Cowardly Zionists out to be world's censors: banning books that question, books you're not to be allowed to find (let alone buy)

You know, if it hadn't been for revisionist literature, I would never have learned that there was no soap made from the fat of Jews, there were no lampshades made from the tattooed skin of Jews, there were no Jewish heads shrunken by the Nazis. I would never have learned a great deal more after that, things which were never denied by the Zionists and others that were never sufficiently refuted or even close.


Tom Usher

Here though is proof that the Zionists can't stand any discussion about their claims about what they've deemed The Holocaust (as if there haven't been larger atrocities, even if one believes the 6-million figure). I've seen their claims demolished in many cases, shown up as poorly constructed false propaganda. How far will this banning go?

Will the Jewish revisionist historians also be banned, the ones who showed the world the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Will they ban former President Jimmy Carter's book on the Apartheid direction of Israel if Israel continues down its current path? Will they contact Facebook and Google and Twitter and any other social sites or blogs or commenting-system providers and the like to pressure all of them into removing even this commentary of mine because it doesn't toe the Zionist line? Will they seek to end the sale of the Christian Bible because the Gospels recount what the Jews (some Jews, not all) did to Christ? Will they challenge public and school and university libraries to remove such books, studies, research, etc.? Do you think by doing that, those Zionists will be making more friends for the Jews as a whole?

I differentiate between Jews according to their individual characters. Other people are not as inclined to that approach. The Zionists out to ban everything that doesn't whitewash everything they have ever done and every lie they've ever told are only making things worse for their fellow Jews who don't agree with book banning on such flimsy and, yes, hysterical bases.

Are there Nazis who hide behind careful language? Of course. That, however, is no justification for banning open discussion, academic freedom, and the freedom to publish dissenting political views.

Zionist authoritarians and ethnocracy advocates, who have literally stolen lands right out from under often peaceful and harmless Palestinian families (which theft is said to be such by the vast majority of the international community that openly states that Israel is violating international law with Israel's illegal settlements in Palestine), need to be stopped. Their anti-BDS actions need to fail, just as their illegal settlements need to fail.

We see this book banning on the heels of an alleged wave of anti-Semitism in the US that was spread in the MSM as if it was a forgone conclusion that it wasn't a Zionist doing it. Now we have seen the news that it was mostly the acts of a Jewish-American in Israel (no surprise to me at all), a dual citizen (a thing, dual citizenship, I don't agree should even be allowed).

Now, am I an anti-Semite? Hardly. If I'm an anti-Semite, then why have I openly stated that while the Zionist Project was and remains fundamentally wrong, the Jews have no real reason to claim they have no place to go, as the US would certainly accept them, all of them, if they'd give up their Project. In fact, if they'd give up their ethnocentric Project, the Palestinians would likely soften their hearts and be open to a one-state solution where Arabs, Jews, and any others, would have full, equal rights under the laws, all of the laws, no favoritism. Somehow, I'm pretty sure the obstacle to that are the same people who clamored for the books to be banned.

They are a dangerous lot, a very, very dangerous lot.

I don't have to agree with every book on the list to disagree with the dictatorial Zionists who have assumed way too much power: Amazon Mass-Bans Dissident Materials: Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day

Posted in Holocaust | Leave a comment

On Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods

Okay, as I've said before, Trump employs a fast-and-loose style. He doesn't attempt to hide it at all. When he's defending it, he points to probabilities: how often he turns out to have been right or at other times (other issues), on to something. Other Presidents have played fast and loose with the facts but never wanted to admit it or appear to the masses to be doing it.


Tom Usher

That doesn't make Trump's style right. The others were wrong and not even less so.

Playing fast and loose with the facts is just plain stupid. Sometimes, even people who don't do it or who try to avoid it make mistakes. Owning up to that is the sign of a good character.

If Donald Trump wants to openly wing it more than any other President in history, fine. However, he needs to qualified his statements in real time. He needs to say that he's engaging in open speculation or that he's referring to statements by others that he doesn't know have been substantiated or not. That would be refreshing coming from any President!

