|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Well, I think a lot of American conservatives would reject MacDondald's situating of Jewish influence within a sociobiological framework.
I'm also taken to understand that many evolutionary scientists reject his agument, not on grounds of poltical correctness, but because he misstates the way evolution works. MacDonald assumes that the individuals work to futher the interests of the group(eg. a particular Jewish guy supports Marxism because he thinks it will benefit Jews as a whole). Whereas classical evolutionary theory states that each individual organism fights for his own personal survival, with the benefits to the group being realized only inadvertantly, as a result of the less adapted organisms not being able to survive.
Not that I am in any way a believer in sociobiology, but that's the framework within which MacDonald operates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, I think a lot of American conservatives would reject MacDondald's situating of Jewish influence within a sociobiological framework. |
Yes, many would. That the neo-cons are a Jewish movement is perfectly, undeniably clear. And conservatives that aren't neo-cons know it. They might not agree with the idea of a group evolutionary strategy. They don't have to.
| Quote: |
| Not that I am in any way a believer in sociobiology, but that's the framework within which MacDonald operates. |
You don't believe in sociobiology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You don't believe in sociobiology? |
No, not when we're talking about things like political affiliation and cultural identification and whatnot. That stuff is definitely nurture over nature, in my view.
| Quote: |
They might not agree with the idea of a group evolutionary strategy. They don't have to.
|
Yeah, but the "evolutionary strategy" idea is the sine qua non of sociobiology. If a conservative attributes neo-conservativism to something other than evolutionary strategy, then he's not talking about sociobiology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What do the conservatives think of Neo-Cons? |
There is an honest answer and a politically correct answer. Which do you want. |
Honest, I think I already know the other one. |
This is what American conservatives think of neo-cons:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm
I am not an American conservative, so don't shout at me after reading (all) of that. I'm a Canadian conservative/libertarian/classical liberal (depending on the issue, election cycle and moon phase) which is different. |
Interesting. I'm a bit dubious after seeing the title, but not entirely. I'll read this latter when I have more time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yeah, but the "evolutionary strategy" idea is the sine qua non of sociobiology. |
You're trying to change the subject. What do conservatives think of neo-cons? They think the neo-cons are ethno-centric Jews who are using the United States as a tool with which to advance the interests of their real, one true love: Israel. They think that once the US is exhausted the neo-cons will move on to another nation:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/730443.html
| Quote: |
Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others.
The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People had organized this gathering. It had a somewhat ambitious aim - a strategic debate about the future of the Jewish people. In actuality, it focused on three issues: the challenge posed by Islam, the situation in Israel, and the weighty question of whether the Jewish people are on the rise or on the wane.
...
The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned. |
India vs. Syria in 2030. A war for Indian Values.
No group strategy there. We white Canadians are having similar meetings about our own people. Did you get the invite OTOH? It was in all our newspapers.
| Quote: |
| If a conservative attributes neo-conservativism to something other than evolutionary strategy, then he's not talking about sociobiology. |
You don't have to believe in sociobology to see that the neo-cons use harsh punishments, in-group/out-group rewards, moralizing rhetoric etc to get the American people to support their state. K.Macdonald has an explanation for why they do what they do, and maybe he's right. Public discourse in America is Jews talking to each other. They are the elite. The strategy, even if it doesn't exist, works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Interesting. I'm a bit dubious after seeing the title, but not entirely. |
I think it's defensible to say that neo-conservativism represents the interests of Jewish people, at least insofar as those interests are defined, by Zionists, as being synonymous with Zionism. I just wouldn't situate it in terms of biological determinism.
The Miami Cubans are another group who act cohesively to attain their enthno-political interests, and, like the Israel lobby, have managed to convince a large faction of the American government that those identical to their interests are identical to those of the US. Though the Cubans' sphere of influence is a little less wide than that of the Israel lobby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israelis-suspicious-of-me-because-my-middle-name-is-hussein-1.300793
| Quote: |
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said. |
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/the_power_of_penny_pritzker_bl.html
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/king-for-a-day-1.300687
......
