nt, the word you are fumbling for is “hyperbole”. Please consider making a donation to the SPLC for sponsoring this opportunity for you to become more educated.

Anyway, I’m coherent enough for YOU to respond to my comments most of the time.

Well not Mao, but that’s another discussion entirely.

” That’s who the SPLC is attracting these days.”

It also attracts you, apparently. If you peruse these comments you will see that comments from conservatives, White Nationalists, and self-avowed Neo-Nazis are tolerated.

” And personally, I think the Right here in America ought to spread that word.”

Hey why not, you chicken littles crow all the time about how such-and-such centrist Democrat is a “Marxist.”

” After all, I believe it to be fair enough that the SPLC thinks a right-wing organization should look disreputable if neo-Nazis, fascists, and Klansmen are spotted at its meetings.”

1. The SPLC, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t have “meetings.”

2. Are you basically admitting that Klansmen, fascists, etc. do regularly attend the meetings of conservative organizations? If so, are you saying this isn’t a negative thing? And if you think that it is, doesn’t it bother you that these people seem to be attracted to said meetings?

” But that’s a two-way street. It surely reflects badly upon the SPLC that Commies are attracted to them.”

Commenting on a blog hardly suffices as “attracted to.” After all, you and all the other right-wingers, Nazis and all, are represented on this blog as well.

What was this calculation based on? You did a survey of the organization’s staff or something? Furthermore, Jewish conspiracy theorists love to use “disproportionate representation’ as though it’s some kind of proof of Jewish domination. This is certainly the case in Bolshevik Russia, for example. Look up something called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy if you want to see why claims of Jewish over-representation fail.

Also, this comment seems to be reinforcing the WN belief that Jews view themselves as something apart from “whites”, which simply isn’t true in the real world.

” What I’m saying here is that it’s really incongruous for a person who minimizes Stalin’s crimes to criticize those who minimize Hitler’s crimes. That’s weird.”

That might be the case were we comparing similar things. “Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union”, and “The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious.” <Who said this? Some Commie professor? No, it's just Nicholas Werth, one of the contributors to The Black Book of Communism, the very same book where the ridiculous 100 million claim comes from.

If we really dissect the Holocaust and Stalin's "crimes" side by side, the difference becomes just as obvious as Werth said, but this isn't really the place for that.

Your second point: The SPLC is, in fact, disproportionately Jewish. Is it possible that a disproportionately Jewish organization might be biased in favor of Jews? I’m sure, as a fair person, you’d admit that it certainly is possible. Would such bias generally be overt or covert? Well, bias works better when it’s covert, isn’t it? So why is it unusual to charge a group with a) being biased and b) doing it in a stealthy way?

“Yet he has the nerve to criticize those who question the Holocaust.” Okay, I’ll try to explain this to you, but if you don’t get it, I’m at a loss. As I said, I do believe the Holocaust happened. I do believe around 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. What I’m saying here is that it’s really incongruous for a person who minimizes Stalin’s crimes to criticize those who minimize Hitler’s crimes. That’s weird. But Ruslan apparently feels right at home here. He’s a regular contributor. My point being (and this really isn’t about the Jewish bias issue) that Mark’s blog has attracted a rather motley list of regulars, including a person who minimizes mass murder (Ruslan).

Now, regarding your pedophilia analogy. Simply put, it’s not analogous. The correct analogy would be this: Suppose an anti-pedophilia group marketed itself as exposing all pedophilia, but, on closer look, never exposed pedophilia among the Catholic clergy. Pointing out that this is biased does not mean a) you hate Catholics or b) you’re in favor of pedophilia.

And Mark: Again, I have to ask you very earnestly to please print this comment.

If your intent was to assert and complain about some perceived equation between Hatewatch and the hate groups/radical right that it reports on, without holding any anti-Semitic opinions of your own, you didn’t help to make your intent clear by writing things like:

“You exist to keep white gentiles from forming a collective against Jews–that’s really why you’re doing what you’re doing.”

“But neither do I want an organization which is largely funded and staffed by Jews under the guise of an anti-ethnocentrist outfit to, essentially, be covertly putting the interests of their own group first and foremost.”

“Yet he has the nerve to criticize those who question the Holocaust.”

For one thing, you can’t be an apologist for racists without looking like a racist yourself. Racism, in whatever ideological or behavioral form it is manifested, possesses about the same degree of legitimacy as pedophilia. You can’t assert to a group who in part exposes pro-pedophilia groups, “well, I’m not a child molester myself, but I’m against groups ganging up on child molesters because I’m opposed to any group ganging up on another group” without looking yourself like a pedophile. No sane, decent person would NOT have the nerve to criticize those who question the Holocaust.

For another thing, if we take you at your word and regard your complaint seriously (that is, that Hatewatch is guided by some stealth Zionist ideology and therefore focuses unfairly on some hate groups over others in its reporting), then you have provided just about zero evidence to back it up. Instead, you have scolded Aron for saying something positive about Israel (horrors!) and generally attacked the character of commenters here (as though the commenters were the same as Hatewatch itself).

Even a cursory look at the posts on this blog, or at the work the SPLC has done, provides much evidence that contradicts what you say. If Hatewatch is really only about “keeping white gentiles from forming a collective against Jews,” and not about what it claims to be (providing information to the public about the radical right and hate groups–which of course necessarily, but fractionally, include reporting on anti-Semitic groups), it’s spending a large proportion of its efforts doing things that are irrelevant to its central purpose.

