Sean McBride wrote:

  By the way, I doubt that an explosion of European ethnic nationalism is
an effective way to deal with the problems that Haim Saban and Avigdor
Lieberman pose for Europe and the United States. It's difficult to see
much of a future for ethnic nationalism as an organizing principle for
human societies. Messianic ethnic nationalist movements have a strong
tendency to polarize the entire world against themselves and to
self-destruct at this stage of human civilization.

Apparently MacDonald wants to answer Lieberman's militant Jewish
ethnocentrism with an even more militant European ethnocentrism.

As MacDonald argues, if you look at the whole history of Jewish
separatism, it's very hard to believe that they are going to give up and
assimilate, or even moderate their ambitions at this point.  It looks
like it will either be continued and increasing Jewish domination, or
else the Samson option - pretty grim options for our futures either way!
As Prof. MacDonald said elsewhere:

History also suggests that anti-Jewish reactions develop as Jews
increase their control over other peoples.  As  always, it will be
fascinating to observe the dénouement.

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html
<http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html>

Sean McBride wrote:

Perhaps the more effective policy is to give extremists like Lieberman
enough scope to destroy themselves.  Sometimes I wonder if this has been
covert American strategy at the highest levels since at least the 1950s.
Such a strategy would explain many things that are otherwise
unexplainable.

I doubt that this was ever a coherent strategy.  Probably it was more of
a comforting thought as we caved in on issue after issue after issue.  I
don't think that MacDonald's proposal of an elite-supported resurgence
of a generalized form of Western European ethnic nationalism is any
worse than an uncontrollable explosion of grass-roots antisemitism,
which would no doubt be brutally opposed by a corrupt Euro-American
elite allied with Zionism.


