Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Actually, many thoughtful Jews are raising serious questions about the viability of Zionism as an ideology and as a practical political project. If you know the history of Zionism in detail, the questions and doubts were there from the very beginning, from the instant that Theodor Herzl conceived the entire endeavor. Many Jews predicted that Zionism in the Mideast would end as a catastrophe, and ruin the lives of Jews in the Diaspora. All messianic ethnic nationalist movements tend to self-destruct, for all the obvious reasons -- they are self-ghettoizing and radically polarizing; they create violent enemies wherever they go. Can you imagine what the United States would look like if all Americans were in a lather about their respective ethnic nationalisms? We would be in a state of non-stop vicious civil war. With regard to Nazism: if extremists and Armageddonists in the Zionist movement (including Christian Zionists like John Hagee, Rick Santorum and Mike Evans) get their way, and engineer the ultimate act of genocide, Zionism will go down in the history books as even a more destructive and evil movement than Nazism. Anyone associated with Zionism in any way will come to regret it, in precisely the same way that anyone associated with Nazism came to regret it. The odds that extremists will in fact prevail have to be accounted well above even at this point. John Hagee was the most popular speaker at AIPAC's last annual meeting. Jewish civilization is much bigger than Zionism, and will long outlive it. Zionism may prove to be the most self-destructive false messianic movement in Jewish history. Thoughtful Jews realize that it would be foolish to put all their eggs in one basket (Zionism). Are these provocative and controversial ideas? Well, yes. They may also be true. Oh, speaking of regret: how many ringleaders of the Iraq War, whose passion was driven by Zionism, now regret their actions? Quite a few. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: Zionism by definition is Jewish ethnic nationalism -- if you're a Zionist, you're a Jewish ethnic nationalist. The equivalent to Zionism in Europe would be Nazism. I think we have to be very careful here. Before the experience of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust most Jews opposed Zionism and felt it was a dangerous ideology. After the Holocaust I think you will be hard-pressed to find one single Jew who is not a Zionist in the sense that they favor the foundation of an eternal Jewish homeland, and view Israel as that homeland. I would be very careful about any statement that might be viewed as an equation of Zionism and Nazism. I agree with your appraisals of the neocons etc. I would just be careful about putting all Zionists in the same category. Tim Howells Ethnic nationalism -- especially messianic ethnic nationalism and ethnic cultism -- is completely incompatible with American and modern Western democratic values, which is why Israel and Zionism are on a collision course with pretty much the entire world. If America formally defined itself as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, you'd get the point real quick. It's no wonder that Israel is increasingly reaching out to the worst crackpots on the American scene (like Christian Armageddonist John Hagee) to prop up its declining support among mainstream Americans, mainstream Christians, traditional conservatives and traditional liberals. Ethnic nationalists tend to be on the same page only with themselves; ethnic nationalism is intrinsically divisive and self-ghettoizing. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
If you really believe Zionism is equivalent to Nazism, I really don't know what to say. It's like asking me to reconstruct reality for you. And if you DON'T recognize that the US has effectively functioned globally as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, then you might at least review the past two centuries of American history. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zionism by definition is Jewish ethnic nationalism -- if you're a Zionist, you're a Jewish ethnic nationalist. The equivalent to Zionism in Europe would be Nazism. Ethnic nationalism -- especially messianic ethnic nationalism and ethnic cultism -- is completely incompatible with American and modern Western democratic values, which is why Israel and Zionism are on a collision course with pretty much the entire world. If America formally defined itself as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, you'd get the point real quick. It's no wonder that Israel is increasingly reaching out to the worst crackpots on the American scene (like Christian Armageddonist John Hagee) to prop up its declining support among mainstream Americans, mainstream Christians, traditional conservatives and traditional liberals. Ethnic nationalists tend to be on the same page only with themselves; ethnic nationalism is intrinsically divisive and self-ghettoizing. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
