Getting at the truth in today’s
world — Part I
G. S.  <>
initial posting 21 Oct 2010 - last update 25 Jan 2011


George Salzman: Introductory remarks. I tried for almost two months to hold together a friendly — though at times bristling with hostile undertones — conversation among David Baillie, Gordon Arnaut, and myself, and involving as well a few other people to lesser or greater extent. The issue I am focused on is the ongoing conquest of the Palestinians by the Zionist Power Configuration, as James Petras calls the combination of the Zionist State of Israel and its allied political, economic and military forces in the English-speaking nations, foremost in the United States. My effort essentially collapsed when I received the following:

David Baillie:
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:42:50 -0400
From: David Baillie <>
To: Israel Shamir <>
CC: Ken Freeland <>, George Salzman <>, Coffinman <>, Dirk Chardet <>, Debora Menon <>, Gordon Arnaut <>, Alan Hart <>, Marat Kunaev <>

      I thank you kindly Israel. However, I am not of the folkdeutsche as Gordon suggests. My grandfather was of Ukrainian aristocracy, my grandmother a humble Czech. I argue on behalf of the Germans because I find far less fault with them than everyone else based on what I know of the circumstances, and I will stick by it. I also see their fight as my own and the fight which the people of the US (particularly Whites) are losing now. What it took the real evil Jew-controlled EMPIRES, US, Britain and USSR to do to Germany in WW2 (already crippled by WW1) is being done by the Jew-led Liberals today through infiltration. The US was once a prosperous nation, a nation of Whites, the founding documents make it clear that it had been their intention to keep it that way, and there was much consternation about slavery and the overall effects of maintaining another race within this nation. This has all been documented. Had it not been for commercial expedience, the US would not be in this jam today. I’d also maintain that Manifest Destiny was rather poorly conceived as well, and THAT is where this country lost God. For a nation (natal) can stand and be healthy maintaining its own tribe, it is the empire that ultimately disintegrates. History has proven that time and again.

      Gordon maintains that I am a racist. This is not true. A racist wishes to subjugate other races. I would rather let the other races inhabit those places from which they eminate and leave them alone, I would like the same in return. I cannot undo what was done to the Indians here, I do have some Indian blood. However, it is far too late to make any serious change, except to give Indians some Federally allocated lands (millions of acres) and let them have their own nation that has nothing to do with the US except trade. 350 million people are not going to move back to wherever they came from, and at this point people have interbred quite a lot. Where is an Italian-Irish person going to move? I am not motivated by hatred on these issues in the least. It is a practical issue. I think Mestizos should go home, when these Mexicans and others feel they have a system that is treating them badly in their own countries, it is THEIR duty to stay and fix it, not come here and claim they have rights that they didn’t have back home. How the Liberal mind can justify taking away MY rights and MY economic prosperity and give it to outsiders is beyond rationality. I apply that to all of them, Hindus, Chinese, everybody. I also think it is time to send the Blacks home. They talk about their African roots all the time, and how they have a raw deal here. They can go, we don’t need their crime, their drug culture, their rapes (especially of WHITE women), their murder, and the degradation of any place they settle in long enough to destroy. They can go back to Africa, maybe they would have a civilizing effect there, or maybe, the Africans would see them as the savages. It would be interesting, perhaps starting by sending all the Blacks in our penal system.

      I think Jews (the instigators behind much of this self-destructive Liberalism), should go where they claim to belong, and good riddance, just stop hanging around here and bitching that Israel has a right to exist and that Jews should go there (like Sulamet Reinhartz, if she feels she has a right to be in Palestine, why is she a professor at Brandeis and whining about Zionism, GO and shut up). That is why I say, I would be the greatest supporter of Zionism. Release the Palestinians from their suffering, send THEM to Birobidjan to live peacefully on arable land. It is time that they be blessed, long overdue. And send all the Jews to Israel, and QUARANTINE the damned place. Take their arms away and have the world, via the UN, ensure that Israel must be protected, as long as they disarm and never cause trouble again. Perhaps the Jews will someday be a trustworthy people.

