Tangent editor Dave Truesdale gets taken to task by the genre Thought Police for alleged sexism. Black Gate founder, the now contrite and repentant John O’Neill leads the charge. Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism is naturally not worth even a passing mention

Just thought I would add this latest twist to the Dave Truesdale in Wonderland narrative…

So less than three months or so after the last March update (3 updates in March alone) to my Dave Truesdale petition article and ergo a Holocaust Revisionism centered article; Dave Truesdale gets raked over the coals by the genre Thought Police, for uh… alleged sexism.

Truesdale gets taken to task – just a little – in a blog article entitled ‘An Open Letter to Dave Truesdale’ posted on June 5th by a former co-editor and colleague John O’Neill at the Black Gate website/blog (O’Neill and Truesdale edited the Black Gate magazine together, years ago). The charge here is Truesdale’s (and O’Neill’s for that matter, yup truly) …. alleged sexism. Not Truesdale’s Holocaust Denialism/Revisionism. What’s that? Holocaust Denialism? So last century I guess. Who cares? Clearly nobody. O’Neill (an engineer by profession) is the founder and publisher of Black Gate and also co-founded the SF Site.

No it’s just Truesdale’s alleged sexism (and O’Neill says O’Neill himself was also guilty of sexism too in the past, when he first put together stories for publication at Black Gate with Truesdale. Now O’Neill has reformed and he won’t revert. A public confession of past sins I suppose) that O’Neil berates his former colleague for, and himself too.

Basically the catalyst for this latest round of genre Stockholm Syndrome is a recent Truesdale review of Lightspeed #49 at Tangent, the special ‘Women Destroy SF’ issue (yes it’s ironic), which one supposes is all about how female authors have triumphed in SF against all the odds and obstacles in their way, because they are living in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan apparently or it’s the year 1895. Or something like that.

Truesdale in his review and in the Truesdale fashion, goes a little overboard and REACTS, and swings to the other extreme (the one extreme being hyped up PC militant feminism) and remarked snidely – at least according to O’Neill’s summation – that “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.” Uh not once? In decades? Truesdale ain’t a youngster, he’s been around the SF scene for probably close to forty years or thereabouts. I don’t think it’s for a Holocaust Fucking Revisionist to get to decide what is sexist or racist, but you know nobody but myself would dare point that out.

A harsh interpretation here: Truesdale is either deliberately lying or wouldn’t know what sexism is (never mind racism), if it hit him in the face and asked him for a light. It’s frankly a pathetic denialism. Denialism as a whole seems to be Truesdale’s perverse modus operandi.

To be fair to Truesdale, he says in reply to O’Neill that O’Neill took that remark out of context. Truesdale writes there:

You took the next lines out of context: “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.” You left off the first two words, words making all the difference in the world. The sentence reads, “The _field_ of science fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body.” I purposely emphasized the word “field” to draw a distinction between the greater body of SF and _individuals_ who commit sexist acts and should then be dealt with accordingly. Because SF as a field is one of the most open, diverse, welcoming genres of fiction there is. All groups have problems with a few individuals, but I don’t think it’s fair to tar the entire organization with a sexist or racist label as _some_ are more than wiling to do. That’s all I was getting at. Wasn’t trying to say there was no sexism, racism, or homophobia in the field, but that it centered on a few individuals; the genre of SF by great majority has a fewer number of bad apples than does the “outer” world. This is all I was trying to say. Agree or disagree, but this has been my personal experience. Yet you chose to clip two lines, place them together (…) to present another visual of what I said. That’s not fair.

Anyhow this is debatable. Perhaps O’Neill is right to call “bullshit” here (in the pasted excerpt below). Truesdale, one could reason, appears to be splitting hairs here. However O’Neill doesn’t stop there, he swings to the outer reaches of PC imbecility. There is no balance with these folk, it’s polar opposite extremes. Steaming equatorial jungle or freezing trundra, never temperate Mediterranean or Californian climes.

