Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
Do you actually know anything about the intellectual history of 
neoconservatism, or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?  Which 
neocon sources do you monitor regularly?

Have you read the last few decades of Commentary, which is the lead journal of 
neoconservatism?  I have.  Neoconservatism is predominantly, overwhelmingly, 
not just a Jewish ethnic nationalist movement, but a militantly Jewish ethnic 
nationalist movement -- the Jewish equivalent of David Duke.  Neocons are 
obsessed with the interests and enemies of Israel (and the Jews -- a term 
which they use frequently, it flows trippingly off their tongues), and view all 
of history as an interminable holy war between the Jews and everyone else in 
the world -- their list of ethnic enemies is endless, and includes many 
mainstream American political leaders and personalities, like Jimmy Carter, 
George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.

How obsessed are neocons with the Jews?  You be the judge.  Here are some 
verbatim titles of Commentary articles:

1. American Jews  Their Judaism (1994)
2. American Jews: Community in Crisis (1975)
3. Anti-Semitism in America (1994)
4. Black Anti-Semitism  How It Grows (1994)
5. Blaming Israel (1984)
6. Christianity and the Jewish People (1975)
7. Civil Religion in Israel (1984)
8. Cynthia Ozick, Jewish Writer (1984)
9. Do the Jews Have a Future? (1994)
10. Europe's Good Jews (2005)
11. Family Values  the Jews (1994)
12. German Culture and the Jews (1984)
13. Ideas of Jewish History (2005)
14. In the Land of Israel (1984)
15. Islam vs. Israel (1984)
16. Israel Against Itself (1994)
17. Israel and the United States: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons? (1975)
18. Israel in the Mind of America (1984)
19. Israel's Rights and Arab Propaganda (1975)
20. Israel: Guilt  Politics (1994)
21. Jewish Cooking in America (1994)
22. Jewish interests (2005)
23. Jewish Life in Philadelphia 1840-1940 (1984)
24. Jewish Security  Jewish Interests (2004)
25. Jews and American Politics (1975)
26. Jews and the Jewish Birthrate (2005)
27. Manners  the Jewish Intellectual (1975)
28. Marxism vs. the Jews (1984)
29. On Joining the Jews (2004)
30. On Modern Jewish Politics (1994)
31. Pictures of the Jewish Past (1975)
32. The Decline and Fall of Islamic Jewry (1984)
33. The Exposed American Jew (1975)
34. The Israeli Army (1975)
35. The Jew in American Society (1975)
36. The Jewish Century (2005)
37. The Jewish Way of Crime (1984)
38. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars (1984)
39. The Jihad Against the Jews (1994)
40. The Political Dilemma of American Jews (1984)
41. The Return of Anti-Semitism (2004)
42. The Secret of Jewish Continuity (1994)
43. The UN and the Jews (2004)
44. The United States  Israel (1975)
45. The War Against the Jews 1933-1945 (1975)
46. The Yom Kippur: Israel and the Jewish People (1975)
47. There Are Jews in My House (2004)
48. Why Religion Is Good for the Jews (1994)

Now, if the neocons aren't the most xenophobic and dangerous political lobby in 
American politics, then which group would that be?  Can you name it?  The 
neocons were the ringleaders of the Iraq War, and they are agitating for an 
American war against Iran as we speak, against the best advice of the American 
military establishment and intel community.  Some neocons believe that America 
should preemptively attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

So: Kevin MacDonald or Elliott Abrams?  Who has done more damage to the 
American interest?  Who is the more destructive ethnic nationalist and 
xenophobe?  It's really not a contest, is it.  Kevin MacDonald is politically 
powerless.  Elliott Abrams is substantially running American Mideast policy 
from the NSC.

tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Sean
 So if I connect the dots in your equation below, it boils down to a
 claim that this most dangerous movement (and I don't dispute its
 dangerousness, although perhaps its mostness) is driven by Jewish
 ethnic nationalism and passionate Israeli patriotism.
 
