So this is Michael Cobley, a liberal anti-Israel British SF writer shocka – at his blog – who had given his cheering support to Tidhar in the latter’s defamatory attack on myself. Cobley goes where few dare venture! He blogs on the red wolf, ‘the gibberings of a frenzied ego‘. Thanks Cobley. For blogging on the red wolf I mean. I really mean it too. And on Tidhar’s libel which you naturally don’t recognize as such! That takes balls! Or maybe just a lack of something else… Hey Cobley you want to explain to Tidhar that I’m not literally a red wolf, I don’t have any pups, live in a den, have fur, walk on all fours and hunt small mammals and rodents, howl, have fangs and do whatever else red wolves do. The ‘red wolf’ is just a moniker, a totem so to speak. Gettit?
Remember that Tidhar libeled me at his blog, on Twitter and facebook, accusing me of sending him a non-existent ‘death threat’ (perversely and obtusely misinterpreting a prima facie figurative expression – given its context [which Tidhar couldn’t be bothered with acknowledging naturally enough] – as a literal death threat!); a defamation that his genre colleagues and fans just lapped up sans actual evidence. I mean it’s not as if the anti-Israel pro-Palestinian Jew Lavie Tidhar would attempt to discredit via misrepresentation a pro-Israel blogger now (and I have exposed – even if I say so myself – considerable anti-Semitism in the genre community, both of the old and the ‘new’ kind). It’s not as if something like that ever happens, um. There is such a sinister subtext here, that I wonder how many people (not the genre thought police living down to their name of course!) pick up on it. Surely very few…
Well there has been a pack of ’em, that is genre attack dogs, responding to the master Lavie, dangling what they thought was the red wolf’s bloodied corpse in front of them… The thing is there wasn’t any corpse, it was arsenic that Lavie fed ’em (metaphor Lavie metaphor). Cobley is naturally one of them and as one would expect from somebody who has invested too much into Tidhar’s ‘moral righteousness’, does not recognize just how serious Tidhar’s defamation actually is (re the indisputable, undeniable willful misrepresentation of the “I’m serious” line of mine by Tidhar, it is an open and shut case of libel). Also the genre attack dogs are now tainted by Tidhar’s blunder since the former unquestioningly took Tidhar’s lying word as gospel – so instead Cobley rails against the red wolf.
So Michael Cobley defends the indefensible, and he does so the only way he can – via misdirection, straw man bashing and the like.
Here are excerpts (in blue text) from Cobley’s blog entry:
The writer in question is Lavie Tidhar, who I’ve met a few times (we have the same agents) and with whom I get along pretty well. Yesterday he let it be known on his facebook page that he had received a death threat from a pro-Israeli SF fan (perhaps fan should be in quotes) who has been harangueing him at great length from the bastions of his own blog. Lavie, it should be noted, is from Israel and holdsÂ a broadly leftist, critical stance towards Israel’s policies WRT Palestine etc.
Tidhar lied, I never e-mailed him any death threat. You naturally took him at his word Cobley, as you would. Yes Lavie “the Palestinians have become the true Jews” Tidhar holds a stance re Israel that would naturally appeal to you Cobley.
So – the pro-Israeli commentator (who has gone by the name Larry) invests a great deal of time in analysis of the comments, posts, tweets and associated opinions of writers like Lavie, China Mieville, Charlie Tan, Charlie Stross, Anna Tambour and several others. It is worth pointing out right away that Larry’s stance is a fundamentalist one in political terms, in that Israeli policies are unimpeachable, that any criticisms are evidence of the most heinous anti-semitism and critics who voice same are to be regarded as vile, obscene, brazen, rabid (and other hyperbolic denigrations which pepper his blog postings like raisin in a fruitcake).
