. They are in denial. Am I wrong? This kind of irrationality is more typical of cults (especially ethnic cults) than of reasoned and reasonable political philosophies. Neoconservatism is a messianic ethnic cult, one which is actively promoting world war, apocalyptic violence and global chaos. Neocons are ethnic Armageddonists. I personally believe, on purely rational grounds, that the neocons are a much bigger threat to the general well-being of Americans and the world than Kevin MacDonald. Please correct
[political-research] Fwd: Re: [ontolog-forum] quick question re OKBc
[From one of the best brains on the net on one of the most strategic trends on the planet:] John F. Sowa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:57:55 -0400 From: John F. Sowa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [ontolog-forum] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] quick question re OKBc Debbie, ... can you please point to a few valuables in the road kill that should be spotlighted or saved ... The term was jocular, but the point behind it is that the enormous attention and funding that has been poured into the Semantic Web has changed the direction of a great deal of R D. The issues are much more complex than just a list of road kill. I presented a talk in August 2006, which addressed many of the historical trends and the areas that need more attention. Following are the slides: http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/extend.pdf Extending Semantic Interoperability To Legacy Systems and an Unpredictable Future Following is an article that addresses some related topics: http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.pdf Fads and Fallacies about Logic This talk and this article do not discuss the semantic web in any detail, but they address some historical trends, some future possibilities, and some questions about how to get from where we are to where we would like to be. One of my recommendations is summarized in the following diagram, which illustrates various languages and diagrams for the human interfaces, various languages for the machine interfaces, and Common Logic as the common intermediate language. http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/comlog.gif In the middle, Common Logic could be replaced by IKL, which is an extension to the draft CL standard that could become the basis for a future update to the standard. John _ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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 to
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
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 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
[political-research] Who Are the Key Neocons?
Who Are the Key Neocons? Following are some of the key neocons (who also happened to be some of the key ringleaders of the Iraq War). Most or all of them are Jewish ethnic nationalists, an assertion that can be quickly verified with Google (for instance, try Googling [Richard Perle Israel] or [Douglas Feith Israel] or [Michael Ledeen Israel]). One doesn't need to be Jewish to be a Jewish ethnic nationalist -- some of the most militant, the most deranged, Jewish ethnic nationalists are Christian Zionists, like John Hagee and Pat Robertson. Would Michael Pugliese or tigerbengalis care to comment? Most Americans, including most Jews, are decidedly not ethnic nationalists, not to mention messianic or militant ethnic nationalists. They are AMERICANS -- they rarely think about their ethnicity, and they never get in the face of their fellow Americans about their ethnic issues -- doing so is not only bad manners, but behavior guaranteed to generate universal hostility in the long term; it is self-defeating and self-destructive behavior. One would have to be autistic not to understand this, and one sometimes wonders whether many of the neocons are suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. Abraham Sofaer Abram Shulsky Alan Dershowitz Andrew Rosenthal Ari Fleischer Ariel Cohen Arthur Finkelstein Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Barbara Amiel Benjamin Netanyahu Bernard Lewis Bruce Kovner Charles Krauthammer Cheryl Halpern Clifford May Conrad Black Dan Senor Daniel Lapin Daniel Pipes Danielle Pletka David Aaronovitch David Brog David Brooks David Frum David Gelernter David Horowitz David Mamet David Wurmser Debbie Schlussel Dennis Prager Donald Graham Donald Kagan Douglas Feith Edward Luttwak Eliot Cohen Elliott Abrams Eric Edelman Eugene Rostow Frank Gaffney Fred Hiatt Frederick Kagan Gabriel Schoenfeld Henry Kissinger Herbert London Irving Kristol Irving Moskowitz Jack Abramoff James Tisch Jay Severin Jeff Jacoby Joel Mowbray Joel Surnow John Bolton John Hannah John Podhoretz Jonah Goldberg Joseph Lieberman Joshua Bolten Joshua Muravchik Ken Adelman Ken Mehlman Laurie Mylroie Lawrence Kaplan Lawrence Summers Leonard Garment Leonard Peikoff Lewis Libby Marc Grossman Mark Steyn Martin Peretz Maurice Greenberg Max Boot Mel Sembler Meyrav Wurmser Michael Bloomberg Michael Chertoff Michael Ledeen Michael Medved Michael Rubin Michael Steinhardt Midge Decter Mona Charen Mort Zuckerman Morton Klein Morton Kondracke Natan Sharansky Norman Podhoretz Pamela Geller Oshry Paul Wolfowitz Peter Rodman Reuel Marc Gerecht Rich Lowry Richard Perle Richard Pipes Robert Joseph Robert Kagan Roger Hertog Ron Silver Ronald Lauder Ronald Perelman Rupert Murdoch Saul Singer Sumner Redstone Suzanne Fields Ted Belman Thomas Friedman Walt Rostow William Bennett William Kristol William Safire Yaron Brook
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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 ? A Marxist academic who I learned quite a bit from in college esp. on the coup against democratic socialist Pres. of Chile, Salvador Allende on 9-11-73, James Petras. Finkelstein demolishes Petras Zionist Occupied Government, line, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11ar=978 David Duke on ZOG, Jewish Supremacism. How far left and far right agree that Jews are Evil.
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
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, 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? Having been aware of neo-conservatism since I read an article in Esquire in '78 or so (remember reading it in my high school library, which subscribed to Ramparts the radical left monthly, as well as National Review and The Nation) by Peter Steinfels. Steinfels wrote the 1st book on neo-cons (besides a collection edited by Irving Howe, in the mid 70's, the editor of the democratic socialist quarterly Dissent...who when he was a young Trotskyist in the period just before WWII recruited Irving Kristol into the YPSL, Young People's Socialist League, which the Trots had taken over from the Socialist Party loyalists.), The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing American Politics, Simon and Schuster, 1980 or so. Steinfels is a democratic socialist, paper member of DSA, ex-editor of left-liberal magazine Commonweal. Another DSA academic, Catholic socialist, has written two books vs. neo-conservatism. Read any of these sources?