You know, if the United States were formally defined as an Anglo-Christian state, in the same way that Israel is formally defined as a Jewish state, and if Anglo-Christians treated Jews the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians, I think you would be screaming bloody murder. But the truth is that the United States is a trans-ethnic, trans-religious and universalist state, in principle (and increasingly in practice) dedicated to treating members of all ethnic and religious groups equally, as long as they play by the universalist rules and don't subvert the system. Messianic ethnic nationalist movements always end up demonizing, discriminating against, abusing and murdering en masse ethnic outsiders. They don't have to reach the Holocaust stage before closely resembling Nazism in their basic attributes and inclinations -- the Nazis were Nazis in the 1930s, well before the systematic mass murder of Jews. Start down the ethnic nationalist path and you will almost invariably end up at a genocidal destination. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you really believe Zionism is equivalent to Nazism, I really don't know what to say. It's like asking me to reconstruct reality for you. And if you DON'T recognize that the US has effectively functioned globally as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, then you might at least review the past two centuries of American history. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zionism by definition is Jewish ethnic nationalism -- if you're a Zionist, you're a Jewish ethnic nationalist. The equivalent to Zionism in Europe would be Nazism. Ethnic nationalism -- especially messianic ethnic nationalism and ethnic cultism -- is completely incompatible with American and modern Western democratic values, which is why Israel and Zionism are on a collision course with pretty much the entire world. If America formally defined itself as a messianic Anglo-Christian state, you'd get the point real quick. It's no wonder that Israel is increasingly reaching out to the worst crackpots on the American scene (like Christian Armageddonist John Hagee) to prop up its declining support among mainstream Americans, mainstream Christians, traditional conservatives and traditional liberals. Ethnic nationalists tend to be on the same page only with themselves; ethnic nationalism is intrinsically divisive and self-ghettoizing. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Ethnic philanthropy -- philanthropy directed at one's own ethnic group -- would seem to be an obvious case of altruism serving as a cover for the selfish desire to improve one's personal competitive advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the human race by improving the competitive advantage of one's ethnic group vis-a-vis other ethnic groups. What is good for my ethnic group is good for me. It is obvious that ethnic groups throughout history have aggressively competed for territory and resources, often using extreme military violence. Anyone who denies this apparently has never opened a history book. That ethnic aggression is driven by genetic factors is quite believable. Isn't the Israeli/Palestinian conflict a perfect example of an ethnic war over territory and resources? The danger with this kind of research is in using sociobiology to promote negative stereotypes of particular ethnic groups. The Nazis were guilty of this practice (see Alan Steinweis, Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany, Harvard University Press, 2006). The misuse of genetic science can itself be an expression of ethnic aggression. People naturally raise questions about Kevin MacDonald's motives and agenda because of his ties to white ethnic nationalists. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. This is true. The remaining taboos have to do with the role of race and gender. Once you admit that human behavior is strongly influenced by biological/genetic factors, it would seem to be a natural corollary that human behavior is strongly influenced by race and gender. This is still strongly disputed, however, often on frankly ideological grounds but usually with some attempt to provide a scientific veneer. The kind of venom we have seen on this thread is typical of the level of debate I'm afraid. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. Specific genes may play roles of course, but the main point is bigger than that. This school of thought grew out of attempts to explain altruistic behavior, which has puzzled evolutionists since Darwin. From an evolutionary perspective, why would individuals sacrifice their own welfare to benefit others, as is very often observed in humans and animals? Suggested answers have to do with social groups that share a common gene-pool. For example, if an individual sacrifices his own life, but in so doing saves the lives of four other individuals who are genetically similar, then that arguably makes sense in terms of natural selection. The hypothesis suggests that people will be extremely altruistic towards their own children, and very altruistic towards their immediate family and somewhat altruistic towards their own ethnic group and so on. This seems to make sense, but there are serious scientific problems (in addition to the political problems) that have not yet been resolved. Anyway, these kinds of considerations have led to theories and schools of thought that consider the evolution of social groups (e.g. Group Selection Theory and Genetic Similarity Theory). These are still very controversial, and even among adherents there is much debate about what is genetically mediated and what is culturally mediated. In the end, how do you tell the dancer from the dance? Tim Howells
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. - Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
