[Mike Parker]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

What do you think is the real reason, Mike?

Not sure Alex, but I was thinking more about why pro-Jew Brimelow would promote anti-Jew MacDonald, and went back to MacDonald here:

I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US.

Compare Jew Steve Sailer:

Our country would be better off with a "Cuban Compromise"—giving Jewish interests roughly the same privileges as Cubans currently enjoy, but no more:

1.The U.S. would agree to follow Israel's lead on the Palestinian problem (but not, of course, to attack Israel's various enemies for it).

2.Jews fleeing genuine persecution would be guaranteed refugee status in the U.S.

3.In return, Jewish activists would be open to analysis and criticism by non-Jews.

And Jew Lawrence Auster:

Meso-Conservatives?

A correspondent writes:
"You are what I call a meso-conservative, a paleo on domestic policy (esp. immigration) and a neo on foreign policy. How do like the compromise?"

Here is my reply:
A Meso-Con! That's interesting, as I do see myself as between the neocons and the paleocons, rejecting the ideological universalism of the former and the ideological particularism of the latter.

However, I don't completely agree with your description of me. I have consistently supported the neocon position on war with Iraq. I have also consistently criticized the neocons' overall "democratist" agenda in foreign policy, particularly their ridiculously simple-minded assumption that, because everyone wants to avoid being oppressed and wants good things for their children, therefore everyone in the world is the same, and ready for American-style democracy. The assumption of essential sameness among human beings, based on what is really a very partial and superficial sameness, is what drives both the neocons's open-borders policy and their "democratize the world" policy.

This does not mean I am necessarily against a broader campaign to change the Muslim countries. That part of the world currently represents a very dire threat to us and the whole world. Closing them out of the U.S. through immigration restrictions (and deportations) is essential in my view, but that wouldn't end the threat. Therefore I do not dismiss arguments such as Michael Ledeen's (even though I oppose his underlying ideology of "creative destruction" and "democratic revolution") that the only way to end the terrorist jihadist menace is to topple the regimes that support it. This doesn't have to mean war in each case, but effective political action to isolate and delegitimize those regimes while giving support to opposition groups. This is not because I want us to be involved there,--I regret and hate the whole business--but because there is an objective threat in the real world that we cannot ignore.

Comment:

Reappropriate being "clash" positive and support for an active military role as a legitimate "conservative" position even as we demand "immigration reform" (a total moratorium)and denounce "world government" "equality of outcome" "denial of exitence of race", oppose abortion, judicial tyranny, defend Christianity, oppose homosexuality, support the second amendment etc.

Auster replies:

Excellent statement by Fire. I agree with everything he has said. In his comments we can see the outlines of a renewed, patriotic right that will stand strongly both for the defense of our national security and national interests around the world (we can't help having such interests, we are too big not to have them) and for the defense of our nation at home.

And Jared:

For example, Taylor said, without Jewish support it will be nearly impossible to restrict immigration.

So they all strike a grand bargain, and as I gathered from Tinkerbell, the polite anti-Semites have their bridge back into reinvigorated respectable conservatism? Of course the politics will never work, but Stanford MBA Brimelow may get some nervous Jew money out of it. Talk about elites: he's the smartest of this bunch.