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
Yes, I've read all your sources, and many more. But why don't you go straight to the horse's mouth? Why not read the neocons in their own words? Commentary is the best place to start. Go to the library and browse through a few decades of back issues. I assume you have some speed reading skills. Neocons were the chief ringleaders and architects of the Iraq War (even the mainstream media fingered Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle for this honor) -- they've been agitating for a world war between the United States and Israel's enemies since at least the 1970s. Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of neoconservatism, has, most recently, been hysterically lobbying for (what he calls) World War IV and an American war against Iran. The neocons are increasingly in bitter (and dangerous) conflict with the American foreign policy establishment, the military establishment and the intel establishment. From the standpoint of that establishment, the neocons have hijacked American foreign policy under George W. Bush (who is a Christian Zionist) and Dick Cheney and inflicted enormous damage on American interests worldwide. At this point foreign policy realists in the American power elite are seething. Most Bush 41 high-level members opposed the Iraq War and are violently opposed to an Iran War. If you and tigerbengalis are unaware of these developments, you are going to be in store for some major political surprises down the road. And if you think white ethnic nationalists are a more dangerous influence in contemporary American politics than Jewish ethnic nationalists, you need to rebuild your world model from the ground up. White nationalists are on the fringe, nowhere near the levers of real power in the American government. Neocons like Elliott Abrams, operating out of the NSC, are exerting enormous influence on American Mideast policy. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, 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? Having been aware of neo-conservatism since I read an article in Esquire in '78 or so (remember reading it in my high school library, which subscribed to Ramparts the radical left monthly, as well as National Review and The Nation) by Peter Steinfels. Steinfels wrote the 1st book on neo-cons (besides a collection edited by Irving Howe, in the mid 70's, the editor of the democratic socialist quarterly Dissent...who when he was a young Trotskyist in the period just before WWII recruited Irving Kristol into the YPSL, Young People's Socialist League, which the Trots had taken over from the Socialist Party loyalists.), The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing American Politics, Simon and Schuster, 1980 or so. Steinfels is a democratic socialist, paper member of DSA, ex-editor of left-liberal magazine Commonweal. Another DSA academic, Catholic socialist, has written two books vs. neo-conservatism. Read any of these sources?
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
Ah -- you are making little sense. Clearly this is a highly emotional topic for you, and I honestly think that you are incapable of thinking about it objectively and clearly. Commentary is not just any old Jewish magazine, it's the fountainhead of neoconservatism and a haven for Jewish extremists and militant Jewish ethnic nationalists. Neocons are militant Jewish nationalists in precisely the same way that David Duke is a militant white nationalist. The only difference is that the neocons are much more powerful than white nationalists like Duke, and have inflicted much more damage on American interests than Duke and his associates could ever imagine. Commentary is well out of touch with mainstream American Jewish opinion (for instance, a large majority of Jews opposed the Iraq War). In terms of their policy objectives, the neocons are arguably more insane than even the worst Nazis from the 1930s and 1940s. They are in bed with Christian Armageddonists like John Hagee, who actively wish to see the destruction of the world as soon as possible, and I have often heard neocons cavalierly suggest nuking Arab and Muslim nations back to the stone age (an act of genocide that could involve not six million but tens or hundreds of millions of victims). Some neocons are fond of threatening to destroy the entire planet with nuclear and biological weapons if Israel is betrayed by the West (the policy is called the Samson Option). Do you really want to manufacture lame apologetics for a political movement that is this over the edge? By comparison, Patrick Buchanan is the soul of sanity (and I strongly disagree with Buchanan's nativism). You know, I wonder if it bothers you to call Jewish ethnic nationalists like Benjamin Netanyahu, Natan Sharansky, Avigdor Lieberman and Benny Elon by their right name -- Jewish ethnic nationalists. That is what they are. Either one is for ethnic nationalism across the board, or one is opposed to it. Picking and choosing is an exercise in conspicuous hypocrisy, particularly when one is motivated by narrow self-interest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean, Commentary has for decades been openly identified as a journal with a focus on Jewish interests, from a conservative and now neo-con perspective. Your calling the obsessed is quite offensive. It's like calling People mag obsessed with celebrities. It's not an obsession if its commonly understood to be WHAT YOU 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
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:How obsessed are neocons with the Jews? You be the judge. Here are some verbatim titles of Commentary articles: For a journal sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, this is what s/b expected. For a journal published by the NAACP, Crisis, I'd expect tons of articles on and by Blacks. For a journal published by the Serbian American Congress, I'd expect lots of articles by and on Serbs...and articles on Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims being savage anti-Christian beasts.
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The anger against the neocons coming from the American foreign policy establishment these days is electric and palpable. Yes. Good old intra-ruling class divisions. I say we go go back to good old Buchananite anti-communist foreign policy which killed 2.8 million Vietnamese, 200,000 Guatemalans, 80,000 Salvadoreans, about the same # of Nicaraguans, thousands of Chileans after the '73 coup. When the pre-neo-con Right and Center ran US Foreign policy, it wasn't Imperialist! Nope. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present by William Blum Z magazine , June 1999
[political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Harry Truman and *UFOs* via Google Blog Search: Majestic-12 OR MJ-12 UFO OR UFOs The NWO, Majestic 12 and Grey Aliens 14 Jun 2007 by dad2059 My searching for the MJ-12 (Majestic 12) documents and the links between UFOs, abductions, grey aliens, Roswell and the NWO have turned up this article by John White (might not be real name) on the UFO WhipNet. ... Dad2059's House of Tin Foil - http://dad2059.wordpress.com UFO's too, Sean?! On those Grey Aliens, http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/dulce/chapter6.htm Read all about the Grey Space Aliens held in underground bases by the USG under Area 51. In the late 70's, Special Forces of the US Army had a battle w/them. Hundreds of GI Joes were killed.
