Getting at the truth in today’s
world — Part II
G. S.  <>
initial posting 23 Oct 2010 - last update 25 Jan 2011


Oaxaca, Mexico, Wednesday-Friday, 20-22 October 2010

      This article gives my reasons for some doubts I’ve developed about how much to trust the website of Israel Shamir and Kenneth Freeland. It follows my article Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part I. [1]

      It is important to emphasize that I do not have any hard evidence to back up my suspicions. I hope that I will turn out to have been mistaken in casting any shadows on Shamir’s and Freeland’s site. [2]

      My contact with them arose because I believe that the way to get Palestine back into the hands of the indigenous Palestinians is by awakening the millions of Gentile Americans to the fact that their lives are being severely damaged because of the imperial interests of the American ruling class, in which hyper-wealthy Jewish individuals and Zionist groups have a very influential role, certainy far out of proportion with their small numbers in terms of the American population at large. To reach out to the Gentile American majority I think it is best to avoid trying to influence the host of Jewish American groups that are attempting to “civilize” Israeli society. So far as I know, setting aside the small group of orthodox religious Jews who outright reject the State of Israel, all Jewish American groups that are not in the ardent pro-Zionist camp nevertheless support the existence of a Jewish nation-state in Palestinian territory, although some voices are beginning to call for a bi-national “one-state solution”. In my view, which is somewhat elaborated in endnote [3], it is basically an unethical, unjust position to advocate the “humanization” of the Nazi-Jewish state — that is its “de-Nazification” because it would leave part of the fruits of conquest in the possession of the conquerors - the Jews, and deprive the conquered - the Palestinians of part of their patrimony. Conquest, I maintain, should not be rewarded, not even partially.

      Because I did not want to align myself with Jewish American groups in favor of partial, supposedly “humanitarian” conquest, I tried to make contact with Gentile anti-Zionist efforts. First I learned of The Patriot Dames Talk Radio weekly on-line program of Susan L. Purtee, that originated, Susie first told me, in Columbus, Ohio. She called it The Patriot Dames: The Subie Sisters, supposedly the work of Susie and her younger sister Barbie. Susie and I corresponded and I participated for a time in her weekly on-line broadcasts, glad to have even a truncated opening to “the heartland of America”. Susie, who moderated her show with a tight grip, pretended that she was simply interested in giving people a chance to voice their opinions, not to express her own views. However, she clearly attracted a group of real Jew haters, one of whom kept interjecting during the broadcast, “Kill the Jews!” Subsequently I learned from a friend, Tadit Anderson, who actually lives in Columbus that Susie’s program did not come from Columbus. [4]

      Eventually Susie, in a moment of boastfulness, took satisfaction at having deceived me, and that was the end of what I had been misled into believing had been an honest relationship of mutual trust. [5]

      The next episode in my yet-to-be-realized fantasy of putting an end to the attempted Israeli genocide of the Palestinians also began with an uinvited e-mail, on 28 August 2010, and again I took the bait. This time the message came from a Boston-area resident, an angry poor working guy, not in the American Heartland, but still tempting. An intense, mainly three-way dialogue then developed that involved David Baillie in the Boston area, Gordon Arnaut, a friend of some years who lives in rural Ottawa, and myself. This continued for nearly two months. Each of the three of us was ideologically on terrain that neither of the other two accepted, though we also had substantial areas of agreement. [6]

Information and disinformation on the internet

      A major challenge the internet poses to each of us who wants to learn the truth is to distinguish between material posted with honest, constructive intent and deliberate disinformation intended to mislead and create confusion. The beauty of the internet, as long as it remains open and uncensored, is that there are millions of us who seek to truly understand the world, people in the camp of Julian Assange and his Wilileaks associates, who are not for sale. Individually each of us is limited in our knowledge and our ability to gather and disseminate it, but in our millions our ability to learn and convey truth far exceeds the ability of the hired liars of governments and their so-called counterintelligence agencies to confound everyone with falsehoods. That of course is why they are trying so hard to make our informational activities illegal. They will exact a heavy price with their terrorism, which they call preventive anti-terrorist actions, but will inevitaby fail to thwart our combined efforts.

