With a ‘Zionist’ like this who needs enemies? The woeful attacks of Dybbuk Press’s Tim Lieder on this blog Part 1

I did think to myself when writing up the series on Nick Mamatas, that if any genre professionals (other than Mamatas) come to Mamatas’s ‘rescue’ with a ‘loudspeaker voice’ and carry water for him and in the process cast aspersions on me – it would probably be a ‘Jew’ first and foremost that would peep his head over the parapet. Indeed that has turned out to be the case – the ‘Jew’ in question is publisher and editor Tim Lieder.

However Lieder does not exactly fit the type I was expecting – a Chomsky type of Jew, a Mark Pontin. In fact even though Lieder’s blather directed at me certainly fits the Chomskybot “Jew” type rant (even as he calls Chomsky “a stupid motherfucker”!), Lieder is not ideologically in that camp. At least not in name. The reality is different though. Lieder is, or at least tells us he is “rabidly Zionist” . Lieder is interestingly a convert to Judaism and the publisher of Dybbuk Press which appears to focus to a degree on Judaica. (as the name dybbuk suggests – a dybbuk in Jewish folkore and religion is a restless wandering ghost/spirit of a deceased person that possesses a living human being)

Now contrast Lieder’s ‘Zionist’ stance with his ridiculously off-the-wall, asinine posts, harebrained in the extreme, directed against this blog. They are arguably unsurpassable in pure witlessness. Lieder’s Zionism is skin deep, if it’s that.

In his first blog post on me, Lieder wrote this (posted on 31st May):  http://marlowe1.livejournal.com/1907545.html

More Funny Blogs by Crazy People 
So Nick Mamatas is again pissing off the crazies. I always feel so inadequate because all I get is Pacione bitching about me and Pacione seems to have disappeared (dare I hope that he’s stopped blaming the rest of the world for his lack of success?) but Mamatas usually has devoted haters.

Yeah Lieder call me crazy, just like Mamatas. Ho hum. You sound just like him. How exactly does calling me loco refute the substance of my articles? Your laughable evidence free ad hominem doesn’t even acknowledge what I am actually saying at all, not even remotely, so it couldn’t even begin to refute the substance of my articles one little bit. It’s really very very lame. Tiresome as well. The lame name-calling gets a lot worse from hereon in.

Consider a guy calling himself “Season of the Wolf” who runs a blog dedicated to exposing anti-semitism. Because if there’s anything that says “we love Jews” it’s being a furry. But Mamatas called his blog unintentionally hilarious – in a comment no less. This began a tirade that’s been going on for 10,000 words thus far and shows no signs of abetting.

It’s ‘Season of the Red Wolf’, not ‘Season of the Wolf’. Leider why does Mamatas calling my blog unintentionally hilarious, a blog you acknowledge is dedicated to exposing anti-Semitism, not ring alarm bells in your case? What kind of person would dismiss a blog that admits upfront it is dedicated to exposing anti-Semitism from within the genre community, as unintentionally hilarious, and without a single shred of evidence as to why it is unintentionally hilarious? My series on Mamatas is not all about Mamatas dismissing this blog as ‘not intentionally very funny’, that was just a catalyst for the series (and what on earth is wrong with that? Talk about shooting the messenger). I say what I have to say on Mamatas dismissing this blog just when he did and a lot more besides in my first article in this series on Mamatas. Its pointed content sailed right through the holes in your head Lieder. I didn’t realise that a lengthy series – by virtue of being lengthy – disqualifies it of import and substance. If it were briefer and leaner, would that automatically make my series more worthy and true in content. Or wouldn’t it make any difference? If it wouldn’t make any difference, what’s your point again? Oh wait there wasn’t one, not one of substance at any rate. Lieder goes on to repeat, sympathise and endorse Mamatas’s dismissal of this blog as ‘unintentionally hilarious’ throughout his successive ranting against me, just the way an anti-Zionist would.