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
Well, if you have no objections to Commentary, certainly you will have no objections to white nationalist publications which rant on and on about their ethnic enemies. The core theme of Commentary is that the Jews are locked in an apocalyptic holy war against the rest of the human race. This is the xenophobic shriek that gurgles up through neocon scribblings again, and again, and again -- the whole world is against us; we must annihilate cult outsiders before they annihilate us. The neocons, like most members of ethno-religous cults, are beyond help, beyond rational intervention. Getting free and clear of this mess is probably going to be a major preoccupation of the mainstream Jewish community in the coming years, just as purging Nazism from their culture has been has been a major preoccupation for Germans since World War II. The neocons have gone far, far off the reservation, and they still have a strong hold on the foreign-policy-making apparatus in the Bush 43 administration, especially in Dick Cheney's office. Compared to this crew, Kevin MacDonald is no threat at all, a tiny blip on the screen. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:How obsessed are neocons with the Jews? You be the judge. Here are some verbatim titles of Commentary articles: For a journal sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, this is what s/b expected. For a journal published by the NAACP, Crisis, I'd expect tons of articles on and by Blacks. For a journal published by the Serbian American Congress, I'd expect lots of articles by and on Serbs...and articles on Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims being savage anti-Christian beasts.
Re: [political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
My perspective on UFOs: I've just read three major books on the subject, by Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer. Dolan's book, which is based on solid scholarship, is especially valuable. All three books include a plethora of first-person reports from highly reliable sources (often in the military and law enforcement communities), and source documents on the subject from military and intel communities around the world. It is difficult to explain away all these reports, when taken as a whole. I am keeping an open mind on the subject. Read Dolan's book if you want to get up to speed. Either ETs are real, or the entire UFO controversy is a gigantic psyop. Based on the best reports, taken in combination, it is difficult to dismiss the controversy as merely a psyop. Too many people with clear heads have seen too many objects which behave in consistent ways and which are far beyond the current state of human technology. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Harry Truman and *UFOs* via Google Blog Search: Majestic-12 OR MJ-12 UFO OR UFOs The NWO, Majestic 12 and Grey Aliens 14 Jun 2007 by dad2059 My searching for the MJ-12 (Majestic 12) documents and the links between UFOs, abductions, grey aliens, Roswell and the NWO have turned up this article by John White (might not be real name) on the UFO WhipNet. ... Dad2059's House of Tin Foil - http://dad2059.wordpress.com UFO's too, Sean?! On those Grey Aliens, http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/dulce/chapter6.htm Read all about the Grey Space Aliens held in underground bases by the USG under Area 51. In the late 70's, Special Forces of the US Army had a battle w/them. Hundreds of GI Joes were killed.
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I've read all your sources, and many more. But why don't you go straight to the horse's mouth? Why not read the neocons in their own words? Commentary is the best place to start. Go to the library and browse through a few decades of back issues. I assume you have some speed reading skills. On another list last night (unlike this one, everyone there is either left-liberal, social democratic or even unreconstructed Trotskyists) in answer to a query on Commentary I made a post about the last issue of Commentary i read in toto, from Feb. 2006. I do read the books reviews in each issue, have from the 80's, and read one or two of the articles in each issue from the 80's, and the more notable articles from Commentary from its founding like Irving Kristol's attack on liberals from the early 50's (David Kusnet found Kristol's words familiar, and after checking reported junior had largely repeated his father, Irving Kristol's, words in praise of Joe McCarthy, simply substituting Bush for the Wisconsin demagogue. In 1952 Kristol wrote There is one thing that the American people know about Sen. McCarthy. He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesmen for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing. (Commentary, 1952) See: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/07/kusnet-d-07-24.html ) Kusnet, btw, is another DSA socialist. was a speech writer for Bill Clinton. Another DSA'er Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker, wrote speeches for Carter. Other articles by Commentary writers, off the top of my head I've read over the years, in bound vols. at libraries. James Baldwin, Hannah Arendt (calling the potential founding of Israel a disaster in the making), anarchist Paul Goodman, New Left historian Staughton Lynd on the Cold war...
[political-research] Re: Who Are the Key Neocons?
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Most Americans, including most Jews, are decidedly not ethnic nationalists, not to mention messianic or militant ethnic nationalists. They are AMERICANS -- they rarely think about their ethnicity, and they never get in the face of their fellow Americans about their ethnic issues ... Heh, have you never seen any of the numerous ethnic nationalist, chauvinist racist statements of the paleo-cons? The writings of Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, Srjda Trifkovic and all the other nativist paleo-cons who write for Chronicles magazine is full of anti-Black, anti-Hispanic racism and Islamophobia. I've subbed to Chronicles too. Your, AMERICAN, 'ism, is really a throwback to the pre-civil rights era. Malcolm X said something about the great melting pot, really being a barbeque. Course, the irony is, white ethnic working class Americans, like my Italian-American relatives who worke in steel plants and coal mines hardly benefitted from your type of Americanism either.
[political-research] Re: Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar (by Frank Salter)
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Of course there are indeed a relative HANDFUL of Jewish neocons (and non-neocons) who play a role in American imperial policy, and who are likely sympathetic to Israel by virtue of their own ethnicities. So friggin what? Name an ethnic group in America that doesnt sympathize and provide support to the homeland or origin. In fact, its likely that those of say, various Third world backgrounds in the US provide, per capita, MORE material support via transefers of funds/wages etc than Jews do with Israel. Two books of note by a left-liberal foreign policy scholar. His latest is a very critical one vs. neo-cons. Foreign Attachments The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy by Tony Smith A Pact with the Devil: Washington's Bid for World Supremacy and the Betrayal of the American Promise by Tony Smith (Hardcover - Feb 1, 2007)
Re: [political-research] Re: Who Are the Key Neocons?
One advantage white ethnic nationalists enjoy over Jewish ethnic nationalists -- they are focused on the American interest, not on the interests of a foreign government. The neocons simply can't stop talking about Israel and the enemies of Israel. If push came to shove over all this, the neocons could find themselves in a very precarious position indeed. They are not standing on solid ground, from the American perspective. In fact, they are standing on such shaky ground that they have found it necessary to enter into self-destructive alliances with the worst crazies from the Christian Armageddonist world, while seriously pissing off the traditional American foreign policy and military establishments. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Most Americans, including most Jews, are decidedly not ethnic nationalists, not to mention messianic or militant ethnic nationalists. They are AMERICANS -- they rarely think about their ethnicity, and they never get in the face of their fellow Americans about their ethnic issues ... Heh, have you never seen any of the numerous ethnic nationalist, chauvinist racist statements of the paleo-cons? The writings of Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, Srjda Trifkovic and all the other nativist paleo-cons who write for Chronicles magazine is full of anti-Black, anti-Hispanic racism and Islamophobia. I've subbed to Chronicles too. Your, AMERICAN, 'ism, is really a throwback to the pre-civil rights era. Malcolm X said something about the great melting pot, really being a barbeque. Course, the irony is, white ethnic working class Americans, like my Italian-American relatives who worke in steel plants and coal mines hardly benefitted from your type of Americanism either.
[political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My perspective on UFOs: I've just read three major books on the subject, by Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer. This one? UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 by Richard M. Dolan and Jacques F. Vallee (Paperback - Jul 2002) Nazis and Neo-Nazis are into UFO's too, esp. Ernst Zundel. See, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the politics of Identity, by Nicolas Goodrick-Clarke, NYU Press. God help me if I find Zundel or other Holocaust Denialists or cites of writers like Bollyn from Willis Carto's rags, The American Free Press, formerly The Spotlight, in the archives here. After all like Kevin Macdonald, those neo-fascists are against the neo-cons and Zionism too.
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Well, if you have no objections to Commentary, certainly you will have no objections to white nationalist publications which rant on and on about their ethnic enemies... Get a grip, Sean. If you had any knowledge of the US radical/progressive/social democratic/liberal-Left, and saw my cites of a group I have belonged to for decades, the Democratic Socialists of America, or googled my name and e-mail addresses, you would see literally hundreds of posts I have made over the yrs. on left listservs like lbo-talk, pen-l and marxmail, against the neo-cons and white nationalists/neo-nazis. The neo-cons in SDUSA despise DSA. Go to the Hoover Institute and read like I did once in the Carl Gershman papers, his 100 pg. plus denunciation of democratic socialist Michael Harrington as a crypto-Stalinist.
Re: [political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
Are you actually trying to smear UFO researchers in general by associating them with Nazis? Do you have any evidence that Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer, the three authors I mentioned, are Nazis or harbor Nazi sympathies? Do you have any substantive remarks to make about Dolan's book? Going to the Nazi well too often in quest of rhetorical tropes and arguments is a ticket to irrelevance in serious discussions, don't you think? You have Nazis on the brain? The defense and intel agencies of every major government in the world are paying close attention to UFOs. This interest is documented in the books I just mentioned. The CIA took charge of UFO research back in the fifties. As a rule, nations object to having their airspace violated by aircraft which don't identify themselves and which can easily outrun and outmaneuver our best technologies. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My perspective on UFOs: I've just read three major books on the subject, by Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer. This one? UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 by Richard M. Dolan and Jacques F. Vallee (Paperback - Jul 2002) Nazis and Neo-Nazis are into UFO's too, esp. Ernst Zundel. See, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the politics of Identity, by Nicolas Goodrick-Clarke, NYU Press. God help me if I find Zundel or other Holocaust Denialists or cites of writers like Bollyn from Willis Carto's rags, The American Free Press, formerly The Spotlight, in the archives here. After all like Kevin Macdonald, those neo-fascists are against the neo-cons and Zionism too.
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
A suggestion: if you and tigerbengalis don't want to appear to be neocon fellow travelers, then stop trying to downplay the offenses of Commentary and the neocons, and start dealing in an honest way with the influence of Jewish ethnic militants on the Bush 43 administration and the Iraq War, which has been enormous. White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics, compared to AIPAC, JINSA, AEI, WINEP, the Conference of Presidents and similar outfits, all of which act in tandem and which exert extraordinary power over Congress and the mainstream media. Once one begins to rationalize or paper over the bad behavior of any one ethnic nationalist movement (especially one connected to one's own ethnicity), one has lost the moral authority to complain about the bad behavior of any other ethnic nationalist group. One can't play it both ways -- either one is sincerely committed to trans-ethnic politics, or one is an ethnic nationalist. Jewish ethnic nationalists can't complain about white ethnic nationalists, and vice-versa. Perhaps that it why they have started to make common cause in some areas, following the example of some Nazis and Zionists back in the day. Ethnic nationalists from various ethnic backgrounds have much more in common with one another, especially in their neurotic and obsessive-compulsive xenophobia, than they do with enlightened people who have moved beyond this muck. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Well, if you have no objections to Commentary, certainly you will have no objections to white nationalist publications which rant on and on about their ethnic enemies... Get a grip, Sean. If you had any knowledge of the US radical/progressive/social democratic/liberal-Left, and saw my cites of a group I have belonged to for decades, the Democratic Socialists of America, or googled my name and e-mail addresses, you would see literally hundreds of posts I have made over the yrs. on left listservs like lbo-talk, pen-l and marxmail, against the neo-cons and white nationalists/neo-nazis. The neo-cons in SDUSA despise DSA. Go to the Hoover Institute and read like I did once in the Carl Gershman papers, his 100 pg. plus denunciation of democratic socialist Michael Harrington as a crypto-Stalinist.
