Friday, May 01, 2015

Imbroglio at Jihad Watch comments

There's one particular commenter at Jihad Watch who goes by the name of Phillip Jihadski and who routinely, over months and years, has been attacking me in various comments threads over there.  That by itself wouldn't be all that remarkable; after all, I'm an Internet veteran and I've been around the Forum Block a few times in my time and I'm no stranger to various misfit (if not at times sociopathic) behavior from sundry motley individuals.

What lifts this Phillip Jihadski fellow from a minor irritant to a medium-sized nuisance is that he counts so many Jihad Watch regulars as friends, and all the while he has been behaving like a playground bully with anger management issues, lashing out at me with outrageously abusive invective (the reader will see what I'm talking about in my post below and more, if he follows my links), his friends either defend him, or turn the other way and pretend that he's not doing what he's doing.  And a few of these individuals I once counted as friends, too.  So the real problem is not so much Phillip Jihadski, but his friends who for some reason perpetuate a co-dependent relationship of enabling his abusive behavior.

In one particular recent comments thread at Jihad Watch, the discussion surrounding this very sub-topic burgeoned and then subsequently exploded with commentary from all concerned.  I too weighed in -- until, when I felt I needed to say my last piece this morning, I proved unable to post there any longer.  Obviously, the site managers had decided to block any further posts from me.

So here is that final post from me.  I encourage my reader to also go to the link above and swim around in the context of my final post, to get a good feel for the social dynamics there.  My nickname at Jihad Watch comments has been "voegelinian".  At the beginning of my final post, I reference one "Wellington" -- he is one of the Jihad Watch regulars who refuses to do the right thing and scold Phillip Jihadski with verve appropriate to the latter's behavior.   Instead, Wellington gently and respectfully chides him, as though Phillip Jihadski deserved being treated as a fellow gentleman.

Without futher to-do, here is my final post (all bolding is added by me for emphasis):

Wellington with genteel & gingerly civility counseled:

"To the extent we are able, bury the differences. To the extent we are able, think broad coalition."


“To you, PJ, and to Angemon, I understand your frustration with voegelinian…”

There's no coalition, broad or otherwise, possible with someone who numerous times, out of the blue, calls one names such as “donkey” and “jackass”.

Aside from the exhibit A from his various ejaculations above on this thread (throughout which he calls me "donkey" some nine times (then has the gall to assert with a straight face that calling someone "donkey" is not an insult) – Phillip Jihadski (PJ) has posted things like:

"Keep your demands to yourself, Jackass. You don’t dictate to me or anybody else, creep."

[As I pointed out at the time, in the post which PJ was responding to, I wasn't "demanding" anything; indeed, my post didn't even mention PJ at all. I was merely suggesting that social media like Facebook are important for the Counter-Jihad to take account of in its war of ideas. What prompted him to lash out in hate-spittled vituperation against me is between him and his hairdresser, I suppose.]

Philip Jihadski says April 28, 2015 at 5:29 am

My God! Do you ever write anything short and concise? Or are you only concerned with your own narcissism and throwing out 5 dollar words, so as to try to puff yourself up?

Guess what? It ain’t workin’, Donkey Boy. So sick of your long-winded bullshit! Keep it short, Donkey.

Philip Jihadski says August 9, 2014 at 12:43 pm
“and one main indication of how deeply the West is asleep at the switch on this is that most in the Counter Jihad agree that we “cannot” deport Muslims.”

You’re lying again, Jackass. When are you going to stop flogging that dead horse with a whip made of lies? It’s symptomatic of a deep pathology. “Most” of us in the CJ are all for deporting Muslims who break our laws vis a vis treason. Again, you are simply lying. What MANY of us are against is your stupid, illegal and seditious dream of TOTAL DEPORTATION OF ALL MUSLIMS.

Now get it straight, Jackass – stop putting words in peoples’ mouths, admit defeat and go seek counseling, for you are one, disturbed puppy.

[Phillip Jihadski in his abusive fury there doesn’t really make a cogent point. His dispute about my “most” vs. his “many” is childish quibbling; and he accuses me of “lying” about the disagreement I point out from most Jihad Watchers (“most”, “many” – it’s not a science, it’s subjective impression as to the numbers) concerning deportation, when in the next breath he accuses me of advocating total deportation as opposed to partial deportation. So which is it? It’s both, apparently, to Phillip Jihadski.

And as I pointed out at the time:

voegelinian says August 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm  

PJ knows that my advocacy of deportation is for all Muslims, not for some on the basis of some magical distinction we cannot make between harmless and dangerous Muslims. So why he’s pretending like he doesn’t know this, I have no idea.