Where have I ever got into the opinions of Charles Tan?? Oh he means here. You know the article that I posted up the same day that Tidhar blogged/libeled that I sent him a non-existent ‘death threat’, and tried to shut me down. Then again Cobley (like Tidhar) predictably doesn’t get into the *actual contents* of that article at all. Gee I wonder why? Gee maybe because that’s where I cut Tidhar’s political sensibilities to shreds, which is what I was clearly getting at with my figurative ‘dead and buried’ line in the e-mail I sent him the same day. Actually nowhere in that article do I get into the political opinions of Tan whatsoever. I just ask him if he will continue to feature at Anna Tambour and Others in light of my revelations of her extreme Judenhass, c’est tout. I mean considering Tan’s association with Apex and the World SF Blog, his fellow editor there being Lavie Tidhar of course.
I authored an eleven part series on China Mieville that exposed him as a vicious anti-Semite (I doubt Cobley has read any of it). You know Mieville’s support for BDS against Israel unlike every other nation on earth, his lying on the Mavi Marmara incident which he uses as a rationale to justify BDS, his repetition of Hamas propaganda on the Gaza Beach Incident, his campaigning for the viciously anti-Semitic SWP/Respect Party co-founded by Hamas and Hezbollah supporter George Galloway, and other odious, dishonest anti-Israel propaganda of Mieville’s that Cobley implies are mere ‘legitimate criticisms of Israel’.
Anna Tambour??!! Come again Cobley? OK so Cobley is implying that Tambour putting up a link to a ‘greedy Jews’ article from a Muslim extremist website, that is “milder than it might have been”, at the old NSB forum on a thread supposedly about protests against the G8 Summit in the UK, is uh ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’?? I mean I’m asking. And what of her featuring a Holocaust Revisionist Jew Gilad Atzmon in her recommended reading blogroll?
It is worth pointing out right away that Larry’s stance is a fundamentalist one in political terms, in that Israeli policies are unimpeachable, that any criticisms are evidence of the most heinous anti-semitism and critics who voice same are to be regarded as vile, obscene, brazen, rabid (and other hyperbolic denigrations which pepper his blog postings like raisin in a fruitcake).
This is standard run-of-the-mill blather repeated ad naseum by Leftist anti-Israel and yes anti-Semitic folk over and over again. It is simply a lame straw man evasion. Nowhere do I say or imply that criticism of Israel per se is anti-Semitic, yet anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. And that would include Israel’s deligitimization, double standards re Israel and every other nation on earth and demonization of Israel (i.e. lying about Israel). As is blaming Israel for the Muslim jihadist terror directed against its citizens, which is obscenely anti-Semitic and not uncommon among the progressive Left. I make most all of this very clear and in some detail in my ‘what this blog is about’ page. Of course the reader with some intelligence knows this asinine straw man bashing is hardwired into the ‘mind’ of the anti-Israel Left. It’s a hypnotic mantra to them and no matter how many times you expose it again and again, they repeat this transparent and very lame evasion again and again, and again and again.
As if the shameless lies re Israel of Mieville’s that I expose in detail are somehow not lies, never mind brazen ones; as if Mieville’s demonisation of Israel is not a demonisation. Cobley thus implies Mieville and his ilk’s demonisation of Israel is legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies. One wonders how Cobley even translated the first Tambour article of mine, in his mind? Putting up a link to a ‘greedy Jews’ article from a Muslim extremist website that is “milder than it might have been” is legitimate criticism of Israel??! Or is it just legitimate and fair criticism of Jewry?? I mean I’m asking… The mind boggles.
I guess SF editor Kathryn Cramer’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist, unlike every other nation on earth, her justifying and rationalizing the jihad against the Jews, her shilling for anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Dennis Raimondo is um ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’? See my series on her. Sigh.
This is how it goes with the anti-Israel and yes anti-Semitic zombie Left. Anti-Semitic for all the reasons listed above and in my ‘what this blog is about’ page – demonisation and mendacity re Israel, delegitimization of Israel, double standards and rationalization/justification for Muslim fundamentalist bigotry and jihadist terror directed the way of Israel and Jewry itself.