      Funding for disinformation projects of course far exceeds the resources available for honest work in this area. There can be little doubt also that disinformation projects invariably try to camouflage their work in order to mislead honest people. Thus the openness of the internet serves both the interests of those who do not control governments or the media — ourselves — and, on a much larger scale, the still-dominant social sectors. The challenge this poses us is to learn how to find reliable sources for honest information and to identify and avoid the postings of the vast array of disinformation projects. My efforts in this direction — introducing individuals who in my judgment are honestly trying to tell the truth as they understand it — are in several of my postings. [7]

      In addition to giving information about some of the individuals whose knowledge and insights have proved partiularly useful to me, I am assembling a “check list” that enables me (or anyone) to simply run down the list and click on one or another (or all) of them to see their latest postings. Thus, whenever Robert Fisk has a new article in The Guardian I read it — I’m addicted to him. My goal is not to have a large number of links, as so many sites do, but to put together a small selcted list — those few people who sustain me in this pursuit of understanding the world. [8]

      My immediate attraction to Israel Shamir was his evident openness. My first note (24 May 2009), Cc'd to him, elicited an immediate response, which began, “. . . If you were now in Israel/Palestine, I’d stand you lunch in a fish restaurant in my Jaffa.” We exchanged 4 more notes in the next few days. His 3rd note, on 30 May, began, “First of all, certainly everything I write may be forwarded and published in any way you find fit.” That readiness to speak openly and publicly captured me — no whispering from the shadows. We already knew there were major disagreements separating his beliefs from mine, but that didn't prevent feelings of personal warmth. Feelings which, on my part, persist in spite of my current suspicions.

Basis for questioning the Shamir-Freeland website

      Starting from the assumption that their site represents a sincere effort to oppose the Israeli-imposed genocidal efforts against the Palestinians, what can we say?

      First of all, both Israel Shamir and Ken Freeland are intellectually head and shoulders above a number of the people who have, as it were, swarmed into the controversy ignited by Gordon Arnaut’s and David Baillie’s increasingly hostile exchange. Much of the Baillie-Arnaut dispute is in the items listed in endnote [6] of this paper. I think it’s reasonable to assume that Ken and Israel are well able to assess the impact of their work in the ongoing internet controversy between the pro-Zionists and anti-Zionists. There is a group of people attracted to Ken’s and Israel’s work not because of their compassion for Palestinians but because of their hatred of Jews. [9] I am not in a position to know the extent of the “network” of such people or how coherent a group they make up. However, there should be no doubt that the Zionists thoroughly monitor the web for anti-Zionist material, including the often hateful postings of rabid Jew-haters, and use it for their own purposes. What might these be?

      If Zionist groups locate material that is virulent in its expression of hatred — pure blind hatred — of Jews, all Jews, they can disseminate it to demonstrate the supposed threat that Jews face. Especially in the United States, where Zionist propaganda has convinced a large majority of Gentiles that among the modern Westernized population groups, the Jews are the most threatened, such evidence of hatred will bolster support for the Zionist state. Decent compassionate Americans — the majority of us — will react the same as my good Canadian friend, Gordon Arnaut. He acknowledges the Zionist terror in Palestine, but still believes Israel has a right to be a nation-state in Palestinian territory. After all, he rationalizes, the Jews have suffered so greatly. Gordon is an engineer. His reasoning is not attuned to dealing with ambiguities. Like a switch, there are only two positions: on and off. The wrongs the Jews have suffered entitle them to have “their own nation-state”. Never mind the sordid history of the British and the other imperial powers, and of Zionist machinations, and the fact that it was not the Palestinians who were in any way responsible for Jewish suffering, this is how things are, and we should accept it. Gordon’s only caveat: Israel should not mistreat the Palestinians. Gordon denies being brainwashed by pro-Zionist propaganda, which is even worse in Canada than in the U.S., so far as I can tell. I am confident he is brainwashed by much, though not all, of the lies Zionists disseminate.

