Interlude – When anti-Israel genre Marxists turn on one another. The Will Shetterly vs Nick Mamatas Deathmatch & Mamatas’s NAMBLA analogy

Welcome to intermission re my series on China Mieville. Herein I detail a public clash on the internet among genre Marxist writers that is, well it has to be read to be believed…

This all went down in July 2011 – so five months ago now – but it’s um fascinating in a dark train-wreck kind of way, that if you don’t know about it, it’s worth recounting for this blog’s readers…

Also it’s what this blog is all about.

So get this, Will Shetterly, a hack genre writer and a real Israel hater like his fellow smug Marxists, is over at his fellow anti-Israel hack Marxist writer Nick Mamatas’s blog (and I myself have clashed with Mamatas, see my multi-part series on Mamatas beginning here). Shetterly gets into an argument/flame-war with Mamatas’s goon squad sycophantic commentators and Mamatas himself over the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina affair, and whether anti-black racism was to blame for the incompetence and apathy of the federal and state authorities re the failures in the rebuilding and resettlement of New Orleans wrt its African-American residents. Mamatas and his fellow anti-Israel (that’s anti-Jew nation) goon squad argue that racism is to blame, Shetterly disagrees somewhat and says it has more to do with class and socio-economic divisions and associated entrenched injustices. So what you’re saying, who cares?

Thing is Mamatas then sides with his fan club of twits at his blog and bans Shetterly from his blog, BANNINATION! 

Shetterly then goes off in a huff about it at his own blog, launching into an unintentionally hilarious discussion with himself about how wronged he is and what an ass Mamatas is (this is from his LJ blog I think which he closed down).

Shetterly bans Mamatas at his own blog, unbans him after some self-reflection and bans him again after further banter with himself, and only himself (it’s not as if Mamatas came along to argue at Shetterly’s blog). Yeah I read it at the time. Mamatas then adds a few comments directed against Shetterly at his own blog regarding all this.

Of course an irony that passes through the holes in the heads of our antagonists, Shetterly (and whoever his supporters are) and Mamatas and his zombie squadron, is that here are all these Israel haters (hint hint) who balk at any charge of anti-Semitism, like all good liberals, communists and socialists, arguing about whether RACISM is to blame for numerous problems in New Orleans post-Katrina, or whether it is more entrenched socio-economic divisions that are to blame. I don’t even bother with the whole ‘racefail’09’ affair in which Shetterly was heavily involved.

Now I don’t really care for what all these idiots have to say too much, but here is an incredible zinger from Nick Mamatas that naturally doesn’t bother anybody, except his antagonist Shetterly.

I think it comes from this original thread at Mamatas’s livejournal blog (taking into consideration the dates and times of the posts) Shorter Shetterly, or 390 Comments Later

Although I’m not 100% sure. It’s impossible to read LJ discussions, the way they divide and break off all over the place, and who really cares? The thing is it all may have been scrubbed, all the relevant commentary. I couldn’t find it there and I looked.

Shetterly copied and pasted it all at his LJ ‘the Derailment Machine’ blog here anyhow – willshetterly.livejournal.com/453479.html

That blog however Shetterly then shut down. Even if you have an LJ account, that entry no longer appears to be viewable. The relevant entry was entitled  ‘Nick Mamatas on the creepier metaphor: virginity or child-rape?‘ It appears the pertinent  flame-war sub-thread may have been wiped from the original thread at Mamatas’s livejournal blog likewise.

Hmmm… has it all just disappeared, down the memory hole? How very Orwellian if that is the case.

I downloaded the pertinent entry though back in July 2011 when Shetterly posted it up at his now defunct LJ blog. So I have it all on my hard-drive.

So now as far as it would appear (by doing a google search at least) the only place it is now – at least in small part – once again viewable is here at my blog (in this article). I don’t bother pasting the whole thing up, for what? So just the pertinent commentary…

Never mind btw the ‘virgin related’ banter that’s a lead-in to Mamatas’s um shocking comment. You need to know the background and context of the flame-war in order to get what that’s about, it’s not that important.

The bold in the text quoted below is mine. Text in green is Will Shetterly’s comments. Remember nihilistic_kid is Nick Mamatas.

nihilistic_kid 2011-07-13 08:04 pm

Hmm. Okay, after she said she was a virgin and I should be stoned, I said, “Wait, there are her wedding pics, see!” And you’re seeing, “Who cares? Stone the defiler of virginity!” [Mamatas quoting Shetterly – red wolf]

I’m seeing? I presume you mean saying. No, what I’m saying is, “Oh look, Will Dickless here has promoted himself to Checker of Virginities, and just because women keep not talking to him! How odd!”

explication de texte is easy

Gosh, I guess that means you weren’t really asking questions after all with all those questions! Now we know that you do understand that “Should I sue X and Y?” isn’t just a question.

