On Dennis Marks Receiving "D" Marks In School

Some people believe that the blogger who uses the ID dmarks calls himself that because his real name is "Dennis Marks". I am one such person.

My theory (which is conjecture) is that the "d" in dmarks stands for Dennis... And there is reason to believe that this conjecture may be accurate.

Dennis Marks: Wait till he finds the name I use on another blog. It will make his day. (8/17/2013 AT 5:55pm).

I like having my day made. Unfortunately I never was able to figure out what the hell Dennis was talking about. My guess is that he uses the name "Dennis" on another blog. This would mean that my conjecture that "dmarks" is short for "Dennis Marks" is correct. I don't know what other name he could use that would "make my day".

But there is another theory about what "dmarks" means. This one presented by a commenter on my primary blog. A theory that, if not correct, is still excellent conjecture.

SWTD blog Commenter: Maybe d marks stands for the grades he got in school, given his grasp of the facts. (6/23/2013 AT 10:39am).

Yes, I think it is quite probable that Dennis' teachers gave him "D" marks. But does that mean he likes to remind himself of his academic failures? And, if that is the case, perhaps he could have called himself "fmarks"?

Obviously most of us will never know for sure. None-the-less I'm going to keep calling him Dennis and believing that his last name is Marks.

10/19/2016 Update: comment (by me) timestamped Oct 17, 2016 AT 01:42:00 PM EDT from the RNUSA blog that references this post.

Just for the record, the term was "everlasting blogstalker", and was used (that I could find) once on the blog of Willis Hart, and once on the blog of Latte Guy. [Note: actually twice... that I'm aware of. One "blog stalker" and one "homoerotic spamming stalker"].

I wasn't looking for an apology regarding that one, as I knew it wasn't true. Although dmarks could have interpreted it that way, the truth is that (if I was "stalking" anyone) it was Willis Hart. Latte Guy commented on Willis' blog, and said something (as I recall, I'm not going to waste time looking for the comment) that amounted to a pre-apology to Latte... if I started commenting on Latte's blog. So, of course I HAD to. As it turned out, Willis didn't comment as much as dmarks did. Nor did he engage me as much as dmarks did.

Anyway, Latte moved his blog to WordPress, where apparently you can ban people by IP. I commented twice as "Barlowe" and dmarks alerted CI to the fact that it was me. After that I couldn't comment again. I submitted comments, but they were immediately "flushed" (to use another dmarksism). Or, that was my impression. I didn't get a message about the comment needing approval, etc. I clicked submit and... nothing. I looked at WordPress once, but decided against creating a WordPress Blog (there was a specific reason which I now forget).

I bring this up because, in a post on TOM's blog, he published "hate mail" he received and it included IP addresses. "Hate mail" I'm now convinced that he deserved (if he actually received it), as he PO'd a lot of people with his trolling. He was convinced that Sue and Leslie Parsley (and their "minions") were behind all of it. Although he could have (I believe) blocked it (by blocking their IPs).

BTW, as for "stalking" dmarks, apparently he believed that I was following his every move, as he once wrote (on Willis' blog) "wait till he finds the name I use on another blog. It will make his day"... I was curious about what name he used and on what blog, but I never figured out what he was talking about.

[Note: I added the links to my comment when I added it to this post. Originally, as published on RNUSA, my comment included no links... because when I link, dmarks deletes. For the "amusement factor", he has said. So I didn't include them].

TADM #67

Endorsements & Praise Rolling In For "The Truth About Dennis Marks" Blog

The blogosphere is raving about The Truth About Dennis Marks, the blog dedicated to holding Dennis Marks accountable for his many many lies. On a number of other sites comments can be found praising this blog and it's author.

For example, Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly says this site is "over the top", by which I'm guessing he means it does a better than first rate job of exposing the lies of Dennis Marks. High praise coming from a respected, always right about everything, and superior to you (in his mind) blogger such as Willis.

Regarding this blog, rAtional nAtion (AKA Les Carpenter) says "It is something to behold indeed". This is an exact quote. Les obviously is a huge fan.

Even Dennis himself says "He's no Woodward, Bernstein, or Jack Anderson"... by which I assume he means I fall just short of these journalistic greats. Again, high praise that the author of this site appreciates.

And, if the subject of a blog dedicated to exposing the lies of said subject implies that what the blogger writes is accurate? That's pretty solid evidence that the blogger is on the right track (I'd say).

Huzzah!

TADM #66

Dennisism #8 & 9: Oinkers, Oinking & Unearned Gifts, Unearned Handouts

Who are the "oinkers" according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)? Also, what are these "unearned gifts" he refers to quite frequently?

Oinkers, it turns out, are people who toil for low pay and, because they often struggle to get by, request a pay raise by advocating for an increase in the minimum wage.

What follows is an example of Dennis calling out these "oinkers" (in the context of a discussion about robots replacing human labor).

Dennis Marks: Maybe not your highly skilled, valuable job. But that is what would surely happen if those lazy and greedy "oinkers" who demand to be paid double what the job is worth at McDonalds get their way. There's a robot smiling somewhere every time one of these boars or sows pickets a McDonalds. (5/1/2015 AT 4:23am).

"Oinkers" are minimum wage workers who want a pay increase. But this Dennisized word's noun form also has a verb form.

Dennis Marks: It's like the McDonald's workers doing work worth about $8 an hour and oinking for a handout of $15 an hour without doing a single thing to earn this amount. Other than oink for more money. (1/6/2015 AT 3:58pm).

So asking for a raise, or, rather, protesting for an increase in the minimum wage is, according to Dennis, "oinking".

So what about "unearned gifts"?

Dennis Marks: Given the attitudes of those like WD, who expect struggling small business owners to hand out at least $10,000 of unearned gifts to employees (per employee) per year, it is obvious that they don't respect other's property and feel entitled to it. An attitude of pure, and purely destructive, greed. (4/25/2015 AT 8:26pm).

"Unearned gifts" refers to an increase in the minimum wage that employees do not deserve (again, according to Dennis). (note that in the comment above Dennis references me with the phrase "those like WD").

So... here is my issue with Dennis' slandering of low pay workers who protest for an increase in the minimum wage... Why should employers not pay the full cost of labor? Why, when businesses must pay the full cost of whatever raw materials it takes to run their business, do some think that (when it comes to labor) the taxpayers should be subsidizing the price?

Which is what is taking place when the minimum wage does not reflect the worker's cost of living (at least when they're working a 40 hour week). The subsidies come into play when the worker, being unable to live on the too-low minimum wage, is forced to ask for help from the government (in the form of food stamps or other public assistance).

...many full-time workers qualify for food stamps or other government assistance. If the minimum wage were raised to a "living wage" we, the taxpayers, would not have to subsidize these corporations with government handouts. Yes, if wages were raised prices would go up to cover the employers' added costs. But isn't that really a reflection of the capitalistic system? (Minimum Wage Vs. Corporate Welfare by Jim Kinninger, RGJ.com 12/11/2013).

Dennis, with his references to "oinkers", "oinking", "unearned gifts" and "unearned handouts" is making an argument in FAVOR of corporate welfare. IMO it is business owners who advocate (or lobby) for not increasing the minimum wage (or getting rid of it) who are the REAL "oinkers". And these business owners are the ones who are greedy in asking for unearned gifts (or handouts) from the taxpayers.

Dennis' pro-corporate-welfare arguments sicken me. But all these comments are from the blog of one Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger who cottons to the meme that says we all need to bow down and worship the "job creators" (AKA the oligarchs).

Personally, I say NO to the audaciousness of greedy businesses that demand taxpayers subsidize their labor costs.

Here's a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion. That's the annual bill that state and federal governments are footing for working families making poverty-level wages at big corporations such as Walmart (WMT) and McDonald's (MCD), according to a new study from the University of CA Berkeley Labor Center. Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found. (How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year by Aimee Picchi. CBS Money Watch, 4/13/2015).

Shame on Dennis for being an oinker oinking for unearned taxpayer handouts on behalf of greedy business owners who don't want to pay the full price of the labor they utilize to generate their profits.

(Note: I previously covered this topic on my other blog in a post titled "Conservatives Pro-Mooching When Tax Payer Handouts Go To Business Community", SWTD #222).

TADM #65

Dennis Marks "Foreign Devils" Comment Deleted Out Of Shame And/Or Embarrassment

The World Trade Organization (Which I refer to as the WTO NWO, or "Worship the Plutocrat's New World Order" is an organization that the United States has subjugated itself to in order to please the plutocrats.

Because the WTO forces nations to bow to it's will (and it's will is the plutocrat's will), Dennis Marks has vowed his allegiance and does his duty in defending this un-democratic organization.

Dennis Marks: ...the WTO has problems... But overall, it is part of a trend of letting the average person make decisions which should belong to them and them alone. Its flaws are basically that it still regulates trade as much as it does. (8/01/2014 AT 08:29:00 AM EDT).

(Note: Dennis deleted his comment. See subhead dmarks Says The WTO Has "Problems", comment #8 below to verify and/or this screenshot).

I recently pressed this issue with Dennis when he came out against the TPP. Although his opposition has nothing to do with the trade aspects of the legislation. He dislikes the non-trade provisions).

Dennis Marks: Copyright infringement should be a matter of civil law, not criminal courts. Already Homeland Security have been abused to go after unauthorized duplication. But that is an aside, One particular aspect of TPP which is obnoxious is the copyright extension provision. As for TPP in its entirety, I know little of the details. And that is a major part of the problem: the secrecy. If the poison pills were removed, and matters were made public, I would look at the rest of it. (5/22/2015 AT 09:27:00 AM EDT).

Yeah, all that stuff would benefit the plutocrats, so it's still somewhat of a mystery to me why Dennis opposes this. Although these aspects do grant power to the State to go after violators (on behalf of the plutocrats) to punish people who steal their intellectual property. But Libertarians (the direction which Dennis has been moving in) don't like it when the State and the plutocrats team up.

Libertarians are for the plutocrats going it alone. Their desire is for us to be ruled by the wealthy, not by a cabal of the wealthy and politicians.

In any case, my questioning Dennis regarding his support for NAFTA GAT WTO caused him to delete the comment above (after I linked to it). Why? He says he does it for the amusement factor but I say that is hogwash.

In this case I think he did it to concel his hypocrisy in supporting one trade deal and not the other. Also, this "coming out" against the TPP was in the comment thread attached to an anti-TPP commentary by his buddy Lester Nation and Dennis, being a yes man to Lester, decided he had no choice but to find a reason to agree with Lester.

Whatever the reason (and I think both excuses I gave explain Dennis' actions), a number of comments were deleted by Dennis. Another discussion concerned Dennis referring to the blogger Truth101 as "bashing foreign devils" because, Dennis argued, opposition to free trade is due to racist feelings toward foreign workers, and not due to concern for American jobs and the American economy.

This comment was likely deleted due to shame or embarrassment, as Lester Nation has a favorable view of Truth101 (a blogger who is not that active these days). None-the-less, being a suck-up, Dennis removed the comment so as to not offend Lester (in addition to the reason of this comment being inconsistent with his current position of opposing the TPP).

And Dennis thinks if he deletes comments he can pretend, if I ever mention what he previously wrote again, say he never wrote it. He's done it before, claiming, after I linked to a screenshot I had saved and uploaded, that I "faked" it. He does this because he is a pathological liar.

Which pushes my buttons. I admit it. And for that reason I refuse to allow Dennis to get away with deleting his comments. When I noticed the comments of Dennis that I linked to had been removed I immediately looked up the Google cached page and copied them for posterity (which I have reproduced below). I also captured some screenshots, which I will upload and link to shortly (although I have not yet done so). In the meantime please refer to the comments below.

Comments deleted by dmarks after I linked to them on 5/21/2015.

dmarks Says The WTO Has "Problems"

Despicable Pro Palestinian/Hamas - Anti Israel Protests in Seatle... from the blog Rational Nation USA (Monday, July 14, 2014). Google cached page As of 5/21/2015.

(Note: The is the entire comment thread)

01. dmarks [Mon Jul 14, 07:37:00 PM EDT]

There's a sick brownshirt-style undercurrent present in Seattle. It came out several years ago in the anti-WTO protests, which included violence against small business owners.

02. Rational Nation USA [Tue Jul 15, 05:17:00 PM EDT]

I find it interesting, the absence of comments. Speaks volumes. Wonder where KM is.

03. DELETED dmarks [Tue Jul 15, 05:30:00 PM EDT]

Maybe, like with others, it is less controversial.

For me, there is hardly a more clear cut example of good vs evil on the world stage. The Palestinian government wants to kill every Jewish Israeli. The Israeli government wants to kill only the terrorists. Palestinian civilians who are not terrorists have been dying due to the Palestinian government policy of locating missile launchers in civilian areas to maximize Palestinian casualties.

The difference between the two is illustrated by Israel arresting the Jewish murderers of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Yet, in Palestinian territories, the Palestinian murders of the three innocent teens are considered to be heroes, furthering the Final Solution on, one dead Jew at a time.

04. Dervish Sanders [Thu Jul 17, 07:55:00 PM EDT]

The WTO undermines US sovereignty. One could support "free trade" and not the WTO. Even though both positions are foolish, IMO. But one is surely more foolish than the other.

05. DELETED dmarks [Thu Jul 24, 12:45:00 PM EDT]

Free trade is the opposite of foolish, as it puts these personal economic decisions in the hands of those most qualified to make them.

Regardless the anti-WTO protesters engaged in trying to silence free speech and assembly using tactics that involved violence and attacks on innocent working people. Their means and ends were truly evil.

06. Dervish Sanders [Thu Jul 24, 05:19:00 PM EDT]

The Seattle WTO protestors were opposing policies that have lead to a further degradation of the Middle and Working classes. They were on the right side in their opposition to the evil of the WTO. Consider the fact that "the WTO is not accountable to the American people or to any other voters around the globe. It is a sprawling bureaucracy that wields an almost unbelievable amount of power that is completely unchecked by democratic processes".

It is "international bankers, large international corporations and the most developed nations" that make the decisions at the WTO. Under the WTO we are subjugating ourselves to the plutocrats. Why anyone would be foolish enough to sign on for this is beyond me.

07. Rational Nation USA [Thu Jul 24, 05:29:00 PM EDT]

There are many things beyond you Dervish.

08. DELETED dmarks [Fri Aug 01, 08:29:00 AM EDT]

The Seattle WTO protesters were vandalizing small businesses, trying to shut down a meeting they did not like (which goes against the First Amendment right to assembly) and harassed working people trying to make a living. They opposed the right of all people, including those who work, and those in the middle class, to make their own informed economic decisions. Under the WTO we do not subjugate us to "plutocrats" In fact, the opposite is true: restrictions on free and fair trade are placed there to protect moneyed special interests.

The WTO has problems, and could be better. But overall, it is part of a trend of letting the average person make decisions which should belong to them and them alone. Its flaws are basically that it still regulates trade as much as it does.

This comes back to my Hyundai example. If you don't want to buy a Hyundai based on your racial animosity toward Koreans, that should be your choice. However, it should be your own choice. Government should really get out of the way.

These matters should not be the business of "democratic processes".. Democracy is there to control government, not to control our personal lives and decisions.

dmarks Accuses Truth101 of Bashing "Foreign Devils" for Being Opposed To Free Trade

The Formula For Avoiding Poverty from the blog Contra O'Reilly (FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2011). Google Cached Page As of 5/21/2015.

(Note: This is not the entire comment thread - which consists of 54 replies - but only the comment that dmarks deleted).

23. DELETED dmarks [NOVEMBER 20, 2011 AT 3:15 PM]

Truth said: "Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me Dmarks."

It is not so much "stupidity" as my insistence on defending the rights of Americans from arrogant elites who want to take them away.

"So each person is to negotiate with every nation personally?"

No. You don't even need to involve governments. Just let people choose or not choose as they see fit.

"This is perhaps the most shitheaded comment you've ever made."

You seem to be flying off the handle again. Lowbrow insults instead of logic. Perhaps if you realized that I wasn't even talking about individuals negotiating with governments. You are barking up the wrong tree... more like growling like a rabid dog. Calm down.

"And why do hate America and it's workers so much that you think Vietnam or China are better?"

I hate no one. Not even those foreign devils you are bashing in a jingoistic fashion. In fact, I respect the American worker more than you do. I believe that the American worker can and will compete will in a global marketplace, without any "need" for destructive and greedy policies such as tariffs. American workers don't need "protectionism".

"Best thing for all of us is for you to go live in Vietnam where you think it's so wonderful Dmarks."

No need. I can live here and get the best the world has to offer. Asmerican, Vietnamese, or Chinese. Just because I lack your hatred of foreigners does not mean I don't respect Americans too.

"Bon Voyage."

I thought the America, love it or leave it thing was a meme of the reactionary right. Now I see a member of the reactionary left using the idea to wish to get rid of the "shitheads" who reject his idea that American workers are so lousy that they can't compete on a level playing field. That the need "protection" from competition.

Sorry, I am will informed and principled. No amount of your jingoism and and proposals for destructive policies will make me change my mind. I need good arguments in order for that to happen.

TADM #64

Dennis Marks Cheers As WTO Prepares To Compel Nations That Don't Want Radioactive Food From Japan To Accept It

The World Trade Organization (Which I refer to as the "WTO NWO", or "Worship the Plutocrat's New World Order" is an organization that the United States has subjugated itself to in order to please the plutocrats.

Because the WTO forces nations to bow to it's will (and it's will is the plutocrat's will), Dennis Marks has vowed his allegiance and does his duty in defending this un-democratic organization.

Dennis Marks: ...the WTO has problems... But overall, it is part of a trend of letting the average person make decisions which should belong to them and them alone. Its flaws are basically that it still regulates trade as much as it does. (8/01/2014 AT 08:29:00 AM EDT).

Given the fact that "the WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations", when a there is a complaint to the WTO that another country's laws are negatively impacting the complainer's ability to sell their products into other nations, they are likely to get what they want.

A recent case of a complainer forcing their will upon another country involves one country saying "no" to imported food that may be radioactive.

Japan has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization over South Korea's restrictions on Japanese imports, enacted after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Tokyo calls the measure inappropriate and says it violates the rules of international trade. ... the ongoing testing of food produced in the Fukushima region has found that by 2014 less than 1 percent was contaminated with radiation above Japanese food-safety limits. (Japan takes S. Korea to WTO over Fukushima food restrictions. Published by RT on 5/21/2015).

OK, so what if you're a country that decides (as South Korea has) that you don't want to take a chance with that 1 percent contamination rate? I mean, 1 percent could be a hell of a lot of food, depending on how much you import. For sure it ain't nothing. And any country that decides it does not want to take that risk should have the autonomy to do so, right?

No, says the WTO. And Dennis agrees, saying "radiation? Yum!" [1]. Or he does not give a shit if someone else eats contaminated food and suffers some ill results. He's just betting it won't be him, but some other poor sucker. And, if that futher enriches the plutocrats, that's totally awesome in his book.

Footnotes
[1] Conjecture based on Dennis' support for the anti-democratic WTO.

TADM #63

Dennis Marks White-Hooded Projection

According to a report from Rawstory, the Klan does not view itself as a racist organization.

"We don't hate people because of their race. I mean, we're a Christian organization", Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday. (Virginia KKK Leader: We're Not Racist, We're Just Misunderstood Christians by Karoli. Crooks and Liars, 4/15/2014).

This is quite similar to how Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) views himself. As I have demonstrated on this blog, Dennis holds tightly to some seriously racially biased beliefs, yet he considers himself not to be racist at all. In fact, he frequently attacks other bloggers for their "racism". This, BTW, always involves the person being attacked standing in opposition to the racism of Dennis!

This is known as psychological projection, which, according to Wikipedia, is "a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others". Anna Freud said that "in projection thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one's own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else. What the ego repudiates is split off and placed in another".

Dennis engages in this kind of projection VERY frequently. For example, another blogger who went by the ID John Myste mixed it up with Dennis in regards to Affirmative Action. And, because this Myste guy dared to defend it, he was branded the "Grand Wizard of the Myste" by the delusional Dennis!

This exchange took place on the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart, an individual I used to think wasn't all that racist (although I have since reconsidered). This likely explained why Willis said nothing when Dennis lied about John Myste being "racist". Which is why John Myste left the Hartster's blog. He got fed up with the lying of Dennis and called it quits. I haven't seen him since (and his blog has been inactive since then as well).

So he's gone, and has been since 11/5/2012, yet Dennis continues to refer to Myste on the blog of Willis Hart by accusing him of racism that was never exhibited.

Dennis Marks: One could always buy the John Myste argument on African Americans: that they are less capable, damaged beings that are below the mark, and can't compete on a level playing field. Myste's argument was nasty and demeaning, but isn't too far afield from much of the argument in favor of "affirmative action" quotas/goals/time tables/etc. No, I do not buy into the Myste argument of black inferiority. (5/11/2015 AT 2:07pm).

But John Myste never made any argument at all concerning "black inferiority". This is a complete fabrication by the projecting Dennis. What he said that, as a race, African Americans have been subjected to oppression and not afforded opportunities to advance.

John Myste: Saying that we insult blacks when we say they were unable to compete after the oppression had done its job, is a lie. Honest whites say this and blacks say this. All people who are denied education, segregated into the worst parts of a society, and written off by that society, are unable to compete with those who were given opportunity, education and respect: regardless of skin color. (10/18/2012 AT 7:41am).

Myste never said Blacks are "inferior". He said they were not afforded the same opportunities and that Affirmative Action is necessary to fix that problem. Or was. For the record, Myste also said "I don't support most AF policies. I consider them divisive at best and unduly racist at worst".

So, he was only speaking of the need to do something and not supporting any and all Affirmative Action policies. Which Dennis says he agrees with. Or he says he agrees with "the JFK version", which (according to Willis Hart) contained "no preferences or quotas at all, just a commitment to make certain that those group that had been discriminated in the past would no longer be discriminated against in the future".

OK, but did it work? Perhaps the quotas were added when it was noticed that discrimination was still taking place and that the number of African Americans being afforded opportunities was not increasing that much? I mean, I haven't researched it, but it makes sense. We're talking about the force of law backing up an effort to make sure a certain number of African Americans are afforded opportunities versus a SUGGESTION that an effort be made (with no indication at all regarding what such an effort might look like in terms of numbers).

Suggestions can be ignored and excuses made to justify very little being done, after all. A justification might be that no qualified African Americans presented themselves for consideration. So do we accept the status quo of nothing being accomplished despite a suggestion, or do we FORCE the issue with quotas? I say we go with the quotas because otherwise no progress will be made.

This, I believe, is why people like Willis and Dennis support the "suggestion to be ignored" version of Affirmative Action. Because they don't really agree with the notion that African Americans should be afforded opportunities that were previously denied them. Due to their racial biases. Just suggest it and sit back while the suggestion is ignored and the status quo that favors Whites like them is maintained.

How else do you explain comments like the following?

Dennis Marks: John even implied that Barack Obama isn't qualified for anything by saying that he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without affirmative action quotas... a man would would not have prevailed or succeeded if held to the same standards as anyone else. John is one of the most empassioned liberal racists I've ever met. His reasons for claiming that blacks are inferior is because they are damaged by history. That's different of course than claiming they are genetically inferior. But either "argument" would make a Klansman smile. (5/14/2015 AT 4:37am).

But the above characterization of Myste's comments bear very little resembelance to what he actually said.

John Myste: Obama earned his position. It was not donated via AF. However, if not for policies like AF, neither he, nor any in his race, would likely be able to compete, and it would have nothing to do with anything inherent to his race, and would have everything to do with the oppression (damage) white America did to his race and did not undo when given the change. AF undoes that damage. We robbed blacks of education, opportunity, and the ability to gain skills and knowledge. Replacing what we robbed is not racism. (10/18/2012 AT 7:41am).

Don't actually force anyone to do anything. Just suggest they do it and be satisfied when very little progress is made. And if anyone dares to say that's not good enough or point out it isn't working? Dennis will call you an "empassioned liberal racist" (He means against Whites).

Anyway, notice the dates... Dennis is referring to a comment from Myste that is over 2 and a half years old! So what explains Dennis' fetish with the long-departed John Myste? I'm convinced it's because, subconsciously he knows he's a racist and the ONLY way he can drown out these unpleasant unconscious thoughts is to attack those who stand up to his racism. By accusing them of being what he is... an extremely racially-biased individual.

As Wikipedia points out "according to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life". However, while Dennis may be doing something that is not out of the ordinary, I still say it's creepy and weird. And, due to this behavior involving accusing others of racism, I also think Dennis is a total scumbag who (on some level, at least) knows he's a fu*king liar. That's in addition to being a racist bigot.

Supporting Documents
[1] Myste Arguments, DSD #8. (John Myste argues with Dennis about Affirmative Action. Although Dennis says MANY times that he understands Affirmative Action, it is clear he does not).
[2] Myste Ad Hominem, DSD #9. (John Myste, sick of Dennis' stupidity and monopolizing of the conversation at Willis Hart's blog, departs, but Dennis continues to lie about him anyway).

TADM #62

The Most Repugnant & Vile antiSemitism (From Someone Thinking He Was "Confronting antiSemitism") I Have Ever Seen

According to the blogger Octopus, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a "friend" of The Swash Zone due to his efforts in "confronting anti-Semitism".

Dennis CONFRONTED antiSemitism? OK, I believe that. But he also engages in it (examples to follow).

First, however, as far as "confronting anti-Semitism" goes, Dennis only does so in a manner that is consistent with his far Right Conservative beliefs. By that I mean his support for Israel is unwavering. And, as with many Conservatives, he sees any and all criticism of US-Israel policy, or any criticism of Israel at all as "antiSemitism".

There is a name for this viewing of any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism", BTW. This phenomenon is known as the "New AntiSemitism". And, as it relates to the Right (in both the US and Israel), is a tool they utilize to shut down all debate regarding - or criticism of Israel. Perhaps some of these antiZionists go too far - but not ALL criticim of Israel is "antiSemitism", and labeling ALL criticism thusly is not helpful.

Via Wikipedia: Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford... argues against the idea [of] "new" anti-Semitism. He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, but argues that... it is an unhelpful concept, because it devalues the term "anti-Semitism", leading to widespread cynicism about the use of it. People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of anti-Semitism.

I agree with Mr. Klug. Innocent Palestinians have a right to live their lives in peace. And they largely agree that Israelis have a right to live their lives in peace. A recent poll of residents of the Palestinian territories shows that 56% of West Bank respondents and 70% of Gazans said YES "when asked whether Hamas should maintain a ceasefire with Israel" (June 15-17 West Bank/Gaza public opinion survey).

Excerpt from Gaza Public Rejects Hamas, Wants Ceasefire: ...when asked if Hamas should accept Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas's position that the new unity government renounce violence against Israel, a clear majority (57 percent) answered in the affirmative. The [survey responses] clearly indicate that most Gazans reject military escalation. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy article by David Pollock).

Hamas does not represent all Palestinians and concern for innocent people caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hamas is not "antiSemitism" (and far more Palestinians are being killed in these conflicts over Israelis).

So we have people critical of Israel, in that their actions are killing innocent people (more innocent Palestinians killed than innocent Israelis killed by the actions of Hamas). Although some people would blame ALL the deaths on Hamas. One of those people would be Dennis Marks, an individual that says there can be no debate, only blaming of Hamas. However, even if placing all the blame on Hamas were justified, it accomplishes nothing. But it is the Conservative position.

Like most [US Conservative] supporters of the Israeli government, they treat even the slightest hint of criticism as if it were a mortal attack on Israel itself. The slightest deviation from their "Israel can do no wrong" agenda evokes howls of condemnation. (Why Are Right-Wingers So Crazy in Love with Israel? by Ira Chernus. Alternet 1/14/2013).

This explains the ridiculous comment Dennis made (in agreement with fellow Rightwing crazy Rusty Shackelford about the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

Rusty: Hagel is a friggin moron. Why settle for this idiot? ... The guy could'nt find the cheeks of his ass with both hands. (2/14/2013 AT 1:08pm). Dennis Marks: But but... Rusty, he's the terrorists' choice. So of course he should get approved. Seriously, I agree completely. And he should be criticizing our enemies not our friends. (2/14/2013 AT 3:58pm).

Although Rusty never said anything about Hagel being "the terrorist's choice". That idiocy was all Dennis... but it is in line with what the far Right believes. I'm surprised Dennis didn't label Hagel an "antiSemite", although I'd say it is very strongly implied with the reference to him as "the terrorist's choice".

And, from this statement about Hagel (among others) I confidently conclude that Dennis is a strong adherent of the "new antiSemitism". And I agree with Norman Finkelstein's views on the matter.

Via Wikipedia: Norman Finkelstein argues that organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of new antiSemitism at various intervals since the 1970s, "not to fight antiSemitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism".

Well, not just the Anti-Defamation League, but the Rightwing in the US and in Israel. And because Norman Finkelstein dares reveal the truth on this matter, Dennis detests him. He's a Jew that stands against Dennis' side on this debate. Please note I have not dug into Finkelstein's work and do not really know if he takes his antiZionism too far. So this commentary should absolutely NOT be taken as a defense of EVERYTHING Norman Finkelstein has written. I'm only agreeing with him in regards to the statement I quoted.

I do know, however, that there is another Jewish man by the name of Francis Boyle whom Dennis hates - mostly due to him believing that former preznit bush is a war criminal (TADM #4) - but also because of his views on Israel.

Via Wikipedia: In an article published in Veterans Today, Boyle stated that "...the United Nations had no right to steal Palestine from the Palestinians and give Palestine to the Zionists in 1947". In the same article, Boyle predicted that the state of Israel "will continue its rapid descent into pariah state status" and that "When Israel collapses, most Zionists will have already left... for other states around the world. The Palestinians will then be able to claim all of the historic Mandate for Palestine as their State, including the entire City of Jerusalem as their Capital".

And, just because I quoted Mr. Boyle in regards to his views on the war crimes of the former preznit, Dennis assumed I agreed with him in regards to his views on Israel. But I do not. The statement quoted above is ridiculous. Although he is correct about gwb's war crimes, he is not correct in saying that Israel was "stolen" or will "collapse".

With this I disagree and disagree strongly, not that Dennis acknowledges this disagreement. He lied and said Boyle "demand that Jews be expelled from Israel" (which he did not). Then Dennis said "you supported it", although I do not support this expelling. An expelling that Boyle has never "demanded", for the record. (TADM #38).

I actually believe that Israel should, and has a right to continue to exist... in agreement with Finkelstein who "is an advocate of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Two-state or one-state; I've heard compelling arguments for both. Point is, I believe that Israel has a right to exist, as Norman Finkelstein does.

Which makes the following Dennis comment so outstandingly objectionable, repugnant, vile and disgusting. This was in response to a commentary on the Contra O'Reilly titled "On Anti-Israel Activist and Writer, Norman Finkelstein".

Dennis Marks: Forget his genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm).

Note that the "r" in "scraped" is RED because this is how Dennis mistyped his sick lie. Originally. He has since deleted it. Not because he retracted anything or came to the correct realization that what he said was antiSemitic. He deleted it because I linked to, and apparently Dennis gets some "amusement" out of deleting his comments when I link to them (TADM #40).

I last time I brought up this comment with Dennis the scumbag - when I linked to a screenshot (see below) of it that I captured before he deleted it - accused me of "faking" the screenshot. No. I did not fake it. Take a look at the tread and you will see that Dennis deleted *all* of his comments.

This is a dead giveaway that Dennis definitely said exactly what the screenshot shows. I replied to Dennis' comment about Norman Finkelstein, calling him a "sick liar". This comment of mine is still visible in the original comment thread. What I say CLEARLY is a response to what Dennis says (in the screenshot). I mean, if I were calling Dennis a "sick liar" for something I was not justified in calling him a "sick liar" for... would he have deleted his comment? Would he have NOT defended himself in the next comment (instead of deleting that one also)? I think not.

The comment as quoted above (and as shown in the screenshot below) is accurate. Dennis REALLY said that a Jewish man whose parents were holocaust survivors has a "genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis". Dennis REALLY said that a Jewish man who supports the two state solution criticizes "Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens".

This comment, in my strong opinion, crosses a line and is antiSemitic itself. There is simply NO excusing such a despicable fabrication, despite the fact that "based on his criticism of Holocaust exploitation, the Anti-Defamation League and others branded Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier".

At least they didn't say that he thought his parent lied (I don't know how they square that accusation with the facts), nor did they say that Finkelstein would have preferred that his parents had hurried up and become ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (which wouldn't have made any sense, as then Finkelstein would never have been born).

But, as is the case with many of Dennis lies, this one makes no sense. This vile and disgusting lie was the one that convinced me that Dennis is an antiSemite. I mean, who the hell could say such a thing about a man whose parents were holocaust survivors! Dennis could have voiced his disagreement with Finkelstein's antiZionist views, but this really goes way to far (TADM #6).

Which is why I HAD to object when the blogger Octopus (of the Swash Zone) said that Dennis "deserves kudos for confronting anti-Semitism". But instead of reconsidering his "kudos" (when I presented to him the facts concerning Dennis past antiSemitic statements), Octopus tore me a new one. Seems he does not care to know about Dennis' antiSemitism. Instead Octo claimed he "caught" me attempting to focus attention on myself and my "peeves in Cyberspace" (SWTD #271).

Nope. That is not what I was doing, Octo. I was attempting to enlighten you in regards to the true nature of your friend. But, Octo was very clear on that (in regards to Dennis' ugly antiSemitism) he wishes to keep his head burried in the sand. So be it, Octo. I surely cannot force you off your high horse or get you to listen to the truth. But that won't stop me from writing about it on my own blog. Not that anyone will read it, but the truth about Dennis Marks is here... if anyone is interested.

TADM #61. See also TADM #59 and SWTD #271.