A reply to Nick Mamatas’s flimsy and pathetic response to this series so far

Interesting ‘response’ from Mamatas to this blog series – overheated, incoherent, willfully evasive and miss-the-point ranting, straw man bashing, brazenly dishonest and completely misrepresentative of the actual contents of my articles. Absurdly laughable ad hominems. Entirely predictable in every way.


11:17 am Oh boy, red-baiting and claims of anti-Semitism

Part one: In which a lunatic asks, over and over again whether I am a anti-Semite or Holocaust revisionist but of course doesn’t allow commenting on his blog to actually answer those questions, because like many nuts he’s fundamentally a coward.

Part two: in which my article scrutinizing and exposing far-right anti-Semites in the anti-globalization movement is used as evidence of…the unity of far left and right in a worldwide anti-Semitic project.
So why is this blog funny? Well, he did spend 3770 words basically objecting to my saying that his blog was unintentionally funny. Way to demonstrate, dude! Also, there will apparently be a part three based on the fact that I read Leninology. This is especially amusing as Dipshit concludes one of his rants by complaining about the Left’s rage and contempt for the regimes and internal and foreign policies of Syria, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Iran, Egypt, UAE, Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan year in and year out has nothing to do with the … oh wait there is no persistent and relentless rage, contempt and disapprobation from the radical Left to these states and entities.

Meanwhile: what’s been going on in Egypt for months and who is supporting what side of it again?

PS: I have never called myself a “radical liberal.” I’m not even sure what that term could possibly mean.

Mamatas never actually quotes me asking him over and over again whether he is an anti-Semite, because he can’t do it without shooting himself in the foot. He ignores the context of my barbed questions entirely (not once do I actually state that Mamatas is anti-Semitic), because to actually quote my pithy remarks addressed to Mamatas does not make Mamatas look good at all. There is no getting round it. In fact Mamatas can’t acknowledge my *actual remarks* here and their actual context, without acknowledging that I have caught him with his pants down; and that however he answers my pointed barbs, he can only keep digging his figurative grave…

I allude to the fact that the far Left (inclusive of communists, anarchists, socialists) is neck deep in anti-Semitism, even as they deny it and that Mamatas naturally doesn’t even begin to recognise it since he is a vocal soldier in this ideological army. This is way too nuanced for ideologues of Mamatas’s stripe to recognise though.

Nowhere do I in ALL SERIOUSNESS query whether Mamatas is *actually* a Holocaust Revisionist. Not even close to it. This is an outrageous fabrication by Mamatas, albeit not too surprising at all.  When I wrote – referring to Mamatas’s comment re my blog and my series on Holocaust Revisionism within the genre community – in part 1 of this series

Yet on the SELF-SAME DAY that I had put up the second postscript (closing out the series) you dismissed this blog as an unintentional joke at your livejournal blog.

You’re not a Holocaust Revisionist after all, Nick, right?

I was clearly being sarcastic. I know irony and subtlety are beyond the likes of Mamatas and his sycophants to comprehend, I didn’t necessarily think sarcasm was though. Clearly it is.

Mamatas thinks he is making barbed points with his extremely misrepresentative, supremely lame and pathetic invented titles of the two parts of my series (so far); all he does is show how brazenly dishonest and obtuse he is.

Calling me a ‘lunatic’ and a ‘dipshit’ doesn’t change the actual substansive contents of my articles on you and your ilk Mamatas one little bit. I would only want to earn your insults and incoherent rage Mamatas. Insults from the likes of you are compliments.

Notice how Mamatas tries to back out of his endorsement/pat on the back/seal of approval and advocacy for the UK blog Lenin’s Tomb, by telling us apropos my forthcoming part 3, “based on the fact that I read Leninology”. Oh pulleeez. You don’t just read it Mamatas, you approve it and give it the high cheer. I cover this in part 3 (people can read the interview he did with Simon Owens, yet I save this all for part 3). Mamatas is making this very lame and polemically bankrupt and disingenuous preemptive strike – he just reads it – because he is clearly panicking…

After all it’s so easy to take down Lenin’s Tomb for the odious and intemperately anti-Semitic blog that it clearly is. I mean when writing part 3 it was a case of deciding what to leave out! I can’t write a book here. Part 3 is still forthcoming of course.

