UPDATED Jewish SF writer and former president of the SFWA, prof Paul Levinson shills for and swoons over the rabidly anti-Semitic crackpot Republican Ron Paul

Scroll down for the 2015 update (bottom of the article). It pertains to the Dave Truesdale Petition affair and Levinson’s foul-up here in signing it, and why it is simply inexcusable.

‘Jewish’ SF writer, Fordham University prof (of communications and media studies), former president of the SFWA and a highly respected writer and commentator on culture, communications and technology Paul Levinson, is a big fan of Ron Paul. Loves the guy, no kidding.

Yes the Ron Paul.

These egg-headed Jewish profs never cease to amaze me. Levinson gives his glowing support to Ron Paul persistently and consistently, no matter how much of Paul’s ugliness and bigotry comes to light.

There ain’t any bigotry to Ron Paul say Ron Paul cultists (like Levinson). Hey it’s all just media manipulation and dissimulation don’t you know? Levinson says so and he’s a prof at Fordham and a former president of SFWA, so there. And he’s Jewish besides. Sigh.

Here is just one example of Paul Levinson giving his hearty support for Ron Paul in the aftermath of Paul’s walkout on the CNN interview (late last year). Levinson predictably digs himself into the hole all Ron Paul cultists find themselves in, defending the indefensible with hand-waving, dodges and worse. So Levinson does worse, endorsing the dubious and untenable notion that Paul never approved of the racism in his old newsletters, you know the ones called the Ron Paul Report.

http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2011/12/cnn-distorts-ron-paul-interview.html

Here is how Levinson begins his defense of the indefensible:

I should have known better. When I saw Ron Paul stalk off after a few questions from Gloria Borger about the racist statements published under his name in his newsletter in the late 1980s / early 1990s, I should have suspected that there might well have been more to the interview.

I of all people should have known this, given that I gave a 45-minute lecture to my class at Fordham University in September 2007 about the mass media’s misreporting of Ron Paul in the last Presidential campaign.. – about how ABC and Fox, especially, cropped pictures, left Ron Paul out of poll reports, and committed other lies of omission in their coverage.

But, instead of suspecting CNN, as I should have, I simply assumed that what I saw on the screen was true. I even commented on Facebook that Ron Paul should have talked more about the offensive newsletters, rather than abruptly terminating the interview.

And it turns out that’s exactly what he did. The bright spot in our media world, as I point in New New Media, is that we need no longer rely on the mass media as our sole source of information. As Mediaite – itself a new new media site where you can see the uncut interview, and compare it to what CNN aired – aptly notes, the Daily Paul and Reddit brought the truth of this interview to everyone’s attention (and thanks to my friend Michael Papagermanos for bringing this to my attention on Facebook about an hour ago). Indeed, the complete interview not only shows Ron Paul giving Borger a full and repeated explanation of his views about the racist passages in his newsletters, but also has a clear and cogent an analysis as ever I’ve heard from Ron Paul (or anyone) about the dangers of going to war without the Declaration of War required by our Constitution – something I’ve been pointing out since the Vietnam War in the 1960s, and has been the case for every “war,” beginning with the Korean War, that we’ve waged since World War II (the last legally waged war). But Ron Paul’s words about this, too, wound up on CNN’s proverbial cutting room floor.

Sigh, the mind of a Ron Paul cultist that is the uh Jewish Paul Levinson, engaging in lame dodges, obtuse denials ( basically the offensive Ron Paul newsletters had nothing to do with Ron Paul’s actual views! No really) and red herring distractions (America’s dubious wars post-Korea).

Levinson’s glowing support for Ron Paul goes back a long way, there are other blog posts and promotions and endorsements of the ‘great Ron Paul’ by possibly his biggest fan in the professional SF genre community, Paul Levinson.

Just search on Levinson’s blog for ‘Ron Paul’… It’s chilling.

It’s worth repeating what Ron Paul critics have said about Paul’s denial of having ever known about the racist and anti-Semitic crackpottery in his old newsletters. Either he’s blatantly dishonest or he had no knowledge of the contents of newsletters put out in his name and supposedly promoting his ideology and beliefs. So he’s either an outrageous liar or a rank incompetent, who wilfully chooses not to inform himself of how his image and political philosophy has been marketed to America at large, via his own official newsletters distributed under his own name. For years.