Favorite quote from the latest entry:

Mamatas’s snide chiding and dismissal of this blog as unintentionally comical (no Mamatas I know you and your gang don’t get it) is sinister and obtuse in equal measure. Never mind that this blog cuts across the political spectrum and that Mamatas’s ‘not intentionally way funnier’ remark coincided on the same day I had published the last of thirteen articles (up to that point only sixteen articles had been published at my blog) over the preceding eighteen days exposing Holocaust Denialism/Revisionism and its sugarcoating from predominantly (if not entirely) conservative quarters. An entirely original exposé.

Yep. This guy goes after Holocaust revisionists. Mamatas says that he’s unintentionally funny which means that Mamatas is a Holocaust revisionist.

Lieder thanks for the accurate quotation. Curious as to why you think that quote counts against me? It really doesn’t say much for Mamatas that he dismissed my blog as ‘not intentionally very funny’ just when he did and for the reasons I state in plain English, and that you accurately quote. Rather disturbing that somebody from a Christian background who converts to Judaism and claims to be ‘rabidly Zionist’ doesn’t get it at all here. This ain’t rocket science, really it isn’t.

What on earth is wrong with going after Holocaust Revisionists?? Uh you would think a Jew (a convert or not) would be appreciative of my going after Holocaust Revisionists from within the genre community. It’s not as if I was fabricating charges (it’s why my series is so extensive), and as you quote me – it is an entirely original exposé. Not only is Lieder not appreciative (hardly as his later harebrained Pontin-like response would reveal), he still doesn’t see anything wrong with the fact that Mamatas dismissed this blog as unintentionally very funny just when he did (and remember up to that time 81% of my articles were on Holocaust Revisionism); even as Lieder seemingly recognises Mamatas’s dismissal of this blog just when he did and in the way that he did (by accurately quoting me)! None of this bothers Lieder in the slightest. He doesn’t even stop to ask – why does Mamatas dismiss a blog that is dedicated to exposing anti-Semitism as not intentionally very funny? I scrutines this in the first article in this Mamatas series. Lieder doesn’t digest and ruminate on any of this because it is beyond his mental capacity to do so.

Nowhere in my first article do I *in all seriousness* accuse Mamatas of Holocaust Revisionism. Not in that quote and nowhere else in that first article of mine (and others). Just because I accuse Mamatas’s comment (both its content and timing) of being both obtuse and sinister doesn’t mean I am accusing him of being a Holocaust Revisionist! How preposterous, what an absurd fabricated overreach by Lieder here. My comment (that Lieder quotes) means exactly what I say – it is obtuse and sinister, nothing more than that, nothing less than that. How is dismissing a blog dedicated to exposing anti-Semitism as not intentionally very funny (as Mamatas does) not obtuse and sinister, especially considering that Mamatas did so when I had just published the last article in an extensive series on Holocaust Revisionism over the preceding near three weeks?!

On the accusation that I consider Mamatas plausibly guilty of Holocaust Revisionism, Lieder either missed my sarcasm and facetiousness on this score (in the form of a QUESTION)  or he is being disingenuous, the easier to dismiss the substance of my articles. I have already answered Mamatas on this front re the Holocaust Revisionist charge (where Mamatas says pretty much the same thing as Lieder) over here , and I don’t want to repeat myself too much. Lieder ignores my response to Mamatas here entirely.

My response to Mamatas was published on 27th May. Lieder’s pertinent first blog post was posted up on 31st May, four days AFTER my reply to Mamatas. Lieder doesn’t even acknowledge my response to Mamatas’s criticisms of my series on him at all, where I show up the lie to the absurd claim by Mamatas himself, that I was seriously accusing Mamatas of Holocaust Revisionism. You wouldn’t know going by Lieder’s blather that I had already responded emphatically to Mamatas here (never mind what I wrote up on that front). Of course if Lieder was to acknowledge what I had written here, he couldn’t in all seriousness accuse me of accusing Mamatas of Holocaust Revisionism in the first place. Lieder repeats this lie in further responses to me, like the automaton that he is.

As if the problem lies with me (I’m the crazy hater here, according to Lieder), the one who had just published the last of thirteen detailed articles on ACTUAL HOLOCAUST DENIAL/REVISIONISM when Mamatas made his asinine and offensive comment (well to all self-respecting Jewry at least). Mamatas did not answer – well not coherently nor rationally – any of the pointed questions I asked him in my first article in this series, he didn’t even acknowledge them in the main. Neither does Lieder at all, he just echoes Mamatas really. Erecting a straw man to knock down – the pretense that in all seriousness I accuse Mamatas of Holocaust Revisionism, the better to ignore the actual content and substance of my first article in this series.