O’Neill responds to Truesdale’s review, by likewise reacting, and once again going to the other extreme swing of the idiot ideological pendulum, by engaging in the most pathetic and extreme PC feminist folderol. Here is the inimitable O’Neill:

I have to call bullshit on you, buddy. In those 18 months you were working for me as Managing Editor of Black Gate, from early 2001 to 2002, and while we were buying fiction together, we were blatantly, nakedly sexist — and I think you know it.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. How could I possibly have been sexist? You passed along numerous stories written by women to me for consideration — and in fact, you strongly championed several, urging me to publish them. Established writers like Nancy Varian Berberick, newcomers like Devon Monk, and many, many others. You’ve stated elsewhere that the sex of the writer doesn’t concern you when buying a story, and after working closely with you, I know that to be a fact. No one is challenging your credentials in this regard.

But here’s the thing: you can buy fiction from women — and even champion them — and still be sexist.

How is that possible? It’s simple. We welcomed women who submitted… as long as they played by our rules. We launched a heroic fantasy magazine — heavy on the sword & sorcery, thank you very much — and crafted guidelines for what we perceived as a masculine, male-dominated sub-genre, and clapped ourselves on the back every time we bought a story from a woman who managed to jump over the bars we set.

But there wasn’t a single woman writer on the table of contents of the fiction section for our very first issue, launched in November 2000.

 

So O’Neill who sound like a proud reformed alcoholic or reformed wife beater, who makes a public confession of his previous sins, ‘I used to be bad but now am good’; is now in the good graces of those who he says he previously offended or aggrieved (however inadvertently and unintentionally) i.e. women, or rather and more accurately far Left feminists. This is tiresome, so as briefly as possible: Truesdale may well be sexist, after all he is so reactionary all around, he wears his reactionary stance as a badge, he’s a caricature. However as far as at least some of O’Neill’s specific charges go, they appear more than a little off base, more than a little reflective of cardboard caricature militant feminist speak. A lot of standard overhyped PC ‘gender fail’ militant feminist gibberish from O’Neill, suffering from whatever the Stockholm Syndrome term is for this kind of thing. Oh my God there wasn’t a single woman featured in the first issue way back when, OH MY GAAAAAAWD. Well was it intentional? Did you deliberately leave out women, because they were women, or did you leave out women simply because there weren’t that many submissions from them, and/or you felt none of their stories were suitable for the issue or good enough? Motive is everything. Breathe deeply John. Calm down.

Relax John. I think if you were to tell genitally mutilated women from East and North Africa, and Hindu girls preyed on in hellish slums across India, and prepubescent girls in the Persian Gulf sold into marriage to middle-aged and elderly men, and Eastern European teenage girls in the brothels of Europe, Brazil, North America and Australia, about the terrible ‘crime’ you have committed in your evil past against the female gender, at best they would look at you like you had escaped from an asylum, at worst they might just slap you. Or wish to. And if you don’t know why, well what can I say?

Were there no African-Americans in that first issue neither, or *any* of the subsequent issues, John O’Neill? If not, you are a racist, a Jim Crow apologist, a KKK wizard. I mean according to your own ‘logic’ O’Neill. I mean by this: what is the percentage of African-Americans to the American population and how many contributors to that premier issue of Black Gate and all subsequent issues were/are African-Americans? And if it doesn’t match John (and according to some stats I found, as of 2012 African-Americans were 13-14% of the U.S. population), if it don’t measure up, if African-American contributors to Black Gate come in at less than 13% of total contributions, let’s say less than 10% because I’m being generous, well it’s the chop for you. You’re racist. And were there no Hispanics in that first issue? What about homosexuals, O’Neill? If none of those male writers you published were gay, if they were all of the straight persuasion, what can I say, by your own rules: you are also a homophobe. Or once were. Whatever. I mean since approx 10% of men are gay (or whatever it is, that may be a bit of a generous stat, or it may not be. Oh My God what to do?!!), that means if your issue had a minimum of ten contributors, one of them had better be gay. Or else you are a homophobic bigot. We can go on and on like this. According to O’Neill’s Papier Mâché house of cards ‘logic’, he’s bigoted in multiple ways. The lack of logical follow through here is not my blunder, it’s all O’Neill. O’Neill is prejudiced – even if inadvertently – against any such group or demographic that he didn’t publish in the premier issue of Black Gate. Or any subsequent issue. No not really.

And  there was a wailing and a gnashing of teeth.