The latter is how Levinson chooses to interpret it naturally enough, whilst spinning this rank incompetence as no such thing at all. It’s just oversight or something similar one assumes i.e. rank incompetence by any other name. If one is not a Ron Paul cultist one easily recognizes that all the evidence is for the former, namely that Ron Paul is just brazenly lying (after all there is video footage of him promoting his newsletters personally and other ‘smoking gun’ considerations). However if you are a Ron Paul cultist, such a plain recognition is naturally not permitted. That would be heresy.

So Levinson the uh Jew gets over the rabid anti-Semitism of Ron Paul that has been known about for an age by pretending that it isn’t there at all. Hear no evil see no evil. Levinson does with Paul’s Judenhass what his liberal Jewish genre colleagues do with the anti-Semitism of the Left as a whole (inclusive of the Judenhass of their liberal genre colleagues such as China Mieville, Iain Banks, Kathryn Cramer, Nick Mamatas and many others) – sweep it under the carpet and wish it all away. It’s like magic.

What of the anti-black racism in the Ron Paul newsletters? The homophobia? Hey it was all stuff in his newsletters that Ron Paul himself never knew about and so never approved of, so there. Just like the anti-Semitism. Just ask Levinson. Ron Paul says he’s not a racist, so there. And Levinson concurs. It’s all just the media’s lies. Satisfied?

On the CNN interview alone that Ron Paul walked out on, Levinson acknowledges none of the pertinent and ugly facts here. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Here for some well-sourced samplings of the real Ron Paul written by James Kirchick (from the Weekly Standard December 2011) that Levinson sweeps under the carpet. In fact it was James Kirchick who did the spade work here, uncovering all the ugly details that the MSM couldn’t be bothered with, naturally (bold in text below mine):

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

Another excerpt from Kirchick’s article:

No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”

This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”

And further:

Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”

This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”—all without any mention of the newsletter controversy. Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.

More at the link. Of course Levinson couldn’t be bothered with any of this. Is Levinson going to tell us that Ed Crane is lying about what Ron Paul told him? Also it is absurd and laughable to pretend as Levinson does, that the MSM has been on a witch-hunt after Ron Paul, when as the above excerpts alone show, the MSM has been willfully oblivious and engaged in something of a whitewash of Ron Paul’s anti-Semitic associations, commentary and political extremism.

In the CNN interview, Ron Paul said he didn’t write nor read the newsletters, and didn’t have the foggiest notion about what was in them. Yet here is smoking gun footage of Ron Paul promoting his newsletters on C Span in 1995 (a minute and a half in).

This link also repeats a lot of the content pasted above re the Ron Paul newsletters. However it is worth pasting this relevant excerpt:

Beginning in 1978, Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) name graced newsletters that were released on a seemingly monthly basis: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report. “The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999,” but The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick recently tracked down physical copies of many of the pre-1999 reports.

According to Kirchick, they’re peppered with a “decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.”

Here are a few examples:

On David Duke: “Our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”

On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “[A] comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

On African-Americans: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”

On Gays: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

In his article, Kirchick writes that “with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself” and that “the vast majority of the editions” that he “saw contain no bylines at all.” Paul emphasized this point in his response to the article:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. […]
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

But as Kirchick — who has been criticizing Paul for months — notes, “[I]t is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views.”

This article authored by Daniel Greenfield, takes a closer look at Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, that are not as benign as he and his followers make out.

Greenfield writes:

Foreign aid is not the issue. The actual issue is that Ron Paul’s views on Israel and Jews (as well as American foreign policy) are indistinguishable from those of Pat Buchanan.

Ron Paul isn’t simply against foreign aid; he believes that the Israeli lobby controls Washington and involves American in foreign wars… and that this was among the causes of September 11. Paul has described the original World Trade Center bombing as a “retaliation” and during the Republican debates in 2007 and 2011 blamed American foreign policy for Al-Qaeda’s attacks.