 A) not true, not by a longshot. That's way too simplistic; and B) its
 identical to both Macdonald's pseudo-arguments and as well, Im afraid
 to say, those in Mein Kampf relative to the Jewish/Bolshevik
 conspiracy for world domination.
 
 Hitler espoused pleanty of fine sounding anti-capitalist arguments; so
 should I, as a committed leftist, have supported him back then over
 the centrist parties, with their imperial traditions and lack of
 anti-capitalist platforms?
 
 Buchanan emulates the arch-conservative American first-ers circa 1940
 who opposed American overseas involvement. Was that a better choice vs
 FDR's interventionist liberal platform, which took a huge toll on
 American life and resources (and in the process established america as
 the dominant world power).
 These are complex, often contradictory issues. These who do you
 prefer thought games make little sense to me.
 
 --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
 

Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread tigerbengalis
Sean, Commentary has for decades been openly identified as a journal with a 
focus on Jewish interests, from a conservative and now neo-con perspective. 
Your calling the obsessed is quite offensive. It's like calling People mag 
obsessed with celebrities. It's not an obsession if its commonly understood 
to be  WHAT YOU DO. 

Your comparisons to David Duke are equally offensive (as I find abhorrent most 
neocon ideology). Duke is A fucking KLANSMAN, for Gods sake. I mean come on.


Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Do you 
actually know anything about the intellectual history of neoconservatism, or 
are you just making this stuff up as you go along?  Which neocon sources do you 
monitor regularly?

Have you read the last few decades of Commentary, which is the lead journal of 
neoconservatism?  I have.  Neoconservatism is predominantly, overwhelmingly, 
not just a Jewish ethnic nationalist movement, but a militantly Jewish ethnic 
nationalist movement -- the Jewish equivalent of David Duke.  Neocons are 
obsessed with the interests and enemies of Israel (and the Jews -- a term 
which they use frequently, it flows trippingly off their tongues), and view all 
of history as an interminable holy war between the Jews and everyone else in 
the world -- their list of ethnic enemies is endless, and includes many 
mainstream American political leaders and personalities, like Jimmy Carter, 
George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.

How obsessed are neocons with the  Jews?  You be the judge.  Here are some 
verbatim titles of Commentary articles:

1. American Jews  Their Judaism (1994)
2. American Jews: Community in Crisis (1975)
3. Anti-Semitism in America (1994)
4. Black Anti-Semitism  How It Grows (1994)
5. Blaming Israel (1984)
6. Christianity and the Jewish People (1975)
7. Civil Religion in Israel (1984)
8. Cynthia Ozick, Jewish Writer (1984)
9. Do the Jews Have a Future? (1994)
10. Europe's Good Jews (2005)
11. Family Values  the Jews (1994)
12. German Culture and the Jews (1984)
13. Ideas of Jewish History (2005)
14. In the Land of Israel (1984)
15. Islam vs. Israel (1984)
16. Israel Against Itself (1994)
17. Israel and the United States: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons? (1975)
18. Israel in the Mind of America (1984)
19. Israel's Rights and Arab Propaganda (1975)
20. Israel: Guilt  Politics (1994)
21. Jewish Cooking in America  (1994)
22. Jewish interests (2005)
23. Jewish Life in Philadelphia 1840-1940 (1984)
24. Jewish Security  Jewish Interests (2004)
25. Jews and American Politics (1975)
26. Jews and the Jewish Birthrate (2005)
27. Manners  the Jewish Intellectual (1975)
28. Marxism vs. the Jews (1984)
29. On Joining the Jews (2004)
30. On Modern Jewish Politics (1994)
31. Pictures of the Jewish Past (1975)
32. The Decline and Fall of Islamic Jewry (1984)
33. The Exposed American Jew (1975)
34. The Israeli Army (1975)
35. The Jew in American Society (1975)
36. The Jewish Century (2005)
37. The Jewish Way of Crime (1984)
38. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars (1984)
39. The Jihad Against the Jews (1994)
40. The Political Dilemma of American Jews (1984)
41. The Return of Anti-Semitism (2004)
42. The Secret of Jewish Continuity (1994)
43. The UN and the Jews (2004)
44. The United States   Israel (1975)
45. The War Against the Jews 1933-1945 (1975)
46. The Yom Kippur: Israel and the Jewish People (1975)
47. There Are Jews in My House (2004)
48. Why Religion Is Good for the Jews (1994)