If you think this an uncharacteristic slip on O’Neill’s part, he goes on in this vein. In fact if anything he sinks ever deeper into the mire, into full bore militant feminist gobbledegook. There’s these ‘gems’ from him in the same apologia (emphasis in sea-green text is mine):

we published a huge percentage of male writers, and that in turn told women they weren’t welcome…

You know who else has my gratitude? Those men and women who started compiling and reporting statistics on the percentage of women writers in genre magazines. They included Black Gate in one of the first of those reports, scoring us at an abysmal 29%. 

 

Yeah really. Can you feel the burn O’Neill? Of the whip as you strike it deeper into your naked flesh, you medieval flagellant you. Now I could understand O’Neill’s contrition if he was say a reformed and thus genuinely contrite ex-Muslim extremist, who no longer thinks honour killings, wife beatings and cliterectomies are just fine, and Allah’s way of keeping women and girls in line, along with the belief that women are there to be baby factories and better show appropriate modesty by covering up their uh ankles and forearms and faces, lest they inspire men who naturally can’t otherwise control themselves to rape. And no longer believing that any rape that resulted excused the pious Muslim extremist rapist/s who got a glimpse of  the woman’s or girl’s hair or clavicle. In other words, no longer believing it’s all the fault of the girl and she ought to be lashed as punishment. It’s not as if that is the case here with O’Neill. Although you could be forgiven for thinking so, you could be forgiven for thinking the guy ran a brothel and beat up his girls if they didn’t give him his share, given his guilt and shame and remorse at not publishing exactly 50% or at least 48.25% or even 51.15% female authors in any genre magazine issue, or all magazine issues in toto. The science fiction community is literally a mad house. Its personnel are interchangeable with the White House I suppose.

If only 30% of the writers were male in said magazine issues, would that be proof of misandry? Don’t ask the gender Thought Police that question now. They don’t think to ask it themselves. Whatever happened to… all that matters is the quality of the stories? I mean if you are sane and reasonable. But naturally we are dealing with crazy folk here. I don’t – and neither do other sane or semi-sane people – go through the contents list of any anthology (genre or otherwise) or academic journal or book to check the ratio of men to women contributors. Who does? Only crazy gender obsessive Thought Police that’s who. Imagine if  readers of science and engineering journals (specialist and lay person friendly alike) went through the lists of the professional contributors to each issue, to tally the contributions by gender, and then complain: but this issue of Nature has only 24% female contributors and this issue of Cell only 22% female, this issue of The Journal of Immunology only 25% female and this issue of The Journal of Neuroscience horror of horrors only 22% female, and this issue of Popular Mechanics only 14% female contributors and this issue of The New England Journal of Medicine only 32% and blabla. Well surely most of their regular readership would rightly think: off to the nut farm with such absurd gender obsessives. What matters is the quality of the articles (peer reviewed especially), their relevance, their importance, their transparency, replicability etc.; not whether or what percentage of the authors are male, female, gay, transgender, bisexual, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, neo-Shamanic, Unitarian, Methodist, Mormon, atheist, Catholic, Shinto, Sikh, Polynesian, Tibetan, physically handicapped or able-bodied and whathaveyou. But we are talking about the SFF community, and insanity is the new normal here.

Actually given how the sciences are becoming increasingly the domain of more and more female professionals, I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact Cell and The New England Journal of Medicine had more contributors who were female to male on occasion, and increasingly so. So should we complain about misandry now to the editors? Well if we are crazy, then yes. If we ‘think’ like the far Left SFF community and their hotbed of militant feminists, then yes. I mean it’s the same ‘logic’ in operation here.

Imagine tallying the contributors to any fiction or non-fiction periodical/anthology (say Western or crime fiction) and professional journal of any type you can think of, all by skin colour and sexual preference (if it were plausible); and then complain it was all so racist and homophobic, if it didn’t tally with the percentages of people of colour and homosexuals and bisexuals in the general populace? And would that be the general population in America or Canada or the UK or Australia or Spain? For fuck’s sake enough already. Yet this kind of insanity is the norm with these Thought Police knuckleheads.