The Buchanan comparison is true in more ways than one. Ron Paul has insisted that we should have stayed out of WW2 and let Nazi Germany and the USSR fight it out, and that by entering the war Churchill only prolonged it. Clearly this was another expression of Ron Paul’s Zionism and his desire to promote “Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

Ron Paul supporters will clamor that the above material comes from the Ron Paul Survival Report, which according to the Paul campaign was supposedly written for years by some mysterious stranger pretending to be Ron Paul. This unknown stranger discussed his time in Congress, his medical career and his wife Carol all in the first person. That the media actually bought this ridiculous explanation, even while actual Republicans were lynched for much less than writing in support of David Duke, should tell you all you need to know about Paul’s cheerleaders in the mainstream media. But let’s skip over the “Report” for a moment.

In an interview with Iranian television, Ron Paul complained that the president had not said anything to Israel about its horrible massacre, compared Gaza to a concentration camp, and made it rather clear that he sympathized with the terrorists. It wasn’t some unknown mysterious stranger signing Paul’s name to hateful screeds. It was the man himself doing an interview with the agents of a murderous regime responsible for the murders of numerous Americans.

What about the following statement in the House of Representatives?

“Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.”

Ron Paul isn’t calling for impartiality or agitating for non-interventionism because he supports Jewish self-reliance, but because he believes that Israel is the source of our problems. He has made it clear over and over again that he blames Israel’s own war on terrorists for terrorism, just as he blames America’s war on terror for terrorism against America.

Paul’s hatred for the United States government has led him to make a common intellectual cause with Islamic terrorists. As far back as his Survival Report days, Paul had gotten in the habit of responding to Islamic violence with conspiracy theories. When Tehran was calling for Rushdie’s head on a plate, Paul wondered if “Some of the people hyping the Rushdie affair have other motives? For example to make Moslems look bad for geopolitical reasons?” (Ron Paul Survival Report – April 1989)

In January 2002, Paul wrote, “How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes.” In that same article he described the terrorists as “those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us”.

In his book, “A Foreign Policy of Freedom,” Ron Paul insisted that, “all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.” American soldiers have never bled for Israel, but language of this sort plays well with Paul’s base, and continues feeding the myth that America’s confrontation with Islamic terror is due to Israel, rather than Islam.

Occasionally Paul switches gears and points out that a cutoff in foreign aid would be good for Israel. That may well be the case. I believe that and so do quite a few people who support Israel. But this issue stands entirely apart from Paul’s larger “Blame Israel” worldview.

Red Wolf – Of course there have been more revelations over the course of the last year or so, yet it’s nothing really new nor surprising. One of the most explosive and telling though comes from former Ron Paul staffer and aide Eric Dondero. Dondero revealed that Paul wishes Israel did not exist.

From the link:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Actually Dondero – perhaps by the very fact that he was an aide to Paul – ain’t the brightest. If somebody doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist, that is anti-Semitic in principle, and extremely so. It is one of the three Ds (see my ‘what this blog is about’ article), namely deligitimization of Israel (the other two are demonisation and double standards re Israel and the rest of the world) that qualify as indisputable indicators of the new anti-Semitism. In other words, as with editor Kathryn Cramer who doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist, Ron Paul is anti-Semitic and heavily so. Dondero appears to believe that people are only anti-Semitic and even racist if they express contempt and derision of minority groups (Jews and blacks notably) in the old-fashioned style ie speaking of ‘greedy Jews’ and using derogatory terms to describe Jewry or not welcoming them in one’s presence, social or work environment and using the N word to speak of blacks etc.

There are people who deny the Holocaust and believe the Protocols of Zion is a genuine document; such people – especially if of a liberal or libertarian political persuasion – often vehemently deny they are anti-Semitic and are polite to Jewry in their company and would never employ a derogatory term to describe Jewry. Within science fiction alone, the late James P Hogan a Holocaust Denier and Tangent editor Dave Truesdale, another Holocaust Revisionist, have never been guilty of speaking of Jewry in derogatory terms and both of them have vehemently denied being anti-Semitic. For the most part old-fashioned anti-Semitism, in-your-face, crude and at least thankfully honest has transformed itself and adapted to the times – it takes the form of dishonest and insidious over-the-top anti-Israelism.