Now, if the neocons aren't the most xenophobic and dangerous political lobby in 
American politics, then which group would that be?  Can you name it?  The 
neocons were the ringleaders of the Iraq War, and they are agitating for an 
American war against Iran as we speak, against the best advice of the American 
military establishment and intel community.  Some neocons believe that America 
should preemptively attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

So: Kevin MacDonald or Elliott Abrams?  Who has done more damage to the 
American interest?  Who is the more destructive ethnic nationalist and 
xenophobe?  It's really not a contest, is it.  Kevin MacDonald is politically 
powerless.  Elliott Abrams is substantially running  American Mideast policy 
from the NSC.

tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sean
 So if I connect the dots in your equation below, it boils down to a
 claim that this most dangerous movement (and I don't dispute its
 dangerousness, although perhaps its mostness) is driven by Jewish
 ethnic nationalism and passionate Israeli patriotism.
 
 A) not true, not by a longshot. That's way too simplistic; and B) its
 identical to both Macdonald's pseudo-arguments and as well, Im afraid
 to say, those in Mein  Kampf relative to the Jewish/Bolshevik
 conspiracy for world domination.
 
 Hitler espoused pleanty of fine sounding anti-capitalist arguments; so
 should I, as a committed leftist, have supported him back then over
 the centrist 

Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
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

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
Ah -- you are making little sense.  Clearly this is a highly emotional topic 
for you, and I honestly think that you are incapable of thinking about it 
objectively and clearly.

Commentary is not just any old Jewish magazine, it's the fountainhead of 
neoconservatism and a haven for Jewish extremists and militant Jewish ethnic 
nationalists.  Neocons are militant Jewish nationalists in precisely the same 
way that David Duke is a militant white nationalist.  The only difference is 
that the neocons are much more powerful than white nationalists like Duke, and 
have inflicted much more damage on American interests than Duke and his 
associates could ever imagine.  Commentary is well out of touch with mainstream 
American Jewish opinion (for instance, a large majority of Jews opposed the 
Iraq War).

In terms of their policy objectives, the neocons are arguably more insane than 
even the worst Nazis from the 1930s and 1940s.  They are in bed with Christian 
Armageddonists like John Hagee, who actively wish to see the destruction of the 
world as soon as possible, and I have often heard neocons cavalierly suggest 
nuking Arab and Muslim nations back to the stone age (an act of genocide that 
could involve not six million but tens or hundreds of millions of victims).  
Some neocons are fond of threatening to destroy the entire planet with nuclear 
and biological weapons if Israel is betrayed by the West (the policy is 
called the Samson Option).

Do you really want to manufacture lame apologetics for a political movement 
that is this over the edge?  By comparison, Patrick Buchanan is the soul of 
sanity (and I strongly disagree with Buchanan's nativism).

You know, I wonder if it bothers you to call Jewish ethnic nationalists like 
Benjamin Netanyahu, Natan Sharansky, Avigdor Lieberman and Benny Elon by their 
right name -- Jewish ethnic nationalists.  That is what they are.  Either one 
is for ethnic nationalism across the board, or one is opposed to it.  Picking 
and choosing is an exercise in conspicuous hypocrisy, particularly when one is 
motivated by narrow self-interest.

tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Sean, 
Commentary has for decades been openly identified as a journal with a focus on 
Jewish interests, from a conservative and now neo-con perspective. Your calling 
the obsessed is quite offensive. It's like calling People mag obsessed with 
celebrities. It's not an obsession if its commonly understood to be  WHAT YOU 
DO. 