      Regarding Israelis and Palestinians I’m in agreement with my other recent correspondent, David Baillie, in one crucial respect. We share utter contempt for the Zionist position. Unlike Gordon. David is a poor working class American who believes that the U.S. was an ideal nation which has been largely taken over by “The Jews”, who he holds responsible for just about everything that’s evil and corrupt in the world. Much of David’s information is correct — there is a lengthy list of hyper-rich Jews whose role in the financial collapse of much of the world is unmistakable. But much of his belief system is utterly false. He holds that if “The Jews” could be sequestered — he wants all Jews locked in Israel and Palestinians in Birobidjan — then the world could function satisfactorily. David became so destructive of my efforts to gain a group of people I could trust to speak the truth as they understand it that I gave up on him. I still believe he is basically a decent person, but I have — at least temporarily — put aside the effort to maintain a civilized dialogue with him as we managed – more or less – to do for almost two months. I see him as a victim of the U.S. plutocracy, which is more and more fascist every day.

      1. Shamir and Freeland, to the extent they have promoted and encouraged David Baillie's virulent beliefs, and are involved in a network of Jew-haters, have served to benefit the Zionist goals, as I explained several paragraphs above. If this was unintentional on their part, I think they should make it clear that their support for Palestinians is in no way an expression of Jew-hatred, and explicitly state their wish to be disassociated from the efforts of Jew-haters. Israel, so far as I know, has not made any disassociation from Jew-haters. He has written David a somewhat ambiguous note (19 Oct 2010) encouraging his “white racialism” and fostering the false idea that Gordon Arnaut is the “real racist” in the Baillie-Arnaut exchange. Shamir’s note read: “Dear David, Indeed we should speak frankly and sincerely. Otherwise it makes no sense. Almost every thinking person tried to understand the mystery of Jews and their deeds. Some use a religious key, others, a racial key, or a class attitude. For sure, it is interesting occupation, especially if you'll find your own key. In my view, white racialism in America has some positive elements: compassion to ordinary Americans, "rednecks", "hillibillies", and rejection of neoliberal hatred of majority. Real racist in your conversation is Gordon Arnaut, who attacked you for what you are - a descentent of 'folksdeutsche'. So cheer up and try to be positive.” [10]
      This seems to me vintage Shamir - ambiguities, suggestive, use of code words - in short, slippery. His note to David precisely negates his laudable opening assertion that “indeed we should speak frankly and sincerely. Otherwise it makes no sense.” Immediately after this admirable opening he makes the following meaningless statement: “Almost every thinking person tried to understand the mystery of Jews and their deeds.” Is he complimenting David Baillie for being a thinking person, one who meditates on the mysterious uniqueness of Jews and their deadly “deeds” in Palestine and everywhere else? Does he think, as he hints, that Jews are inherently different than other human beings, the source of the supposed “mystery”? Of course he doesn’t elaborate, just throws out a few of what he terms keys: religion, race, class. I see these “keys” as Shamir’s sprinklings in place of real discussion.
      And then he goes on to reinforce what he knows is David’s “white racialism”, saying it “has some positive elements: compassion to ordinary Americans, “rednecks”, “hillibillies”, and rejection of neoliberal hatred of majority.” The “neoliberal hatred of majority” should be read, I think, as Shamir’s code for American Jews’ supposed hatred of David’s WHITE men. To leave no stone unturned he then asserts to David that the “[r]eal racist in your conversation is Gordon Arnaut.” David was flattered by Shamir’s sly praise and replied with an appreciative letter in which, unlike Shamir, he said very clearly what he believed. [11] That quality of David, saying forthrighty exactly what he thinks at the moment, is one I greatly admire. It made my contact with him very valuable to me, though sometimes aggravating, and even infuriating.