Once again I don’t actually call Mamatas an anti-Semite, and I don’t throughout this series; just that he is a rank and file soldier on the far Left, and the far Left is riddled through with anti-Semitism like a cancer and he clearly approves (Mamatas’s pathetic attempt to downplay it as mere ‘reading’ just that, pathetic) of a severely anti-Semitic blog Lenin’s Tomb. The double pathology of anti-Semitism and absurd denial of this self-same anti-Semitism among the far Left is fairly obvious to those of us not coloured by that ideology and prejudice, or similar and who haven’t been asleep in a cave the last twenty years; with the caveat that one has some intelligence. There isn’t much of that commodity going around in the genre community I’m afraid and not the wider world neither.

Mamatas doesn’t exactly accurately quote me at all and my meaning is missed entirely – and I mean by light years (deliberately or not) – re the far Left’s (communists/anarchists) silence on tyranny and oppression in the Muslim Middle-East; he garbles and distorts it entirely since he simply cannot honestly answer the in-your-face double standards viz a viz Israel and the other nations and territories of the Middle-East.  Mamatas ends his jumbled screed with something of a non-sequiter

Meanwhile: what’s been going on in Egypt for months and who is supporting what side of it again?

WTF?? I don’t think Mamatas necessarily understands the first thing about what’s going on in Egypt by the by. Who is supporting what side??! Ideologues like Mamatas live on a different planet. The ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt may very much be misnamed (I certainly pray not); it may very well lead to the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power, an openly extremist Muslim fanatical group that advocates Sharia law, the tearing up of the peace treaty with Israel and indeed advocates the destruction of Israel through jihad. Already the signs are not good, with increasing persecution and violence against Copts, the destruction of their churches by mobs in which support for the Muslim Brotherhood runs high. Already the post-Mubarak regime is making warm overtones to HAMAS ruled Gaza and the Iranian regime. The levels of Muslim fundamentalism in Egypt run high (in the mosques, schools, universities, media, civil government – at all levels – and the armed forces), if anything it is getting worse. Mamatas and his ilk are oblivious, utterly clueless or worse, inadvertently revealing their blind know-nothingness with comments like “who is supporting what side of it again?” ??!!

Well given that the Muslim Brotherhood may come to power and we could have a Sunni Iran on the border with Israel, this post-Mubarak ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt may prove a huge disaster for both Egypt and Israel and the entire Middle-East. No that doesn’t mean I supported or cared for Mubarak. Mubarak is a thug and his government was tyrannical, authoritarian,  supremely corrupt, brutal and nepotism and graft ruled supreme. No decent person can shed a tear that he is gone. However the ugly reality is that he may be replaced by something even worse…

Mamatas can’t help but trip over his own feet here and proves my point for me. The obliviousness and willful ignorance by Mamatas and his kind to the ugly reality on the Egyptian street, the pervasive and growing Muslim  fundamentalism in all stratas of Egyptian society and with it the increasing stifling of the rights and liberties of the female gender, the growing persecution and violence directed at Christian Copts and high and vicious, rabid levels of Jew-hatred translating to the beating of war drums with Israel (from the popular and well organised Muslim Brotherhood that openly calls for the destruction of the sovereign Jewish state). Mamatas and his ilk (many conservatives too to be fair) ignore all this precisely because the far Left and even the mainstream Left itself is too busy focusing and selectively criticising Israel, fairly or otherwise. Never mind Mamatas I know it is way over your head.

Here are are the results of a comprehensive Pew Survey  done in Egypt not that long ago. It is fairly chilling and disturbing.

Relatively few (39%) give high priority to women having the same rights as men. Women themselves are more likely to say it is very important that they are assured equal rights than are men (48% vs. 30%). Overall, just 36% think it is very important that Coptic Christians and other religious minorities are able to freely practice their religions

The same Pew Survey on Muslim attitudes in the Middle-East, when it comes to support for extremist jihadist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda reveals chilling numbers across the Middle-East.  http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

In Egypt *only* 30% of Egyptians support Hezbollah, whereas 49% support HAMAS (see above link). That’s actually very scary and does not bode well for even the very near future.

The likes of the radical Left umbrella inclusive of anarchists, Marxists, socialists and their independent media (as with the MSM) largely ignore or dismiss these disturbing facts of pervasive and deep-rooted far right-wing religious superstition, reverence for clerical authoritarianism, tyranny, the opposition to freedom of inquiry, civil liberties and the like. And what of the genocidal Jew-hatred in the Egyptian street, at the grass-roots level (what support for the likes of Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS translates to)? The radical ‘anti-globalisation’ Left inclusive of anarchists, socialists and communists are too busy blathering on endlessly with ire, self-righteous fury and undisguised contempt for the Jew among the nations to take notice or pretend to care about what is *actually happening* in the Muslim Middle-East. Once again Mamatas I know you don’t get it, you simply can’t. You have to be outside the ideological mob. Mamatas’s incoherent, and at best entirely evasive response to me is predictable in both its emotional nature as it is in its substancelessness.