Ron Paul is certainly guilty of the new anti-Semitism by the very fact the he delegitimizes Israel, that is he doesn’t accept its right to exist. Dondero is simply too obtuse to get ‘new’ anti-Semitism and understand even vaguely how anti-Semitism has metamorphosized and changed its garb and language to suit the times. At least one appreciates Dondero letting the cat out of the bag re Ron Paul here even if Dondero himself doesn’t get it!

It’s thus no surprise that Ron Paul is prepared to run cover for the Iranian regime, its aggressive posturings and its openly stated goal of another holocaust of Jewry. Ron Paul is the useful idiot of the Muslim extremist Iranian regime and the Ayatollahs themselves, if there was one! They have common enemies after all – the Jew nation.

Ron Paul opines that Iran would be justified in closing the Hormuz straits in response to economic sanctions (December 2011):

 As Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric Thursday about closing the Strait of Hormuz, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul revisited his earlier criticisms of Western policy towards Tehran, adding that Iran would be justified in cutting off the strategic waterway in response to sanctions.

At a campaign event in Iowa Thursday, Paul called Western sanctions imposed against Iran over its nuclear activities “horrendous” and “acts of war,” while repeating earlier assertions that Iran would understandably want to develop a nuclear weapons capability, the Los Angeles Times reported.

It’s all certainly consistent of Ron Paul in light of his not accepting Israel’s right to exist (or is Levinson going to tell us Dondero is lying?). It comes as no surprise that the odious anti-Semite R Paul would have a soft spot for a major sponsor of jihadist terror that is Iran, developing nuclear weapons and feign ignorance at the same time of the Iranian regime’s Shi’ite Muslim fundamentalism and its drumming up the rhetoric of genocidal Jew-hatred.

Maybe Paul Levinson doesn’t think Ron Paul carrying water for the genocidally anti-Semitic Iranian regime, a regime that promises to wipe Israel off the map in accordance to Shi’ite Islamist eschatology, and Iran’s nuclear weaponization program anything to be concerned about. Maybe Levinson would tell us it’s the media lying again or well, what else? I don’t even want to imagine how Levinson would try squirm his way out of this…

Ryan Mauro documents Ron Paul’s war on the Joooos, oh I mean his ‘War on Israel’ (December 2011):

Ron Paul defends Iran’s innocence, going so far as to say there is no evidence that it is seeking a nuclear weapon, stands in sharp contrast to the heaps of criticism he levels towards Israel. In January 2009, he talked to Iranian state TV about the “tragedy of Gaza” (his words) and said, “To me, I look at it like a concentration camp, and people [in Gaza] are making homemade bombs, like they are the aggressors?”

He made similar comments in an interview in June 2010 with Don Imus, calling the flotilla raid “horrible” and again accusing Israel of turning the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into a “concentration camp” by blocking the arrival of humanitarian aid.

He consistently paints the terrorist threat as beginning and ending with U.S. support for Israel. He writes in “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” that American “dollars and weapons are being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.” Elsewhere in the book, he complains that “all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.”

Ron Paul also refuses to disavow support he has received from the neo-Nazi group StormFront, as the NY Times reports.

The Ron Paul campaign has also been endorsed by the odious and yes fascist John Birch Society. Levinson conveniently ignores this and what it tells us about Ron Paul. Maybe Levinson would wave his hands and say it tells us nothing at all. Actually it tells us everything, and it says a lot about Levinson’s wilfull blindness that this is his man for the White House!

Here is a video of Ron Paul expressing his outrage and anger at the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, calling it an “act of terrorism”. You know the killing of a scientist working on Iran’s nuclear weaponization program for a regime that promises to finish off where the Nazis left off, as far as Jewry is concerned.

On the murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands in jihadist fueled conflicts around the world over the years, the Middle-East and beyond, we hear not a peep from Ron Paul. Yet the killing of a single yet very important figure in the weapons of mass destruction machine of the Iranian fascist theocracy, a fascist tyranny that fuels much of the region’s jihadist terror and openly murders its own citizens, earns Ron Paul’s ire and contempt.