      2. One of the postings on a Shamir/Freeland site spoke favorably of David Duke and of an NPR journalist, both critical of the Israeli attack on the humanitarian Turkish ship in international waters. It ended with a photograph of the charming-looking David Duke. Shamir used Duke in support of his own justified criticism of Israeli actions, which of course suggested they are in the same humanitarian camp. That ignored Duke’s motivation, i.e.his crass political ambition, not any real concern for the well-being of Palestinians. It looks like opportunism of Shamir using opportunism of Duke. Since then, if I recall correctly, Shamir backed away from any suggested endorsement of Duke’s position. To Israel’s credit.

      3. Shamir wrote me that Prof Kevin B. MacDonald, psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, is a brave man. I believe that is true. He has been unflinchingly opposed to the dominant Zionist tide in U.S. academia. I wrote about him a few years ago, “I don’t see him as a ‘hater’ but as someone who fully accepts that different ethnic groups are fundamentally different in their social behavior. Unsurprisingly, since uncritically his work appears to be solid academic research in favor of ‘racial separation’ he is well regarded among various real rabid ‘hater’ groups. He and they are fearful of what they see as the ‘mongrelization’ of the White, Christian, northern-European-derived American ‘race’ with which they identify themselves.” [12] MacDonald believes, as I do, that Jews are responsible for a great deal of damage and destruction in the world, far out of proportion to the percentage of Jews in the global population. Naturally his views have been welcomed by some U.S. groups in the rabid radical right.
      I am critical of the supposed scientific basis for MacDonald’s work, in fact of the entire so-called discipline of “evolutionary psychology”. Shamir seemed initially untroubled by MacDonald’s ideology, but to his credit he has re-examined it and is now critical of MacDonald’s “racialist” framework, as discussed in his two-part essay “The Poverty of Racialist Thought” [Part 1] and “Winnie the Pooh on Immigration and Race” [Part 2]. [13]

      4. The circumstance that Israel Shamir appears to be absolutely free to travel in and out of Israel is striking. There are of course other Israeli veterans of military/state terrorist actions who also come and go without apparent difficulty, including people like Uri Avnery, who is strongly critical of government actions. However, there is a significant difference. Avnery is a committed Zionist, still holding out for the so-called “two-state solution”. He wants a Jewish state in the territory of historic Palestine. As a highly visible propagandist for a “humane conquest” he serves the Zionist Nazis as a showpiece of how “open and democratic” their nation-state is. He is useful to them, for external propaganda purposes. In Israel he is part of a vanishingly small group which seems totally without influence. A fig-leaf for the state.
      In contrast to Avnery, Shamir is outspokenly anti-Zionist, a Jew who repudiated Judaism and adopted (converted to) a Middle-Eastern sect of Catholicism. He espouses a single civil, i.e. non-religious nation-state for all the people in the territory of historic Palestine, each person with full citizenship and civil and religious rights. On the face of it that would seem to mark him as an enemy of the state of Israel, and because of his vigorous advocacy of doing away with the Jewish State, a likely target for silencing, perhaps by expulsion or by an assassination arranged to appear executed by enemies of Israel. However, apparently the willing murderers who run the Israeli government regard Shamir’s activities not as they appear on the surface but as serving their interests. This is of course only circumstantial evidence that everything is not as it appears, but there ought to be an explaination why Shamir seems to enjoy a “special status”. Is it possible that I am mistaken in believing the state of Israel is not the democracy it claims to be, and that its citizens, including its non-Jewish citizens (one of whom Shamir insists he is), all enjoy the same freedoms that Shamir enjoys? I doubt it.

      5. Ken Freeland zeroed in on the matter of financial support. On 17 Oct 2010 he wrote, “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”
      Is Ken oblivious to the climate of deception, double-dealing, deliberate disinformation that dominates so much of today’s world? Hardly. He is a very sophisticated, well-read, thoughtful person. He surely knows that no one — not he, not Shamir, not I — stands on a giant pedestal above and untouched by the floods of propaganda washing over the earth. It is precisely my awareness of the difficulty this situation presents in the struggle to know the truth that motivated me to search for a group of people — a small group — whom I could trust for guidance. Perhaps guidance is not quite the right word, because I intend to continue exercising my own critical ability, to continue questioning what my friends say. And to do so across the board. No one is always correct. There are no Gods.
      I understand that Ken is angry that I even have suspicions, but instead of dealing with me as an honest but inadequately informed person, he responded defensively, accusing me of using “ad hominems and smears”, which I don’t think is accurate. Instead of going on the attack Ken (and Israel) ought to clear the air by acknowledging that indeed their anti-Zionist stance, which I think is totally justified, has brought into their orbit people who are out-and-out Jew haters. And many of whom are also haters of what some of them term “mud people”, that is to say, non-Whites. There’s no question about Zionist lying — I would not credit Zionists with having cornered the disinformation market, but they’ve made a huge bite into it. Thanks to the basic decency of most ordinary people and the openness of the internet their interminable lying is beginning to be exposed and repulsed. And of course Israel’s and Ken’s work contributes to this necessary counterattack.
      My position on these issues has been quite simple, straightforward and consistent — the constructive way to try to respond to lies is not by “answering” them with other lies, by disregarding the truth, but by trying to be as honest as possible. This of course may take a lot more effort than just shooting back an angry note if it means acknowledging that parts of your opponents’ argument are justified while other parts are wrong and thus unacceptable. It requires patience and discretion.

      6.        Ken Freeland’s evasive non-response
      The most obvious feature of Ken’s note is its absolute avoidance of any substantive statement. For him to claim that he’s “been as tolerant as [he] can be” and that “[I’ve] clearly gone over the line . . . with [my] ad hominems and smears” shows that he did not distinguish between my writing and that of Gordon Arnaut. During those days of e-mail diarrhea I was relatively silent, so much so that David Baillie complained about my silence in one of his notes. On the one hand I tried to get Gordon to stop attacking David, without any effect. On the other hand, admittedly it was ungenerous of me to express my pleasure at Gordon’s success in getting Ken to cite that disreputable book by Hennecke Kardel which Coffinman linked to [14], but it was my belief that if not for Gordon’s perseverence Ken would not have made that mistake. Ken of course had aligned himself with Shamir, who had decided early on that Gordon was his ideological enemy. To take that position, Shamir had to ignore — actually to deny — the hard evidence that Gordon reported on the basis of his on-the-ground face-to-face experiences in Europe. In a word, he had to regard Gordon an out and out liar. But it is precisely Gordon’s own personal experiences, not his theoretical contemplations or his reading on the internet, etc., that is totally credible. Gordon can at times be badly mistaken, as with his misplaced sympathy for the Jewish Israelis, but he is simply not a liar. Of course that creep Frank Scott, the pseudo tough guy who in effect claimed that Gordon was lying about his murdered relatives, gave Shamir a cheap out when Gordon foolishly challenged him to a refereed boxing match. So yes, Gordon is peculiar. For my taste he’s too damn deferential and respectful of titles, and takes “honor” too seriously.

      You know, Ken, that Shamir was not only uncouth when he said to Gordon that he didn’t care about Gordon’s relatives who were murdered, and didn’t want to hear anything about it. He was cruel and uncaring — he truthfully didn’t give a shit. That is consistent with his attitude about killing and war. He accepts violence as a way of settling disputes, claiming that although people kill one another (he probably actively participated in the slaughter of Egyptians in the Sinai during the 1967 so-called Six-Day War), afterwards, according to him, they don’t harbor any hatreds. So far as I know that is complete nonsense. Talk to a GI whose buddies were killed in a fight with “enemies” and see whether there’s persistent hatred. Talk, cheap talk comes easily to Israel, and he’s generally not troubled, an apparently easy-going guy. I’m glad to be able to say that he’s not always as easy-going as he likes to appear. His reconsideration of, for example, the ideology of racism (I’m calling it racism, not the cloak term, racialism) to which Kevin B. MacDonald’s work lends thin credence, is a healthy sign. I will turn to Shamir in the next section, 7., after these comments to Freeland.