It might well be -- I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are strongly influenced by genetic factors. Why should this be so difficult to believe? Why are some fruit flies more adventurous, more possessed of the pioneering spirit, than others? Well, behavioral geneticists have been able to identify the precise genes which produce the Christopher Columbus personality type among fruit flies. Why are tigers more aggressive than rabbits? Did they learn the behavior from a book? Can human beings overcome genetic predispositions through cultural conditioning and will power? Probably to some degree. But we may all be on rather short leashes. There is something about extreme xenophobia that is strongly suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorders -- I'm betting on a genetic origin for the mindset. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. - Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Actually, as far as I understand, ALL aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are ENTIRELY the outcome of genetic factors. Genetic factors being understood here as that which puts together a human being. All its saying is that we are who/what we are. You seem to be leaning towards the pop version of current science which has embued mass consciousness with the notion that certain genes cause certain things. Genes don't by and large cause anything, certainly not behavior, individual or collective. Genes encode proteins. With some variations (hence, Darwinism) we all react/behave/respond roughly the same (whether as individuals, and moreso as groups) to the same stuff. And those variations (see Lewontin) are more pronounced within populations than between them. So Sean and Jean and Bean McBride are more likely to have differing outlooks on ethnicities and levels of xenophobia than any of them is compared to a random other anywhere on the globe. What does any of this have to do with some supposed genetic theory of Jewish behavior, a la Macdonald? Nothing. He's making it up as he goes along. But, you may argue, arent there things like Tay Sachs, and sickle cell disease, real life physical differences tied to certain populations? Yup, and they are complex and interesting, and have zero to do with Macdonald's claptrap. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might well be -- I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are strongly influenced by genetic factors. Why should this be so difficult to believe? Why are some fruit flies more adventurous, more possessed of the pioneering spirit, than others? Well, behavioral geneticists have been able to identify the precise genes which produce the Christopher Columbus personality type among fruit flies. Why are tigers more aggressive than rabbits? Did they learn the behavior from a book? Can human beings overcome genetic predispositions through cultural conditioning and will power? Probably to some degree. But we may all be on rather short leashes. There is something about extreme xenophobia that is strongly suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorders -- I'm betting on a genetic origin for the mindset. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of solid and reputable scientific articles exploring the genetic basis of mind, personality and culture -- right? Do I need to Google up all the cites here, or do you acknowledge this? REPLY Actually, if youre talking about serious research on a genetic basis for any of those things among a specific group, no, I dont acknowledge it. Google away. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regard to MacDonald: this discussion would be much more meaningful to me if you and Tim anchored your disagreements around particular direct quotes from MacDonald. REPLY Quotes mean nothing to me; I'm not interested in a textual analysis of someone claiming to be doing science. I'm interested in proof of their scientific claims. Macdonald has zero. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find MacDonald, even in his white ethnic nationalist mode, to be less offensive and dangerous than militant Jewish ethnic nationalists like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, who have access to the mainstream media. REPLY Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you actually compared MacDonald's language to their hate speech against Muslims? I know naked incitement to genocide when I see it. The Israeli government and the Israel lobby are not only permitting this kind of hate speech among pro-Israel extremists in America, but are actively encouraging it. REPLY The vast majority of hate speech (and violence) against Muslims is committed by non-Jews (including fellow Muslims). Coming in a distant third are the Zionists. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald is strictly small change compared to this xenophobic political machine, in terms of representing an immediate extremist threat to humanity. And he has the virtue of being much smarter than Horowitz and Pipes. The neocons are uniformly the dumbest group of pseudo-intellectuals on the American scene, pure agitprop bots. REPLY Make up your mind. The neocons have held power for a decade; Macdonald is, you claim, small change. Whose the dummy? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I strongly condemn, it goes without saying, attempts by anyone to use MacDonald's writings to stir up hatred against Jews or any other ethnic groups, or to use them to violate the civil rights of anyone. REPLY Disingenuous. MacDonald's writings ARE hatred against Jews. - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
[begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of solid and reputable scientific articles exploring the genetic basis of mind, personality and culture -- right? Do I need to Google up all the cites here, or do you acknowledge this? REPLY Actually, if youre talking about serious research on a genetic basis for any of those things among a specific group, no, I dont acknowledge it. Google away. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regard to MacDonald: this discussion would be much more meaningful to me if you and Tim anchored your disagreements around particular direct quotes from MacDonald. REPLY Quotes mean nothing to me; I'm not interested in a textual analysis of someone claiming to be doing science. I'm interested in proof of their scientific claims. Macdonald has zero. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find MacDonald, even in his white ethnic nationalist mode, to be less offensive and dangerous than militant Jewish ethnic nationalists like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, who have access to the mainstream media. REPLY Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you actually compared MacDonald's language to their hate speech against Muslims? I know naked incitement to genocide when I see it. The Israeli government and the Israel lobby are not only permitting this kind of hate speech among pro-Israel extremists in America, but are actively encouraging it. REPLY The vast majority of hate speech (and violence) against Muslims is committed by non-Jews (including fellow Muslims). Coming in a distant third are the Zionists. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald is strictly small change compared to this xenophobic political machine, in terms of representing an immediate extremist threat to humanity. And he has the virtue of being much smarter than Horowitz and Pipes. The neocons are uniformly the dumbest group of pseudo-intellectuals on the American scene, pure agitprop bots. REPLY Make up your mind. The neocons have held power for a decade; Macdonald is, you claim, small change. Whose the dummy? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I strongly condemn, it goes without saying, attempts by anyone to use MacDonald's writings to stir up hatred against Jews or any other ethnic groups, or to use them to violate the civil rights of anyone. REPLY Disingenuous. MacDonald's
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
You're extremely emotional about Jewish subjects, aren't you. For instance, do you find discussion about the role of the Israel lobby in dominatingAmerican Mideast policy, and helping to create a foreign policy catastrophe in Iraq, to be personally threatening? One definitely gets that impression. Your ducking and weaving on this subject is quite reminiscent of the evasive tactics of the neocons themselves, who are chronically incapable of accepting responsibility for their mistakes and bad judgment. If AIPAC doesn't express of the views of the Jewish establishment in American politics -- the very same lobby which is the only lobby which is agitating to expand the Iraq War to Iran -- which organization does express the views of the Jewish establishment? Why hasn't the Jewish majority in the United States been able to exert any significant influence on AIPAC? When Colin Powell blamed the JINSA crowd (persons associated with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) for the Iraq War, did he know what he was talking about? He was, after all, secretary of state in the administration which launched the war. Was Powell expressing an anti-Semitic viewpoint or simply telling the truth about what happened from his standpoint as a high-level government insider? When Wesley Clark singled out the New York money people (the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) as the driving force behind an Iran War, did Clark know what he was talking about? Is Clark an anti-Semite? Perhaps the JDL will start threatening Powell and Clark, in the same way that Lewis Libby supporters issued terrorist threats to Reggie Walton and his family. There is a certain unmistakable drift to events here, and it is a familiar historical pattern which just won't seem to go away. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald approached these issues from a scientific rather than a political perspective. What you and most seem to be saying is that the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate, so he has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. I prefer cold reason at this point. Kevin MacDonald did not organize the world! Don't blame the messenger. If we are going to avoid apocalyptic ethnic warfare at this point, it will not be by shutting our eyes and hoping for the best. Tim Howells Tim--try to maintain your composure and take a breath and see how you twist this debate using roughly the same m.o. that Macdonald does. No one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, are saying the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate. Do you have a quote indicating anyone saying that, or are you (like Macdonald) just making it up as you go along? Likewise, no one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, have said Macdonald has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. Do you have a quote from anyone indicating this imperative? Nor is anyone shutting their eyes, in fact, clearly Macdonald is receiving a response. Your lament that the truth is being ignored (rather than an unscientific thesis of a bigot is being rejected) is simple demagoguery. - TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
