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."

 and:

“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:

1)
"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.]

2)
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.

3)
Philip Jihadski says August 9, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Voegelinian:
“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.]

4)
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.]

Conclusion:

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.