This is how it goes:
You liberals, socialists, anarchists and communists routinely lie about Israel. That’s anti-Semitic
Zombie anti-Israel liberal: Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. We don’t lie. That’s impossible, since we are liberals, socialists, communists. Lies are foreign to our make-up.
What about the lie on the faked Muhammad al-Durrah affair, that sparked the second intifada in 2000, a blood libel if there was one? A fraudulent Palliwood film production cooked up by the PA in cooperation with French leftist media and parroted by the media world-wide, earning Israel widespread condemnation, especially from the Left. Whilst the actual mental and physical abuse and murders of children the world over from Latin America to Africa (where there is child slave labour) to India passes off without much comment, if any. What about the Left’s lies on the IDF ‘massacre’ in Jenin in 2002 that never happened? Just repeating the lie of the PA that you lot were so desperate to believe true, whilst the thousands of rockets and mortars launched from Gaza into Israel the last decade, that target Jewish civilians for death – such rockets have hit homes, a shopping mall, a college campus, kindergardens (yes in the plural), roads, highways, farms, factories, kibbutzes… Well there you lot have nothing much to say, if anything at all. What about your lies..
Zombie anti-Israel liberal: Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic
What about the lie on the Mavi Marmara incident, portraying the deaths of nine Turkish jihadists bent on violent confrontation with the Israeli navy, as peaceful human rights activists (as China Mieville did, it’s in my archives)? Whilst the murder of thousands the world over from the slums of Rio, Baltimore, Atlanta, Lima, Caracus, Kinshasa, Benares, Cape Town etc etc passes off without comment. What of the murder and maiming in wave after wave of jihadist terror attacks and Sharia inspired violence every week and month from around the Muslim world, from Iraq, to Syria and the Persian Gulf, Pakistan to Thailand, Nigeria to the Sinai, the Sudan and Somalia that passes off without comment?
Zombie anti-Israel liberal: Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic
Many elements of the radical Left support BDS against Israel (genre folk such as Mieville and Iain Banks included), and most often, no other nation on earth, including the most tyrannical, barbaric and murderous!
Zombie anti-Israel Left: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic
The anti-Israel Left is more upset about the Joooos building homes than they are Iran’s nuclear weaponisation program, the theft of billions of dollars by kleptocracies from Latin America to Africa and Asia, whilst their populations are mired in extreme poverty, their children go hungry… You froth about the Jews building a security barrier to protect Jewish citizens from being blown up by jihadist suicide bombers, and no other security barriers anywhere that run through Arabia, some of the former Soviet states, to the DMZ between the two Koreas, other barriers…
Zombie anti-Israel Left: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic
I’ve barely gotten started! I can show where the Left routinely paint Palestinian and Muslim extremists, and propagandists for the jihad as moderates and peaceful in intent. Whilst at the same time you liberals routinely portray Israeli leaders, IDF generals and soldiers as war criminals again and again, sans evidence.
Zombie anti-Israel Left: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic
There was widespread blame for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, on Israel ie the Jews, among disaffected ‘anti-war’ radical Leftists from North America, the UK, Europe and elsewhere (and the far Right). The UK SWP/Respect that Mieville campaigned for is just one such notable party. This is deeply ingrained anti-Semitism, as old as it is extreme, blaming the Jews for the wars of Christian nations. It’s just updated for the modern age, Israel is the Jew among the nations.