      As for the Gentiles at the top I keep hearing complaints about from George and Gordon (the deflectors of the Jewish question) I say this. When and if, I and mine, a number growing all the time, take control, we would automatically dissolve the empire and reign in any criminal elements running this country through the corporate system. And when I say the empire I mean the whole thing. Puerto Rico and every other US territory would be released, all US bases maintained on foreign soil, and Washington DC would become a museum. Our government would no longer be an autonomous entity that controls the 50 states the way it controls the world. That includes freeing Europe, particularly Germany, so that they can send all of their non-Whites packing too.

George Salzman comment, 4 Nov 2010:
      At that time (18-20 October 2010) there was such a flood of e-mails back and forth among Gordon Arnaut, David Baillie, Dirk Chadet and Coffinan, these latter two adherents of the Israel Shamir/Ken Freeland website, and a few from Ken Freeland and Israel Shamir, that I simply tried to save them in chronological order as much as possible. I was unable to even read them all, and initially hoped that eventually I would be able to deal with them. However, I ended up not even trying to save them as the flood persisted. I remember becoming very angry at Gordon, writing him that I was disgusted at his relentless hammering on David. When I did get to see Ken Freeland’s notes, particularly that of 11 Oct 2010 (about a week or so after he wrote it) and went to the link Coffinman had given, I realized that Freeland had cited printed material that deserved no credence whatever, and in doing so had trapped himself. It was then that I wrote:

Oaxaca, Mexico, Monday-Wednesday, 18-20 October 2010 [1]

      Friends, Gordon Arnaut did it! Singlehandedly he pushed on the group adhering to the Shamir/Freeland website,, until finally Freeland made some revealing, indefensible comments.[2], [3].With unbelievable tenacity and energy Arnaut bombarded them with information from his own first-hand experience in Croatia and elsewhere in Europe (trustworthy) and his extensive readings (probably some credible, others not, I would guess). When Arnaut focussed on their contradictions they could only respond with weak, attempted rebuttals, such as:

Ken Freeland letter to Gordon Arnaut

Subject: Re: Death March Addendum
From: Ken Freeland <>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:11:03 -0500
To: Gordon Arnaut <>
CC: Coffinman <>, Dirk Chardet <>, George Salzman <>, Alan Hart <>, David Baillie <>, Israel Shamir <>, Marat Kunaev <>, Debora Menon <>

Dear Gordon,
      On the whole, I find your response to Mr. Coffinman cogent and historically accurate, notwithstanding the fact that I also think Mr. Coffman’s thesis is not without merit. Mr. Coffman should not need you tell him that Hitler’s grandfather was alleged to be Frankenberger (note spelling) rather than Rothschild, as one of the pages on his website to which he refers us makes this quite clear, in addition to noting that Mr. Frankenberger paid child support for Hitler’s father Alois for 14 years, making the case quite convincing.

      You pose the following challenge: “And here is a bit of simple logic. If the Rotschilds and this Jewish cabal were so all-powerful that they could orchestrate the entire massive event of WW2, then why would they even need to do that? If they are so powerful they would have no need to avail themselves of such a desperate and risky enterprise as war, now would they?”

      The answer to this is complex, but I think it has an answer. Essentially, the Bolshevik revolution, subsidized by these same parties, was now regarded as a threat to private capital, which it truly was. Those with something to lose to such expropriators of the means of production needed a foil, and they found it in Hitler, whom they also subsidized. He seemed the best available thwart to the spread of Communism which had already made inroads into Germany, both electorally and militarily (Bavarian Soviet Socialist Republic). Hitler sold out the socialist planks of the NSDAP [Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, National Socialist German Workers’ Party —G-S.] for their financial support (followed by the violent purge of the SA’s [Sturmabteilung, Storm Troopers, Hitler’s Nazi terrorists —G.S.] socialist elements in the night of the long knives), and they had their man. Hitler engaged Germany in an impossible war with the USSR, but capitalist property relations were preserved throughout, and survived WWII, and continue unmolested to this day. Peace, —Ken

George Salzman comment in my note written 18-20 Oct 2010:
      I read the first 10 pages of Hennecke Kardel’s book that Freeland referred to in the link given above. It is as scurrilous a piece of trash as one can imagine. To see the level of Freeland’s argument, I recommend examining this book. On p.4 is a crude picture, said to be of Hiter, captioned “with high probability a grandson of the Jew Frankenberger. Driven by his boundless hatred towards his own kinsmen, this man brought to reality his Vienna’s youth dream to settle the European Jews in the Orient.”