The neo-cons won. Both D and R are theirs, right now. When someone like Michael Steel falls under the knife, he should be defended as ardently as possible.
The United States and the rest of the western world can not be at war with the whole of the muslim world for ever. Nobody will survive that.
...........
| Quote: |
| Jewish people, at least insofar as those interests are defined, by Zionists, as being synonymous with Zionism. |
Exactly. The average Jewish American or Canadian etc guy is just an individual and must be treated as such. They are just normal people and I'm not 1% demonizing them. In my posts I am speaking entirely, solely, only about a portion of the total. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises, you always have the best links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Interesting. I'm a bit dubious after seeing the title, but not entirely. |
I think it's defensible to say that neo-conservativism represents the interests of Jewish people, at least insofar as those interests are defined, by Zionists, as being synonymous with Zionism. I just wouldn't situate it in terms of biological determinism.
The Miami Cubans are another group who act cohesively to attain their enthno-political interests, and, like the Israel lobby, have managed to convince a large faction of the American government that those identical to their interests are identical to those of the US. Though the Cubans' sphere of influence is a little less wide than that of the Israel lobby. |
The Israeli lobby is powerful because they have a very receptive audience. I resent the implication that the United States is captured by a bunch of crazies (except if you mean to say its captured by the current members of the House and Senate).
Beinart has explained this. There's an older generation who see Israel as under siege. They remember Israel from the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. They remember Israel from before the Palestinians were considered Palestinians. They have trouble seeing the new Israel outside of that light. They are the generation dominant in the House and Senate. These two are the bodies that voted 70% in favor of supporting the actions of the flotilla.
The younger American public doesn't remember the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. They do remember Arafat and Rabin shaking hands as equals. They do see the Palestinians as a distinct people from Israelis or Jordanians or Egyptians or whatever. They see what is happening now. Only 36% of the American public supports Israel's actions against the flotilla. How many 40 years and younger make up the US public? A little more than half. How many 40 years and older make up the US Congress, far more than 2/3ds, I'm sure.
As Stratfor has said, the Israeli lobby WANTS us to believe they are mega-powerful, for the same reason Coca-Cola wants us to believe its products are tasty. But its unclear whether without the Israeli lobby, Congress would be markedly less receptive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I think they guy merely has a feeling about something or other and doesn't understand the intellectual context that gave us the modern GOP. I think he thought "war isn't going well" and let it slip.
This is how the neo-cons won. They destroy the career of anyone who gets in their way. See Glenn Greenwald's recent columns. They are ruthless. MS must not be forced out. They must not be given yet another victory. |
I think your ideas in general on the topic are relatively correct, but are misapplied to Michael Steele. This isn't a guy who is really against the Afghanistan War and just let that slip out. This is a guy who will take any chance he can find to take a dig at Obama, got a little too aggressive, and yet again said something stupid that embarrassed his party.
Do you think Michael Steele would have said the same thing if a Republican President were sitting? Of course not; it's not a slip based on his true thoughts, it's a (very poorly) calculated dig on Obama. The war isn't going well, but that doesn't mean anything in-and-of itself to guys like Mike Steele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Israeli lobby is powerful because they have a very receptive audience. |
The Israeli lobby is powerful because it provides in excess of 50% of all political contributions in the United States. It also dominates all major newspapers and media organizations. Pro-Israeli columnists dominate every single major paper in the United States. The New York Times's Jerusalem correspondent, for example, is father to a son who just joined the IDF. Judith Miller, also at the NYT, is associated with Daniel Pipes MEI, and was a lead player is convincing Americans to go to war with Iraq. Shall I go on? How about Tom L. Friedman? David Brooks? This is just a sample from the most important paper in the US (and perhaps on earth). Wolf fracking Blitzer was a (is a?) member of AIPAC. Jeff Goldberg? Oppenhiemer? Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, Charles Krauthammer, Frum, Goldberg, Kristol.
