Comments on: Denounced by Colleagues, Anti-Semitic Prof Threatens to Sue

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:27:21 +0000

Zionism = Racism
Israel = Racism

Israeli Zionism = German Nazism = American KKK
*All 3 are racist political ideologies that seek to create a pure race state.

95% of Semites are Arab. Semitic is a language, NOT a race or religion.

I am pro-semite but anti-zionist. Only Zionist Bigots seek to seperate the Semitic People.

I am against a racist 2 state solution the Zionist bigots want and I support a 1 state solution.

By: IludiumPhosdex

IludiumPhosdex — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:50:50 +0000

No wonder the weird and unwholesome is looking for all manner of “whipping boys” they can blame for “seeking a disproportionate share of power and control” @ the expense of, in Bill “No-Spin Zone” O’Reilly’s immortal words, “the White Male Christian Power Structure” somehow “entitled as of right” to a Guaranteed Monopoly on American religiopolitical power and authority.

The likely justification therefor?

None other than that phrase in Dred Scott v. Sanford, vintage 1857, which held that blacks

are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

The which these hard-wired Zealots and True Believers want extended by implication to other classes of “inferior peoples,” among them:

welfare “basket cases;”

women;

other “inferior races” (as in Hispanics, Muslims and Asiatics);

Jews and other followers of “noncomformist” faiths; and

“sexual degenerates” (homosexuals in particular).

The rationale therefor? Again, per Dred Scott:

[The Constitution] must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.

By: Slavyanski

Slavyanski — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:33:26 +0000

MacDonald’s claims are based in some cases, on false historical sources, such as the phony biography of Lazar Kaganovich. More importantly, we are often presented with examples of this or that movement having Jewish “overrepresenation” as the only evidence that this somehow has to do with some genetic predisposition. For example, Latvians were the most overrepresented group in the early Soviet Central Committee, yet MacDonald doesn’t seem concerned about this. Russians were overrepresented as well, having over 65% of the positions despite being in the high 40s in terms of the population of the Russian Empire. Again MacDonald doesn’t care. THOSE groups of Communists were apparently true believers in the ideology.

But he wants us to focus on the Jews, and assume that somehow their being involved had something to do with advancing Jewish interests. Never mind the fact that the faction with the smallest amount of Jews in 1917 was the Bolsheviks, and there was the Jewish Bund, which was the first to condemn the Bolshevik seizure of power.

By: unlucky13

unlucky13 — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:39:40 +0000

Denouncing targets who then deounce denouncers in turn is child’s play nonsense.Should listen to man and raise all reasonable objections to his notions of circumstance of Jews.Then after reasoned debate listeners(masses)should form own informs opinion about deliberations.That is what adults would do-but small minded children rush in to drown out all voices of reason-thus handing political victory to opposition.McDonald’s ideas can be easily dismised as meaningless nonsense in my opinion-but it requires no denounciation but sharing of point that just as well is Jews are seen to genetically interfer with others-it can be said of any group of persons in entire world in relation to other groups.thus McDonald’s ideas must be shown to only apply to Jews and not other groups-something he has not and cannot do-forwith that even he did he would,in turn,has negated his entire thesis.All groups of persons genetically interfer with others if any one group does.If he cannot,therfore prove that his thesis rightfully only applies to Jews then he has much work to be done to be able to prove point and no more time to be dealing with Jews.But also-he must show why he start only with Jews as opposed to other groups.That he have no resonable explaination or excuse for-since are only 14-18 million Jews in entire world of more than six billion persons.

By: Joe B.

Joe B. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:06:31 +0000

Why does SPLC only seem to focus on White racism?
Do they believe they fallacy that only whites can be racist?
Is that a tolerant view?
Why is there no focus on Black supremacists?
Or muslim anti-semites?
This seems rather hypocritical of a group that claims to be for civil rights.
Perhaps you need a sign that says “white people need not apply”
I suppose you will now brand me a racists and add me to your list of people commiting racist thought crimes.

By: James Bowery

James Bowery — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:13:47 +0000

As usual, the forces of “antidiscrimination” are reckless. Nowhere in the “coverage” of Prof. MacDonald has the “antidiscrimination” punditry mentioned the obviously damaging falsehood published by the CSULB dept of history wherein they claim that MacDonald did not review the history of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

MacDonald has them dead to rights and, as usual, they respond with little more than more smear tactics.

You guy lost me 20 years ago. I’ve sacrificed much — professionally and personally — as a result but the payoff has been worth it: The truth.

By: IludiumPhosdex

IludiumPhosdex — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:59:13 +0000

Would the following remarks of Chris Matthews (per his MSNBC programme Hardball of the 16th inst., as transcribed by Media Matters for America) be considered anti-Semitic in their own right?

To wit:

What is the Catholic vote, Mike Barnicle? It isn’t like a vote like, for example, if you’re a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that’s a safe bet. You have one key concern. I can’t think of other groups that would make it that simple. But clearly, if you’re African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That’s a generalization, but probably true. You’re more progressive. But Catholics — where would you put them? Is there a squirrel box or a rabbit hole you can put them in politically?

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:21:40 +0000

The forward is written by Virginia Abernethy, MacDonald’s good friend and a self-declared white separatist.

Heidi doesn’t know the difference between “forward” and “foreword,” LOL. Maybe she was thinking about her favorite newspaper.