>
> Are you aware that billionaire Haim Saban just hosted a meeting at the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy which included Avigdor Lieberman,
who is notorious for his racist views? He is Israel's David Duke --
actually, his racism exceeds that of David Duke.
>
> Saban was able to induce some of the most powerful members of the
American government, American power elite and Democratic Party to attend
the meeting with Lieberman.
>
> For the full details, see:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=haim+saban+avigdor+lieberman
>
> So apparently the current value system, as promoted by billionaire
oligarchs like Haim Saban who dominate the "liberal" Democratic Party,
asserts that Jewish racism is good and worthy of unlimited sacrifice and
support by Americans, but that all other forms of militant ethnocentrism
are evil, criminal and should be exterminated.
>
> Why are so many leading members of the Democratic Party going along
with this bizarre ideology? Probably an instinct for self-preservation.
Either go along or else.
>
> The Saban/Lieberman alliance should be a huge story in the American
mainstream media, but for the most part they are censoring it. It is
impossible to discuss this state of affairs in an honest way without
doing enormous damage to Israel and the Israel lobby. The American
mainstream media are an arm of the Israel lobby. Hence the silence.
>
> How much longer will the world go along with this double standard? Not
much longer, I would bet.
>
> By the way, I doubt that an explosion of European ethnic nationalism
is an effective way to deal with the problems that Haim Saban and
Avigdor Lieberman pose for Europe and the United States. It's difficult
to see much of a future for ethnic nationalism as an organizing
principle for human societies. Messianic ethnic nationalist movements
have a strong tendency to polarize the entire world against themselves
and to self-destruct at this stage of human civilization.
>
> Apparently MacDonald wants to answer Lieberman's militant Jewish
ethnocentrism with an even more militant European ethnocentrism. Perhaps
the more effective policy is to give extremists like Lieberman enough
scope to destroy themselves. Sometimes I wonder if this has been covert
American strategy at the highest levels since at least the 1950s. Such a
strategy would explain many things that are otherwise unexplainable.
>
> No person in his right mind wants to be highly conspicuous in American
politics on matters of ethnic self-obsession and ethnic militancy. Do
you really envy the neocons? Would you want to dig yourself into the
hole they are digging themselves into? Are David Horowitz and Alan
Dershowitz on a winning trajectory? Ethnic messianists typically lose
all touch with the real world.
>
> The ideals of the university, which emphasize meritocracy over ethnic
affiliation, provide a better model for the future of humankind than
squabbling ethnic nationalisms. I savor ethnic diversity -- it is
stimulating and creative. What I truly detest, however, is being
harassed and bullied by zealots and gangsters from this or that ethnic
group -- and in that I am hardly alone.
>
>
> tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MacDonald is grappling with the real issues, which are very difficult
and painful ones indeed.
> http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WestSurvive.htm
> Excerpts:
> Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?
> Kevin MacDonald ===============================================
> I just recently learned that the neocon patriarch Leo Strauss was a
follower of Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was deeply ethnocentric, believing
that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that
the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural
genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: "These
natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible
to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in
soil and climate."7 What is striking is that virtually the entire
organized Jewish community in the United States is allied to the Likud
party and the settler movement in Israel, whose leaders openly idolize
Jabotinsky.
> As a European in a society that is rapidly becoming non-European, I
can sympathize with Jabotinsky's envy of the native Slavic peoples he
observed in the early twentieth century. He wrote:
> I look at them with envy. I have never known, and probably never will
know, this completely organic feeling: so united and singular [is this]
sense of a homeland, in which everything flows together, the past and
the present, the legend and the hopes, the individual and the
historical.8 Every nation, civilized or primitive, sees its land as its
national home, where it wants to stay as the sole landlord forever. Such
a nation will never willingly consent to new landlords or even to
partnership.9
> ===============================================
> Indeed, hatred toward all things European is normative among a great
many strongly identified Jews.11 I recently came across the following
statement by Dov Fischer, vice-president of the Zionist Organization of
America, in the Forward, a very prestigious Jewish publication, in 2002:
> Although we appreciate a half-century of West European democracy more
than we appreciated the prior millennia of European brutality, we
recognize who they are, what they have done—and what's what. We
know, if they don't, that they need Arab oil more than they need Jewish
philosophy and creativity. We remember that the food they eat is grown
from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish blood they have sprinkled
onto it. Atavistic Jew-hatred lingers in the air into which the ashes
rose from the crematoria.12
> ===============================================
> An excellent example of an ethnically conscious wealthy Jew is Haim
Saban, who was recently profiled in the New York Times. Mr. Saban
controls the largest media company in Germany. Saban has stirred
controversy in Britain, where he publicly expressed interest in buying
ITV, the country's biggest commercial network, while accusing its
competitors, including BBC News, of pro-Arab coverage. He views his
acquisition of a dominant position in German media as benefiting Israel
in the long run. Obviously he thinks of media ownership as not simply a
way of making money, but of influencing content by promoting Jewish
causes. The Times describes him as "perhaps the most politically
connected mogul in Hollywood"—and that's saying a lot. He is
described as "throwing his weight and money around Washington and,
increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli. `I'm a
one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.'" To that end, he has become one
of the largest individual donors
> to the Democratic Party and its candidates in the country, giving
millions over the past decade—$7 million in just one donation to the
Democratic National Committee in 2002. He hobnobs with John Kerry and he
vacations with Bill Clinton. It is certainly striking that Bill Clinton
is on record as expressing very positive attitudes about massive
immigration and the impending minority status of his own people, while
maintaining a close relationship with a wealthy Jewish ethnic activist
intent on advancing the interests of Jews. One could say virtually the
same thing about the entire political class in America. This is, I
think, a parable of our times.
> ===============================================
> The point is that Jewish elites have been hugely influential in
advancing the interests of their people. This is surely a goal to
emulate.
> The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an
ethnostate—a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the
ethnic interests of its citizens. From an ethnic point of view, a major
problem with massive immigration is that there is likely to be an
increase in ethnic competition. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic
mobilization because they inevitably become a cauldron of competing
ethnic interests.
> In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups
are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence
and the ability to develop and control economic resources. They differ
in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are
mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they
behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and
the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. And they
differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in
time and in their political power.
> Given these differences, it's difficult at best to ensure peaceful
relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in
territory and resource control is very difficult, as can be seen by the
ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the
1924 immigration law.18 And accepting a status quo would not be in the
interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers; nor is it
likely to be acceptable to groups with relatively low numbers and
control of resources; nor would a status quo be likely to be acceptable
to groups prone to high fertility. Yet the alternative—that all
humans renounce their ethnic group loyalties—seems utopian to say
the least.
> And given that some ethnic groups—especially ones with high levels
of ethnocentrism and mobilization—will undoubtedly continue to
function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral
renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their
surrender and defeat—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The
future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition
in which ethnicity plays a very large role.
> The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to
place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their
destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep
historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans' promotion of
their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical
mistake of catastrophic proportions.
>


Reply via email to