Your comparisons to David Duke are equally offensive (as I find abhorrent most 
neocon ideology). Duke is A fucking KLANSMAN, for Gods sake. I mean come on.


Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Do you actually know anything about the 
intellectual history of neoconservatism, or are you just making this stuff up 
as you go along?  Which neocon sources do you monitor regularly?

Have you read the last few decades of Commentary, which is the lead journal of 
neoconservatism?  I have.  Neoconservatism is predominantly, overwhelmingly, 
not just a Jewish ethnic nationalist movement, but a militantly Jewish ethnic 
nationalist movement -- the Jewish equivalent of David Duke.  Neocons are 
obsessed with the interests and enemies of Israel (and the Jews -- a term 
which they use frequently, it flows trippingly off their tongues), and view all 
of history as an interminable holy war between the Jews and everyone else in 
the world -- their list of ethnic enemies is endless, and includes many 
mainstream American political leaders and personalities, like Jimmy Carter, 
George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.

How obsessed are neocons with the   Jews?  You be the judge.  Here are some 
verbatim titles of Commentary articles:

1. American Jews  Their Judaism (1994)
2. American Jews: Community in Crisis (1975)
3. Anti-Semitism in America (1994)
4. Black Anti-Semitism  How It Grows (1994)
5. Blaming Israel (1984)
6. Christianity and the Jewish People (1975)
7. Civil Religion in Israel (1984)
8. Cynthia Ozick, Jewish Writer (1984)
9. Do the Jews Have a Future? (1994)
10. Europe's Good Jews (2005)
11. Family Values  the Jews (1994)
12. German Culture and the Jews (1984)
13. Ideas of Jewish History (2005)
14. In the Land of Israel (1984)
15. Islam vs. Israel (1984)
16. Israel Against Itself (1994)
17. Israel and the United States: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons? (1975)
18. Israel in the Mind of America (1984)
19. Israel's Rights and Arab Propaganda (1975)
20. Israel: Guilt  Politics (1994)
21. Jewish Cooking in America   (1994)
22. Jewish interests (2005)
23. Jewish Life in Philadelphia 1840-1940 (1984)
24. Jewish Security  Jewish Interests (2004)
25. Jews and American Politics (1975)
26. Jews and the Jewish Birthrate (2005)
27. Manners  the Jewish Intellectual (1975)
28. Marxism vs. the Jews (1984)
29. On Joining the Jews (2004)
30. On Modern Jewish Politics (1994)
31. Pictures of the Jewish Past (1975)
32. The Decline and 

Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
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

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
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

2007-06-29 Thread Michael Pugliese
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic
militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics...

   So negligible that the GOP for decades has had Ethnic Outreach
Committees full of the most Fascist, anti-Communist sectors aligned
with WACL. Drawn upon in the Reagan era to support the Contras vs. the
FSLN in Nicaragua. (Kill a commie health care clinic worker in a rural
town in Nicaragua for Christ!)
Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party
 by Russ Bellant,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWAHmLuZeIoCdq=OLD+NAZIS,+THE+NEW+RIGHT,+AND+THE+REPUBLICAN+PARTYpg=PP1ots=rdv2Iz_Passig=vyRwlepqiDcnn0Btf2uV2FiAy10prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DOLD%2BNAZIS%252C%2BTHE%2BNEW%2BRIGHT%252C%2BAND%2BTHE%2BREPUBLICAN%2BPARTY%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-asa=Xoi=printct=title
  On WACL, http://www.namebase.org/sources/HB.html
 The World Anti-Communist League (WACL) was founded in 1966 as a
public relations arm for Taiwan and South Korea. WACL didn't attract
much notice in the U.S. until John Singlaub's United States Council
for World Freedom, the American branch of WACL, was launched in 1981
with a loan from Taiwan and soon began raising money for the contras.

