"The Truth About Dennis Marks" Is Now Closed

As you may have noticed, this blog has not been updated for awhile. That is because the subject of this blog, an individual I have come into conflict with in the past, has decided not to engage me as of late. At least NOT to disagree in the manner he has in the past.

I have, however, up until recent developments, left open the possibility that I might post an occasional commentary. Because I still have a few uncompleted posts in my DRAFT folder.

Posts that I started writing because I read something that really offended me, found unbelievably absurd, etc. And I felt that I had to respond. But I just didn't get around to completing these commentaries. Because my focus was elsewhere, and also due to the reason I gave for this blog's inactivity.

That said, I am not deleting anything. Simply because I don't do that. I have, however changed the visibility of the blog from "Listed on Blogger. Visible to search engines" to "Not listed on Blogger. Not visible to search engines" (under Settings/Privacy).

What this means is that TADM posts will no longer show up in Google search results. Not immediately, but eventually this will mean that the blog will become effectively invisible. Or, there won't be any way for anyone to find it except via a direct link (such as the link to it on my sidebar WHICH WILL REMAIN). There are links in posts I've written on my primary blog SWTD, although these are all older posts and I doubt anyone has looked at any of them in a long time.

Anyway, the point is that this blog got little traffic in the past and will likely get even less in the future. Less mostly because I haven't been updating it with new posts. Now probably none/effectively none with the Settings change I just made.

That does not mean that there is zero possibility that this blog will ever become active again. But I doubt that there will be future posts. If there are any future posts they might be of the "polite disagreement" variety. I am not planning anything along those lines, though. I only mention it as a remote possibility.

Or, it could return with no changes (with posts of the "hostile disagreement" variety). Although I'm only throwing that out there because I have no idea could happen that MIGHT convince me to bring back TADM in the future. There was one comment concerning union members/supporters "going full Pol Pot" that REALLY offended me. There is a commentary in my DRAFT folder responding to that one that I did intend to finish.

I wish I had. But now I guess I'll just let it go. Unless something changes in the future. But, as per the title of this post, for now the blog is closed. For now and for the foreseeable future. By which I mean that the odds are LOW that there will be any future posts.

TADM #86

Dennisism #11: Lie

You're probably not aware of it, but an opinion that is not true is a lie. This according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Although what he really meant to say (IMO) is that "an opinion that I disagree with is a lie". Given the fact that opinions often can't be proven to be right or wrong (at least not unequivocally).

If the world were that Black and White nobody would hold differing opinions, as the truth would be self-evident, and anyone who attempted to put forward a wrong "opinion" would immediately be called on it.

In any case, what we have here is another of Mr. Marks' word re-definitions. The REAL definition of lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood". A definition that directly contradicts the definition made up by Marks.

Given the fact that an opinion that is wrong lacks the "deliberate intent to deceive". Although Marks' re-definition does allow him to call anyone who holds an opinion that is contrary to his own a "liar". Which is clearly the entire point of this Dennisism.

BTW, sometimes opinions can be proven wrong, although that doesn't stop some people from holding them; believing what they want despite the facts. Often due to cognitive dissonance (which is something Dennis suffers from, big time).

I would say that this sometimes borders on lying (if someone is intentionally ignorant of the truth), but that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to Dennis Marks. Or, what I mean is that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to him saying others are "lying" (with their incorrect opinions).

Mr. Marks tells very many of these "lies" IMO. It is demonstrable that he has a GREAT number of opinions that are wrong, and (for him to hold them) borders on lying (as it requires an intentional ignorance of a significant magnitude).

Anyway, that an opinion that is wrong is a lie... I might use that.

TADM #85

Dennisism #10: Racism

Time for another "Dennisim" post. Another installment in the series of blog posts in which I chronicle the redefinition of words that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) engages in.

This time it's his redefinition of what "racism" means, which he does so he can apply it to Black people (who are, apparently way more racist than White people in Dennis' opinion). And refer to programs designed to combat racism (Affirmative Action) as "racist". These policies are blindly racist" he says. Although, IMO, it is extremely racist of Dennis to claim that Affirmative Action leads to "laziness and expecting a free ride".

First, however, the comment by Dennis that prompted me to author this post. After a few months of inactivity on this blog I was Googling around and found the following.

Dennis Marks: But if you read WD, Col. Fried Chicken, whatever he is, the Sharptons of the world are not racist at all. WD has made up his own personal definition of racism. (7/20/2013 AT 08:33:00 PM EDT).

No, it's actually Dennis who has his own definition.

Dennis Marks: From Google, by the way. Remember, these are not my definitions. But just the generally accepted ones: "rac·ism/'ra?siz?m/ Noun: [1] The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as... [2] Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. (10/24/2012 AT 10:30am).

OK, so I'd say I agree with this definition. It is, in fact, VERY similar to the definition I've previously referenced on my blog (SWTD #131).

Dictionary.com: Racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

So, Dennis and I are in agreement? Actually, no. What Dennis posted above ISN'T his definition. I guess he screwed up when he posted this, as he does not believe with the "directed against someone of a different race" part. An example of him not agreeing with this would be his accusation that Touré Neblett (an African American man) said something racist about Herrman Cain (another African American man).

Dennis thinks that Toure is guilty of "bashing [Herman Cain] for his skin color". When Dennis said this (which is CLEARLY in disagreement with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012), I asked him "how can a black man be racist against another black man?".

And Dennis (in disagreement with with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012) said "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races". BUT IT DOES!

And the fact that the definition ABSOLUTELY DOES include the caveat that the racist and their target must be of different races is a caveat that Dennis acknowledges (with his 10/24/2012 comment).

But the Dennis definition (the Dennisism) removes that portion (which is why I am sure he screwed up by posting the actual definition on 10/24/2012).

Under the Dennis definition of "racism", the individual being racist can be directing this racism against someone of his own race. Like Toure did with Herman Cain (Dennis alleges). But if Toure thinks his "own race is superior", why the f*ck would he be "bashing" Cain for his skin color? If Toure was a racist he'd be saying things about how having Black skin makes him superior.

Is Dennis "crazy like an informed fox" as he claims? Nope. He's a liar who changes the definition of words to fit his agenda. Here the agenda is denying his own racism. He isn't racist, Black people are racist. Against other Black people. Even though the definition (the correct one) says that, to be racism, it has to be "directed against someone of a different race".

And he has the balls (is insane enough) to insist that "WD has made up his own personal definition of racism" when I used the SAME definition he used (even if accidently... which he will now likely delete if he reads this)?

For the record, I do believe that Black people can't be racist (against Whites) because racism is based on oppression, and (at least in this country) Whites are the oppressors (SWTD #195). But that isn't what Dennis is referring to. He's talking about the Toure argument and his bullshit made-up definition (Dennisism) that says "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races".

TADM #84

Racism No Longer Exists Racist Dennis Marks Sez

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a White guy who loves his white privlege and wants to hold on to it. His strategy for keeping things the way they are? Deny there is a problem. We, of course, need not do a damn thing to fix a problem that doesn't exist, right?

In furtherance of this goal Dennis flatly denies that anything called White privilege exists. Neither does racism. It may have been a problem in the past, but it's long over with and not a hinderance or problem for Black folks today.

Dennis Marks: And you will probably notice that supposedly well-meaning racists of the John Myste stripe will insist that black are less capable due to their history, while completely denying that this is true of Scots, Irish, Ukrainians, etc etc etc. (7/5/2015 AT 11:32am). Dennis Marks: In the above comment, I will clarify. I don't believe myself that the Irish etc are less capable as individuals in the modern world. due to the very lengthy historic period of atrocities visited upon them. It would be absurd and horribly bigoted to believe this. My point is, that if someone believes black people are diminished beings due to their history, if they were consistent they would believe the same of the Irish and Scots. (7/5/2015 AT 7:45pm). Screenshot.

Yes, the US has a history of many different ethnicities being discriminated against, but we HAVE evolved on that front. By and large nobody cares what your ethnic background is... if you're White. But anti-Black bigotry does still exist today in the modern world! Dennis is making a totally false and completely transparent analogy here. All in an effort to support his laughably false narrative that there is not any current modern day problem with racism in the United States.

I mean, if that were the case - that racism against Black people had been eradicated and was no longer a problem today - Dennis would be making a valid point. But it has not been and he isn't.

So why is Dennis spinning this absurd lie? I can only guess, but I don't know why he would be doing such a thing... except perhaps because he's scared of losing his White privilege. And because he's a racist. A racist in denial, but Dennis is CLEARLY incredibly biased against Black people. I think I've shown that to be the case with a number of other commentaries on this blog.

The other lie within Dennis' comment concerns the blogger John Myste. John Myste is a Lefty blogger that Dennis has a long history of bashing on the blog of Willis Hart with complete fabrications loosely based on actual Myste comments. (Bashing, I'd like to note, that Dennis ONLY does on the blog of Willis Hart. And bashing which Willis permits, even though he previously considered John Myste a friend... Which is why I say SHAME ON WILLIS!).

But back to the lie about John Myste... he absolutely does NOT believe that "black people are diminished beings", you lying asshole Dennis! Myste only acknowledged our history of slavery and racism, as well as our PRESENT problem with racism. Previously I have referred to this as Dennis' "White-hooded projecton"... because I believe that Dennis is projecting his racism onto others.

Currently (and for some time) the target of Dennis' projection has been John Myste. The reason is that John Myste isn't around any longer. He departed the blogging world and therefore is unaware that Dennis is STILL bashing him with his foul lies. And, since he does not see the lies Dennis writes about him, the coward Dennis can spew his putrid slanders with zero push back.

Although I also have been a target of Dennis' lies. Previously Dennis falsely claimed that I think it is "great to call black people the N word and use other slurs", which is strange... because if there is no longer a problem with racism then nobody should be using the N-word, right?

You might think this, but Dennis' spin is that it's only White Liberals (such as myself) and Black people who are racist. Rappers like Common who are using the word to bash other Black people. It isn't Conservative racists (like Dennis) who are guilty, it's White Liberals and Black people who are the "real racists".

This, by the way, is what White racists-in-denial like Dennis do... They aren't the racists, it's Black people who are racist! Against Whites, and (absurdly) against themselves. Black racists who are racist against other Blacks include (in Dennis' deluded imagination) the rapper Common as well as the journalist Touré Neblett... and others I'm probably forgetting.

Point is, it's Black people and White Liberals who are racist, so if they don't like it... they should just cut it out! They surely should not be pointing fingers at innocent Whites like Dennis. At least that's what Dennis (and other racist Conservatives like him) want us to believe.

Which we don't, btw. "We" being White Democrats as well as African Americans. African Americans who vote primarily for Democrats FOR A REASON. It's because they see through the BS of racists like Dennis.

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 #83

What Is Dennis Marks' Agenda Re Bernie Sanders Positive Comments When He Previously Spoke Negatively About Sanders?

This commentary concerns past comments regarding Democratic potus contender Bernie Sanders from Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Past comments regarding Sanders that have all been negative (and extremely so), until just recently. Now when Dennis comments on Sanders the remarks are usually positive. My question is, what explains this sea change?

According to Mr. Marks, who at first brushed off me asking "what gives" in regards to his new position on the Vermont Senator as "old bones", eventually said "I have changed my mind about him in some ways".

To which I say... you lie, Dennis. And I have a theory concerning why he is now talking positively in regards to Sanders when he previously only spoke negatively about him.

But first a look at the negative comments (which are VERY negative).

Dennis Marks: And speaking of Bernie Sanders, the greediest member of Congress, he has announced plans to steal the contents of the Social Security trust. No lock box is safe from a greedy thief who is good at plundering. (5/6/2013 AT 5:06pm). Google Cache. Screenshot.

WTF was Dennis talking about? I surely have no idea. I do know that Bernie Sanders NEVER announced any such plan. Although, Dennis, as "proof" that Bernie Sanders does have such a plan, linked to a video in his comment. I presume the delusional dummy believes this video contains the "announcement". Although (if you watch the video) you will find no announcement.

In any case, I wrote about this previously (SWTD #145). Please see that post for my guess as to why Dennis made this absurd comment. In short my conclusion was that Dennis is on the side of the REAL greedy thieves who wish to steal from the Social Security trust fund. As opposed to Bernie Sanders, an individual who fights to protect the fund and our seniors.

Another pair of extremely negative comments that stood out for me when Dennis made them concerns the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders. Both comments are from a thread on the Libertarian Contra O'Reilly blog, attached to a post concerning Kim Jong Un.

Dennis Marks: He [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm). Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders and [Kim Jong] Un are like peas in a pod. The difference being that Un likes to kill a lot of people in order to bring about an oppressive super-State. Sanders uses corruption and deception, but at least he does not kill people as he fights to make government more powerful and less accountable. (4/27/2013 AT 1:08pm).

The takeaway from these comments is that Dennis views Senator Sanders as a corrupt liar who wishes to transform America into a oppressive dictatorship where the rights of the people are trampled on. I also think it is quite reasonable to assume Dennis believes (because Bernie and Kim are "like two peas in a pod") that senator Sanders wishes this because he is a power mad tyrant (or that he'd like to be a power mad tyrant).

Dennis spews this total nonsense because he hates socialism in ANY form. Which explains why he equates democratic socialism with rulers such as Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Rulers who promised socialism, but delivered autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian and authoritarian governments (that killed and imprisoned it's citizens) with a thin socialist veneer.

And there are MANY more, which (if you wish to take a gander) can be viewed here. As you can see (if you check out this collection of Dennis Marks comments re Bernie Sanders), the vast majority of Dennis' past comments concerning Sanders are extraordinarily negative (as well as extraordinarily nutty).

However, ever since Bernie Sanders has been running for president, Dennis has had VERY different things to say concerning the democratic socialist from Vermont. Very different, in that these comments are now POSITIVE!

Dennis Marks: There's a line that divides real candidacy from the clowns who run vanity campaigns for an ego trip or cash (Sharpton, Keyes, etc). Bernie Sanders is on the right side of that line, I believe. It's a real candidacy, and like Les here, I believe it is good for the election overall. (4/30/2015 AT 10:16:00 PM EDT).

Bernie's is a "real" candidacy, huh? (this, a reference to many on the Republican side who are running knowing they have no chance, but doing so anyway because it raises their profiles and will allow them to charge more in speaking fees and possibly get book deals or Fox Nooz gigs.

Question is, why is Dennis now saying things like "I am liking his candidacy more and more" given his past negative comments? I think the following comment sheds some light on his motivations.

Dennis Marks: Ideology aside, Bernie Sanders is great campaigner, sincere, energetic, has a strong resume, and is fighting like the underdog. All in contrast to Hillary. (8/20/2015 AT 08:39:00 PM EDT).

My theory is that Dennis does not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and is talking up Bernie Sanders... because he believes Sanders will be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. For example, when I said "my dream presidential team would be Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich" (on 9/4/2011), Dennis composed and published the following reply.

Dennis Marks: That's also the dream team of all of the Republican candidates. Romney, Perry, etc would struggle against Obama, but Sanders/Kucinich would make these Republicans salivate over very sure prospects of an 80%+ landslide. (9/4/2011 AT 10:03 AM).

And, here's another one from 2012.

Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders, whose politics represent the interest of a tiny percent of Americans, would hardly get any votes if he ran for President. Sanders might have an initial burst of strength in the polls, but this would rapidly plummet down to the single digits of his base once people realize his first name isn't Harland and that voting for him wouldn't automatically mean free fried chicken. (5/23/2012 AT 10:22am).

Obviously Dennis thinks that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee he will be crushed by the Republican.

Further proof that Dennis is NOW speaking positively on Sanders (when he previously was negative on him) because he thinks he would be easily beaten is the fact that he did the same thing back when it looked like Elizabeth Warren might possibly run.

Dennis Marks: How about Warren? A fresh face to a country wear of clintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclintonblush... And whatever Warren's distance from the center, she's pretty clean (other than the receding fake Indian claim, which was really a long time ago). I think there's that one skeleton in her closet, and it's rather dusty. Hillary Clintons got a dancing army of them. Warren could have a good chance at nomination, especially if something similar to Hillary hiding the emails comes up in the heat of the early primaries. (4/12/2015 AT 09:29:00 PM EDT).

But Dennis had an ENTIRELY different view re the "fake Indian claim" in the not-to-distant past.

Dennis Marks: ...Elizabeth Warren, who has fraudulently presented [her]self as a Native American for personal gain. It's a form of racism... (9/10/2014 AT 8:39pm).

And, as with Bernie Sanders, there are a LOT more of these negative Warren comments. (See here for a catalog of Dennis' Warren-bashing comments and TADM #57 for my rebuttal to Dennis' claim that Elizabeth Warren "fraduently" claimed to be native american).

Previously Dennis referred to Warren as an asshole, a fake and a fraud, because she is "a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege".

So Warren went from being a racist to "a fresh face" whose "fake Indian claim [is] receding". This happened (I believe) because it looked like Warren might challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination. And because Dennis believed Warren would be easy to beat.

Here is an example from July of 2014 in which Dennis predicts how Warren would do if she ran for president.

Dennis Marks: Warren's views are extreme, as in driving off moderates (as well as conservatives of course). She will capture the hearts of the "99% Movement" (which really represents only 20% or so of Americans, and as you can see, is rather self deluded). It would take a pretty bad Republican candidate to lose to either of these. (7/7/2014 AT 07:51:00 AM EDT).

He then added "I have no doubt that the Republicans will rise to the task and provide such a candidate", but I don't buy it. This, IMO, only represents a very small fear of Dennis'.

In fact I'm positive that Dennis wanted Warren to run because he was convinced the Republican (any Republican) would beat her. Another example of this thinking was expressed when the blogger rAtional nAtion said "the thought of a Sanders or Warren presidency gives me the shudders". This caused Dennis to reply with the following.

Dennis Marks: No worries. They represent a rather small percentage of the electorate, and certainly can't capture the conservatives, or even the middle. (12/30/2014 AT 07:48:00 AM EST).

See... he is NOT worried. He was convinced that Warren, should she be the nominee, would lose. Just as he is convinced that Sanders, should he be the nominee, will lose. This is why he talks up Sanders. Dennis wants Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic potus nominee so that the Republican will win the election with a "80%+ landslide".

And, this also explains why he whines and cries about "old bones" when I bring up his previous negative comments re Sanders. It is because he lies and has NOT "changed [his] mind about [Sanders] in some ways". And he does not want others to suspect he is lying.

Of course anything Dennis says (positive or negative) about Sanders will likely have no effect on whether or not Sanders secures the nomination. However, the same as some religious folks ask others to pray for something (and truly believe that there might be a positive benefit to getting as many people as possible to pray) - Dennis likely believes that the more people are speaking positively about Sanders, the more likely it is he will get nominated.

And, with this in mind, Dennis is doing his part. He is contributing (if only in a small way) to a narrative that could lead to Sanders being selected by the voters as the Democratic nominee. After which (in the mind of Dennis), he will be easily defeated by the Republican nominee.

This is part and parcel to the false narrative that says Hillary Clinton is "untrustworthy" and plagued by scandals... and therefore someone else should be the nominee. Someone the eventual Republican nominee can go against and win. Someone who isn't Hillary, as she would likely defeat any Republican.

Which is why Dennis desperately wants anyone but Hillary. And why he lies and posts his (fake) positive Sanders comments. But, as I said, I don't buy it. Dennis' MANY past comments represent how he truly views Sanders. He views Sanders as following the lead of past "evil socialist" dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin. (In Dennis' mind) Sanders does this as a Senator and would do this (to a greater negative effect) as president.

Not that I believe that Senator Sanders would be defeated, easily or otherwise. If Sanders secures the nomination I think he has a decent shot, given the fact that he is a true Progressive and not a corporate Dem like Hillary. But the deceiving Dennis CLEARLY believes otherwise. Which is why Dennis (first) talked up Warren and is now talking up Sanders... because he is convinced that Hillary will be our next president if she is nominated in the Democratic primary.

Supporting Documents
[1] Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Bernie Sanders. Note that most of the comments are negative, while only a few are positive).
[2] Elizabeth Warren Is A Lying Asshole, A Fake & A Contemptible Wannabe Who Boosted Her Career With A Fraudulent Claim Of Being A Native American & Who Supports The Evil Occupy Wall Street Movement. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Elizabeth Warren. Note that most of the comments are negative, while I could only find ONE that was positive).

TADM #82

Dennis Marks Misogynist Racist Immigrant-Bashing Doublespeak

According to Wikipedia "doublespeak" is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. This "reversing the meaning of words" the blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) accomplishes with a recent comment on the Libertarian/Objectivist blog rAtional nAtion uSA.

Dennis Marks: As for political correctness, it is much more often what racists and bigots promote, with theories of white privilege, patriarchy, and "micro aggressions". As for slave wages, it is also insulting to smear immigrants as slaves. I checked the states with the most immigrants vs wages in these states. There is actually a trend toward states with more immigrants having higher wages than those with fewer immigrants. The anti-immigration, nativism view is just not supported by demographics, even if it feels good to those who fear "the other". ...I've made my points in opposition to immigrant bashing. (9/5/2015 AT 07:22:00 AM EDT).

The terms white privilege, microaggression, and patriarchy describe analyses of racist/bigoted and misogynist behavior. Dennis, with his racist/bigoted and misogynist comment, flips that around and sez that people who put forward these "theories" are the "real bigots". This denial of reality is obvious doublespeak, in that who Dennis is talking about are "Black racists". Also women who Rush refers to as feminazis. As well as their White allies and Male allies (respectively).

As opposed to actual racists, bigots and misogynists. Which would be people guilty of these behaviors. Not people objecting to such behavior. And Dennis, with his doublespeak, aligns himself with the racists and misogynists quite strongly, IMO.

The other example of doublespeak from his comment would be his reference to "opposition to immigrant bashing", in which he implies he opposes it. Yet he does it himself with his denials that undocumented workers are frequently taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. Which is what we were talking about... undocumented workers, not legal immigrants.

The bigot Dennis also insists that "illegal alien" isn't a pejorative despite the fact that it absolutely is. He says he uses it because "it is the most accurate", but that is total bullshit.

Immigration Attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath: "Illegal alien" is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, "illegal alien" is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term "illegal alien" is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant's very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation. (excerpted from the website No Human Being Is Illegal).

So... HOW is "illegal alien" MOST accurate? Not in a legal sense, as pointed out by the immigration attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath, who says "illegal alien" is "highly inaccurate and pejorative". As usual Dennis does not know WTF he's talking about.

As for Dennis' claim that there is "a trend toward states with more immigrants having higher wages"... he provided no link so I have no idea where he's getting this info from. In any case, as this (imagined?) stat has nothing to do with the conversation (and I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time Googling for an answer), I will disregard it.

People here illegally are frequently underpaid (given less than the minimum wage) as well as stolen from (forced to work off the clock, not paid overtime, etc). And I, unlike Dennis, will present the evidence to back up this fact.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says (excerpt from a 9/1/2009 NYT article by Steven Greenhouse) Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in NY, LA and Chicago... In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay. ...39 percent of those surveyed were illegal immigrants, 31 percent legal immigrants and 30 percent native-born Americans.

Dennis, I believe, full-throatedly denies this reality because he loves our plutocrats, hates low-wage workers, and believe those who toil for low pay are only useful for exploiting. And he frequently uses double-speak to flip reality on it's head in promotion of his ideological beliefs.

Beliefs that tell him rich Makers are fundamentally better than poor workers. Low wage laborers should take what they are offered and not whine when they are underpaid for their labor. And they absolutely should not attempt to use government to try and get a fairer wage (increase in the minimum).

Low wage workers, be they immigrants or native born, are the "other" that Dennis fears. He fears that they will wise up and become politically active. Which is why he trashes such movements whenever they arise. Movements like Occupy Wall Street (OWS) or Black Lives Matter (BLM).

BLM is racist according to Dennis. And OWS is antisemitic. And, in Dennis Marks' upside down world, being opposed to shipping jobs out of the US (outsourcing) is "nativism", while not screwing low-wage workers in the US is "fear of the other" and "immigrant bashing".

But that's obviously the way plutocrat-loving stooges such as Dennis roll. Although I think it's also possible that he's just a malicious troll saying silly things just for fun. This would explain why he frequently stands under the bright noon sun and shouts "it's night out!"... metaphorically speaking. But I doubt that. Personally I think it is much more likely that he knows exactly what he's doing and doing it purposefully.

Which would be dismissing White privilege and patriarchy as not existing (or accusing the victims of it). Because he enjoys being a white male in a society that favors these individuals. And because he fears that "the other" will gain enough power to take away his privilege.

Image: Picture from the website No Human Being Is Illegal.

Supporting Document
Bigoted Bigot's Misogynist Misogyny, DSD #15. (A catalog of Dennis Marks' Misogynist comments).

TADM #81

On The Dennis Marks Racist Claim That The Black Lives Matters Movement's Slogan Is "Only Black Lives Matter"

This racist comment concerning the Black Lives Matter movement from the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks).

This started with a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog from fellow racist Willis Hart about the killing of Eric Garner. According to Willis the "fat asthmatic" was (at least partially) to blame for his own death. Then Willis asked "what about the African-American merchants whose rights were being infringed upon by Garner?" (he was taking away their cigarette sales, presumably).

Which prompted the following response from Dennis...

Dennis Marks: ...why bring race into it at all? It's a meme injected into these discussions by the very racist protesters. The ones that argue that only black lives matter. This meme has been at play despite the fact that race wasn't a factor at all in any of these incidents. (12/26/2014 AT 4:15am).

Later, Dennis authored this comment bashing the NAACP.

Dennis Marks: In recent months, the NAACP has embraceed the supremacist slogan that only lives of those of one race matter. (5/23/2015 AT 12:02pm).

That the Black Live Matter movement or NAACP is saying "only lives of those of one race matter" is pure bullshit. This is the racially-biased Dennis interpretation of what they're saying, but the racially-biased Mr. Marks is wrong.

Of course "all lives matter", but the reason the BLM movement (and slogan) exist is because our system is obviously biased against African Americans. According to a 4/8/2015 RawStory article, more African Americans were killed by the police in 2014 than in the 9/11 attacks.

The Rightwing pushback to this (police killing Black people) is to say more Whites than Blacks are killed by the police. A talking point that, of course, Dennis goes with.

Dennis Marks: More whites are killed overall by cops. (8/29/2015 AT 11:59:00 AM EDT).

According to PoltiFact, over the past decade 2,151 Whites and 1,130 Blacks were killed by the police.

However...

Brian Forst, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University, said this difference is predictable. "More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one", Forst said. The country is about 63 percent white and 12 percent black. Rather than comparing the raw numbers, you can look at the likelihood that a person will die due to "legal intervention" [statistically. And] When you do that, the numbers flip. A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997. (Police kill more whites than blacks. Response to statement by Conservative pundit Michael Medved. 8/21/2014 Politifact article by Jon Greenberg).

A Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person, Dennis! Yet Dennis uses the fact that the US is approximately 63 percent White and 12 percent Black to LIE about Blacks being more likely to be shot and killed by the police. He ignores this fact and, instead misrepresents the truth by pointing out that more Whites are shot by cops. Shameful.

But Dennis' "evidence" against the BLM movement doesn't end there! After stating that "All Lives Matter is beautiful" Dennis cites a recent Rasmussen poll that says Black people prefer the term "all lives matter" to "black lives matter". Dennis sez "even black people strongly prefer all lives matter".

Bullshit, Dennis. As it turns out the reason Rasmussen got that response is because they asked the question designed to get the answer they wanted. An answer that discredits the BLM movement. Even Black people don't identify with BLM, is what Dennis is saying (by pointing to the Rasmussen poll).

The Rasmussen flawed question was "yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute".

But there is ZERO dispute! NONE. The BLM movement isn't saying that all lives don't matter. But Rasmussen implies that they are. Then they ask which statement is closest to their own views, "Black Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter". Unsurprisingly, even Black people said "All Lives Matter" (63%).

But notice that Rasmussen didn't ask if the respondent supports the BLM movement. Why? Because (I strongly suspect) there would have been a lot of overlap, in that people could say "all lives matter" but still support BLM.

The Conservative response of "All Lives Matter" is, as David Bedrick points out (in an 8/24/2015 HuffPo article) "a form of willful colorblindness [and] ignorance of America's racist past and present".

This is why Conservatives like Dennis say the BLM movement is "racist" and that "all lives matter" is "beautiful". Racists like Dennis support the status quo and do NOT want anything done to address the VERY REAL problem of the police killing African Americans at a three times greater rate than White Americans.

According to Dennis "we are not clueless here" (he's speaking of people who prefer "all lives matter" over "black lives matter")... but, YES, Dennis is totally clueless. In regards to the BLM movement, and in regards to his own racism.

Turns out that Dennis is the most common type of racist... the one that doesn't realize that he is one.

IMO Dennis Marks absolutely is this kind of racist... one who vehemently denies he is racist, but takes positions that clearly show he is quite racist. His opposition to the BLM movement being just one more example of how racist Dennis is.

Supporting Document
Only Black Lives Matter Ugly Racist Protesters Don't Say, DSD #16.

TADM #80. See also SWTD #311.