Here is just one further example of the extreme Judenhass (‘Scrubbing the protocols of Ron Paul’) that goes hand in hand with the Ron Paul political machine. It concerns The Campaign for Liberty, a grassroots political organization founded by Ron Paul.

As the Wiki entry for ‘The Campaign for Liberty’ tell us:

Campaign for Liberty is a political organization founded by twelve-term United States Congressman Ron Paul. The Campaign for Liberty focuses on educating elected officials and the general public about constitutional issues, and currently provides a membership program. Its legal status is that of a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. It is also known as C4L.

Turns out C4L was promoting the fraudulent and extremely anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion at its website. When this was revealed by eagle-eyed bloggers, C4L and the Ron Paul folk engaged in shoot the messenger attacks, outright lies and denials, chicanery of the worst sort. Check the link for the details.

Perhaps it’s appropriate that a big Ron Paul fan like conservative prof, tech guru and SF writer Paul Levinson (yes that’s LEVINSON) is a former president of the SFWA. I mean by this that there is big soft spot for political extremism and crackpottery, the sweeping under the carpet of anti-Semitic bigotry and the like (a bigotry that is widely tolerated and even supported), from within the genre community. And often enough genre Jewry are at the forefront of this hear-no-evil-see-no-evil tactical and strategic approach re anti-Semitism from their genre colleagues (at best). And I’m talking the professional writers, editors and the like here, not the fans.

After all I have suffered puff-ball personal attacks (at least twice) from the current president of the SFWA, John Scalzi. 

Levinson (and Ron Paul) also give evidence for the false, simplistic and artificial duality that is the political Left vs Right. Yes Ron Paul is a conservative, but a paleocon conservative of the Pat Buchanan stripe, where the ugliness of political anti-Semitism is on open display; along with the apologetics, whitewashing and ugly rationalisations for Muslim extremism and the jihad that it fuels. This kind of ‘thinking’ – political anti-Semitism, knee-jerk anti-Americanism and apologetics and whitewashing of Muslim fundamentalist terror – is widespread among the political Left, especially the radical Left where it is de rigueur. Hence Ron Paul, like Pat Buchanan, is beloved by many on the radical Left fringe.

It is Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy (extreme isolationism and blame the Jooos ie Israel for why America is hated) that so attracts many hateful know-nothing idiot anti-Semitic Leftists to Ron Paul (and Pat Buchanan). I am reminded of one of my critics, liberal and harshly anti-Israel and yes anti-Semitic ‘Jewish’ genre fan Mark Pontin, shilling for Ron Paul at the old Asimov’s Discussion Forum back in the day.

UPDATE Later (in 2014) Levinson would go on to sign the Truesdale petition, in protest against heavy-handed SFWA interference and over-the-top censure of Malzberg and Resnick over trumped up baloney re the latters’ ‘sexism’.  That is he would go on to sign a petition drawn up by a HOLOCAUST DENIER, along with several other Jews, against the PC genre thought police. Talk about counter-productive and oblivious. As with the ‘Jewish’ hack genre writer Chuck Rothman (and Susan Shwartz for that matter), Levinson has no excuse for signing the petition. The reason that Levinson has no excuse, and this is certainly worth making public, is that there was a reference to my blog made at Levinson’s blog, yonks ago. In fact about the time when my blog first went online, about April or May 2011. Levinson didn’t take much time at all to delete the reference to my blog (and what it was all about) from the comments section to a blog entry of his (on a blog entry having something to do with hi-tech or related).  You will just have to take my word on it. That’s entirely consistent – and predictable – of a ‘Jewish’ supporter of a hardcore Jew-hater, that is Ron Paul. And the consequence of Levinson’s hear-no-evil and see-no-evil approach to anti-Semitism is that he signed the Truesdale petition. Like Rothman, he has no excuse, even if for a somewhat superficially different reason.

This entry was posted in Anti-Semitism, Politics - General, Science Fiction and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.