The rest of the article is a slam on a blog that Nick claims to read. Because if you read a blog that means you agree with it implicitly and explicitly. Isn’t brainwashing what blogging is all about. Come minions. Come and join my sex cult (send pictures first).

Mamatas doesn’t ‘claim to read’ Lenin’s Tomb/Leninology, he reads it. “claims to read”. It’s at the top of Mamatas’s *recommended* political blog reading list, a blog we all ‘should be reading’. It’s one of the very few blogs on his short blogroll at his website (and probably the most overtly political one). I have already addressed this lame pathetic attempt at damage control that Mamatas himself made, over here in my reply to Mamatas. And here is the relevant article on Leninogly/Lenin’s Tomb. The interested reader is recommended to read both these articles if he/she hasn’t already. I do not want to repeat myself endlessly. It’s as if Lieder is channelling Mamatas. The ‘rabid Zionist’ says the same things in Mamatas’s defense as the anti-Zionist Mamatas himself does, even AFTER I have addressed in detail the very lame pathetic self-same responses from Mamatas. Lieder doesn’t even pretend to acknowledge my reply to Mamatas on this front. Of course not.

Mamatas is vocal and conspicuous in the international workers’ struggle (or what passes for it); Lenin’s Tomb is one of the most popular blogs among the radical Left in the UK, the blog of Richard Seymour who is a vocal member of the UK Socialist Workers Party, a blog that explicitly appeals to communists, socialists, anarchists. Mamatas proudly and explicitly shares in the political weltenschauung of Seymour. It is disingenuous or obtuse to pretend otherwise. Mamatas clearly implicitly supports Lenin’s Tomb’s content in the main (that’s what it means to recommend a political blog ahead of any other on the whole wordwideweb, a blogger whose radical political ideology is the same as one’s own no less). Mamatas would also explicitly sympathise and agree with at least *a lot* of the content at Lenin’s Tomb for the same reasons. Lieder may beg to differ, but Lieder does not follow basic rules of logic and reason.

The next rambling post is supposedly going to be titled Nick Mamatas, the Apex SF crew, gay rights & the Middle-East Part 4 – I wonder if this guy is for or against gay rights. ANd if he’s going to go after the “Apex SF Crew” (did they reject his space nazi story?) is he going to mention yuki_onna and if he mentions yuki_onna will he talk about the fact that she sold a story to She Nailed a Stake Through His Head: Tales of Biblical Terrror? Please?

Well the pertinent article of mine has of course since been posted up. It’s for gay rights. Sorry to disappoint you, I don’t mention Yuki Onna. No Apex never rejected any story of mine, on space nazis or space zombies, space anarchists, and Jews in Space neither. Lieder would write up a ridiculous  and unintentionally laughable ‘comeback’  to this article after I published it (it’s even more incoherent and obscenely stupid than this first blog response of his, which takes some doing). Actually each of Lieder’s responses to me get increasingly delusional, witless and incoherent in ways one would never imagine even possible.

Ironic that Lieder pretends not to share Mamatas’s political worldview, yet Lieder channels Mamatas anyhow – in cookie-cutter radical Leftist modus operandi – in a very similar laughable and pathetic bluff and bluster attack on me. Come again Lieder?? Are there two Tim Lieders here, two different people? Or has Lieder become possessed by a dybbuk perhaps, one of a Jew of the Chomsky variety. How to explain the doublethink here? Talk about a mental contortionist act. It is clearly a number of confused motivations, one of which certainly is a very misguided and blind loyalty to genre colleague and friend Nick Mamatas (there is also his friendship with Cathy Valente). Lieder thanks Mamatas in the acknowledgments to his book The Teddy Bear Cannibal Massacre (2005) that Lieder edited.