Maybe instead of complaining to Mark about ethnic bias and excessive number of Jewish donors, you should complain to him about poor management, i.e. spending too much time fighting hate groups and too little time promoting Hatewatch’s sinister stealth Zionist-agenda.

“You’ve got Ruslan–a bona fide Stalinist. (I’m aware he’s not Jewish–that’s not my point here.)”

There is no such thing as “Stalinism.”

” Yet he has the nerve to criticize those who question the Holocaust.”

First of all, they don’t “question” it. They make accusations and then hide behind “questioning.”

” (To be clear: I don’t think there are any grounds to question the standard Holocaust account; I’m just saying that those who cover up the crimes of Stalin have no business criticizing anyone else for re-writing history.”

I do not deny a single Soviet “crime” that has been proven by evidence. There are somewhere around 700,000 deaths via execution between 1921-1954. I’m sure you consider every last one of them totally innocent people, because as we all know it’s not like the USSR ever faced the threat of invasion, espionage, or internal uprisings in that era. Tell me, where in Nazi Germany did the Jews start an armed uprising? Or perhaps you can tell me which imperial powers blockaded and invaded Germany in 1933 when Hitler took power? Oh right, none.

“Ruslan’s still papered over horrendous crimes that mainstream historians accept as fact.”

Well the problem is that much of the work of those mainstream historians was baseless. In 1991 the Soviet archives were opened and some historians were actually interested in gathering evidence for their claims. J. Arch Getty is just one example.

Now what is all this really about? Concern for Palestinians? I highly doubt that. Based on your first post I doubt you’d treat Arabs and better than the Israelis. Seems to me folks like you should support Israel.

An analogy: You accuse the local firemen of running an old boys club that’s, say, sexist. They accuse you back of disagreeing with their saving kittens from trees. Is it possible you agree with saving kittens from trees yet disagree with sexist workplace practices?

If you don’t want to be perceived as an anti-Semite, stop acting like one.

“Would you love Ireland if Ireland were expanding into land owned and lived on for centuries by other people, despite the fact that you’re not from there?”

Would you like apples if they turned into oranges?

Israel’s history and position in the Middle East in relation to the Palestinians are far more complex than you suggest, so the conflicts there can’t be reduced to a simple case of good versus evil (or as you would put it, “good gentiles versus the evil Jews”), even if comforts your private mental turbulances to believe so.

“Would you be suspicious if South African whites said, pre-Mandela, that they loved South Africa?”

Not necessarily.

Adamhill was joking. He doesn’t actually believe those things.

It’s called being friendly. And I can and HAVE held my own.

My mocking of Ebel is that these supremacists (like our own Brock Henderson) consider themselves at the ‘forefront of racial issues.’

My definition of ‘white’ is possessing lighter colored skin. And nothing else. The color of my skin gives me no natural advantage over anyone else, despite what you very likely imagine

John, why don’t you go troll somebody who isn’t used to your pissant needling? YouTube is full of them.

Not to spend too much time in trying to make sense of it all but to say that metaphorically speaking the bees have workers that split duties in order that the colony may survive; we in the human race have those that create unintelligible recipes of information that form the cow pies we are cursed to step in; far too often these days. However, I am not sure what relevance they have towards our survival as the human race.

One possible explanation of their existence may be to divert progressive minds from serious and intelligent debate.

What I find is that those of cow pie minds simply like to make up accusations while trying to be leaders of others who like themselves do not take time to read or explore before opening their mouths and emitting fields of cow pies for the rest of us to step into.

It’s annoying to say the least, but it appears that the ether of ignorance is alive and well and will always be amongst us.

“Yeah, I think it’s in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s charter (secret, of course): “Keep (good and pure) white gentiles from forming ‘collectives’ against (sinister) Jews.” And all the work SPLC has done to defend the rights of people who aren’t Jewish is just a diversion so people (read: good and pure white people who haven’t seen the light) don’t realize the horrible truth. What a breathtaking fool you are.”

The Good and Pure White People don’t subscribe to the cow pie you just baked up for us all.

(you have provided us with the recipe of how to make a cow pie.)

@Reynardine and Aron: be careful you don’t want to step into adamhills cow pie.

And if you bother to read the cases that have been taken on by the SPLC it will clearly demonstrate that to you.

However, people have a tendency to look for something bad when so many people from very diverse backgrounds get together to do something good for our Nation.

Look at the cases and look at the faces of people who have been harmed and who have found solace and a place of like minded people who believe in peace and unity and the absence of hate, divide and oppression; you will see these people come in many different colors and are pictured here one time or another on the SPLC website.

But then writes: “nt, interesting that you used the term, “anti-Semite”
I never did. Don’t play cute. You’re not.”

So indicating that there’s an eternal Jew character that haunts my fevered brain isn’t to suggest that I’m an anti-Semite? Do you actually think that’s plausible?

Aron: Do you think that Israel should be a predominantly Jewish country? Or should Israel be allowed to be multiethnic–in the sense that you’d feel fine if a majority of people weren’t Jewish? That’s the real question: Because if, like many “liberal” Zionists, you believe Israel must be a Jewish state, then you really shouldn’t be pushing for multiculturalism in America. Because obviously it’s not as wonderful as you make it out to be: Why deny Israel something wholly wonderful? But then, why act like it’s wholly wonderful here in America, then? Which one is it, Aron?

adamhill writes: “So what? I love Ireland, but I’m not Irish. I have distant family members who live there and it’s a nice country.”

Would you love Ireland if Ireland were expanding into land owned and lived on for centuries by other people, despite the fact that you’re not from there? Would you be suspicious if South African whites said, pre-Mandela, that they loved South Africa?