[political-research] Re: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:My politics are classically American liberal, in the Jeffersonian sense, in the sense of the geniuses who founded the American Republic... Heh, should I channel Ward Churchill on the genocide of the Native Americans by classic American liberals from Andrew Jackson onwards? Should I channel WEB Du Bois on the slave trade and centuries of poverty and repression afterwards by classic American liberals? From Michael Paul Rogin, a neo-marxist scholar. (His book on McCarthyism, btw, skewers neo-cons Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell) On the massacres of the Indians by Andrew Jackson, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian.
[political-research] Re: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:By the way, the neocons are increasingly getting into bed with white nationalists -- see, for instance, the developing ties of David Horowitz and his associates with David Gaubatz. Much neocon rhetoric and hate speech against Islam and Arabs is straight from the Nazi playbook. Yes, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28129 The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States By Lawrence Auster FrontPageMagazine.com | May 3, 2007 and No, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16266 The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World By Lawrence Auster Auster's blog, is well worth a look for OCD'ers like us. http://amnation.com/vfr/
[political-research] Re: Fwd: Well done Israel Shamir
Found searching for cites of Ernst Zundel in the archives. Palestinians on the Left and pro-Palestinian leftists vs. Israel Shamir. Yet, another neo-fascist I find cited here on this list. http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/ http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=templatestory=6 Searchlight the international anti fascist magazine, 25 years fighting racism and fascism. ... Israel Shamir presents himself on his website as a leading ...
[political-research] American Free Press
Search for that in quotes in the archives. 131 hits. Have you ever read a physical paper copy of that rag, Sean? Ads in the back for neo-nazi orgs. and others on the far right. Ads for favorable documentaries on the Third Reich and the Waffen SS. Timothy McVeigh read this rag, even had a phonecard he bought from The Spotlight, the predecessor publication of The American Free Press.
[political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
I say we go go back to good old , classical liberal, foreign policy. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS by Dr. Zoltan Grossman The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2007.
[political-research] » Ron Paul: Just another paleocon (or is that, classical liberal?)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11222.html classical liberal equals Hayekian free market capitalist absolutist. Sean's, classical liberals and neo-cons agree about the virtues of unrestrained capitalist greed. -- Michael Pugliese
[political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you actually trying to smear UFO researchers in general by associating them with Nazis? Do you have any evidence that Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer, the three authors I mentioned, are Nazis or harbor Nazi sympathies? Do you have any substantive remarks to make about Dolan's book? Going to the Nazi well too often in quest of rhetorical tropes and arguments is a ticket to irrelevance in serious discussions, don't you think? You have Nazis on the brain? Oy vey, says this gentile. A lot of Nazis and neo-Nazis have/had obsessions about UFO's. In my decade and half living in Berkeley and Oakland and Santa Cruz, I also met more than a few members of the Communist Party, U.S.A., Trotskyists, Maoists, Black Nationalists in the Nation of Islam, old sds'ers, hippies and New Agers who also had obsessions w/UFO's. Read the book by Goodrick-Clarke, and while you are it it, Gods of the Blood, on paganism, neo-nazism and Christian Identity. Guess, I'll have to say in case you are a pagan, that all the pagans I've ever known, from the Unitarian Universalist left-liberals and radical lefties to anarchist pagans have been on the Left. But, the latter book is extensively researched. Author has also written a longer book on the Nation of Islam and has data there about their cooperation with neo-Nazis like George Lincoln Rockwell and Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance.
Re: [political-research] American Free Press
No, I've never seen a physical copy of the American Free Press. If there is a particular article from it which you would like to discuss, be my guest. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Search for that in quotes in the archives. 131 hits. Have you ever read a physical paper copy of that rag, Sean? Ads in the back for neo-nazi orgs. and others on the far right. Ads for favorable documentaries on the Third Reich and the Waffen SS. Timothy McVeigh read this rag, even had a phonecard he bought from The Spotlight, the predecessor publication of The American Free Press.
Re: [political-research] Re: Neocons vs. Anti-Neocons
Ok -- we have a major point of agreement. Now: will we see David Horowitz and his associates marginalized by the political mainstream, or will they continue to get a free ride? Horowitz's views are in close alignment with many neocons. Horowitz comes close to being a quintessential neocon. He is a militant Jewish ethnic nationalist in precisely the same way that David Duke is a militant white nationalist. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:By the way, the neocons are increasingly getting into bed with white nationalists -- see, for instance, the developing ties of David Horowitz and his associates with David Gaubatz. Much neocon rhetoric and hate speech against Islam and Arabs is straight from the Nazi playbook. Yes, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28129 The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States By Lawrence Auster FrontPageMagazine.com | May 3, 2007 and No, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16266 The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World By Lawrence Auster Auster's blog, is well worth a look for OCD'ers like us. http://amnation.com/vfr/
Re: [political-research] Re: Harry Truman and UFOs
Brilliant and well-educated minds from all across the political spectrum, and especially from the defense and intel agencies of major nations all around the world, have had an intense interest in UFOs for five or six decades now. Your attempts to link UFO research to Nazis are, quite frankly, bizarre, and say much more about your own preoccupations than those of leading UFO researchers. If you actually get around to reading Richard Dolan's book (or those by Greer, Good or Stanton Friedman), by all means weigh in with whatever useful insights about the issue occur to you. Weak minds dismiss the subject out of hand, without examining the evidence, because it sounds too weird to be true. Back in the day, they were flat-earthers and pre-Copernicans. They are unable to imagine intelligences and technologies in the universe radically beyond our own in development. John E. Mack, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of T.E. Lawrence and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School (before he was run over by a car), is another interesting mind who took the UFO controversy seriously. His book is next on my reading list. Last I checked, he wasn't a Nazi -- in fact, I believe he was Jewish. michael098762001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you actually trying to smear UFO researchers in general by associating them with Nazis? Do you have any evidence that Richard Dolan, Timothy Good and Steven Greer, the three authors I mentioned, are Nazis or harbor Nazi sympathies? Do you have any substantive remarks to make about Dolan's book? Going to the Nazi well too often in quest of rhetorical tropes and arguments is a ticket to irrelevance in serious discussions, don't you think? You have Nazis on the brain? Oy vey, says this gentile. A lot of Nazis and neo-Nazis have/had obsessions about UFO's. In my decade and half living in Berkeley and Oakland and Santa Cruz, I also met more than a few members of the Communist Party, U.S.A., Trotskyists, Maoists, Black Nationalists in the Nation of Islam, old sds'ers, hippies and New Agers who also had obsessions w/UFO's. Read the book by Goodrick-Clarke, and while you are it it, Gods of the Blood, on paganism, neo-nazism and Christian Identity. Guess, I'll have to say in case you are a pagan, that all the pagans I've ever known, from the Unitarian Universalist left-liberals and radical lefties to anarchist pagans have been on the Left. But, the latter book is extensively researched. Author has also written a longer book on the Nation of Islam and has data there about their cooperation with neo-Nazis like George Lincoln Rockwell and Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance.