Zombie anti-Israel Left: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic zombie anti-Israel Left: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semiticzombie anti-Israel Left: criticism ofIsrael is not anti-Semiticzombieanti-Israel Left: criticismofIsrael is notanti-Semiticzombieanti-IsraelLeft:criticismofIsraelisnotanti-Semiticzombieanti-IsraelLeft:criticiIsraelnotanti-Semiticzombieanti-IsraelLeft:criticIsraenotanti-Semizombiesanti-IsraLeft:criticriticiciriticriticIsraelIsraelIsraIsraelnot antiSemiticantisemantisemisemisemisemit antianti. is not anti-Semiticcriticisraelnotanti-semcrrrrisralnotantsemsmememcriticisraelnotzombie zombie zombie zombie zombie zombie zombie
Getting back to Colbey’s blog posting on the red wolf:
This is the kind of language which the man uses in the to and fro of argument; not that I’m saying that leftist critics stick to high-minded terms that avoid ad hominem abuse, but I must say that I have seldom seen from a leftist critic the kind of unremitting viciousness deployed on a personal level as that which Larry indulges in as a matter of course.
What ad hominem abuse? Against who exactly? Mieville? Cramer? Tambour? Tidhar? Mamatas? Edelman? Stross? Buckell? Scalzi? Burke? Valente? Gilman&Gilman? Fox? Hey why bother with the substance of my arguments, which Cobley does not even begin to get to grips with, not even superficially, when you can just throw out charges of “unremitting viciousness”. Even my ‘dead and buried’ line was not an ad hominem, never mind a death threat! It was just strong, harsh metaphorical language, an allusion to Tidhar’s political credibility being ‘dead and buried’. Well to those who have eyes to see! I do mock with undisguised contemptuousness (what Cobley misnames ‘ad hominem abuse’) many genre folk and for good reasons. Of course you wouldn’t know what any of these reasons are, not even vaguely going by Cobley’s uh defense of Tidhar. I’m the one who has been subjected to the most lame ad hominem abuse from the likes of Buckell, Stross, Scalzi, Mamatas, Laura Anne Gilman, and their gaggle of supporters. Tidhar most notably too, he has called me a ‘loon’ and ‘nuts’ on several occasions. Tidhar’s defamation against my person was a new nadir, a libel that attracted a witch hunt from the usual suspects, the Thought Police living down to that label!
So, in the email in question, after several paragraphs of abuse, he writes this, in hebrew characters –
מת ונקבר לביא
Several paragraphs of abuse??! Oh you mean when I write:
So you two – and everybody else – should check out my series on Anna Tambour. I mean since Tan is pretty tight with her, or so it appears (and Tidhar to a degree as well); something I make sure to make mention of in part 3 of my Tambour series, just posted. I mean in light of Tidhar’s posting on Elizabeth Moon and Islam, the fact that you two are co-editors together at the World SF blog; and considering Tambour’s rabid the-girl-can’t-help-it in-your-face Jew-hatred (see part 1 in my series. If you don’t yet know about it, Tambour put up a link approvingly to a ‘greedy Jews’ article from a hardcore Muslim extremist website, whilst telling us said article was “milder than it might have been”! She did this years ago at the old NSB forum, more in the same vein. Check out part 1 for the gory details and more, like the uh reaction from the likes of Lucius Shepard, Jeff VanderMeer and co. It’s even worse than it sounds, I swear) and the fact that Tidhar is uh Jewish (well apparently).
Tidhar you will be happy to see that you get a big shout-out in this last article on Tambour. That’s because I care.
To Cobley this is abuse!! You know the facts pertaining to Tambour’s ugly anti-Semitism, and Tan and Tidhar’s buddy buddy relationship with her! Of course Tidhar doesn’t even pretend to acknowledge any of this when he made his false charges against me, then again neither does Cobley. Even though this is all central, fundamental to my allusion immediately after, that Tidhar’s political sensibility/integrity is ‘dead and buried’ (in Hebrew). Then again, of course Tidhar and Cobley don’t bother with the context/facts here, since it reveals my ‘dead and buried’ line to be entirely and solely metaphorical in intent and meaning, and so exposes Tidhar as guilty of a perverse and dense misreading. Not that Cobley notices, nor cares. He’s cheered Tidhar on after all.