An important point: I don't get the impression that Kevin MacDonald and his more intelligent defenders are white supremacists or Nazis (and certainly not Tim). They have probably noticed that Jewish ethnic nationalists (neoconservatives in particular) have inflicted enormous damage on American culture and American interests (especially in Iraq), and are wondering why traditional European ethnic groups in American politics can't openly organize to defend themselves, and their values and interests, against these activities. Would Anglo or European ethnic nationalists who are opposed to American involvement in neocon Mideast wars be any worse than Jewish ethnic nationalists who are instigating these wars? Frankly, it's a difficult question to answer. (Actually, it may be a very easy question to answer.) I take the position that trans-ethnic universalism will prevail in America in the long run and will set matters right and put the neocons in their place (or at least I hope so). One would have to be at the end of one's rope to fight fire with fire over these issues, revving up one ethnic lobby to counter another. But it could happen if matters get much worse. Everyone should play by the same rules when it comes to ethnic nationalism -- either it's a legitimate activity for all ethnic groups in America or none. Pro-Israel militants in the United States are going to have to decide whether they are really committed to the American dream of creating a harmonious society for all ethnic groups and religions, or are only using Americans as cannon fodder for an interminable series of xenophobic holy wars organized around the preoccupations of an ethnocentric foreign nation. LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't deny, I am pleased this debate finally happened and Sean took the position, I hoped he would. Also I am utterly pleased to read he has framed his words carefully. On the -naivete - paranoia axis I have chosen to lean towards the naivete as far as Sean is concerned. Thus I do not read this as - watch-out-I-am-only-paying-deference-to-the-powers. These words point towards a secret underneath. But Tim, concerning scientific: From time to time over the last couple of decades; I read Nazi theses in my field. Many, many started out - in a field that does not at all suggest this - with a Darwinist position: The Nazi right-of-the-stronger (slightly reminiscent of =we have to be willing, morally willing ... Yaron Brook). One could almost call it a scientific fashion. Although admittedly I haven't read many, only the ones gy people who made a bigger career in Post war Germany, and that seemed to have reached post-war Germany completely unharmed by the conformance practice they had exercised during the Nazi reign. In your notes over the years rarely - nevertheless - something else surfaced occasionally, little items that point towards your [?or your group's ?} will to power. Today it is still like that, but wait till ... These are sentences I read in Nazi literature over and over again, the general Nazi threat to their enemies; as I know some of them led to however postponed realization; which to these guys meant follow your enemies wherever they are and kill them once you get a chance ... One example is on my mind shot in Czechoslovakia shortly after the Nazis were handed power on a silver plate - so to speak. Don't misuse your intellect in these sick avenues. -jo --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald approached these issues from a scientific rather than a political perspective. What you and most seem to be saying is that the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate, so he has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. I prefer cold reason at this point. Kevin MacDonald did not organize the world! Don't blame the messenger. If we are going to avoid apocalyptic ethnic warfare at this point, it will not be by shutting our eyes and hoping for the best. Tim Howells Tim--try to maintain your composure and take a breath and see how you twist this debate using roughly the same m.o. that Macdonald does. No one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, are saying the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate. Do you have a quote indicating anyone saying that, or are you (like Macdonald) just making it up as you go along? Likewise, no one here, nor any of Macdonalds critics, have said Macdonald has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. Do you have a quote from anyone indicating this imperative? Nor is anyone shutting their eyes, in fact, clearly Macdonald is receiving a response. Your lament that the truth is being ignored (rather than an unscientific thesis of a bigot is being rejected) is
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