Also, your explication shows a pretty severe limit to your ruling class education. Don’t they teach the Great Books anymore. It’s a Greek thing, like I said. Butt-fucking is just mentorship between a man and a child. I’m teaching you how to be a grown-up. You’re very bad at it.

willshetterly 2011-07-13 08:15 pm
Pederasty. You’re quite right. I missed that possibility entirely.

nihilistic_kid 2011-07-13 08:18 pm
Bourgeois thought is often binary like that. Poor you. Well, back to humping an education into you!

willshetterly 2011-07-13 08:30 pm
I would also expect your friends to call you on pederasty metaphors. Whatevs.

There you have it! Rescued it would appear from the memory hole by yours truly.

This is Nick Mamatas remember, revealing all his um classiness when getting into a flame-war with one of his genre peers:

‘Butt-fucking is just mentorship between a man and a child’

In this regard of course Shetterly is correct, it’s a disgusting and thoughtless thing to say, and Mamatas’s howler monkey fan club has nothing to say here re their Dear Leader Nick Mamatas’s odious comment. Of course not.

Then again if you are a liberal Islamophile gay/bisexual genre hack you can get away with pretty much anything. And not just within the genre community (this is lost on Shetterly, who is as caught up in this odious group-think as much as anybody else). This is the zeitgeist in Obama’s America. Hold to the right opinions (the left opinions that is) and the Thought Police will leave you alone. I mean it really is a shocking and terrible thing to say, but nothing that comes out of the mouth or keyboard of Mamatas really surprises me.

Naturally nobody but Shetterly had anything to say, no raised eyebrows, never mind censure, from any of Mamatas’s  echo chamber zombies at his blog. None of them appear to raise a peep in protest to Mamatas’s WTF!? comment. It’s not like he was criticizing Islam or anything like that after all.

During the same flame-war and so at the same now scrubbed Shetterly LJ link, Mamatas then tries to worm his way out of the ‘mentorship’ comment of his, through typical Mamatas incoherent, dense and illogical misdirection and hand-waving.

An excerpt (again text in green is Shetterly’s):

nihilistic_kid 2011-07-14 10:01 pm
Probably because it’s not a child-rape metaphor. You lie moron, etc etc. (And yes, since you’re back, you are a liar. I know middle-class people believe it their right to lie to others, but still…)

And again:

nihilistic_kid 2011-07-14 10:16 pm  Are you claiming the word is not literally translated boy-lover?

Some Marxist you are. Do you know anything about how the state and capital creates modern social concepts like “adolescence”? Eromenos were teens. Do you want to criminalize homosexual sex among teens? Delany has a few things to say about that.

“Butt-fucking is just mentorship between a man and a child” is pretty plain in its meaning.

Nothing ambiguous there. Note he writes ‘child’, not adolescent or teen or young adult. Last I checked child still means child, as in preadolescent or prior to the onset of early adulthood or puberty if you prefer. This is basic. Naturally Mamatas just brazenly lies here, pretending that when he wrote ‘child’, he didn’t actually mean child, he meant a young adult/teen. Words mean whatever we want them to mean, apparently, at least in Mamatas’s loopy universe.

If anybody out there is even interested, here are a few more links relating to the Mamatas vs Shetterly flame-war and falling out, that have not been scrubbed…

Will Shetterly’s take on the affair and related stuff I guess:

‘how to read like a red’ from July 15 2011

the state of the Shetterlyverse  from July 16th.

Here is some more from Mamatas:

I win. Will Shetterly loses. Surprise.

Perseveration Station Or, What Will Will Shetterly Do?

As far as Mamatas desperately trying to equivocate and worm his way out of the unambiguous meaning of um “butt-fucking is just mentorship between a man and a child”, and failing dismally, well this is par for the course with Mamatas. What to expect from somebody who wrote college papers for lazy students, for money? He openly admits to doing it, and openly admits how morally reprehensible it is, but then proceeds to rationalize and justify it anyhow.

Here for the facts in this regard. It’s from the NonSequitur blog whose byline is A Logical Analysis of Political Media.

It’s from 2008, and the commentary from one John Casey pertaining to Nick Mamatas’s admission to ‘ghost writing’ (or whatever you want to call it) college term papers when the latter was interviewed on NPR. I paste it up here for convenience:

Paying a stranger to write a paper for you when you’re a college student is called plagiarism.  The other day NPR’s On the Media did a story on someone who ghost wrote what he called “model papers.”  When pressed about what would justify his actions, he produced a blizzard of sophistry:

BOB GARFIELD: Let me just quote from you here. Quote, “Writing model term papers is above-board and perfectly legal. Thanks to the First Amendment it’s protected speech, right up there with neo-Nazi rallies, tobacco company press releases and those ‘9/11 was an inside job’ bumper stickers.”