      Consider the rest of Ken’s response. “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.)” Ken’s use of the term Right to label some of Marx’s pseudo-critics, probably the same Jew-haters who are attracted to his and Shamir’s site, has of course no relation to my conjecture that the Shamir/Freeland project might have motives altogether different than those it tries to project. I hold neither a neo-Nazi nor a Marxist ideology, being opposed to both authoritarian sects. As I don’t have to inform you, Ken, both the Marxists and the neo-Nazi hangers-on to your website would readily snuff me out, given the opportunity. There’s nothing “ironic” in my consideration of the possibility that an ostensibly anti-Zionist project like yours and Israel’s might conceivably be funded by wealthy Zionists. The irony, if any, is entirely in your mind.

      As for the rest of your silly hocus-pocus about Marx, your alleged certainty that the great man would agree with your nonsense and your imperviousness to having your motives questioned, it’s not worthy of comment. So much empty verbiage without a nickel’s worth of information. And all this in response to a mere suspicion that I explicitly clearly stated I had no hard information to justify, and which I hoped would turn out to be unjustified. Now, of course, it’s beginning to look as though I may have hit upon something very questionable.

      7.            Israel Shamir’s e-mail 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

George’s comments on Shamir’s note.
      First, Israel affirms agreement with Ken, no surprise. If the ship goes down the captain will go to the depths with his crew — sheer bravado I guess. I easily imagine Israel shamelessly jumping ship if the time comes to try to salvage his own reputation.
      Then he “regrets” what he calls my tendency to force others to discourse on my terms. What are my terms? Don’t sidle away from real issues, seeking to camouflage your intent with clever verbiage. Deal forthrightly with substantive disagreements. Israel agrees with me that he does not reply when he wants to avoid certain questions, and defends that behavior by saying, “Indeed I do: life is too short to waste it on endless discussions of irrelevant topics”. He is implying that I have pressed him to waste his life discussing irrelevant topics. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that ‘of course, it’s unthinkable that Ken Freeland and he could possibly be carrying out a program aimed at sowing confusion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.’ And then he says that since I insist, he’ll have his say. So what is his say?
      1.) “George is too fickle: he ditched his erstwhile penfriend David because somebody frowned upon him.” That is doubly false. I did not ‘ditch’ David, for whose outspokenness and candor I have high regard, and I still believe he is basically a good person, though with an ideology badly distorted by his admiration for Adolph Hitler. I actually agree with David to the extent that I believe Hitler was less deserving of contempt than Winston Churchill, though I do not share his adoration of Hiter. I removed David from my public list of informants because his non-stop rants were becoming an obstacle to my effort to assemble a small group of people on whom I could rely for guidance. David was in fact overwhelming me with his mailings. It was beyond my ability to do other work I felt I had to do and also save, sort out David’s sensible observations from his nonsensical angry eruptions, and respond reasonably to him. I certainly did not ‘ditch’ him because Gordon Arnaut attacked him.
      2.) “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.” It’s evident that everyone in this correspondence is highly un-Socratic, not least Israel himself. If his children had been murdered because they were of “the wrong ethnicity” and I told him callously that I didn’t care and did not want to hear about it, would Israel have responded to me with Socratic dispassion and detachment? I doubt it. So why does he expect Gordon to react differently? Gordon is as much a human being as any of us, and deserves to be treated as such. But Israel had already “chosen up sides”. If I believe Gordon, which I do, Shamir was with the Nazis on this one. Croatians innocent, Serbs guilty.
      3.) “Dirk does not know the difference between an internet rumour and a fact”. Our Socratic master wishes not to bother with Dirk Chardet. I’m happy to agree with him on the value of Chardet’s contributions.
      4.) “As for Coffinman, I am not interested in discussing Hitler ad nauseam.” This would seem to be in contradiction with Shamir’s breezy assertion “I second this letter of my friend and colleague Ken”. Ken sought to refute Gordon Arnaut on the basis of that scurrilous book by Hennecke Kardel. [14] Has Israel even looked at it? Probably not. After all, life is too short to waste on details, Israel, especially if they don’t bolster the opinions you already have. I may be, as you say, too fickle — too ready to change my mind — but you are not fickle enough.