Anyway, somewhere in the tortured fury of his comment lies the fact: I advocate total deportation, and other than one or two individuals over the years who are the exception that tends to prove the rule, I have received nothing from fellow Jihad Watch commenters about this but either 1) flack (escalated to hate-spittling, abusively demeaning attacks from PJ); or 2) silence when being attacked by people like PJ and his seemingly more sophisticated sidekick, Angemon.

 I have a right to point this out as many times as I bloody well like, and when I get called “Jackass” and “Donkey” in the midst of seething, abusive hatred, I expect others here to tell Phillip Jihadski to knock it off – and when they don’t, over and over and over again, over months and years, I no longer respect them.]

When I posted a long, maturely worded comment (which doesn’t mean it’s perfect and error-free) about Clint Eastwood’s movie and Hollywood in general, Phillip Jihadski retorted:

 Uh huh. Just as I thought. Bloviating on and on about a movie that you have never seen! PFFT! More caca from the Jackass. Get out of mama’s basement, see the movie, then comment about it. I don’t want to read the words of a blind movie critic, thank you.

Shortly thereafter, I posted another long, detailed, maturely worded comment, and Phillip Jihadski wrote:

Philip Jihadski says April 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm  

More Caca from the Psychic Donkey:  

“…Dar-al-Islam is a real (bloody real, literally) geographical entity, however ragged it might translate due to Western Colonialism and the map-drawing consequent upon that.”

Oh, ok. So, for the thousandth time, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what those “ragged boundaries of Dar-al-Islam” are, since you concede that “colonialism and map-drawing” are partly to blame for your idiotic insistence that Dar-al-Islam has distinct geographical boundaries, and hence – it is no problem that we deport American citizens en masse to “someplace in that ragged, amorphous, geographical entity”.

[Needless to say, I wasn’t going to respond to someone who calls me a “psychic donkey” and refers to my long and detailed argument as “more caca”. That said, I don’t know why Phillip Jihadski and Angemon have such trouble with the concept of Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) -- being 1) actual geographical places, which 2) can provide space for deportees. Phillip Jihadski and Angemon can’t be this dense; can they…?

Oh but, perhaps they can – for example:

Philip Jihadski says July 10, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Voegelinian, in “reply” to Angemon: “What a silly question.”

You see? You are a jackass – you simply won’t acknowledge that your Total Deportation Scheme has been proven logically stupid. You avoid the question!... Tell us where that Muslim is going to be deported to…

I guess Phillip Jihadski and Angemon never heard of … Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) -- all told containing millions of square miles of physical space for deportees to be relocated to. Surely they can’t be this dense; some ulterior point or agenda must be operative here; if only they actually presented an argument that would advert to the relevant points…]

5) Phillip Jihadski frequently fulminates with throttled abusive belligerent hate-spittling rage at me for “lying” about his position; then he turns around and (twice) refers to me as --

Philip Jihadski says June 30, 2014 at 11:01 pm

“…somebody who openly advocates on this site for seditious schemes that would usurp the Constitution of the USA.”

[PJ has, of course, no proof for that slander against me; all he has is his subjective opinion interpreting what I have said; an opinion he seems incapable of formulating into an actual argument, opting instead to fulminate, lash out, and project.]


It is noteworthy that the presentation above, as copious as it is, represents only a small portion of the outrageous shit this Phillip Jihadski has spewed over the years against me (and against a couple of others who did not deserve it) -- virtually all of it ignored (and sometimes even defended) by the vast majority of intelligent Jihad Watch regulars who should know better. 

I once felt, years ago, that Jihad Watch comments was something of a community of concerned civilians where we could share thoughts, information, and a bit of mutual encouragement in that precious, beleaguered microcosm of a broader West seeming to have gone mad in its stubbornly blithe myopia about the problem of Islam.  While there do remain a smattering of some 3.5 individuals there I feel some warmth from and toward, any semblance of such a community I once hoped for has been, alas, long since shot to hell.


PRODOS said...


I'm an occasional commenter at JihadWatch, and I haven't come across the rude comments you cite.

I hope it's not correct that you've been banned or suspended from JihadWatch, and that it was merely some technical problem that prevented you from posting. I do think that's the most likely explanation.

I disagree with some of the views you've expressed at JW, don't understand others, but do also find many of them very perceptive and thought-provoking.

Anyway, I hope to see you over there again so that I enjoy disagreeing with you. :-)

Hesperado said...