Those out to get Trump are going to fail, however, if they are going to attempt to hold him to selective connotations of the terms he uses just to suit their purposes. Everyone has to learn to see the various ways things can be taken and only seek greater clarity were ambiguities might lead to otherwise needless trouble.

As for the mundane politics of Trump running with an NYT headline using the term "wiretap" or "wiretapping" and stretching the term "campaign" to allow Trump to say he was under surveillance under the Obama administration (as the unified Presidency, meaning at Obama's command or approval or allowance), he should have said 1) the NYT story was an allegation 2) he thinks surveilling his campaign is in a sense, surveilling him and 3) he's referring to the intelligence community (surveilling his campaign) as part of the unified executive concerning which, the buck stopped with President Obama. He needed to do that at the time he made the statement (posted the Tweet). That said, politically again, it still was a bad idea to even bring it up.

If he had not raised it, then all of the focus could have remained on the fact that there is zero hard-evidence that Putin and the Russian state conducted, ordered, or condoned any hacking or interference in the US election. The term "circumstantial" is been thrown around, but there isn't any credible reason to ascribe the term "evidence," whether circumstantial or otherwise, to much of what is being suggested is such against the Russians.

News coverage by Russia about the US election is not interference. Russians favoring any particular outcome is not interfering. The US covers elections all over the world, and Americans (public and private) openly voice what they'd like to see as the outcome.

The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the entire dust-up about Russia is a fake-news red herring. The focus should be on the who, what, where, when, why, and how much concerning the Democratic primaries in which the Party leadership clearly connived to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination.

Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Stephen Zunes' Syria

The following is my open response to Stephen Zunes' Facebook post:


Tom Usher

The "reputable human rights groups" often spread wild misinformation about both the Syrian government and/or the US to the point of not deserving to be termed credible. They regurgitate many unsubstantiated accusations as if they are proven facts simply because one side or the other leveled them. Do you ever call them out for that? I do, as I'm doing right here. If you were to do that, you'd take away your own argument. Reputable doesn't equal credible.

James Clapper has a great reputation with some. The neocons who lied the US into the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Baathist Iraq are still lauded by many. Even George W. Bush has been cited by many Hillary Clinton supporters because of his anti-Trump statements.

You wrote "... the roots of the conflict lie with the corrupt repressive Baathist government." History did not start with the Baathists. The Baathists were a reaction. Many people believe that were there not an iron hand at the top, society would disintegrate into exactly what has happened. Assad made that very point when he quite correctly said during the "peaceful" protests that al Qaeda is waiting in the wings to take over and will be vastly worse than the then current system (which was democratizing, which Assad wants to continue). The counterargument is that things could become better and more peaceful. However, under what system (Assad's legitimate question), US neoliberal economics forced upon them via sanctions, etc.? That's been the pattern where the US hasn't simply left a totally failed state, such as with Libya.

Look at the stated ends of the YPG. Their egalitarian-leaning liberty is seen as chains by US libertarians/laissez-faire capitalists, so-called individualists.

As for your "bloggers" point, you're missing the point or avoiding it. They represent a counter to the claims leveled by typically mainstream US corporate media. It's not as if interviewing the "sources" of the info spewed by that media (often unnamed US government officials) would alter the counterclaims. Given the MSM v. the "bloggers," we get both sides of the story. That's the point. The MSM would have it otherwise: silence the "bloggers."

It sounds as if you're claiming that the MSM plus people who disbelieve the "bloggers" are the only people who should have a voice or be listened to. If so, I couldn't disagree more.

Lastly, your statement that they "aren't allowed to interview any other Syrians without government minders present" is rather sweeping. I've seen plenty of reporting done by people who aren't led, or accompanied, by the government. For security reasons, others don't want to risk floating about alone.

True intellectualism is based upon logic. I suggest you up your game, Steven.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment