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=26067&only&rss > > 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] 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=26067&only&rss > > 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] 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] 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_fmas&id=1&Itemid=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
> 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... 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=ZWAHmLuZeIoC&dq=OLD+NAZIS,+THE+NEW+RIGHT,+AND+THE+REPUBLICAN+PARTY&pg=PP1&ots=rdv2Iz_Pas&sig=vyRwlepqiDcnn0Btf2uV2FiAy10&prev=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-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=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
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.
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: 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
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
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 the
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