      The picture is supposedly the basis for the following hypothetical “physiological ethnic analysis”, given by the author: “‘Typical signs of Jewish features are: Eyes are usually shiny and both eye lids are heavy and swollen. The lymphbag under the eyes is usually fuller and stands out more than on Gentiles. The high cheekbone as a rule creates a sunken cheek. The nose can only be differentiated by its slightly moving nose wings when viewed from the front during breathing. The upper lip is short and the lower lip stands out and this gives the face a sensual expression. Source: Twelve volumes ‘Jewish Encyclopedia’ on all questions pertaining Jewry and the Jewish curious nature and notions.’”

      That Freeland bases any judgment on such trash ought to be laughable, and it would be if the questions at issue were not so important. I see no basis for him giving it the least credibility. In addition to examining Kardel’s book, I also recommend the Shamir/Freeland website, at, a formidable site.

      But Freeland wasn’t about to give a credible answer to Gordon’s frontal (and justified) assault against Coffinman’s attempted defense of the Third Reich. Gordon had written to Coffinman and the others in the discussion,

Gordon Arnaut
Subject: Re: Death March Addendum
From: Gordon Arnaut <>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: Coffinman <>
CC: Ken Freeland <>, Dirk Chardet <>, George Salzman <>, Alan Hart <>, David Baillie <>, Israel Shamir <>, Marat Kunaev <>, Debora Menon <>

      This is complete bullshit. First of all there is no such thing as “civilized war.” [Coffinman maintained that the army of the Third Reich had conducted civilized war, in contrast to the military of the Allies —G.S.] War is brutality of the worst kind. This kind of horseshit can only come from someone whose “experience” of war is through his computer keyboard, not from invading armies marching into his town and tanks rolling down the street. I have traveled throughout Europe and heard how the supposedly “civilized” German troops behaved . . . It was the Russians that won WW2, and if Hitler had been smart he would have looked for Lebensraum in England and you would all be speaking German now. I’m putting this coffinmoron on the blocked list. A complete twit.

George Salzman comment in my note of 18-20 Oct 2010:
      If you didn’t know of my growing suspicion of the Shamir/Freeland aims, here’s a bit of background. My relationship with Shamir started in May 2009, cautiously and hesitantly. As soon as I mentioned him publicly Mark N. Lance, a Prof in Philosophy at Georgetown Univ in the Washington, D.C. area <> wrote, warning me, “you have been taken in by Israel Shamir. He is an anti-semite, and quite probably crazy . . . There is really no question that much of what he has done is straight-out anti-semitic . . . I’m just passing this on . . . it is well understood in the movement . . . [I have] no intention of getting into a long debate . . . it is easy to find documentation . . . from unimpeachably anti-zionist sources.” I (G.S.) telephoned Mark, and was certain he was both serious about the issues and convinced that Shamir does not warrant a hearing. I explained to him that my own view of the predominant Jewish subculture that I’ve known as an insider for many years is so negative that I might also, by some people, be taken for an anti-Semite. Since Mark did not want to be identified, I initially reported his comments without identifying him, in note 13 in my posting Straight Talk 3 at Since then I learned from an anarchist friend in the D.C. area that Mark poses as a “lefty radical”, but he’s not thought well of by the radical left in the area. In addition to his appointment in Philosophy, he is Prof. and Director of Program on Justice and Peace. Subsequently I decided he was not entitled to snipe from the shadows, and I identified him. It now looks as though his warning may have been justified. It may be that I was deceived by Shamir all along, but I think I learned a good deal from that experience, and benefitted.
Ken Freeland responded to Gordon’s letter of 13 Oct (above) with this note to him and the others, in which he backed far away from Coffinman’s pro-Hitler, anti-Allies position, as follows:

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:27:07 -0500
      Is it just possible, do you think, that war brings out the worst in both sides, and that after a point there is no innocent belligerent? While both Germany and Russia claimed to be fighting a defensive war, it is useful to look at their earlier “nonaggression pact,” which was actually an aggression pact . . the division of Poland between them cannot be viewed by Polish eyes as anything but naked aggression. Yet in the narrative of both belligerents, there was no doubt a “defensive” explanation for this. There does not seem to me to have been a single belligerent in WWII that was not guilty of some kind of war crime at some point. I think that rather than spending so much effort trying to vindicate one side or the other, justice is better served by our opposition to our own nations’ involvement in war today (still replete with war crimes), and their support for other nations so involved. Peace, —Ken

George Salzman comment:
      Freeland seemingly was attempting to divert attention away from the drumbeat of the virulent Jew-haters attracted to his and Shamir’s site, those posing the Third Reich’s “civilized warfare” vs. the Allies war crimes. But Gordon vigorously refuted Freeland as follows:
Gordon Arnaut response to Ken Freeland (Cc'd to rest):

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
      Ken, I appreciate your call for peace in our time but I think there is a deep flaw with drawing equivalence among the actions of all sides in WW2. This is unsupportable. There was an aggressor side and that was Germany, motivated clearly by Lebensraum, something that has always been at the heart of war and which [Eugene] Debs astutely identified as the desire for conquest and plunder. In every war there has been one side seeking conquest and the other defending itself. In some cases, it is true, the defender was spoiling for a fight too, and this was clearly the case of the US, which did everything it could to insert itself into both World Wars, especially the war against the Japanese which it pretty much engineered with provocations. But US soil was never attacked. So why even go to war, other than imperial ambition? Again, conquest and plunder. And if we are to talk about war crimes, it is true that they were committed on all sides, but again there can be no equivalence as that would be absurd and stupid. We must remember that the fundamental war crime is aggression, because in it is the seed of all the atrocities that follow. This universal principle is easy to understand and was articulated in the aftermath of WW2 at the Nuremberg trials. What I object to most is present day imperialist propaganda and brainwashing that seeks to demonize the Russians as being of equal guilt, or worse, than the Germans. And after decades of brainwashing, anti-Russianism and anti-Slavicism is a strong current in mainstream Western society. This, I believe, will eventually come to a head too, just as WW2 resulted from the buildup of antagonism over many years. Yes, the Western world has long been spoiling for a fight with the Slavic world and they will get that fight sooner or later. And if they dream they are going to march into Moscow, they should remember that both Napoleon and Hitler had the same dream. But what they got was the Russians marching into Paris and Berlin instead. See Pictures. Regards, --Gordon.

George Salzman comment:
      So far as I know, Freeland did not reply to Gordon, however Freeland wrote me the following e-mail:
Ken Freeland letter to George:
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 00:54
      Dear George, I’ve been as tolerant as I can be of the vicissitudes of this email donnybrook, but you’ve clearly gone over the line here with your ad hominems and smears. It’s ironic that you choose the “funded by wealthy Zionists”smear, the same one the Right likes to use against Karl Marx, and having the same level of truth. I’m sure Marx would agree with me, that if we are to stand accused of the crime, we should at least be given the dime. But like Marx, I live a life of relative poverty, which, like Marx, actually makes me impervious to such smears. Not that I expect the facts to get in the way of your malignant theory. (The outlandishness of your smear makes me wonder if there is not some projection involved.) Kindly remove my name from all your future correspondence. You can freely malign me then and there will be no rebuttal. Peace, —Ken
Israel Shamir letter to George:
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:31:29 +0400
      I second this letter of my friend and colleague Ken. In addition, I regret George’s tendency to force us to discourse on his terms. He says that I do not reply when I want to avoid certain questions. Indeed I do: life is too short to waste it on endless discussions of irrelevant topics. I reply when I have something to say. But if you insist, I’ll say:
      George is too fickle: he ditched his erstwhile penfriend David because somebody frowned upon him.
      Arnaut is too un-Socratic, that is too ferocious and personal in his letters. One can’t discuss anything with a man who is prone to take everything personally.
      Dirk does not know the difference between an internet rumour and a fact.
      As for Coffinman, I am not interested in discussing Hitler ad nauseam. —Israel Shamir
A few thoughts — maybe germane, maybe not