On 7/6/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An important point: I don't get the impression that Kevin MacDonald and his more intelligent defenders are white supremacists or Nazis (and certainly not Tim). Oh really? http://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+macdonald+stormfront http://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+macdonald+%22american+renaissance% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_(magazine) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=370 http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=273131 Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060410s=blumenthal ...Though Taylor scrubbed all traces of explicit anti-Semitism from the conference's official program, there were signs of it elsewhere. Besides the ubiquitous Duke, whom Taylor permitted to register for the first time in his conference's history (Jesse Jackson can come if he pays his fee, Taylor grumbled), anti-Semitic literature was in ample supply at the display tables in the back. As I passed them, a goateed twentysomething named Matt Buehl handed me a recent edition of the pseudo-academic journal Occidental Quarterly. (William Regnery III, the nephew of conservative publishing mogul Henry Regnery, is the publisher of OQ.) The journal contained Long Beach State University evolutionary psychology professor Kevin MacDonald's article Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism, which contends that Jews have special psychological traits that allow them to out-compete white Gentiles for resources and power. The 2004 tract has turned MacDonald into a celebrity within white nationalist and neo-Nazi circles. Buehl eagerly volunteered his opinion of MacDonald's thesis: It is absolutely irrefutable and astronomical in its implications. SNIP Republicanizing the Race Card by MAX BLUMENTHAL [posted online on March 23, 2006] It would have been like any ordinary Saturday afternoon at the Dulles Hyatt. Inside the lobby of the sterile suburban Northern Virginia hotel, a gray-haired man busied himself at a baby grand piano, filling the room with the sound of schmaltzy jazz standards. Traveling businessmen sat around chatting, puffing cigars, drinking cocktails and chortling at one another's quips. In the corner a woman cradled a sleeping baby. It would have been like any Saturday at the Hyatt, except for the obvious plainclothes cops guarding the hotel's entrances, the employees forbidden by management from speaking to lurking reporters and the presence, in a hallway, of the beaming white supremacist David Duke, surrounded by a gaggle of admirers. The Jewish supremacists not only want to control Israel, they want to control America, Europe and the whole world, Duke announced to a dozen men who crowded around to hear his every word. The best thing we can do is expose Jewish influence. Then one day the world will rise up, people will fill the streets and call general strikes--just like in Europe. Duke had arrived at the American Renaissance conference spry and apparently untouched by the ravages of age. After several rounds of plastic surgery and with enough rouge on his cheeks to make Tammy Faye Bakker blush, he is the neo-Nazi answer to Dorian Gray. Though Duke's vanity distinguished him from his fellow white nationalists who converged for the two-day conference, he was not alone in his struggle to remain relevant and distinctive in a complex political climate where most of the ultra-right's signature issues have been co-opted by pseudo-populist media personalities and Republican politicians. In 2003 Duke was sentenced to fifteen months in a Texas prison for tax and mail fraud--bilking his supporters out of thousands of dollars, much of which he is rumored to have spent on liquor-sodden nights at casinos and strip clubs. With most of his credibility (such as it was) destroyed by the time of his release, Duke has repositioned himself as a crusader against the Jewish supremacist money-power. While explicit anti-Semitism did little to restore his audience in the United States, it has proved to be a hit overseas. Duke's book, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, is selling like cheap vodka on the streets of Moscow. In 2005 Ukraine's largest private university, the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP), awarded Duke an honorary doctorate for his thesis, Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism. Today, he claims to teach an international relations and history course at the 50,000-student school, which, until recently, included President Viktor Yuschenko on its board of directors. Duke has also been airlifted by a Muslim charity to lecture in Bahrain and appeared in Damascus, Syria, to deliver a public address blaming the Zionist media for hyping the war in Iraq. While even many American white nationalists remain suspicious of Duke's motives, he is an international sensation. Relaxing in the Hyatt lobby, Duke reminisced about his glory days. I was the first candidate who ran against affirmative action. And I predated Clinton on welfare reform, Duke told me. He rehashed his controversial term as a Louisiana state representative and his losing 1990 Republican gubernatorial candidacy, in which he captured more than 60 percent of the white vote. He happily recalled his 1977 Klan Border Watch, when he and seven other Klansmen drove a few sedans in circles along the California-Mexico border, waving a shotgun in the moonlight while dozens of reporters in tow tried not to crash their cars into one another. Back