In his second and third blog responses to me, Lieder inadvertently reveals where much more of the doublethink has its roots and dynamic (and it is not that uncommon), aside from his friendship with Mamatas. There is an attempt to hold two contrasting mutually exclusive worldviews and political attitudes at the same time, that results in absurd contradictions and bizarro mental contortionism. I address this in the pertinent forthcoming replies of mine to Lieder.

In his fury and righteous rage to defend Mamatas at all costs (whilst later pretending he’s not doing so!), Tim ‘the human pretzel’ Lieder doesn’t realize how his obtuse ranting comes across (well to those of us without ideological blinders on, probably a small – even very small – minority of readers). It looks Tim exactly like some miss-the-point gibberish that would be spouted out by the same kind of know-nothing political radicals you pour your scorn on, the asinine radical Left. Your poppycock Leider could have been written by a rabidly anti-Zionist Chomsky cultist (with the exception of Leider calling Chomsky a stupid motherfucker of course!). That’s why I call you the human pretzel. If you doubt me on this front Lieder, just post up your rant in its entirety (and its context – the response to my Mamatas series) on a Chomsky worshipping forum and get back to us with the feedback. Just delete your bit about calling Chomsky a stupid motherfucker of course! and I guarantee that you will receive warm and even effusively glowing praise and acclaim.

Lieder adds this in a second blog post against me, piling on the offal:     http://marlowe1.livejournal.com/1907713.html  “oh damn”

Looked at more https://seasonoftheredwolf.wordpress.com/ – the entire blog is like Uncle Leo but withint the science fiction community. Apparently everyone is anti-semitic and a Holocaust denier (revisionist) and if they aren’t they are associated with people who are. Even Noam Chomsky, whom I never figured for a Holocaust revisionist. A stupid motherfucker, yes. A Holocaust revisionist – uh, not quite.

It is pathetic and worse that Lieder accuses me of obsessing and inventing anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist at all (uncle Leo), when I have extensively detailed HOLOCAUST DENIALISM WITHIN THE GENRE COMMUNITY! What passage exactly, from which article of mine exactly is a false accusation, sans evidence? Why don’t you quote it Lieder? Should be easy to do if my whole blog is garbage and seeing anti-Semitism where it ain’t. It’s just this brazen flippant evidence free slur and lame ad hominem directed my way. C’est tout. Pathetic.

I accuse everyone of being anti-Semitic and a Holocaust Denier?!? What utter garbage. Is Lieder for real? The Holocaust Revisionists I make mention of in the genre community really are Holocaust Revisionists – the late James P Hogan, Dave Truesdale Tangent editor and short story writer and book reviewer Marian Powell. Editor of the Universe Annex at the Grantville Gazette (formerly at Jim Baen’s Universe) Sam Hidaka gave strong circumstantial evidence for Holocaust Revisionism, but not conclusive evidence. I am emphatic on that score. I don’t accuse anybody else of being a Holocaust Revisionist. That’s why my Holocaust Revisionism series at this blog is so extensive and heavily detailed, I made sure I had all my ducks in a row. (not that Lieder notices nor cares at all. I don’t even think Lieder bothered reading the relevant series properly if at all. That’s the only excuse he has, other than being very very very obtuse. Does he fail to understand even the chapter headings?)

Note that the surreal and obscene thread ‘James Hogan has passed away‘ in which the most extreme and off-the-wall Jew-hatred and accompanying extreme brain dead stupidity was on display (and from genre professionals and fans) – which I have rescued from oblivion and publicized – doesn’t appear to mean anything to Lieder. Didn’t he read it, doesn’t he understand it? Does he think it nothing of consequence? To Lieder the loco character is the one who exposes and details all this extreme Jew-hatred (that’s what Holocaust Revisionism is see?) in the genre community! Who do I accuse of Holocaust Revisionism that isn’t a Holocaust Revisionist? Who do I explicitly accuse of anti-Semitism who isn’t anti-Semitic? Well when you try and defend the indefensible (the foul-up by Nick Mamatas and the associated ugly radical Left politics of Mamatas) as Lieder has done, all you have in your arsenal is dud ammunition and that’s all Lieder makes use of. Is any authentic Jew out there disturbed by the fact that Lieder, the ‘Zionist Jew’ apparently, focuses all his rage and evidence free ad hominems on the Jew who exposes Holocaust Revisionism from within the genre community; but not one angry word or expletive is directed by him at Truesdale, Powell, Hidaka, and for that matter the Asimov’s forum administrator who threatened to ban me for calling a Holocaust Denier a Nazi, but said admin had no problem with all the extreme Judenhass on display? In fact Lieder can’t even be bothered to mention any of them by name at all, instead Lieder’s dismissive contempt and unintentionally laughable abuse is directed solely my way.