Singlaub and his supporters also operated through a network of similar
groups: Western Goals, Council for the Defense of Freedom, American
Security Council, Council for Inter-American Security, and the
Conservative Caucus. But WACL is particularly known for its
international conferences that attract American congressmen and
senators, archbishops, members of Parliament, bank presidents, and
scientists. There, they have been in the company of Nazi
collaborators, Japanese war criminals, Latin death squad leaders,
disciples of Moon's Unification Church, and fugitive Italian
terrorists.

There's even a CIA connection. Ray Cline, station chief in Taiwan from
1958-1962 and later deputy director for intelligence, attended
conferences in 1980, 1983, and 1984. The authors believe that covert
U.S. funding played a role in the establishment of WACL, and note that
Cline was in a position to be helpful when preparatory meetings were
held in 1958.
ISBN 0-396-08517-2




-- 
Michael Pugliese


Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Michael Pugliese
 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

2007-06-29 Thread Michael Pugliese
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic
militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics...

http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_jmr_fmasid=1Itemid=91
 Mapping the New Nativism is a comprehensive study of the location of
state and local anti-immigrant groups in the United States in 2006
conducted by the research staff of the Center for New Community's
Building Democracy Initiative.

-- 
Michael Pugliese


Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
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

2007-06-29 Thread Michael Pugliese
On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm curious: with which ethnic group do you most strongly identify?  Which 
 ethnic tradition has most influenced you?

   I'm Italian-American. But, I don't identify that way. My
Italian-American relatives in Pittsburgh were all racists who
supported George Wallace in '68 and '72, pro-Vietnam war. A major part
of the reason I was radicalized in the 70's was a reaction against the
bigotry and ethnic chauvinism of my Italian-American relatives. (In
arguments with my Mom over civil rights and the war they called her,
nigger lover, and, Viet Cong.

 And do you support illegal immigration?  Legal immigration is a fine American 
 tradition.  Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing it is a disaster.  
 Any administration which has no control over 12 million illegal immigrants 
 clearly has no real intention of preventing domestic terrorism.  (I am not 
 arguing that illegal immigrants are terrorists; I am arguing that a society 
 which is unable to prevent being inundated by illegal immigrants certainly 
 lacks the ability to prevent terrorists from slipping over the border.)

Capital, (and as a libertarian, I haven't seen you say anything
contrary to what my Marxist teachers in college called, the logic of
capital,  as we struggled through Marx, Capital, Volume One, his
Grundrisse and zillions of texts by academic neo-marxists) has since
1493 been international. Labor should be as well. Ruling classes
always draw arbitrary national boundaries. Ask an Iraqi about the
boundaries Britain drew in 1920.
   Slipping over the border? Heh, you are sounding like LGF here,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26067onlyrss



 With regard to white ethnic nationalists at high levels of the current 
 American government: can you name them?  Who are the equivalents of the 
 Israeli-obsessed neocons?  Is there a white nationalist version of Elliott 
 Abrams in the Bush 43 administration?

   The day after a SCOTUS decision overturning Brown vs. Board of
Education, you deny there are Racists in the upper ranks and
throughout the ranks of the bureaucracy of the USG who support the
aims of the white nationalists? You must have ignored the exposes of
Trent Lott and other Republican politicians who spoke to the CCC, the
successor to the White Citizen's Councils of the South.


 Michael Pugliese  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic
   militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics...

  If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central
  America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream ,
  American,  values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman
  racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the
  Senate, you wouldn't say  that.
 Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca.
  in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists.

  --
  Michael Pugliese

  



-- 
Michael Pugliese


Re: [political-research] Re: Unanswered Questions on Ethnic Nationalism

2007-06-29 Thread Sean McBride
Well, I am not Italian, but I am a bit of an Italian chauvinist.  I've spent 
some time in Italy, and greatly admire the genius of Italian culture in almost 
all its forms (maybe there are a few problems with the Corleone/Soprano 
faction).  And what I especially love about the Italians I've met is that they 
take quiet pride in their accomplishments as a culture without being too 
strident about it.  I've never had an Italian attack me over Italian politics; 
Americans (from former presidents on down) suffer vicious attacks from 
pro-Israel zealots over Israeli politics on a regular basis.  I know, there is 
a downside also in Italian-American culture in terms of certain reactionary 
tendencies, but that's true of most other *-American ethnic groups as well.