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Please post some direct quotes from Kevin MacDonald which express an ethnic supremacist point of view, or which advocate violating the civil rights of particular ethnic groups. MacDonald's essay on the neoconservatives, which was posted here, strikes me as being much more moderate than any number of incendiary statements and writings I've encountered from Pamela Oshry Geller, David Horowitz, Steven Plaut, Benny Elon, Avigdor Lieberman and some Israeli religious leaders in recent years. Do I have a reading comprehension problem? Straighten me out. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/6/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An important point: I don't get the impression that Kevin MacDonald and his more intelligent defenders are white supremacists or Nazis (and certainly not Tim). Oh really? http://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+macdonald+stormfront http://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+macdonald+%22american+renaissance% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_(magazine) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=370 http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=273131 Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
One can use an understanding of ethnocentric behavioral patterns to fan the flames of ethnic conflict or to try to reduce ethnic conflict. Is MacDonald himself an ethnic nationalist, even an ethnic militant, who, underneath the veneer of rational scientific inquiry, is emotionally focused on ethnic conflict between Europeans (and Euro-Americans) and Jews from the standpoint of an interested warring party? I still have the impression that he might be, although I don't know for sure. Again, if he is an ethnic militant himself, that doesn't make him any worse than members of the neocon/neolib establishment in American politics; but I don't see any happy or useful outcome in going down that path. Most Americans would revert to primal ethnic politics only from extreme fear and despair, from the terror of being cornered animals. God help us if we ever get to that point. More than a few ethnic groups now have the technological ability to commit mutual genocide and to take down most of the world with them. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: I got the impression from reading some of his writings that MacDonald has organized the world around a struggle between Jewish and European ethnic interests and values. Am I wrong on this point? At root, is he a European (white) ethnic nationalist? MacDonald approached these issues from a scientific rather than a political perspective. What you and most seem to be saying is that the conclusions he has reached are just too terrible to contemplate, so he has to be discredited and his work has to be rejected. I prefer cold reason at this point. Kevin MacDonald did not organize the world! Don't blame the messenger. If we are going to avoid apocalyptic ethnic warfare at this point, it will not be by shutting our eyes and hoping for the best. Tim Howells If he is, that doesn't make him any worse than the neocons, who have dominated the Bush 43 administration. But I don't think he is providing any useful solutions to the problem of ethnic conflict in human societies. If we all retreat into our respective ethnic ghettos and give in to hysterical xenophobia, kiss planet Earth goodbye. Xenophobes these days are often armed with nuclear and biological weapons. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: But friction and warfare among a bewildering array of ethnic groups have been a permanent fixture of human history. The root cause of the conflict is not difficult to understand. We are basically looking at gang warfare, often dressed up with a lot high-falutin' self-justifying religious and ideological rhetoric by the warring parties. Kevin MacDonald is, I believe, trying to get at this reality. But he may be overfocused on the Jews, no? No - not at all. MacDonald has published extensively on a wide array of important issues concerning evolution, psychology, and human and animal behavior and development. For example see this partial bibliography: Publications in Evolutionary Psychology His work on Jewish issues fits well with his other, broader interests. Given the advent of World War Four, avidly promoted by the Israel-firsters in the US, I don't see how anyone can dismiss MacDonald's focus on Jewish issues as misplaced or off the mark. In a sense, his works are an ethnic counterattack against (in his mind) an ethnic enemy. Not all of the hostility is unjustified. It takes two to tango. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you questioning MacDonald's objectivity? Are you saying that these issues simply should not be discussed? Could you give an example of where MacDonald has gone wrong in your mind? Tim Howells Ok, I hear you. And many Jews and Christians do in fact buy into the entire Jews vs. the nations Armageddon scenario, as you know. They are in our face on a daily basis, and their howl is growing louder. But friction and warfare among a bewildering array of ethnic groups have been a permanent fixture of human history. The root cause of the conflict is not difficult to understand. We are basically looking at gang warfare, often dressed up with a lot high-falutin' self-justifying religious and ideological rhetoric by the warring parties. Kevin MacDonald is, I believe, trying to get at this reality. But he may be overfocused on the Jews, no? In a sense, his works are an ethnic counterattack against (in his mind) an ethnic enemy. Not all of the hostility is unjustified. It takes two to tango. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but there has to be a better way. The meritocratic model of elite universities defines reality as I would like to see it for society as a whole. Show me your creative work, and leave your (and my) ethnic baggage out of it. Militant ethnocentrism is for weaklings and losers. tim_howells_1000 timothy.howells@ wrote: Sean McBride
