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 doneand 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 ethnostatea 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 alternativethat all humans renounce their ethnic group loyaltiesseems utopian to say the least. > And given that some ethnic groupsespecially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilizationwill undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their surrender and defeatthe 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 foolishnessan historical mistake of catastrophic proportions. >