Mamatas blabbers:

PS: I have never called myself a “radical liberal.” I’m not even sure what that term could possibly mean.

Irrelevant and lame. It’s an entirely legitimate terminology btw (look it up, it was coined for one by conservative Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork. One can for sure disagree with his take on ‘radical liberalism’, but it is an entirely legitimate and coherent term nevertheless). So you are either a clueless pseudo-intellectual Mamatas well duh or you are being disingenuous, or both. Call yourself whatever you like Mamatas. What would you prefer? Communist, Marxist, socialist, anarchist, Trotskyite? What does it matter? Nowhere in your unintentionally laughable reply to me do you remotely address the substance of both my articles, but then you can’t without digging your grave. As I wrote in part 1:

Self-admitted anti-Semites such as far right-wingers including white supremacists and Muslim extremists and honestly anti-Semitic radical Leftists would also pour scorn on this blog and blithely dismiss it with fatuous scorn, just as you have Mamatas. They would also consider my blog a big joke. Just ask them. Didn’t that occur to you? It’s a rhetorical question btw. Is that a meaningful coincidence or a meaningless one Mamatas? No I don’t expect you to ever answer the question

Naturally you don’t even address this question, never mind answer it. That’s what I mean by predictable. In Part 2 of this series I write:

Thing is he [Mamatas] is viewing things through the wrong end of the telescope so he never can see things as they are. In so many words if the anti-Semitic far Right hold very similar views on the Jew among the nations and employ the same/similar slogans and echo the same mantras in this respect as the anti-Jew nation radical Left; it has nothing to do with the anti-Israel radical Left’s anti-Semitism since the anti-Jew nation radical Left couldn’t plausibly be anti-Semitic in Mamatas’s eyes. It isn’t even considered a possibility. Denial ain’t a river as they say.

The denial flows on, like the Nile itself.

If one were to go by Mamatas’s substanceless and pathetic ad hominem ‘response’ to me, one wouldn’t know that he actually dismissed my blog as ‘not intentionally very funny’ the self-same day I posted up the last article in an extensive series on Holocaust Revisionism from within the genre community, a series that had been running uninterrupted over the preceding near three weeks; and from a genre conservative in the main! Naturally Mamatas rewrites the titles of part 1 and 2 of my series to suit his own very thin and rigid ideological agenda, as an ideologue (having something of a meltdown) would do.

One would also have no idea what substantial points and allusions I was making in my second article going by Mamatas’s absurd rewrite of the title of part 2. The substance of part 2 of this series on Nick Mamatas relates to the unintended irony of his ‘Fascists for Che’ article and the disturbing coincidence of the far Left’s sloganese and cant with the honestly prejudicial and anti-Semitic far Right and Muslim extremists themselves, when it comes to the Jew among the nations. Naturally Mamatas and his howler monkey fanclub don’t dare look at these glaring facts head on, they don’t dare go there.. See the Dave Rich article I mention and quote extensively in part 2 ‘The Barriers Come Down: Anti-Semitism and the coalitions of extremes’ for what’s really going on here with the far Left and their psychopathology. Naturally Mamatas can’t refute any of this, so he doesn’t even acknowledge Dave Rich’s substantial points whatsoever and what I *actually wrote* at all (in both articles so far). How could he? He can only keep going round in circles chasing his tail and that’s all he does.

All he can do in his meltdown (since he’s used to the bubble of sycophants who he surrounds himself with) is shoot the bringer of bad tidings with the blank ammo that are ridiculous ad hominems and incoherent, paper-thin evasions and the same old knee-jerk blather at that. Like a priest repeating his liturgy, over and over.

On the subject of ad hominems, Mamatas calls me a coward because I don’t allow comments at my blog. It’s laughable to think, as Mamatas fatuously deceives himself is the case, that I don’t allow comments because I can’t adequately defend the substance and contents of my articles (from him or anybody else). I decided not to allow comments on ALL ARTICLES before I even put this blog online, before I had even written a single article for this blog. That’s because my reading of the blogosphere and internet fora over the years tells me – when it comes to controversial political topics – a ‘comments allowed’ policy is more of a pain than anything else. It’s simply not worth it. I can’t be bothered with spam for one and the mindless hate commentary that bloggers like me receive from Musim extremists and the far Right. They can spout out their poison on their own forums and blogs.