As I mention in pertinent detail in a forthcoming article, Lieder is guilty of much worse. A harebrained foul-up re my series on Holocaust Revisionism would be revealed in his fevered response to me here. He would go even further into incoherence and delusion (denying his obscene gaffe to himself and his readers) in the next blog post of his (in response to me here).

Lieder paves the way into full-blown fevered imbecility in the genre community, going further than Mark Pontin   (which I had thought impossible). Lieder sets the path for others to follow or not, as they choose. He arguably has no equals here (although who knows what the future holds in store!).

Even Noam Chomsky, whom I never figured for a Holocaust revisionist. A stupid motherfucker, yes. A Holocaust revisionist – uh, not quite.

I also never called Chomsky a Holocaust Revisionist. Sigh. Basic fail in reading comprehension there Lieder. Here are the pertinent parts that I wrote up on Chomsky (in response to Mark Pontin): https://seasonoftheredwolf.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/disturbing-questions-part-10/

…and Chomsky has said things like “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust..” I pointed out, clearly alluded to both these facts for Pontin’s benefit. The latter relates to the whole Robert Faurisson affair in France.

…Chomsky was exposed for his friendly associations with Holocaust Denying fascists in France like Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume, but most notably Robert Faurisson. Faurissson is one of the most notorious Holocaust Deniers and anti-Semitic fascists in France. Chomsky wrote an approving preface to one of Faurisson’s books in which Faurisson was unambiguous on his Holocaust Denial and a lot more ugly anti-Semitism besides. In Chomsky’s glowing preface to the book, Chomsky wrote that he saw Faurisson as a “relatively apolitical liberal”. Chomsky wrote to Australian historian Bill Rubinstein (1980/1) justifying his associations with Faurisson:

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust..”  and “I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work..”.

See Werner Cohn’s essay, ‘Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers’ for the extensive details here. http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Also see the writings of W Rubinstein, Edward Alexander, Nadine Fresco and Rachel Neuwirth here.

Chomsky and his cult lie about the Faurisson affair as a freedom of speech issue to this day. Freedom of speech had nothing to do with it of course, it’s simply a disingenuous straw-man.

Apparently it’s way way too difficult for Lieder to understand the difference between calling somebody (Chomsky in this case) a Holocaust Revisionist (which I never did) and writing up in plain simple English the fact that Chomsky does not consider Holocaust Denial (denial of the existence of gas chambers included) to be anti-Semitic (which I did write up), QUOTING CHOMSKY HIMSELF. It’s all there on the Werner Cohn link I provide and in the writings of the others I mention. None of them likewise accuse Chomsky of Holocaust Denial, any more than I do. They simply point out how odious, obtuse and repellent it is to consider Holocaust Denial anything less than anti-Semitic (and related issues), as Chomsky does. That’s why Chomsky has no credibility on Israel and political topics as a whole. All this relates to the Robert Faurisson affair that passes right over Lieder’s head, even as I gave a brief simple allusion to it, with a link to a comprehensive scholarly article on the subject. Sigh.

Lieder has responded to me here (re the Chomsky-Faurisson affair) exactly the way a Chomsky cultist would, with an obtuse ridiculous fabrication that has no bearing on the actual ugly facts at hand and what I actually wrote up very clearly in plain English. What makes it really ridiculous and surreal is that Lieder cannot stand Chomsky, calling him a “stupid motherfucker”. So then Lieder why have you responded to the facts I allude to re the Chomsky-Faurisson affair the way the most stupid and stupidly dishonest Chomsky cultist would (and does) when the guru Chomsky is exposed for the repellent fraud that he is in this regard? Go figure.