Getting back to Tangent editor Dave Truesdale, who may well be sexist, he gives every indication of being at least a little sexist…

Yet with 100% predictably, nobody can be bothered to mention that Truesdale is a Holocaust Fucking Revisionist, because that would open up a whole can of worms, and nobody but the Jews would care or give a damn anyhow. And even they don’t give a hoot. After all look at how many Jewish genre folk signed the Truesdale petition earlier this year, including genre heavyweights such as Resnick, Silverberg, Malzberg, Brin, Dann, Turtledove, Gerrold and Ellison. (And no their excuses for signing that petition are flimsy. Albeit not all the same excuses. Depends on the individual. I explain briefly why that is the case in that very lengthy article itself) This taboo re acknowledging the most base and extreme anti-Semitism in the genre community is all off the radar (well that’s the nature of taboos I guess!), even as a Google search re the Truesdale petition shows up the Red Wolf blog on page one (and has done so for an age). Even as Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism was brought up at Adam-Troy Castro’s place on the web yonks ago (and the subject desperately changed by genre Jewry there, to attack… Republicans. Truesdale even defended himself there. The only laughable public defense he has ever uttered since I published my Holocaust Revisionism series way back in 2011), even as genre Thought Police commented dumb dumb style on my relevant article re the Truesdale petition just a few months ago, without once mentioning Truesdale’s Holocaust Denialism, but that’s just the thing… I mean it’s just the Red Wolf constantly bringing this up, genre Jewry are scared to death of going anywhere near this. Sitting on that keg of dynamite, and keeping it firmly shut down.

Now militant genre feminist Ann Somerville is one of those commenting at Black Gate, (check the link) in response to O’Neill’s ‘open letter’, shilling about Truesdale’s sexism and what a caveman he is, along with other feminists of course, and John O’Neill is all cheering from the sidelines and basks in her forgiveness; and Truesdale himself comments extensively there, with a number of posts… Thing is Somerville did read and Tweet on my Truesdale article from a few months ago (it’s how I know she read it), the article in which Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism is the centerpiece. Naturally Somerville along with fellow Thought Police Tweeters, can’t be bothered to mention that mammoth in the room, in their brain-dead responses to my article. Here is what I wrote in reply to her (one of my March updates) and fellow militant feminist Natalie Luhrs and gang:

So their response to the red wolf blogger, the one who  gives them the revelation that Truesdale – who they hate – is a Holocaust Fucking Revisionist, (and all the evidence they could ever need in that department, not that they want to know!) can be summed up as…

Luhrs: I’m a non-denominational Christian deist, so I’m a terrible Jew 

Somerville: Unclean Unclean!

It’s just so pathetic. Such extreme cognitive dissonance. Boggles the mind.

End of excerpt.

Naturally Somerville continues with her modus operandi at the Black Gate website. That is she would never (well in all likelihood) in a million years make mention of Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism, even as she along with plenty of other genre Leftists, is well ‘aware’ of this blog and my easy-to-verify charges against Truesdale. Even as she considers him a sexist cave-man.

Then again Natalie Luhrs over at her Radish Reviews blog, likewise takes Truesdale to task for his alleged sexism and his insensitivity to the female gender and its struggle in SF, in a blog entry from June 3rd, likewise responding to his Lightspeed review, sans any mention of the dinosaur skeleton in the Truesdale cupboard, of which she is well ‘aware’ (as with Somerville). See that recent March update to the Truesdale petition article of mine for Luhrs’s Tweets on that very self-same article; as with Somerville and gang, no mention of Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism is made by her, even as it’s always central to any article I write on Truesdale. That’s the fucking point. Even as Luhrs points out – and I admit she is arguably right in this respect – how ridiculous it is for Truesdale to remark that he never witnessed any racism or sexism in the SF community. (although to be fair to Truesdale, he says that’s not quite what he meant. Still I would argue he is guilty of whitewashing here) But then Luhrs messes it all up, as she only can, by writing this (bold emphasis is hers):

 Do I even need to go into the ridiculousness that is Truesdale’s claim that he’s never witnessed even a single incident of racism or sexism? As a white man, would he have even noticed?

The problem with Truesdale’s lack of sensitivity here re racism and sexism has nothing to do with skin colour, but everything to do with Truesdale’s reactionary nature, his character, his lack of insight, his sweeping complex issues under the carpet. The fact that Luhrs pathetically brings up Truesdale’s skin colour, shows she is no better than the racists and misogynists (real and/or imagined) that she’s so ready to pounce on, and point fingers at, from on high. How do you spell HYPOCRISY Natalie? Do you even know? In the 58 comments to Luhrs’s blog posting, nobody in that echo chamber bothers to mention the very real anti-Semitic bigotry of Truesdale’s, that makes his roughness and insensitivity, his sexism even, pale in comparison. Commentators include Mary Robinette Kowal, and Ann Somerville gushing over John O’Neill’s posting.