I have too little spare time as it is, to write the articles takes too much time already and wading through mostly inane comments (as they tend to be) would only add to wasting precious time that I don’t have. If people want to criticize my articles (constructively or otherwise, otherwise in your case Mamatas), if they want to pour scorn on me, they can do it on their own blogs (just as you have done Mamatas) and on fora, facebook etc.

I don’t even care that much for complimentary comments to my articles. I don’t need my ego stroked (I’m not as insecure as you Mamatas that I need to surround myself with a howler monkey fanclub that thinks exactly as you do) and what service does an echo chamber serve? It’s laughable that Mamatas thinks in a fair fight, without censorship, he would pin me to the floor and have me begging for mercy. I will destroy you Mamatas, I will eat you up like the red wolf eats a fat rooster and I will gnaw on your bones in my leisure when I am done. I’ve already done it. That’s why all you can do in response is engage in the knocking down of straw men, absurd fabrications, repeating the same old knee-jerk denials of the disturbing coincidence of the radical Left’s shared polemics on Israel with Muslim extremists and the far Right, and lame ad hominems on top of all that. Mamatas is already running round like a headless rooster and I haven’t even torn into his meaty body fat yet…

When you outrageously prattle the following in order to distract attention from the substance of both of my articles, you make it so easy for me

In which a lunatic asks, over and over again whether I am a anti-Semite or Holocaust revisionist.

There are three dishonest barbs in that single sentence of yours Mamatas. Lunatic? Lame unsubstantiated ad hominem. Once again I never actually call you an anti-Semite (you are just part of an ideological army in the West drowning in harebrained Judenhass, and this prejudice isn’t even acknowledged *in the main* by those so guilty. Make of that what you will. There are notable exceptions of course – that is far Leftists who don’t have a prejudicial bone in their bodies) and I certainly never seriously considered you to be a Holocaust Revisionist at all. I know you are not one after all, wise guy. I guess the plain meaning of my barbed remark here:

Yet on the SELF-SAME DAY that I had put up the second postscript (closing out the series) you dismissed this blog as an unintentional joke at your livejournal blog.

You’re not a Holocaust Revisionist after all, Nick.. right?

a sarcastic RHETORICAL QUESTION of mine, was entirely lost on you. Either that or you are just being disingenuous in order to dismiss the substance of my article. Of course you don’t actually quote me on calling you out on your foul-up re my blog and your ‘not intentionally very funny’ comment (never mind the context here) and you ignore the obvious sarcasm in my QUESTION addressed to you on Holocaust Revisionism by not quoting that neither, the easier to manufacture your own trumped-up blather.

As for red baiting?? What utter gibberish. Mamatas wants to pretend that I am some kind of McCarthyite witch hunter going after the brave-speakers-of-truth-to-freedom-crushing-authoritarian-power, gag gag (I actually predicted this in private correspondence regarding my blog. Sooooo easy to read you Mamatas). Naturally Mamatas doesn’t back up his claim here with any evidence. In my second article – to repeat the point – I allude very clearly and also through the mention and quotes from Dave Rich’s article, on the shared prejudicial dynamics and talking points/sloganese and polemical cant of the far Left inclusive of communists and anarchists with the far Right and Muslim extremists apropos the Jew among the nations. It’s a point I hammered home repeatedly. Naturally Mamatas and his ilk are oblivious to what this *actually tells us* and Mamatas, probably unconsciously, simply garbles this and dubs it “red baiting”, when not going round in circles and repeating his blather from his Fascists for Che article. What I allude to in the very title of part 2 of this series, Mamatas simply ignores and rewrites, the better to suit his own ideologically bankrupt whim. Mamatas can’t bear what I am *actually saying* so he indulges in a brazen straw man invention of his to dismiss these ugly unanswerable truths I bring up – ‘red baiting’! Pathetic and ridiculous in equal measure.

I thought to myself before I put the Mamatas articles up, IF Mamatas was stupid enough to reply to me, it would only be with entirely predictable straw men evasions, illogical evidence free blather, ad hominems and the like. He would never respond to the ACTUAL CONTENTS AND SUBSTANCE of my articles, that’s because he can’t. Ralph Emerson observed that once you know a man’s type, he is so easy to read and his behavior so foreseeable in certain circumstances. Leon Festinger termed this predictability of fixed and irrational behavioral and attitudinal responses to psychological crises where hard facts and false beliefs clash, cognitive dissonance. Mamatas’s particular ideological rigidity demands its particular irrational responses, and that’s what we get.

The next installment is still forthcoming…  SF writer Nick Mamatas’s hearty endorsement and praise of the harshly anti-Semitic ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ blog Part 3

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