This is what I mean by Tim ‘the human pretzel’ Lieder. His blind loyalty to genre colleague Nick Mamatas is so strong, his mind has simply shut down just like an overloaded generator. Assuming he ever had a mind to speak of in the first place. This idiotic blunder of Lieder’s is par for the course and would be surpassed for sheer ‘dazed and confused’ mindlessness in the later blathering gibberish that are Lieder’s blog posts directed against me.

Btw Lieder, Mamatas does not consider Hezbollah supporter Noam Chomsky to be a “a stupid motherfucker”. Hardly, he admires that anti-Semitic Jew Chomsky to a high degree. So what you say Lieder about a loyal Chomsky fan like Mamatas who sees “a stupid motherfucker” – and an anti-Semitic one at that – as a speaker of truth to power, as a paragon of scholarship, honesty and integrity, inclusive of the topic of Middle-East conflicts? What’s that Lieder? Can’t hear you?

Ok, done with that crap. Got enough people who think like that in my real life (oh shit! Muslims! Do you know that in one of their non-Koran texts that may or may not be part of their canon, they talk about the trees helping them to kill Jews? And how often do we have to quote this same fucking passage from a 10th century text before you all agree that Muslims are evil?) without having to read more of the same bullshit. 

He even mentions the Muslim/Arab issue of Apex. So yay, shout out to my my friend Jawad who got his poem published in that issue (I need to get a Libya update from him. He was such a redneck when Osama and one of the Ghaddafi brats got killed in the same day.)

Ho hum I’m a bigot now apparently. Gotta say saw that coming. Apparently if I quote the Hamas charter (from the Hadith) – which was pertinent to refuting Richard Seymour’s (of Lenin’s Tomb) lying garbage about Hamas being a party willing to compromise with Israel and accepting of Israel’s right to exist! – I’m a bigot. Remember Lenin’s Tomb is the political blog that earns Mamatas’s esteemed recommendation (ahead of any other blog). Maybe if I quote from the vicious and rabid anti-Semitic remarks of Martin Luther, John Wesley or Bishop Tutu and other prominent figures in the Christian Church, I’m a bigot too. Maybe if I quote some of the odious passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus I’m a self-hating Jew. For the record Lieder, Hadith is an integral part of the Muslim canon (Sunni and Shi’ite), as the Talmud is an integral part of the Jewish religious canon and Hadith date to the 8th and 9th centuries AD, not the 10th. Tim Lieder clearly know nothing at all substantial about Islam whatsoever and proudly advertises the fact.

Where do I say that Muslims are evil, Lieder? Nowhere, so you fabricate this baseless charge – clearly implying I’m a bigot in the process. You fabricate this just like you fabricate the garbage about me accusing Chomsky of Holocaust Revisionism and pathetically that I accuse everyone unfairly of being anti-Semitic and Mamatas of being a Holocaust Denier, and more rubbish besides. You spin several outrageous trumped-up and extremely stupid accusations out of thin air in just a few sentence and short paragraphs. That’s quite a feat. Not that it’s anything to be proud of. That is accurately quote from the history of the Inquisition and the role of the Church in European colonialism and the Crusades, you are considered scholarly; accurately quote from Muslim dogma and history, and you’re a bigot who thinks all Muslims are evil. This is the MO of the loony radical Left (and the anti-Semitic radical Left at that), guess I’m a bigot for calling the radical Left loony now too.

This cultural and moral relativist idiocy is the kind of absurdist horror that has gripped our society like the mind plague that it is. In fact Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, Ezra Levant in Canada among others, have been charged with hate speech and incitement ie being bigots before the law in their respective countries merely for repeating established irrefutable facts about Muslim dogma, history and society, well documented in the scholarly religious and historical literature on Islam. The West has lost its collective mind, if it ever had a mind to speak of.

The fact that Lieder falls for this equating of cowardly dhimmitude and associated cultural and moral relativism with anti-racism/anti-prejudice, as do all the know-nothings on the radical and mainstream Left (and plenty conservatives too), is revealing of the roots of much of Lieder’s doublethink. I expand on this in my second reply where Lieder continues in the same idiotic dhimmi vein.