[1] The preceding article, Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part I, is at

[2] The Israel Shamir/Kenneth Freeland site is: The Writings of Israel Shamir.

[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

[4] Tadit Anderson and The Patriot Dames: The Subie Sisters. Susie has several websites, at and She wrote me (2009-05-19) “I am 62 years old having lived in Columbus, Ohio all of my life.” She knows Mark Weber, whose Institute for Historical Review is at, and who she has interviewed several times on her program. She is very enthusiastic about him. She also knows of Michael Santomauro who runs the Reporters’ Notebook website dedicated, he asserts, to historical accuracy. His site, at http://reportersnotebo
is regularly condemned by Zionists for its “revisionist Holocaust denial”. Santomauro insists, quite reasonably, that the Holocaust, just as any historical occurrence, should be subject to study. Susie wrote me (2009-08-20) in two notes, “I’ve emailed Michael Santomauro to make sure he listens in to the [2008-08-21] show, maybe even call in” and “Definitely discuss Heidi Beirich on the show tomorrow! This is an intricate part of the obstacles we are running up against.” Susie thus also knows of the effort of Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to censor people critical of Zionist efforts, people such as the evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald of California State Univ at Long Beach, who Beirich labelled the “Marx of the anti-Semites”. I wrote about these contestants, Beirich et al in “Southern Poverty Law Center, Heidi Beirich, Kevin B. MacDonald, critical thoughts I” at The drumbeat of coordinated, sustained Zionist propaganda has led to outlawing studies which question the facts of the Holocaust in various countries, among them Germany and Canada, and the jailing of individuals for pursuing such studies. These Zionist efforts are directed at censorship by law, which should be unacceptable to any thinking human being.
      Tadit Anderson maintains a fine website at http://www.economics.arawak
. His contact is <>.

[5] Captivation by compliments. A light-hearted account of the early stage of my encounter with “middle America” is at
, playfully titled, “Young woman stirs new life in old professor (emeritus): joys of past rediscovered.

[6] The intensive discussion: David Baillie, Gordon Arnaut, George Salzman and others.
A new Nazi friend, Hello David — No, not David Duke, David Baillie
A new Nazi friend, David Baillie — 2
A new ‘Nazi’ friend, David Baillie — 3
David Baillie vs. Gordon Arnaut
Baillie article and my comments
Routed — almost — by two guys — David Baillie & Gordon Arnaut “win”
Routed — almost — by two guys — part II
Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part I

[7] Reliable sources for honest information. Clues to social reality: parts 1, 2, and 3 are at part 1, part 2, and part 3.

[8] George’s checklist. My check list is posted at so that anyone who wishes can make use of it.

[9] Anti-Zionists attracted to material associated with Israel Shamir and Ken Freeland. The few who have come to my attention in the limited correspondence are
Susie Purtee <>
David Baillie <>
Coffinman <>
Dirk Chardet <>
Debora Menon <>

[10] Israel Shamir’s note to David Baillie. It was CC’d to: Ken Freeland <>, George Salzman <>, Coffinman <>, Dirk Chardet <>, Debora Menon <>, Gordon Arnaut <>, Alan Hart>, and Marat Kunaev <>

[11] David Baillie’s appreciative letter of thanks to Israel Shamir.
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:42:50 -0400
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.

[12] Kevin B. MacDonald. My views of him are discussed somewhat in my 2007 paper Raw Hate, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year — a Christmas rant — at

[13] The Poverty of Racialist Thought [Part 1] is at Winnie the Pooh on Immigration and Race [Part 2] is at

[14] Coffinman’s reference to Hennecke Kardel’s book, Adolph Hitler – Founder of Israel: Israel in war with Jews.

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: 23 October 2010.
Last update: 25 January 2011