Thanks PRODOS. Well, it's not that I was banned or suspended -- I think it was more of a "surgical strike", since I have been completely able to post comments on all the other threads around it, so it seems awfully odd that somehow there's only a technical glitch on that one thread. Hope to see you around there as well...

Egghead said...

Well, I am sorry that Jihadski is rude, but I think that an announcement of total deportation - just an announcement, mind you, would make the current riots look tame. An awfully lot of black Americans are fully invested in Islam-lite (well, so far, lite).

Hesperado said...


Jihadski was never disputing an announcement of total deportation, but the whole concept. Also, I never presented the concept in terms of an announcement. The actual implementation of it obviously would require a ramp-up, including readiness. And in addition, any society that is evolving toward that would obviously also evolve toward increasingly heightened suspicion and wariness of Muslims, entailing readiness to defend against civil unrest. All along, I've only been addressing the role of the counter-jihad in its "battle space" (as Frank Gaffney calls it) in the war of ideas phase; and in that context, pushing memes and the art of persuasion surrounding that is paramount. And of course I wouldn't advocate this if I thought there were a better, safer, less messy, less costly, less bloody way to achieve safety of our society. I think those who balk about deportation are balking at it in the abstract, without juxtaposing their consideration of it with their growing learning curve about the concrete nature of the metastasizing, systemic dangers of the global revival of Islamic Jihad.

Egghead said...

Well, one thing that you may not realize is that a lot of black Americans are in some nascent stage of accepting and practicing Islam.

When I gave a speech about the dangers of Islam, a black lady friend who has a PhD loudly argued with me that she disagreed and that she had looked to Islam because it was all about peace....

If the arguably the most educated and articulate black Americans are highly emotionally invested in Islam (as an alternative to the white man's religion of Christianity), then any deportation plan would have to account for many blacks who sympathize with Islam and their fellow blacks who practice Islam.

Egghead said...

I suggest that you visit the Monticello website to see that the Founding Fathers were actually abolitionists who advocated the deportation of blacks back to Africa.....

Egghead said...

The government and military is full of Muslims, foreigners and immigrants who would never support a deportation plan.

Egghead said...

Oops - are full

Egghead said...

The United Nations is controlled by the OIC which will get a Security Council vote on the cheap when Muslims take over France.

Nobody said...


You're still there? I left it years ago, after Debbie pointed out that both Gellar & Robert are ambulance chasing frauds. In her interview w/ Alysyn Camerota, she took pains to claim that she was NOT calling Muslims savages - this after an attempt has been made on her conference, and after ISIS has said that she's on their hit-list.

I really have no time for those who can't recognize such an enemy. Are they really so dense that they think Muslims WON'T be their enemy after they (justifiably) insult Mohammed?

Nobody said...

She above referring to Gellar, not Schlussel

Egghead said...

Yes, Schlussel has interesting things to say about Gellar's past. But, being a woman myself, I find most of the women in the counterjihad including Schussel and Gellar (and GoV's Dymphna in various angry responses to hapless commenters, in addition to me, I might add) to be too 'sharp' or 'nasty' in tone.

Luckily, ESW and Bridget (Act for America) and Wafa Sultan and Hirsi Ali seem to have a moderate tone to their communications.

Gellar gets lots of death threats, so she is probably trying to mitigate the amount of those....

It is my impression that she is 'protected' and 'allowed' to perform a function that suits the 'powers that be.' To wit, with her level of notoriety and visibility, she has been an easy target for many years for any Muslim serious about killing her....

Egghead said...

Gellar'sin role is to maintain FIRM Jewish control of the counterjihad and gather intelligence about and foil non-Jewish attempts at counterjihad leadership.

Egghead said...

I have seen her do it with me personally, ESW, GoV, EDL, and Tommy Robinson.

Egghead said...

She is very good at what she does. Very subtle. It took me years to see the pattern....

Nobody said...

Gellar'sin role is to maintain FIRM Jewish control of the counterjihad and gather intelligence about and foil non-Jewish attempts at counterjihad leadership.

That doesn't explain the absolute hatred b/w Gellar & Schlussel - both of whom are Jewish - or Gellar's alliance w/ a Gentile - Spencer. In fact, the spat b/w them led to the split b/w Schlussel & Spencer as well.

Schlussel has pointed out that Brigette Gabriel a.k.a. Hanan Tudor is a fraud, and I've seen evidence of that myself, when the latter described herself - a self proclaimed Maronite - as Arab. Maronites consider themselves Phoenicians, not Arabs.