Same selective blindness to Truesdale’s REAL BIGOTRY (that’s his Holocaust Revisionism see?) applies naturally to all the Thought Police, no exceptions. That’s what makes them Thought Police. And utterly ridiculous. For example one of my biggest critics, Paul Weimer of SF Signal, (who also Tweeted obtusely and snidely on my Truesdale petition article without mentioning sigh Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism. WELL NONE OF THEM DO – see the March updates to that article for the relevant Weimer Tweets) a real dumb dumb, Tweets on Truesdale’s latest offense against genre far Left feminists and cites O’Neill’s apologia in the process, but as with Luhrs and Somerville, would never dare make mention of Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism. As I wrote in that Truesdale petition focused article:

So the PC Thought Police of the genre community…  have tied their hands, they have painted themselves into a corner. They can’t point out the fact that Truesdale is a Holocaust Revisionist without pointing to this blog with a thumbs up, since I and I alone have revealed the ugly facts in all their gory details re Truesdale, I alone have the smoking gun; but that would mean acknowledging that I have exposed very real anti-Semitism in the pro genre community. It would mean giving me even grudging and lukewarm praise. Now the same genre figures – writers, editors, fans… who have dismissed me as a loon and worse (as has Truesdale) are cognitively incapable of that. It is not only that they would have to swallow a bitter pill and have their egos take a bit of a battering. It is something more sinister. They would have to pay even passing recognition to anti-Semitism in the here and now, in our wider society and notably in the genre community itself and this bigotry’s pathetic and flimsy disguises. Because after all, there is a domino effect. What psychoanalysts call free-ranging associations. If they acknowledge the work I have done exposing Truesdale as a Holocaust Revisionist, then well what about the other anti-Semites I have exposed at this blog (even though not guilty of Holocaust Revisionism)? The latter new anti-Semitism the more acceptable, respectable and fashionable kind for sure, but anti-Semitism and extreme and vicious anti-Semitism at that. Many (I’m not saying all of them) of these genre Leftists critical of the Truesdale Petition and the signatories, are left-wing anti-Semites or apologists for liberal anti-Semites or scared to death of acknowledging any of this… 

 

I mean what of China Mieville’s, Kathryn Cramer’s and Nick Mamatas’s anti-Semitism, Michael Bishop, Ken MacLeod, Paul Graham Raven and Hal Duncan likewise, Charles Stross’s, Lavie Tidhar’s, Farah Mendlesohn’s self-abasement in this respect? All exposed at this blog, always with the smoking guns, and in some detail. Soooo many others I don’t even bother with (and some that I do). This blog just skates the surface. I mean if they come crashing down… Who else? Who among these genre Leftists and especially far Leftists is left standing?

Anyhow I repeat myself. And repeat myself. There is the rub as they say.

As for John O’Neill, what’s his excuse? Does he likewise think Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism just not worth bringing up, can of worms and all that? Or such a trivial matter… Or is he just clueless about this blog? Truth is I don’t know. Thing is it would never make any difference anyhow. Even if he does know about this blog, and my easy peasy to get smoking gun charges against Truesdale, O’Neill would *in all likelihood* never ever ever mention it, just like Somerville, Luhrs, Weimer and gang who of course cannot claim ignorance of my blog and my Truesdale accusations re Holocaust Denialism. And O’Neill would never bring it up for the same reasons as Somerville, Luhrs and gang. That is, we wouldn’t want anything upsetting the genre Thought Police warped worldview and narrative gush and flow now. Don’t want to throw a spanner in the works. Can’t Have That. I mean publishing only 29% (almost a third) of women writers in your magazine O’Neill is certainly a crime, a shameful horror, a terrible travesty and wrongdoing, an abomination and transgression, an atrocity beyond my ability to articulate, far more egregious than you know Holocaust Revisionism (your silence on Truesdale’s bigotry here) and extreme and vicious anti-Semitism as a whole (your and the rest of the genre Thought Police’s deafening silence, if not endorsement by more than a few, on Mieville’s, Cramer’s, Mendlesohn’s, Mamatas’s, Stross’s and gang’s modern-day new anti-Semitism). Forgive the sarcasm, but what else can I say here?