      Today is Tuesday, 19 October 2010. It is my surviving daughter's 56th birthday. The first piece of e-mail today came from Israel Shamir. Addressed to David Baillie and the other 8 of us, it began, “Dear David, Indeed we should speak frankly and sincerely. Otherwise it makes no sense.” What a wonderful start! Then came the flood of nasty rubbish from Gordon Arnaut, David Baillie, Dirk Chardet, and even from Israel Shamir himself, although his criticisms were clothed in softer language than the others. What is so pathetic about this outpouring of venom is that each person claims to be acting in support of human rights for the beseiged Palestinians, yet all the energy is being directed at attacking erstwhile allies in the same effort. A reasonable person is driven to ask, What is going on?

      Last night I took a little break to look at the Shamir/Freeland website, “The Writings Of Israel Shamir”, at The top article, by Eric Wallberg, “Turkey and Russia: Cleaning up the mess in the Middle East” was excellent, and made me wonder once again whether I have been grossly unfair to Shamir and Freeland in questioning their sincerity and basic decency. I do not know. First of all, both of them are highly intelligent, evidentally widely read and knowledgeable about a good deal of history. Certainly the effort to prevent the Israeli Nazi regime (I’m using the adjective Nazi pejoratively, but not to irritate you, David) from carrying out its genocide against the Palestinians is one every decent human being ought to support. There are, however, a large number of English-speaking Americans (and Canadians and others) who claim to be motivated by their concern for Palestinians although their actual motivation is an intense hatred of Jews per se, i.e. Jews simply based on their ethicity. In my terms, this is a group of haters of Jews, not lovers of Palestinians. Their hatreds run deep, as do many hatreds. The fact is that there is a good deal about the Jewish subculture that deserves to be hated, as there is about the subculture of every group of privileged people who live relatively well in material terms and are scornful of impoverished “outsiders”.

      So far as I know it is invariably the case that in social settings where there is a clear separation between people who are privileged and others who are impoverished, and there is a general awareness of the cleavage between them, the impoverished people come to hate the privileged group. This is especially pronounced in societies where the cultural values place importance on material wealth, which is so in “Westernized” societies.

      I had the interesting experience of writing to a Jewish professor emeritus, Peter Novick, of the Univ of Chicago History Dept., whose The Holocaust in American Life was an eye-opener to me. Our exchange:

Oaxaca, Mexico, Monday 2 November 2009

      Dear Peter Novick, I’m glad you received the message about my posting . . . I much appreciate you taking the trouble to respond. I am now rereading your account, and am again struck by your evident honesty, and your openness about your own identity. I am an older person, now 84, who wishes he had studied history instead of so-called ‘hard science’. I’m pouring my final years into an attempt to contribute to ‘turning history around’. People like you are a great help to my understanding.

From: Peter Novick <>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:42:15 -0600

      Dear George Salzman: Thanks for the kind words about The Holocaust in American Life. I look forward to reading the piece you’re going to send me.

Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:28:39 -0600

      I’ve read the material you sent me, and it makes clear that our views are quite far apart — indeed, too far apart to make it useful to continue this exchange.