Re: [political-research] � Ron Paul: Just another paleocon (or is that, classical liberal?)
Actually, I am more a progressive than a traditional libertarian, and agree somewhat with liberal neocons on the need for some kinds of government intervention to prevent abuses of the public interest by unscrupulous and wealthy private interests. Basically I am against concentrating too much power in too few hands, in either the private or public sector. I am for whatever political system best promotes individual human creativity and social justice. Many of us appreciate the fact that Ron Paul has spoken out so strongly against the Iraq War and against neocon-style American imperialism. Of course his chances of winning the nomination or the presidency are non-existent. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11222.html classical liberal equals Hayekian free market capitalist absolutist. Sean's, classical liberals and neo-cons agree about the virtues of unrestrained capitalist greed. -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... So negligible that the GOP for decades has had Ethnic Outreach Committees full of the most Fascist, anti-Communist sectors aligned with WACL. Drawn upon in the Reagan era to support the Contras vs. the FSLN in Nicaragua. (Kill a commie health care clinic worker in a rural town in Nicaragua for Christ!) Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party by Russ Bellant, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWAHmLuZeIoCdq=OLD+NAZIS,+THE+NEW+RIGHT,+AND+THE+REPUBLICAN+PARTYpg=PP1ots=rdv2Iz_Passig=vyRwlepqiDcnn0Btf2uV2FiAy10prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DOLD%2BNAZIS%252C%2BTHE%2BNEW%2BRIGHT%252C%2BAND%2BTHE%2BREPUBLICAN%2BPARTY%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-asa=Xoi=printct=title On WACL, http://www.namebase.org/sources/HB.html The World Anti-Communist League (WACL) was founded in 1966 as a public relations arm for Taiwan and South Korea. WACL didn't attract much notice in the U.S. until John Singlaub's United States Council for World Freedom, the American branch of WACL, was launched in 1981 with a loan from Taiwan and soon began raising money for the contras. Singlaub and his supporters also operated through a network of similar groups: Western Goals, Council for the Defense of Freedom, American Security Council, Council for Inter-American Security, and the Conservative Caucus. But WACL is particularly known for its international conferences that attract American congressmen and senators, archbishops, members of Parliament, bank presidents, and scientists. There, they have been in the company of Nazi collaborators, Japanese war criminals, Latin death squad leaders, disciples of Moon's Unification Church, and fugitive Italian terrorists. There's even a CIA connection. Ray Cline, station chief in Taiwan from 1958-1962 and later deputy director for intelligence, attended conferences in 1980, 1983, and 1984. The authors believe that covert U.S. funding played a role in the establishment of WACL, and note that Cline was in a position to be helpful when preparatory meetings were held in 1958. ISBN 0-396-08517-2 -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream , American, values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the Senate, you wouldn't say that. Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca. in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists. -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_jmr_fmasid=1Itemid=91 Mapping the New Nativism is a comprehensive study of the location of state and local anti-immigrant groups in the United States in 2006 conducted by the research staff of the Center for New Community's Building Democracy Initiative. -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
I'm curious: with which ethnic group do you most strongly identify? Which ethnic tradition has most influenced you? And do you support illegal immigration? Legal immigration is a fine American tradition. Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing it is a disaster. Any administration which has no control over 12 million illegal immigrants clearly has no real intention of preventing domestic terrorism. (I am not arguing that illegal immigrants are terrorists; I am arguing that a society which is unable to prevent being inundated by illegal immigrants certainly lacks the ability to prevent terrorists from slipping over the border.) With regard to white ethnic nationalists at high levels of the current American government: can you name them? Who are the equivalents of the Israeli-obsessed neocons? Is there a white nationalist version of Elliott Abrams in the Bush 43 administration? Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream , American, values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the Senate, you wouldn't say that. Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca. in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists. -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] » Ron Paul: Just another paleocon (or is that, classical liberal?)
