You see, MacDonald has written many books on Jewish social evolution. He is applauded by white supremacist groups all over America and Europe because of his views on how, why, and when Jooooos have taken control of the media, the banks, and have changed "white" culture wherever they went.
You get the idea that MacDonald believes his findings are scientific fact, but they are only based on Joooo paranoid speculation. The only thing scientific about his studies is the FACT that Khazar theory is bull crap. That kind of stuff can be studied scientifically using gene research.
Tillawi obviously didn't research his guest very well. Instead of just piling on the rhetoric that Jooos control the US senate and that is why the US supports Israel, he got toasted by the fact that MacDonald's research has debunked Khazar theory. Tillawi's reaction in the interview is priceless, because the biggest contention the Paliphiles have is their idea that most Joooos are Khazar and their ancestors never set foot in the middle east.
White supremacist sites often quote MacDonald, except for the Khazar part. And MacDonald himself, is a Judeophobe who either won't face up to the fact honestly or is too stupid to realize it. He went to bat for David Irving, on the basis that his mandate to do so, was free speech.
To be honest, I agree with some of MacDonald's findings regarding reasons for success and intelligence, but I think they go way too extreme. What he misses, is that the reason Jews appear to have control is that on major issues regarding ethics and morality, the average Jew meshes very well with Western morals and ethics. At least, what the majority in the West want. The West is capitalistic, and if collectively, they didn't like what the media was saying, or what was on TV, etc. Jews would just go broke:) The main reason that the US supports Israel is because once you strip the irrational Jooo hating, you are left with a state that pretty much represents Western ideology.
Here is an article on the controversy of MacDonald as a university professor.
MacDonald's views on genetic isolation is controversial, but it does carry some merit. Too bad he didn't talk about it with respect to the Arab Muslim world.
digg
reddit
del.icio.us
24 comments:
Kevin M. keeps mixing some valid points with plain old racist conspiracy theories not that different from the Protocols. His performance at the Lipstadt trial demonstrated what a moron he really is. I certainly wouldn't call him a "scientist".
Yeah, well whatever.
I am sure you wouldn't agree.
And for documentation of Wall Street and the dominant banking there gang financing the Nazis, try Wall Street and The Rise Of Hitler by Anthony C. Sutton.
Or has that been debunked too??!!!
BEAJ:
Sentinel does indeed represent the lunatic fringe of Britain. Every family's got a Mad Uncle and he's it.
I think Sentinel wouldn't even hang out with his potential buddies in the National Front, because they wouldn't be extreme enough for him. Regarding Joooooos, Sent will buy into any conspiracy theory that confirms his sterile beliefs regarding Jewish perfidity/inferiority/superiority/whatever.
In Victorian and Edwardian times anti-Semitism was rather rife in Britain. Early eugenics was also developed in Britain and soon became popular throughout Europe. Sent may well be drawing on that "tradition".
The Germans enthusiastically embraced these ideas [eugenics] in Namibia and later the Nazidiots went to Tibet (lol!) to find their Aryan Master Race. Eugenics was also used as a justification for the Final Solution.
If I was to buy into racial theory, based on Sentipoop, I'd really have to conclude that some in the White Race are a few sandwiches short of the full picnic. Definitely a few MIS (Moronic Idiocy Syndrome) genes in that gene-pool... But I don't believe in racial theory, so with Occam's razor in hand, I have to conclude Senti is just a plain old idiot.
Off topic:
Scotty's telling me to shut up.... Aaaahhh, now I have my full name in the title of a blogpost. Joy!!
That's right, insult away. You always know your close to the truth when you get a knee-jerk reaction like this- I remember your favourite technique is to say that dissenters are mentally ill and gert's is to say they have been sexually abused as a child, and then you call me hateful.
I have quite a few readers, not that it really matters, but most seem to agree and have no need to comment.
And if you haven't already figured it out, i am not really after attracting you and yours to the blog.
And trust me I am not part of any lunatic fringe, there are many, many people that think the way I do, more every day with each machination and each step closer to the next manufactured proxy war.
Keep laughing and shouting, before you know it we will be in charge.
Sentifuckturd:
Well, over here we're waiting for that "uprising" with baited breath.
On your political platform you'd get one vote: yours.
I jokingly ONCE said I thought you were sexually abused. I knew it would hit the spot, and boy, did it do just that.
For a potential "strong man" you're rather a cry-baby, aren't you? Them White genes, I guess...
You're one of the biggest imbeciles I've come across in a long, long, long time. Congrats!!!
I love it; I must be all of these things becasue I help expose and publicise the corrupt, underhanded and dangerous games the Zionists play with us all, ordinary Jews included.
I suppose there are no conspiracies in the world of the initiate or the world of the naive.
The Freemasons don't exist; Watergate didn't happen; the Iran-Contra affair never took place; the Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't spark Vietnam; there really were WMD's in Iraq , etc, etc, Ad Infinitum
We live in a free, open world where every action and decision is pure and motivated only by the best possible interests of those involved and no other considerations are taken into account- that would be wrong.
Bush and Blair are the very models of morality, decency and integrity and never a lie has passed their lips.
All of their decisions are made solely by them.
Sentinel:
"The Freemasons don't exist; Watergate didn't happen; the Iran-Contra affair never took place; the Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't spark Vietnam; there really were WMD's in Iraq , etc, etc, Ad Infinitum"
I could point to many other incidents that really did happen, as could you: they are well proven and documented, but no ad infinitum list of such events exists. There are also loads and loads of crocs out there, including "9/11, t'wos the Mossad wot did it" and many, many others.
What all these though prove about the "Jewish Conspiracy" is what I'd like to know.