Whilst comments on blogs cannot be used against the bloggers themselves, it’s worth remarking on this comment to Lieder’s blog post addressed above, because it is so revealing of the incredibly obtuse and odious mentality I am dealing with. Also as a later Lieder blog post on me would reveal, this ‘yendi’ below isn’t that far removed from Lieder’s own witlessness. Lieder makes a similar sickeningly stupid foul-up as ‘yendi’. This is adressed in my next article on Lieder (although I have already alluded to it further up above).

yendi
2011-05-31 01:04 pm UTC (link) I love how he believes that the two comments saying they’re sad about Hogan’s death deliberately prove that the mourners are Holocaust deniers, and he even goes out of his way to say they can’t “just” be anti-Semites, but clearly deniers.

As for Apex (which I hadn’t seen until I searched the page; the writing is nigh-incomprehensible enough to give me a headache), I love how he deliberately called Cat by a different diminutive of her name, because that’s certainly not sexist and an attempt to control her identity at all or anything. Classy hypocritical asshole there.

(Note: None of this takes away from the fact that Hogan was an asshole Holocaust revisionist; but having someone this batshit crazy arguing that the entire field is filled with revisionism only undercuts any serious attempts to explore the issue.)

I write an extensive series on Holocaust Revisionism from within the genre community (and Hogan’s death acted as a catalyst for all this), thirteen detailed articles and people out there, like this ‘yendi’ don’t get it at all. Shocking. Just how very stupid and stupidly offensive can people out there be? There don’t seem to be any limits when it comes to the genre community.

“The mourners” (namely Truesdale and Powell) are Holocaust Revisionists, Universe Annex editor Sam Hidaka gave very strong circumstantial evidence for Holocaust Revisionism, but I am adamant that the evidence is not conclusive here. Well, that may be overgenerous on my part…

‘yendi’ in all seriousness also claims I’m sexist because I call Catherinne Valente Cathy! This is so absurd and ridiculous that one can only laugh it off. If you think a man calling a woman by the accepted diminutive of her name is sexist you are so warped by a straightjacketed, absurd and humourless pseudofeminist ideology, you are beyond help. At least this ‘yendi’ is consistently obtuse and ridiculous. Lieder however does the same thing re the sexism/infantilization charge against me in his next blog response to me! and I answer him on this front in my forthcoming reply. Lieder also – to repeat myself – blunders on my Holocaust Revisionism series here and then denies doing so when called out on it by me. 

I never say or imply the entire genre field is filled with Holocaust Revisionism btw, what utter rubbish. The discounting of Holocaust Revisionism where it clearly and definitely is, is what undercuts any serious attempts to explore the issue. Did ‘yendi’ even read my series at all, did Lieder? If they did, what excuse do they have for their disgusting foul-up here? I mean other than base imbecility.

Lieder continued to dig his own grave, in his response to my article ‘Nick Mamatas, the Apex SF crew, gay rights and the Middle-East‘. Lieder predictably launches more lame ad hominems, makes gross and garbled misrepresentations of the content and substance of my articles and invents pathetic and ridiculous fictions of my blog posts that Lieder’s warped and poisoned imagination mistakes for truth telling. And he does worse than that…

It doesn’t occur to Lieder that his ranting, that has no bearing on what I actually wrote and address in my articles (all of them – on Mamatas and elsewhere at this blog), his fevered smoke and mirrors hogwash, is not any different in the slightest to what one hears from radical and hardened anti-Zionists. If Lieder you are such a ‘Zionist Jew’, how to explain the fact that your idiotic ripostes to me are cookie-cutter commentary that one would hear from wilfully ignorant and rabid anti-Zionists? Lieder could not answer the question remotely coherently, because there is no coherent answer that wouldn’t damn Lieder. Lieder is not capable of coherence, logic and reason anyhow. He hasn’t demonstrated anything remotely close to it.

With so-called ‘Zionist Jews’ like Lieder, who needs anti-Zionists?

Forthcoming… The ravings of Tim Lieder of Dybbuk Press who slights with mockery and disdain my series on Holocaust Revisionism & other gaffes Part 2.

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