      Prof. Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life states, with no ambiguity whatever that as an ethic group, “By the 1980s and 1990s . . . American Jews were by far the wealthiest, best-educated, most influential, in-every-way-most-successful group in American society — a group that, compared to most other identifiable minority groups, suffered no measurable discrimination and no disadvantages on account of that minority status.’ His book was valuable to me because he demonstrated how American Zionist organizations took pains to align their groups with the dominant American ideology of the moment. Right after World War II the rage was to be anti-Communist and pro-German. Many scientists, technicians and former officials of the Third Reich, the latter experienced in spying on the Russians, were welcomed in the U.S. Suddenly these former valuable citizens of Hitler’s Reich became valuable to the U.S. rulers. American Zionist organizations during this period avoided mention of the Holocaust, which most Americans were not particularly interested in at that time. For the Zionists, the Holocaust was then a non-issue. Prof. Novick traces the change, after a few decades, of the organized Zionists’ stance as they decided they could extort enormous amounts of money from the “guilty” nations by promoting their culpability for the Holocaust. The organized Zionists in America used the natural empathy of American Jews for the slaughtered Jews of Europe, and the fact that American Jews were largely in control of the media (Hollywood, the mainstream press, radio and television networks) to bring about a shift in the consciousness of most Americans. The Holocaust became the property of Jews. As Robert Fisk made clear in his The Great War for Civilization: The conquest of the Middle East, organized Zionists suppressed recognition of the Turkish holocaust against the Armenians. The innocent victim game was henceforth to be protected as Jewish property.

      I’ve been three days at this statement, which I want to complete, but not right now. So I’ll continue it in a Part II. I want to make it clear that although I am still suspicious of the role that Israel Shamir’s and Ken Freeland’s work supports, I have NO HARD EVIDENCE. It is all circumstantial. I hope that I will turn out to have been mistaken. If my suspicions are ill-founded I will fully apologize, as publicly as I can. My overarching goal is to understand the truth about contemporary socio-political reality. I removed you, David Baillie, from my postings of people on whom I rely as “clues to social reality” simply because your rants, which mixed important truths with vicious nonsense, were being destructive of my efforts. I have no intention of removing Israel Shamir or Gordon Arnaut. And I still hold warm feelings for David, Gordon and Israel as people. I have great respect for their committed opposition to censorship of any kind. Each of the four of us is ideologically in conflict with the other three on many counts, but this has only made our communications more valuable to me. I hope that Israel, David and Gordon will continue to count me as a friend — one whose word they can trust to be as truthful as I can make it. Not always right, of course, but always ready to make corrections. Sincerely, —George

[1] Struggling against censorship and disinformation. An effort to learn the contemporary social-political reality, if it is to be more than superficial, must start with ending all censorship. Almost all governments of nation-states want to prevent knowledge of their misdeeds from being disseminated, which they try to achieve by censorship. Particularly aggressive in pushing censorship at this time are the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, Canada. The groundbreaking work of Julian Assange and the many people who work with his Wikileaks project is in the forefront of the struggle against censorship. For example, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which opposes revelations harmful to the U.S. ruling class, reports on 21 October 2010 “WikiLeaks Prompts U.S. Alert to Iraqis” which begins “A Pentagon team has been reviewing copies of Iraq war documents the website WikiLeaks may release in coming days and plans to notify Iraqis named in the documents in an effort to minimize potential damage from the security breach, defense officials said.” The WSJ of course supports the U.S. government in this contest of censorship vs. truth, supporting censorship under the guise of “security”. The WSJ article is at

[2] Indefensible comments. By an “indefensible comment” I mean one that from my perspective has no justification. But of course other people see things differently. So I ought to indicate my overall viewpoint.

[3] The ethics of a just solution of the “Palestinian/Israeli” conflict.
      Originally I included my views on the ethics as an endnote in each of the essays “Getting at the truth in today’s world”. But instead of endnotes I have now made a separate posting, with the most complete and up to date version. It is at

George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an Emeritus Prof of Physics, Univ of Massachusetts-Boston.

All comments and criticisms are welcome.  <>

      If you know folks who want to ‘save the world’, starting with global open communication — no censorship, I’ll be glad to add them to my Notes of an anarchist physicist listserv [noaap]. To subscribe write me, including your first and last names, please, or send a blank e-mail to

*     *     *
Return to the latest postings page of website II,
Return to the home page of website II,

Initial posting of this page: 21 October 2010.
Last update: 25 January 2011