On Schlussel, it's true that she attacks a lot of those ostensibly on our side, but that's due to the asymptotic nature of their campaigns, as well as the self serving parts of those. Such as Gellar disclaiming any mocking of Muslims (how are you not mocking Muzzies when you are mocking the founder of their religion?) while supposedly brining into focus the evils of Shariah and whatever else she claims to be opposed to (since it ain't Islam itself, per se)

Egghead said...

As people are complicated, so are these issues....

First, it has been literally years since I have read either Schlussel or Gellar (although I looked at Gellar's site once in the past few years - probably via a link from another site). The (past, at least) tone of Schlussel is completely off-putting to me, and I disagreed with some (enough to stop reading, I guess) of her moral judgments about whatever material she featured. When I think about it, I mainly stopped reading Schlussel due to her tone. And yet, I found her information about Gellar to be worth a read when I read it. I filed it away with whatever else I have observed about Gellar. If Schlussel had a more neutral - professional - less angry tone, then I would probably have kept reading her site. I will probably go there again to check it out now that her name has been raised here. :)

If I had to compare Schlussel to Gellar based on my past reading (and I am remembering back years here), I would say that Schlussel tries to write like Gellar but Schlussel does not have Gellar's sense of humor.

Your point that Schlussel and Gellar hate each other is irrelevant to my point about Gellar. People who compete with each other may hate each other. What is the surprise there?

Egghead said...

Your point that Gellar works with the Gentile Spencer is also irrelevant to my point about Gellar. Gentiles may be co-opted by Jews (for any number of good reasons including love, money, or guilt over the Holocaust, etc.) to serve Jewish interests. Regarding love (whether reciprocated or not, whether consummated or not), I remember reading a comment from someone on the New York scene (probably on Schlussel's site) that stated that Gellar and Spencer should be careful about appearances because their lives are so thoroughly intertwined.

More to the point, look at who pays Spencer's paycheck. It appears that Spencer has been closely allied with the David Horowitz Freedom Center - which has paid him a significant amount of money for his work.

The typical pattern that I am seeing is that Jews will either 1) put Gentiles on the payroll which assures a storyline that avoids looking at any role of Jews in destroying Western Christendom, or 2) attack Gentiles (especially as being anti-Semitic) who are independent of Jewish control or who might get too powerful for Jewish control.

Egghead said...

Regarding Brigette Gabriel, I have not read her site in years either, but I will probably check it out again now that her name has been raised here. It is my experience that Christians who have lived under long term Muslim rule are very confused about identity issues because Islam largely replaces culture in Muslim lands. In the past, I argued extensively with at least one 'Arab' Christian on GoV that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to be an Arab and that Christians should NEVER label themselves as Arabs because it adds credibility to the INCORRECT PC MC idea that Arabs are 'good' to Christians under Arab power or rule - and that Muslims offer plurality of religions in Muslim lands - and that some Arabs are well-behaved or moral people. In other words, Christians who identify as Arabs provide cover for Muslims to be labeled as bring moderate.

Egghead said...

oops - being moderate

Egghead said...

So, I went to Schlussel's site and read a few of her political essays. Yes, her tone is still very nasty and off-putting.

See here:

In addition:

Schlussel's lens is Judaism: How does everyone and everything in the world affect (the plight and persecution, that's a given, of) Jews?

Schlussel's morality appears to be: 'Everyone should argue for, and everything should occur for the benefit of Jews - OR ELSE.'

Hesperado said...

Thanks to Egghead and Nobody for the discussion. I agree that Schlussel's tone and demeanor is off-putting. The only reason I appreciate her is her willingness to go after sacred cows (and in the Counter-Jihad, certain people become off-limits, like a Brigitte Gabriel). That doesn't mean Schlussel is necessarily correct about any of her allegations. One also senses about Schlussel a bit of the problem of emotional ego issues clouding her judgement such as to interfere with the higher priority of what's good for the Counter-Jihad.

As for Brigitte Gabriel calling herself an "Arab" and not "Phoenician"; I rather appreciate that, actually, since I think a lot of Lebanese Christians are irrationally promoting a mythological ethnicity that childishly ignores the highly probable demographic fact of at least a certain degree of Arab/Phoenician interbreeding (mostly through Muslims raping their women + and Christians converting to Islam over the centuries).

Meanwhile, it's a breath of fresh air to read Nobody so matter-of-factly pointing out that to critique/condemn/mock Muhammad is, by obvious implication, to critique/condemn/mock all Muslims -- and so this anxious concern on the part of the Counter-Jihad to assure the Mainstream that it (the Counter-Jihad) is not saying anything bad about Muslims is just plain silly. Unfortunately, the Jihad Watch commenting community is dominated by both this concern and by the above-mentioned Sacred Cow tendency.