Others who have commentated on the latest Dave Truesdale brouhaha include James Nicoll and Amal El-Mohtar, and well if you are interested just do a Google I guess. No none of them can mention the… well you know already. As if anybody would expect otherwise. It’s just so pathetic and laughable though. In a very disturbing way I mean. Sure my blog is out in the wilderness, but word gets around.

And my criticisms of the Thought Police re Truesdale and the elephant in the room that is Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisonism, would apply equally to those who defend Truesdale, and can’t be bothered to go near his Holocaust Revisionism. Naturally. Well that would really disrupt the smooth self-righteous aggrieved Galileo narrative of Truesdale and his defenders. So pathetic. Hard to believe the Truesdale defenders (thankfully don’t appear to be many of them at all, but I must admit I haven’t done an extensive search here) don’t know about my blog after all, and my well-evidenced charges against Truesdale re Holocaust Revisionism. Obviously the anti-Semites among Truesdale’s defenders (who tend to be the Vox Day fan club) could care less, but not all of them are anti-Semites. In fact, on average I would say probably less anti-Semitic (maybe) than the genre Left and especially the genre hard Left, where anti-Semitism (as anti-Israelism) is very much de rigueur. Hard to believe certain ‘anti-PC’ folk are not cognizant of this blog, especially former Asimov’s Forum contributors… Clearly nobody gives a fuck. On all sides of the political or ideological divide. I mean when genre Jews don’t give a fuck, and they don’t, why should Gentiles? I mean it’s a fair question…

The sinister subtext to all this: Just don’t offend the SF Thought Police with gender crime (and associated), real or imagined. Holocaust Fucking Denialism is not a problem to them. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT. That’s for sure. That’s only extreme anti-Semitism after all. And the Jews are fair game once again. Especially among the far Left, where the Thought Police are snugly camped, like warm puppies. Look at Ann Somerville and Natalie Luhrs notably, re their tip-toeing around Dave Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism like it’s not even there, whilst ranting about what a sexist Neanderthal he is. It’s actually darkly humorous. And Somerville and Luhrs are fairly representative of these Thought Police far Left twits, and very vocal here.

And naturally at least some of the anti-Thought Police folk don’t give a flying fig neither, at least not those who publicly run to Truesdale’s defense in this respect, because they are running to Truesdale’s defense and ignoring – as their Thought Police antagonists do – Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism/Denial. I mean the only excuse they all have is that they don’t know about my blog, and it doesn’t always apply…

So to any anti-PC folk who rush to Truesdale’s defense: let’s ignore Truesdale’s Holocaust Revisionism, because that’s just a minor minor minor thing, trivial trivial trivial. Nobody’s perfect and the Thought Police’s harping on about gender thought crimes are a far bigger issue and heinous absurdity, than HOLOCAUST DENIALISM. That’s just an eccentricity, especially if held by a conservative genre dude who clashes publicly and loudly with Thought Police airheads. And as far as genre Jewry are concerned, reflecting Jewish cowardice in society as a whole, well they wouldn’t want to upset BOTH SIDES HERE BY ACTUALLY MENTIONING TRUESDALE’S HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM, if they can even fathom it. Which a fair number of them, from Charles Stross to Chuck Rothman (and several others), cannot. Let’s not forget Felix Gilman and anti-Semitic Gentiles Paul Graham Raven (in the update) and Nick Mamatas’s screw-ups here, so very revealing, for those who have eyes to see.

I repeat myself I know. I know.

It’s also worth remarking on something that is otherwise easily missed. Or escapes one’s attention. Namely the fact that nobody (Jew or Gentile) as far as I know, has given up writing/reviewing for Tangent in light of the revelations that Truesdale is a Holocaust Denier. I mean it’s just Tangent, niche SF criticism, obscure, small readership and I assume it doesn’t pay much at all, if at all. It’s not The New Yorker or The Spectator. Not even close! Truth is nobody (Jewry included) wants to know, nor do they care. What a disgrace.

 

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