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Of course his chances of winning the nomination or the presidency are non-existent. Not according to his fan club. All the Ron Paul supporters on the WWW I've seen have this belief he will win. Just like the Kucinich supporters in '04 and '08. Communist supporters of Henry Wallace in 1948 did as well. -- Forwarded message -- From: Evan Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jun 29, 2007 5:04 PM Subject: [ProgressivePolitical] Ron Paul Should Win New Hampshire - Latest Poll Suggests To: Evan Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ron Paul Should Win New Hampshire - Latest Poll Suggests Washington D.C. 6/29/2007 2:43 PM GMT (TransWorldNews) Late last year when the presidential campaigns started, George Bush had a 36% approval rating in the state of New Hampshire according to American Research Group. But the latest American Research Group poll shows the approval rating for the President dipping down to 14%. USAElectionPolls.com suggests the reason for George Bush's low ratings to be because of the presidential campaign. Approval ratings for George Bush have been dipping in New Hampshire because voters are being exposed to candidates from both political parties that have criticized the president. All of the Democrats have come out staunchly against the president as they always have. On the Republican side, Ron Paul is the most vocal of all the candidates. USAElectionPolls.com made the following statement: We know that Ron Paul is only getting at most 2% in any national or state poll but once Republican voters in New Hampshire realize Ron Paul is their only anti-war candidate, he will gain momentum. If you found 100 people that liked the color red and you offered them 10 shirts to choose from each of the color green, they will be forced to choose green. If you offered them an 11th option that is red, the majority of those 100 people would choose the red shirt. Ron Paul is the 11th option that resonates with the voters, they just don't realize it yet. Remember, Paul Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996 with the same platform. In a lot of election predicting, you also have to look at what issues voters want and with whom their feelings resonate well with. Because these polls are not stagnant, they are constantly changing. And the leader tomorrow will be different from today and different from yesterday. He should win according to the web site but they stress that Ron Paul's low poll numbers may keep voters from voting for him because of feelings that he cannot win. The web site also points out that this drop in approval ratings from 36% to 14% largely is from the Republican and Independent base because as they calmly asserted Democrats are just as against Bush now as they were 6 months ago. It is the Republicans and Independents now that are changing their opinions of Bush. Visit http://www.usaelectionpolls.com for the latest polls. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.usaelectionpolls.com NEWS ALERTS Receive alerts to your email for USAElectionPolls.com TransWorldNews Alerts President Bush's approval rating in New Hampshire has dipped down to 14% and an analyst claims Ron Paul will be the benificiary. Picture Gallery Add Pictures to this Story News Crawl Resource @ http://www.NewzCrawler.com; Smart Voter National Registration Guide by the League of Women Voters: http://www.smartvoter.org/** If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator... -George W. Bush -Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000 ** For information on Progressive Resources, please see our Files page. * DON'T DRINK DR. PEPPER or 7UP DON'T RENT FROM HERTZ OR BUY DUNKIN DONUTS - THOSE COMPANIES AND MANY MORE (http://carlylegroup.com/eng/portfolio/index.html) ARE OWNED BY A BUSH CABAL INVESTMENT COMPANY CALLED the Carlyle Group, most of whose owners, overseers and employees are also in other far right wing organizations (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1067index.php) * (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitaryexecutive Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious: with which ethnic group do you most strongly identify? Which ethnic tradition has most influenced you? I'm Italian-American. But, I don't identify that way. My Italian-American relatives in Pittsburgh were all racists who supported George Wallace in '68 and '72, pro-Vietnam war. A major part of the reason I was radicalized in the 70's was a reaction against the bigotry and ethnic chauvinism of my Italian-American relatives. (In arguments with my Mom over civil rights and the war they called her, nigger lover, and, Viet Cong. And do you support illegal immigration? Legal immigration is a fine American tradition. Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing it is a disaster. Any administration which has no control over 12 million illegal immigrants clearly has no real intention of preventing domestic terrorism. (I am not arguing that illegal immigrants are terrorists; I am arguing that a society which is unable to prevent being inundated by illegal immigrants certainly lacks the ability to prevent terrorists from slipping over the border.) Capital, (and as a libertarian, I haven't seen you say anything contrary to what my Marxist teachers in college called, the logic of capital, as we struggled through Marx, Capital, Volume One, his Grundrisse and zillions of texts by academic neo-marxists) has since 1493 been international. Labor should be as well. Ruling classes always draw arbitrary national boundaries. Ask an Iraqi about the boundaries Britain drew in 1920. Slipping over the border? Heh, you are sounding like LGF here, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26067onlyrss With regard to white ethnic nationalists at high levels of the current American government: can you name them? Who are the equivalents of the Israeli-obsessed neocons? Is there a white nationalist version of Elliott Abrams in the Bush 43 administration? The day after a SCOTUS decision overturning Brown vs. Board of Education, you deny there are Racists in the upper ranks and throughout the ranks of the bureaucracy of the USG who support the aims of the white nationalists? You must have ignored the exposes of Trent Lott and other Republican politicians who spoke to the CCC, the successor to the White Citizen's Councils of the South. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream , American, values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the Senate, you wouldn't say that. Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca. in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists. -- Michael Pugliese -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] American Free Press