The origin of anti-Semitism is religious in nature: without that root cause AS would almost certainly hardly exist at all. You're buying into an old hatred and interpreting everything you dislike about Jews from that old hatred.
"It has been widely assumed that modern humans—Homo sapiens—first traveled out of Africa and settled in central and Western Europe before heading to Eastern Europe. That may not be the case. Recent finds from a site in Russia about 250 miles south of Moscow suggest that the first humans in Europe were Eastern European...
Radiocarbon and other dating methods also helped establish that the artifacts—stone blade fragments, scrapers, shell ornaments, a bone awl, and various digging and carving tools—are an astonishing 42,000 to 45,000 years old."
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/how-europeans-got-to-europe
"We live in a free, open world where every action and decision is pure and motivated only by the best possible interests of those involved and no other considerations are taken into account- that would be wrong."
We live in a free, open world (those of us in the west, anyway) where morons can buy a computer and spew bullshit all over the internet, witness sentibull.
The article and the new find is saying that these people did NOT leave Africa, but were distinct and unique.
And nowhere does it mention primates either.
Probably because of the 'missing link.'
We know that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal coexisted simultaneously, with some evidence pointing to Homo Sapien remains in Australia over 117,00 years ago, long before the rise of the Neanderthal- man did not 'evolve' from this species.
The article states that the first human beings may have settled in Eastern Europe first instead of settling in Western and Central Europe first.
Read this about common ancestry
We all have "spearchucker" blood Senile, whether you like it or not.
And Neanderthals branched off from homo sapiens and are distinct, though interbreeding may have occurred, just like our ancestors did with chimps 5 million years ago.
You should really try to look at an evolution branch chart to see how it works.
Aaaahhh, but at least the dreaded primates weren't mentioned; that makes that "theory" all the more attractive to Sentinel and many other White supremacists. I mean, how could the original Herrenvolk have evolved from an ape-like creature?
This is the same argument that was used against Darwin, of course. These people don't really move on, do they?
Over at Sent's he's sporting a pic of two negroid looking monkeys (with glasses!).
They are clearly Uran Utans,and it is clearly a a parody of evolution-I find it absolutely amazing that you believe that these monkeys look like 'Negroids' and I think it reveals a lot about your real attitude to blacks- when you link blacks to monkeys with absolutely no reason other then your own perceptions- you have to wonder, who is the real racist here?
Nice try, Sent!
Its a serious observation.
You looked at the image of two Uran Utans and saw "Negroids"- blacks.
There was no suggestion of it either implicitly or explicitly, in text or in image, but that YOU what you saw.
Monkeys = blacks.
I would revaluate my position and consider my intrinsic beliefs if I were you.
Considering the accompanying text tries to justify the theory of White racial supremacy by cloaking itself in pseudo-science borrowed from EB, that connection was easy to make. Monkeys = blacks is an association many racists make, that's what I was pointing out.
But you knew that too, you're only playing games...
No, you were not pointing that out at all, in fact what you said was "Over at Sent's he's sporting a pic of two negroid looking monkeys (with glasses!)" which is far removed from pointing out any prior monkeys=blacks stereotyping, you were saying that the monkeys LOOKED like blacks (or Negroids, as you put it) by YOUR OWN perception.
That is what you saw when you looked at two Uran Utans.
Wriggle as much as you like, you said it, you thought it, the game is up.
What I saw was two monkeys with glasses, above a text that tries very feebly to use a made-up concept ("Differential Human Evolution") to try and prove that White racial superiority can somehow be proven by evolution and genetics.
Whoever read your piece and agreed with it would probably also have come to the conclusion that you were ridiculing Blacks as underdeveloped "ape like" evolutionary losers. That is after all the tenure of the piece.
If you say so, but the fact is that you said the the two Uran Utans were negroid looking.
That is, you said to your mind these monkeys looked like blacks.
I can understand why you want to back-pedal now, given your apparent stance, maybe it was just a very revealing Freudian slip who knows, but its out in the open now.
You managed to read and comprehend that post, and the other one in 1 min 36 seconds, quite an achievement!
What does it matter if you care about the ape comment- can you absolve people at will? Do you have some special moral standing above others? Your word is final judgement?
Did you think those Uran Utans looked like "Negroids" too?
Understandably, despite your bluster (and limited time frame) you didn't comment on the President Ahmadinejad propaganda lie post- it would be a little difficult given the facts.
Seeing as he has never said it,how do you know he wants to blow Israel?
Seeing as I have never said, I how do you know I do?
The truth is, if all the Zionist's moved there and lived peacefully I would be the biggest supporter on the planet- well one of them anyway.
I skimmed your article because I rarely read your quotes. But I did read the commentary in a separate window, again skimming through most of your bs.
I have no interest in reading your spew on Amadjihad. I know that you don't have a grip on truth or reality, so it is a waste to even spend this much time on you.
For sure, not on your blog with its 5 readers (if that).
I don't mind shooting you down here, because I have nothing to hide and I don't need to lie or be deceptive to make a case by selectively cherry picking material for an argument, which is usually a meaningless argument coming from you.
You could sum up all your spew in 3 words, instead of writing all the bs you write.
Try it "I hate kikes"
That is your message, you fool no one.
Yeah, righto- you didn't read it but you know its not true; which is odd because you friend gert agrees with it.
I have told you before I don't hate anyone, ordinary Jews included- its the warmongering Zionist manipulators that I (and most other people) have a serious problem with.
Emergency Preparedness
There is a larger perspective to the involvement of jewish financiers and zionists in collusion with wall street gois, Henry Ford, and the Bank of England in financin the National Socialists.
To get the background that has been missin, in most circles, til about last year search for Leo Zagami and Eric Jon Phelps. Their material abounds.
Post a Comment