Good point about Trent Lott being a white ethnic nationalist (and just a plain 
white racist, apparently).  There are others like him scattered in the 
government.  But they don't strike me as having their act together, not in the 
way demonstrated by the neocons in herding the Bush 43 administration into the 
Iraq War.  White nationalism has been largely delegitimized and marginalized on 
the public stage in America.  Jewish ethnic nationalism continues to be treated 
as a sacred cow, as an activity that is beyond scrutiny or criticism from mere 
mortals.  After all (according to Christian Zionists), Zionism is an act of 
God.  Engage in critical dialogue with it, and God (or Mossad) will strike you 
dead.  Bow down before the neocons or else.

That's way more than enough typing for today.  I'll have to continue this later.

Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  On 
6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I'm curious: with which ethnic group do you most strongly identify?  
  Which ethnic tradition has most influenced you?
 
 I'm Italian-American. But, I don't identify that way. My
 Italian-American relatives in Pittsburgh were all racists who
 supported George Wallace in '68 and '72, pro-Vietnam war. A major part
 of the reason I was radicalized in the 70's was a reaction against the
 bigotry and ethnic chauvinism of my Italian-American relatives. (In
 arguments with my Mom over civil rights and the war they called her,
 nigger lover, and, Viet Cong.
 
  And do you support illegal immigration?  Legal immigration is a fine 
  American tradition.  Illegal immigration on the scale we are seeing it is a 
  disaster.  Any administration which has no control over 12 million illegal 
  immigrants clearly has no real intention of preventing domestic terrorism.  
  (I am not arguing that illegal immigrants are terrorists; I am arguing that 
  a society which is unable to prevent being inundated by illegal immigrants 
  certainly lacks the ability to prevent terrorists from slipping over the 
  border.)
 
 Capital, (and as a libertarian, I haven't seen you say anything
 contrary to what my Marxist teachers in college called, the logic of
 capital,  as we struggled through Marx, Capital, Volume One, his
 Grundrisse and zillions of texts by academic neo-marxists) has since
 1493 been international. Labor should be as well. Ruling classes
 always draw arbitrary national boundaries. Ask an Iraqi about the
 boundaries Britain drew in 1920.
Slipping over the border? Heh, you are sounding like LGF here,
 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26067onlyrss
 
 
  With regard to white ethnic nationalists at high levels of the current 
  American government: can you name them?  Who are the equivalents of the 
  Israeli-obsessed neocons?  Is there a white nationalist version of Elliott 
  Abrams in the Bush 43 administration?
 
 The day after a SCOTUS decision overturning Brown vs. Board of
 Education, you deny there are Racists in the upper ranks and
 throughout the ranks of the bureaucracy of the USG who support the
 aims of the white nationalists? You must have ignored the exposes of
 Trent Lott and other Republican politicians who spoke to the CCC, the
 successor to the White Citizen's Councils of the South.
 
 
  Michael Pugliese  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
   On 6/29/07, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:White ethnic
militants are a negligible factor in contemporary American politics...
 
   If you lived in a neighborhood w/ immigrants from Central
   America, like I have, hard working and loyal to the mainstream ,
   American,  values of family and faith, but, hounded by The Minuteman
   racists and a GOP that just defeated the Immigration bill in the
   Senate, you wouldn't say  that.
  Or if you lived in a Black neighborhood, like I did in Oakland, Ca.
   in the 90's, you wouldn't be so blase about white nationalist racists.
 
   --
   Michael Pugliese
 
   
 
 -- 
 Michael Pugliese