Further, when someone touches the lobby all hell breaks loose. See:
http://www.adl.org/israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp
| Quote: |
| Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Jewish Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise |
The ADL! How about others?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy#Criticism
Who in their right mind will take them on?
It is more than a receptive audience.
| Quote: |
| As Stratfor has said |
Stratfor? GF is a Zionist. Do you think he'd say "yeah, they sorta pull the shots" and see his corporate funding disappear?
....
Now, I don't care about Israel beyond the war issue. I completely respect that Jews want and deserve a homeland. This is not about them. This is about an elite. I am going to stay that a thousand times. I am not picking on Jewish people in as much as I am opposed to a war mongering elite. Nor are they the only war mongering elite. It is what it is.
....
| Fox wrote: |
Do you think Michael Steele would have said the same thing if a Republican President were sitting? Of course not; it's not a slip based on his true thoughts, it's a (very poorly) calculated dig on Obama. The war isn't going well, but that doesn't mean anything in-and-of itself to guys like Mike Steele. |
Yeah, I agree. I am not defending MS in as much as I am defending the idea of MS doing something I think needs to be done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Israeli lobby is powerful because they have a very receptive audience. |
The Israeli lobby is powerful because it provides in excess of 50% of all political contributions in the United States. It also dominates all major newspapers and media organizations. Pro-Israeli columnists dominate every single major paper in the United States. The New York Times's Jerusalem correspondent, for example, is father to a son who just joined the IDF. Judith Miller, also at the NYT, is associated with Daniel Pipes MEI, and was a lead player is convincing Americans to go to war with Iraq. Shall I go on? How about Tom L. Friedman? David Brooks? This is just a sample from the most important paper in the US (and perhaps on earth). Wolf fracking Blitzer was a (is a?) member of AIPAC. Jeff Goldberg? Oppenhiemer? Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, Charles Krauthammer, Frum, Goldberg, Kristol. |
Right, there are a lot of pro-Israeli literati in the age cohort that also predominantly represents the country. There is a generational divide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the ADL's website...
| Quote: |
| On Israel�s founding, they cite as truth several of the most extreme anti-Israel perspectives. They write of Israel�s �crimes against the Palestinians� in the creation of the state. |
The hilarious thing about this is that, within Israel itself, respsected figures quite openly discuss Israeli crimes.
From an interview with Benny Morris in Haaretz, the leading daily paper in Israel...
| Quote: |
AS: According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?
BM: About a dozen. In Acre, four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg.
|
| Quote: |
AS: According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
BM: Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field -- they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village -- she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and, perhaps, Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
|
And yet the ADL condemns Walt and Mearsheimer for giving American audiences what can only be called an extremely toned-down version of what Haaretz gives Israelis!
link
Last edited by On the other hand on Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Israeli lobby is powerful because they have a very receptive audience. |
The Israeli lobby is powerful because it provides in excess of 50% of all political contributions in the United States. It also dominates all major newspapers and media organizations. Pro-Israeli columnists dominate every single major paper in the United States. The New York Times's Jerusalem correspondent, for example, is father to a son who just joined the IDF. Judith Miller, also at the NYT, is associated with Daniel Pipes MEI, and was a lead player is convincing Americans to go to war with Iraq. Shall I go on? How about Tom L. Friedman? David Brooks? This is just a sample from the most important paper in the US (and perhaps on earth). Wolf fracking Blitzer was a (is a?) member of AIPAC. Jeff Goldberg? Oppenhiemer? Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, Charles Krauthammer, Frum, Goldberg, Kristol. |
Right, there are a lot of pro-Israeli literati in the age cohort that also predominantly represents the country. There is a generational divide. |
That's the end of the conversation then. I hope you're right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