So, I mean, I don’t want to be putting words in your mouth, but I think what you’re saying is legal but repulsive, sleazy.

NICK MAMATAS: Oh, sure.

BOB GARFIELD: Unethical, morally disgraceful. Am I leaving anything out?

NICK MAMATAS: No, that pretty much sums it up, yeah.

BOB GARFIELD: So Nick, how do you rationalize your behavior? I mean, it sounds kind of whorish to me.

NICK MAMATAS: Mm, well again, I also think that prostitution should be legal, and I’ve written several term papers about that over the years.

As far as my own work in term papers, basically I felt my other writing was more important. You know, everyone makes these decisions. What about people who work in munitions factories, or who work for defense contractors?

So we all make these decisions. It’s just a cost benefit analysis. In the end, I felt I benefited from writing these papers ‘cause it allowed me to work at home and write novels and short stories and articles. And the people who were buying the papers, well, they – that was their decision. They could take that as a model paper, and many of them did. They could hand it in and roll the dice, ‘cause I was always happy, always thrilled, actually, to hand in a paper to a professor. If the client, you know, was trying to pull one over on me, or was even nasty to me sometimes, I’d just sort of like secretly fax it.

So Mr. Mamatas seems to think that ghost writing term papers is morally disgraceful, yet despite not being morally justified, it’s morally justified.  What follows are his justifications and in parentheses what I think is their appropriate interpretation.

(1) He was able to do his other writing with the income from writing “model papers” (I only lied and cheated because it benefited me!–something is morally justified if you benefit in some way from it).

(2) Everyone makes cost/benefit decisions (a general and irrelevant rule which doesn’t apply to my circumstance in particular applies to it).

(3) Other people work for munitions factories and defense contractors (other people have jobs I have improperly characterized as morally questionable so that makes it ok for me to have a self-evidently morally unjustifiable job).

(4) Whether the paper which was produced for the sole purposes of cheating – otherwise there would be no income, as professors provide model papers all of the time – was used for its stated purpose depended on the person who turned it in, not on the person who profited from that person’s attempted deceit (I produced papers for entertainment purposes only, should anyone actually use it for its intended purpose, the purpose for which I produced it and the reason I was paid for it, well, I can’t be held responsible for that).

(5) There is no honor among thieves, if you’re mean to Mr.Mamatas, he’ll turn you in (I’m not only a dishonest person in regards to honest people, I’m a dishonest person in regards to dishonest people – so it’s ok).

Well said Casey.

What a piece of work is Mamatas!

Maybe this is just one reason why my biggest idiot attack chihuahua Tim Lieder is such a fan of Mamatas, since Lieder openly brags about doing the same thing at his blog, writing college term papers for lazy students.. still. I’m actually curious the grades Lieder gets for his unethical ‘ghost written’ papers. The reason is that Lieder is such a dimwit, one can’t imagine him writing anything remotely coherent and sensible on any topic under the sun. And if his papers do get good grades, what does that say about the standards of college education in the USA? I digress.

Also on Mamatas banning Shetterly from his blog, it didn’t take much, but if you step out of line just a little with Dear Leader’s rigid rhetoric, just a little heresy, well it’s excommunication for you. So it’s pretty rich of Mamatas with his bluff and bluster to blather that I don’t allow comments at my blog (as if it’s mandatory, see my response to him here on that front); when if I were to show up at his LJ blog and make him squirm, he would probably ban me in short order. I don’t see Mamatas and his goon squad taking his anti-Semitic Marxist friend China Mieville to task for not allowing comments at the latter’s blog the rejectamentalist manifesto. Indeed Mieville is not under any obligation to allow comments, any more than I am. It’s not mandatory.

Mamatas continued to bluff and bluster that I was a coward for not allowing comments in his second reply to me here. This is coming from Mamatas, who spews out soooo much fatuous rubbish in so few lines (in both his responses to me and in the comments section), and then has his delusional biases and false ‘bravado’ confirmed to him by the mindless know-nothings that make up the Mamatasbot echo chamber.

I mean how would Mamatas answer these pointed barbs?

Your favourite political blogger in the whole world, bar none, (Richard Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb) is an unambiguous HAMAS and Hezbollah supporter (and of BDS against Israel like duh) and an admirer of Hamas, Hezbollah and Saddam Hussein fan George Galloway. What does that tell us about you?
Or do you think it tells us nothing at all?

Since Hamas and Hezbollah both support the enforcement of Sharia law, and that implies assent for the persecution, oppression and even execution of homosexual men and women; your fav blogger Seymour is thus by implication condoning theocratic inspired murderous homophobia, even if he doesn’t realize it. So you glowingly endorse and champion ahead of any other, a political blogger who supports those particular Muslim fanatics who sanction the persecution and murder of homosexuals! What does  this tell us about Seymour? What does it tell us about you, that this guy is the blogger whose political output you recommend reading ahead of any other? Or do you think all this nothing of concern?