Lavie took this to mean ‘Lavie dead and buried’, and pointed out that the email ended with the words ‘I’m serious’. This led to a good number of writers (myself included) posting support on his facebook page and at his blog. A response from Larry has appeared today, and it is just as self-serving, who-struck-john, and I’m-the-victim-here as could be expected; his defence for the language he used is along the lines of oh, it was just a figurative phrase – how could you be so shamelessly obtuse as not to see it as such – and how dare pursue me with this outrageous libel, whine, whine, whine…
Technically speaking, it means ‘dead and buried Lavie’. It is strong language. Yet that doesn’t change the fact that it was clearly used in a figurative sense, and intended as such. Its context unambiguously reveals as much. As in Tidhar’s political ‘integrity’ is simply ‘dead and buried’. And now only more so. Metaphorically speaking!
Cobley can’t be bothered with acknowledging what *I actually write*, and responding to that. It’s so much easier to ‘rebut’ the phantom cartoon image you have created. So Cobley doesn’t even bother with actually quoting what actually precedes and comes after the Hebrew line ‘dead and buried Lavie’… Even after I’ve made it clear that the “I’m serious” line was taken out of its rightful context by Tidhar, perniciously so; a line that indisputably pertains to Anna Tambour’s anti-Semitism, not the ‘dead and buried’ line. Yet Cobley continues to defend Tidhar here. I would say to the death, but I don’t want anybody misreading that as a uh death threat now!
And that’s the core of it – the man uses the most inflammatory and vicious invective against Lavie and others, then is self-righteously obtuse enough to use the words ‘dead and buried’ in his diatribe, then when he’s called on it claims that it was all just figurative and how dare anyone make him suffer by insinuating that he made any kind of threat. “Hey, man, I was just joking – chuh, lighten up, dude!”
More misrepresentations of the facts here from Cobley, par for the course. Exposing Tidhar’s odious politics – only confirmed by Tidhar’s remark that my Mieville series and Mamatas articles qualify as some kind of ‘harassment of Mieville and Mamatas’, and that said articles are increasingly incoherent! – is what I have done at my blog. What of the perverse denials of Mieville’s extreme anti-Semitism by Tidhar, Mamatas’s anti-Semitic associations and odious blunders (and Tidhar’s gaggle of defenders including Cobley implicitly give the thumbs up to Tidhar on this front) and Tidhar’s obscene rewrite of Middle-East history; whilst trumpeting on high – in the most public manner – about Elizabeth Moon’s supposed transgressions re Islam? All this is to Cobley “the most inflammatory and vicious invective against Lavie…”!
Of course since I am the only blogger exposing the left-wing political hypocrisies and anti-Semitism (across the board) from professional genre folk, in heavy detail and persistently (although I am certainly not the first blogger to do so), and have exposed Tidhar badly (well to those who have eyes to see and minds that can think for themselves); Tidhar and co would naturally like to see the back of me. The kind of MO that Tidhar attempted in a darkly comical incredibly amateurish fashion – that catalyzed a witch-hunt against me – a baying for my blood (metaphorically! Well um…) by genre liberals caught up in groupthink hysteria; it’s all way over Cobley’s head.
I never wrote in reply to Tidhar, “hey man I was just joking cuh lighten up dude”. I didn’t even imply such a response. That’s a gross misrepresentation of my reply to Tidhar and the prima facie figurative meaning of my ‘dead and buried’ line, given its context which remains willfully ignored by Cobley. The only time that Cobley pretends to quote what I have actually written, he just makes something up out of whole cloth. Cobley’s uh summing up of my reply to Tidhar’s harebrained attack on my person is no such thing, not even superficially nor vaguely. It has no bearing whatsoever to my response to Tidhar’s failed intimidation and slander.
If Larry had been in the habit of using language which displayed even a scintilla of human compassion and/or a sense of wit/humour, the phrase ‘dead and buried’ might have been taken as sarcastic hyperbole. But the truth is that he sees himself as some warrior blogger out on the battlements, warring against the lefty-goy horde and their inability to see the shining goodness of Israel in everything it does. And nothing that anyone else can say or write will change that. But as the saying goes, writers are the unacknowledge legislators of the world; Lavie Tidhar, China Mieville and others have talent and insight, and eager audiences, and it is a source of comfort to know that that must really get under his skin.