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:These days I am impressed by Glenn Greenwald... Good on the Patriot Act, warrentless wiretapping and civil liberties issues in general. Not to be trusted though on matters, military. Unlike you, I bother to google and read for opposing pov's and data. When talking with an old Communist from the CPUSA at a rally, I'll trow some Trotskyism at them. Talking to a crazy Trot, i'll quote a social democratic anti-Communist. Talking to a Libertarian, I'll throw 'em some Marxism. Talking to a sophisticated neo-marxist, I'll reach in my back pack and quote from an article in Reason... Glenn Greenwald was shnookered on this recent, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as 'Al Qaeda, meme he picked up from Josh Marshall and/or Juan Cole. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/231205.php SockPuppet Strikes Out Again Glenn Wilson McEllensburg has suddenly become a terrorism expert, and can't wait to get a conspiracy off his chest: Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government reporting yet: It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as al-Qaida fighters. When did that happen? Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were insurgents or they were referred to as Sunni or Shia'a fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as al-Qaida. Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda. That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term Al Qaeda to designate anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as Al Qaeda. Actually, that isn't obvious, Glenn. What is obvious is your own industrial-strength ignorance, which apparently seems to be quite contagious among the more irrational actors of the far left. The reason that we've been reading more over the past few days about attacks directed against al Qaeda—more than Sunni insurgents, more than Shia militiamen—is that elements of al Qaeda have been specifically targeted by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala Province, in Operation Commando Eagle southwest of Baghdad, Operation Marne Torch southeast of Baghdad, and in other operations throughout the country. If Glen Greenwald or Josh Marshall weren't above a Sullivaneque floating of a theory by a conspiracy-minded reader (to excuse their own inherent distrust of our military, of course), they might have bothered to recognize, or God forbid, research a few key facts. The first of those facts is that we are in offensive operations surrounding and targeting al Qaeda cells specifically, often with information provided by their former allies in the Sunni insurgency. Second, the military is consistently releasing stories about contacts with both Sunni insurgents and Shia militiamen, and our military is calling them such as they contact them. Let's got back 10-12 days and see what Multi-National Force-Iraq has been saying in their press releases. According to Greenwald, the enemy the military talks about is almost exclusively now al Qaeda. And yet, when we go back 12 days to Monday, June 11, we find that in MNF-I's three combat-related press releases, only one addresses al Qaeda. The following day, U.S. forces raided an insurgent weapons cache, came under attack from an insurgent VBIED, and engaged enemy fire coming from a mosque, without ever specifying who that was. On Wednesday, June 13, MNF-I published 17 press releases. Of those a Grand total of four mentioned al Qaeda. Five others mentioned Sunni insurgents, five more couldn't specify the attacker, and one wrote about Iranian-affiliated Shia militias. I invite Greenwald, Marshall, and others who seem to like this meme to do their own digging through MNF-I's archive of press releases, where they'll find more days very similar to this. As the offensive operations cited above--part of an overall operation called Phantom Thunder--are specifically targeting al Qaeda cells, we will be reading about those terrorists that our soldiers are directly targeting. But as accounts from Saturday show that we are still encountering Shia militias and Sunni insurgents even today, the theory being aired by Greenwald and his conspiracy-minded followers is shown—with only passing research—to be complete and utter bunk. Update: Undaunted by the facts, Greenwald attempts to shore up his flimsy argument by citing other liberal conspiracy theorists and letters to Salon.com, forcing yet another debunking of his claims. Reality. He should check into it
Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism
Well, I am not Italian, but I am a bit of an Italian chauvinist. I've spent some time in Italy, and greatly admire the genius of Italian culture in almost all its forms (maybe there are a few problems with the Corleone/Soprano faction). And what I especially love about the Italians I've met is that they take quiet pride in their accomplishments as a culture without being too strident about it. I've never had an Italian attack me over Italian politics; Americans (from former presidents on down) suffer vicious attacks from pro-Israel zealots over Israeli politics on a regular basis. I know, there is a downside also in Italian-American culture in terms of certain reactionary tendencies, but that's true of most other *-American ethnic groups as well. Good point about Trent Lott being a white ethnic nationalist (and just a plain white racist, apparently). There are others like him scattered in the government. But they don't strike me as having their act together, not in the way demonstrated by the neocons in herding the Bush 43 administration into the Iraq War. White nationalism has been largely delegitimized and marginalized on the public stage in America. Jewish ethnic nationalism continues to be treated as a sacred cow, as an activity that is beyond scrutiny or criticism from mere mortals. After all (according to Christian Zionists), Zionism is an act of God. Engage in critical dialogue with it, and God (or Mossad) will strike you dead. Bow down before the neocons or else. That's way more than enough typing for today. I'll have to continue this later. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious: with which ethnic group do you most strongly identify? Which ethnic tradition has most influenced you? I'm Italian-American. But, I don't identify that way. My Italian-American relatives in Pittsburgh were all racists who supported George Wallace in '68 and '72, pro-Vietnam war. A major part of the reason I was radicalized in the 70's was a reaction against the bigotry and ethnic chauvinism of my Italian-American relatives. (In arguments with my Mom over civil rights and the war they called her, nigger lover, and, Viet Cong. And do you support illegal immigration? Legal immigration is a fine American tradition. Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing it is a disaster. Any administration which has no control over 12 million illegal immigrants clearly has no real intention of preventing domestic terrorism. (I am not arguing that illegal immigrants are terrorists; I am arguing that a society which is unable to prevent being inundated by illegal immigrants certainly lacks the ability to prevent terrorists from slipping over the border.) Capital, (and as a libertarian, I haven't seen you say anything contrary to what my Marxist teachers in college called, the logic of capital, as we struggled through Marx, Capital, Volume One, his Grundrisse and zillions of texts by academic neo-marxists) has since 1493 been international. Labor should be as well. Ruling classes always draw arbitrary national boundaries. Ask an Iraqi about the boundaries Britain drew in 1920. Slipping over the border? Heh, you are sounding like LGF here, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26067onlyrss With regard to white ethnic nationalists at high levels of the current American government: can you name them? Who are the equivalents of the Israeli-obsessed neocons? Is there a white nationalist version of Elliott Abrams in the Bush 43 administration? The day after a SCOTUS decision overturning Brown vs. Board of Education, you deny there are Racists in the upper ranks and throughout the ranks of the bureaucracy of the USG who support the aims of the white nationalists? You must have ignored the exposes of Trent Lott and other Republican politicians who spoke to the CCC, the successor to the White Citizen's Councils of the South. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics... If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream , American, values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the Senate, you wouldn't say that. Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca. in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists. -- Michael Pugliese -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Jolie: the Pretty Face of the Global Slave Gulag -Kurt Nimmo
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_American_Union