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
I got the impression from reading some of his writings that MacDonald has organized the world around a struggle between Jewish and European ethnic interests and values. Am I wrong on this point? At root, is he a European (white) ethnic nationalist? If he is, that doesn't make him any worse than the neocons, who have dominated the Bush 43 administration. But I don't think he is providing any useful solutions to the problem of ethnic conflict in human societies. If we all retreat into our respective ethnic ghettos and give in to hysterical xenophobia, kiss planet Earth goodbye. Xenophobes these days are often armed with nuclear and biological weapons. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: But friction and warfare among a bewildering array of ethnic groups have been a permanent fixture of human history. The root cause of the conflict is not difficult to understand. We are basically looking at gang warfare, often dressed up with a lot high-falutin' self-justifying religious and ideological rhetoric by the warring parties. Kevin MacDonald is, I believe, trying to get at this reality. But he may be overfocused on the Jews, no? No - not at all. MacDonald has published extensively on a wide array of important issues concerning evolution, psychology, and human and animal behavior and development. For example see this partial bibliography: Publications in Evolutionary Psychology His work on Jewish issues fits well with his other, broader interests. Given the advent of World War Four, avidly promoted by the Israel-firsters in the US, I don't see how anyone can dismiss MacDonald's focus on Jewish issues as misplaced or off the mark. In a sense, his works are an ethnic counterattack against (in his mind) an ethnic enemy. Not all of the hostility is unjustified. It takes two to tango. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you questioning MacDonald's objectivity? Are you saying that these issues simply should not be discussed? Could you give an example of where MacDonald has gone wrong in your mind? Tim Howells Ok, I hear you. And many Jews and Christians do in fact buy into the entire Jews vs. the nations Armageddon scenario, as you know. They are in our face on a daily basis, and their howl is growing louder. But friction and warfare among a bewildering array of ethnic groups have been a permanent fixture of human history. The root cause of the conflict is not difficult to understand. We are basically looking at gang warfare, often dressed up with a lot high-falutin' self-justifying religious and ideological rhetoric by the warring parties. Kevin MacDonald is, I believe, trying to get at this reality. But he may be overfocused on the Jews, no? In a sense, his works are an ethnic counterattack against (in his mind) an ethnic enemy. Not all of the hostility is unjustified. It takes two to tango. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but there has to be a better way. The meritocratic model of elite universities defines reality as I would like to see it for society as a whole. Show me your creative work, and leave your (and my) ethnic baggage out of it. Militant ethnocentrism is for weaklings and losers. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: It is interesting that your own discourse in your last post was controlled be one of these memes -- the radical division of the world between the Jews and the nations. Is this your fault or the fault of the culture which produced this meme? A stumper. I just acknowledged the reality of ethnic conflict including Jewish/Gentile conflict. This is a long way from buying into the whole apocalyptic Jews vs the Nations scenario. Tim Howells
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Ok, I hear you. And many Jews and Christians do in fact buy into the entire Jews vs. the nations Armageddon scenario, as you know. They are in our face on a daily basis, and their howl is growing louder. But friction and warfare among a bewildering array of ethnic groups have been a permanent fixture of human history. The root cause of the conflict is not difficult to understand. We are basically looking at gang warfare, often dressed up with a lot high-falutin' self-justifying religious and ideological rhetoric by the warring parties. Kevin MacDonald is, I believe, trying to get at this reality. But he may be overfocused on the Jews, no? In a sense, his works are an ethnic counterattack against (in his mind) an ethnic enemy. Not all of the hostility is unjustified. It takes two to tango. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but there has to be a better way. The meritocratic model of elite universities defines reality as I would like to see it for society as a whole. Show me your creative work, and leave your (and my) ethnic baggage out of it. Militant ethnocentrism is for weaklings and losers. tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride wrote: It is interesting that your own discourse in your last post was controlled be one of these memes -- the radical division of the world between the Jews and the nations. Is this your fault or the fault of the culture which produced this meme? A stumper. I just acknowledged the reality of ethnic conflict including Jewish/Gentile conflict. This is a long way from buying into the whole apocalyptic Jews vs the Nations scenario. Tim Howells