I like to think there is some dry humour in my postings. See my previous article for example, in response to the harebrained unintentionally laughable reply of the anti-Semite Anna Tambour to my series on her (who Cobley clearly implies is not anti-Semitic). See my April Fools’ Day posting. Anyhow…
The phrase ‘dead and buried’ is not intended as “sarcastic hyperbole”, anymore than it is a ‘death threat’. That’s because I used the phrase with a solely metaphorical intent and thus its meaning – in its rightful context – is figurative. So sarcasm and hyperbole don’t enter the equation at all. Cobley just misrepresenting my reply to Tidhar in the most harebrained manner, probably unconsciously. He can’t help himself. The line ‘dead and buried’ is clearly metaphorical/figurative, as its context reveals. Duh. If I had intended it as “sarcastic hyperbole” that would still mean I had intended it literally/semi-literally. Duh. Um you are a writer Cobley, one would assume you know the difference between metaphor and literal meanings!
But the truth is that he sees himself as some warrior blogger out on the battlements, warring against the lefty-goy horde and their inability to see the shining goodness of Israel in everything it does. And nothing that anyone else can say or write will change that.
Yawn. Typical cookie-cutter and very pathetic straw man (again and again and again and again…) demolition job from Cobley. You shred that straw scarecrow Cobley, there you go! I gotta say it’s more a case of you and your ilk seeing only the shining goodness in anything and everything the Palestinians do, no matter their fanaticism, jihadist terror and Jew-hate bloodlust, which you and your kind simply ignore/whitewash and even obscenely rationalise and justify. Your refusal and cognitive inability to see the Jew among the nations in anything but a negative light, no matter what is or is not happening on the ground, is also very telling. Indeed nothing that anyone else can say or write will change that. That’s for sure!
But as the saying goes, writers are the unacknowledge legislators of the world; Lavie Tidhar, China Mieville and others have talent and insight, and eager audiences, and it is a source of comfort to know that that must really get under his skin.
You can’t parody this. It is self-parody. Yes Cobley you have me figured out! I am so jealous of Mieville’s and Tidhar’s literary talents and success and uh insight!! My envy is so great, that it motivates me to send Lavie Tidhar a non-existent ‘death threat’. It has nothing to do with this, or this, or this. Don’t bother with any of that Cobley. As far as you are concerned, all those articles may as well be written in Hebrew, or Mayan hieroglyphs.
Yes I am so jealous of uh genre writers, their huge royalty checks, the fame they get, the women, the orgies, the drugs, the public adulation, their uh insight as you put it; while I sit at home in my mom’s basement…
That’s what it’s all about. It has nothing to do with Mieville’s vicious anti-Semitism which I have documented in heavy detail at my blog (in eleven articles), which of course to Cobley is nothing of the kind. It has nothing to do with the response of genre Court Jewry and gentiles to that series, and associated odiousness and harebrained stupidity from the likes of Nick Mamatas. And what of SF editor Kathryn Cramer? What about the Holocaust Revisionism from genre pros, and how it is largely brushed aside, in the late J P Hogan’s case, and simply ignored in the case of Tangent editor Dave Truesdale? Cobley if you don’t recognize Anna Tambour’s off-the-charts anti-Semitism as being remotely anti-Semitic, well then!
You know Michael, I’m glad you wrote a um defense of Tidhar and blogged a ‘demolition job’ of myself (now that’s sarcasm!). No really.
Just like I appreciate Anna Tambour’s reply to my series on her. Don’t worry Cobley. You won’t ever get why I’m glad you made the effort to blog on the red wolf. After all you won’t understand this article and its contents. It’s not written for your benefit.