I believe you are mixing the issues and making an illogical argument. Here's why...

1. The analogy stands because nazi policies AND objectives are echoed in principle and deed by the Israeli state. You claimed the analogy failed because the Israelis have not committed attrocities at the scale that the nazis have, and thus the analogy failed... yet go on to argue that the above article's author is MORE comparable to the nazi party because of his mention of the Protocols of Zion. The irony of your willingness to extend every benefit of the doubt to the Israeli state in saying that they are not comparable to the nazis while willing to jump at labeling the Aztlan and the article's auther as being more "nazi like" is astounding. Furthermore, your comparison of the zionists with apartheid S. Africa as if apartheid S. Africa was incomparable to the nazis is even more mind numbing... and I think they relate your lack of understanding of apartheid S. Africa's brutality.

2. The context in which the Protocols were mentioned was such that its AUTHENTICITY was not argued. The author wrote that the behavior and actions of zionists in Spain and Mexico falls in-line with the Protocols. While I don't doubt the protocols were used to PERPETUATE the demonization of Jews collectively, its significance with respect to actually INCITING hatred against the Jews is highly debatable.

3. Your charge of anti-semitism remains to be unfounded. A Semite, by definition, describes only 5% of the Jews, 100% of the Arabs and Yemenis, and roughly 30% of the Ethiopians. For someone to be anti-semite, they would have to hate all these people. The author made references to zionist domination of the global economy and international politics. You can refute these arguments, but you cannot LOGICALLY cite them as evidence of anti-semitism. With regards to zionist domination, check the thread "BBC Exposes zionist control of the U.S." for more in-depth discussion. As for economic control... just look at who runs the privately owned Federal Reserve. At any rate, these belong in a separate discussion, but the addition of value judgment on zionist control of politics and economics as being evil or sinister could be looked at as being the "hateful" part... but then it becomes a matter of whether its a legitimate hate or not (i.e. if such domination was proven to be valid and that domination was proven to be used for evil). It therefore becomes subject to the validity of the purported Jewish domination. The mere fact that white supremecists use some of the same arguments does not invalidate the argument or make everyone else who poses the same arguments an anti-semite or a white supremecist. I mean, if you really believe it does, then you support the train of logic that would argue that because person A likes Oreos and is a Republican, person B must also be a republican because person B likes oreos also. That is fallacious reasoning.

4. With regards to nationalism, I would agree with you if you posed the argument that the name has been historically coopted to legitimize racially, ethnically and/or religiously exclusive movements- but the word itself strictly defines movements that revolve around a national identity, although its not uncommon to find nationalistic ferver coupled with ethnic, racial, and/or religious qualifiers. The moment this occurs, the movement stops being a true nationalist movement. Examples of nationalist movements would be the drive for Palestinian nationhood, the war for the unification of the Korean peninsula (both sides wanted it), the Eritrean liberation movement, etc. The immediate reaction of Americans after 9-11 could arguably be considered nationalist as well. The point is that nationalism revolves around an assumed national identity, not ethnic/religious/racial ones. The issue of nationalism isn't about how supporters of a movement identify themselves, its about how that movement compares with the actual definition. Nazis and KKK members didn't consider themselves as hateful bigots, but we all know they were. If you were to look at everything through the eyes of someone who believes in whatever you are examining, you will never get an objective interpretation.

>Blaming American global imperialism: economic, militarily
>and culturally, on the Zionists (read Jews) is a fucking
>unfortunate lie and is repeating a pattern of scapegoating
>that goes back centuries.

Even the Ha'aretz, which is an Israeli paper, reported that the Iraq war was orchestrated by a group of 25 neo-conservatives, most of whom are Jewish. Would you concede that zionist influences played a key role in the Iraqi genocide?