Richard Seymour is not the only Hezbollah supporter you admire and effusively gush over Mamatas. Who is the other one (that I know of)?

Do you consider your Marxist buddy China Mieville to be anti-Semitic at all (also involved with Lenin’s Tomb), in light of the facts detailed in my on-going series on Mieville at this blog (with more to come)? Or not? If not, I have a few questions for you…

Such as this one (and others): Do you consider support for BDS against Israel anti-Semitic, yes or no?

In your first absurd gibberish response to me, you say you and your kind gave your support to the ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt and supported the ouster of Mubarak. Have you confined that to the memory hole now or what? Didn’t you know the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings and had widespread popular support or do you support your fellow anti-Zionists the Muslim Brotherhood? In other words are you an ignoramus like the twits in the Obama administration or is it something worse than that?

Are you truly not embarrassed that you dismissed my blog as ‘not intentionally very funny’ the self-same day that I published the last article in an extensive series over the preceding near three weeks on the topic of Holocaust Denial from within the genre community? Remember up to that point in time, 80% of my published articles at this blog related directly to Holocaust Revisionism. If you really are not embarrassed by it, what does that tell us about you?

Since you are so in luuuuv with Islam, like all good Marxists, can you tell us briefly what you know about the faith, including the prophet Muhammad and who/what your sources are in this regard?

On the subject of Islam and the Middle-East for that matter, do you consider the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas a moderate or not (ignoring the problem of corruption, all governments are corrupt, including Israel’s)? Do you consider the late Yasser Arafat a moderate or a jihadist terrorist mastermind? Can you give your sources for your opinions? And depending on your answer, I have a few more pointed questions to hurl your way…

Do you support Israel surrendering the West Bank to Ham.. uh the Palestinians in light of what happened when Israel gave up Gaza in 2005 and also what happened when Israel gave up its buffer zone in southern Lebanon in 2000, never mind Hamas’s landslide election win in Palestinian municipal elections in 2006? In light of Israel giving up the Sinai to Egypt in ’79 for a piece of paper that ain’t worth too much now (that’s the real Arab Spring see?). Or do you think Fatah will hold off Hamas somehow (even as they are in a loose, feuding but real alliance and partnership)? And if so, can you tell me why you think Fatah is moderate? In light of all this, do you still support Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank? Is there any other nation you (and your ilk) expect to surrender territory to Muslim radicals? Or is it just the Jew nation?

Can you give me examples of just some of the horrendous lies (big and/or small) that the Marxist Left have told about events, clashes and conflicts in the Middle-East in the twenty-first century alone, that pertain to Israel? Or do none come to mind? You don’t think there are any? Or do you want to take a pass here, being utterly clueless?

It would perhaps be ‘not intentionally very funny’ to even suggest that the Marxist Left is anti-Semitic inclusive of telling lies about the Israel-Palestinian conflict and related?

Three of the morons commenting at your echo chamber cheering you on in your clashes with myself, (that’s ‘yendi’, Tim Lieder/’marlowe’ and Mark Pontin) all poured scorn on my series on Holocaust Revisionism, dismissing it all as false trumped-up charges! and an embarrassment to myself. One can check my blog for all the facts here re these three Mamatas stooges. This is the ‘calibre’ of deranged twits that your blog attracts, all three patting you on the back at your LJ blog for a job well done (supposedly) in your ‘demolition’ of my blog and personal character. Do you think getting such uh ‘support’ helps you at all? Or not?

More questions come to mind, but that should do for now.

Oh wait Mamatas you would answer them all, right? And coherently and honestly too if I just opened up comments?

Since you admit to being dishonest and unethical (that’s what ‘ghost writing’ college papers for moolah is all about), note that the last question above is rhetorical. Also add to the mix that you are none too bright.

Hey feel free to answer these questions and any other related points at your blog. Note the keywords ‘coherent’ and ‘honest’. The truth is you couldn’t answer them Mamatas without indulging in your usual dodges, distractions, trumped-up blather, woeful ignorant cant and asinine deceit.

Who are you kidding Mamatas? I mean other than the idiots in thrall to Dear Leader at your echo chamber. I told you I would gnaw on your bones in my leisure, that’s what I’ve just done see?

Next prior to a return to the ongoing series on Nick Mamatas’s fellow Marxist and friend across the Atlantic, SF writer, editor, Marxist academic, politician, and vicious anti-Semite China Mieville; a further exposition on the ‘genre thought police’ and queerness, that’s sexual queerness, not ‘New Weird’ queerness (it’s largely new material).

PS And a merry Christmas to any Christian readers.

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