Thursday, May 12, 2016

An "Angemon Watch" -- or a "Fessitude Watch"...?

Recently, in an update to my April 30 post Damned if you don't, continued (again... and again...), I noted how a particular veteran reader & commenter at Jihad Watch, one "Angemon" has been pestering me egregiously ever since I returned to Jihad Watch under my new moniker there, "Fessitude":

Second Update 5/8/16:  Angemon has continued to pester me so much, zooming in to pick at my comments with his sophistry in service of a soft approach to the problem of Islam, that by now the number must have doubled to 40...  And, of course, the aforementioned Peanut Gallery [Jihad Watch regulars Mirren, gravenimage, Wellington, dumbledoresarmy, Jay Boo, Champ]  continues to pretend like they don't see him doing it.)

I had taken a break (more like a traumatic rupture) from Jihad Watch comments after I "snapped" following the Paris attacks.  Prior to that, I had been commenting for a long time (a year or two?) as "voegelinian" -- and then too, Angemon had been pestering me incessantly, and none of the aforementioned Peanut Gallery noticed -- unless I called attention to it, then invariably they would rudely chide me, not Angemon.  That has been the pattern; and it went on even before that time, to when I was commenting as "Hesperado" prior to "voegelinian".

However, I recently learned that it's even worse than what my Update describes as "the aforementioned Peanut Gallery continues to pretend like they don't see him doing it" -- where one of that Gallery, one "gravenimage", in the comments thread of a recent Jihad Watch article just a few days ago, strangely felt it necessary to say this about me:

gravenimage says
May 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm
When faced with the horror of Muslim savagery on display here, Fessitude appears to believe that this is “Angemon Watch”.

My response to that when I saw it (about 48 hours ago, I think) was:

This is a bizarre comment from gravenimage, given that since I returned to Jihad Watch under this name Fessitude, the ratio of comments where I respond to (or even indirectly allude to) Angemon, versus those where he is responding to my comments is like 90 to 1 (90 Angemon pestering me, 1 me mentioning Angemon) — and most of those comments of mine which Angemon is zooming in to pester me about I don’t even mention Angemon!
I invite gravenimage to do an advanced Google search of “fessitude angemon” specifying Jihad Watch website, and count up the ratio. Then be honest about the findings.

It's highly unlikely that gravenimage will do what I challenged her to do -- to wit, to back up her outrageously surreal charge against me with evidence.  Indeed, I see that she hasn't deigned to respond to that post as of now (over 48 hours later) -- though naturally Angemon, the Energizer Bunny of Jihad Watch comments, has meanwhile zoomed in to pester me yet anew.

So let us do what gravenimage is failing to do, shall we?

Here is the breakdown of the results from an advanced Google search as I noted above, searching "angemon + fessitude" and specifying the Jihad Watch website. Following the breakdown will be some discursive explanation.

Note: I will follow the chronologically random way the Google results display them.  This is not an exhaustive list (I know for a fact there are many more instances -- in the month of May, which Google does not yet have -- of Angemon zooming in to pester me even though I didn't mention him at all).  Seeing as I only began as "Fessitude" I believe some time in March, the examples will only go back that far.  (I could repeat this exercise for my previous two or three nicknames, possibly going back two or three years, to demonstrate the same pestering by Angemon, but... one thing at a time).

The Breakdown:

Random sample of 31 different Jihad Watch comments threads from March and April from five Google pages (though it's about 50 links total, some of the links were not really leading to a comments thread that had comments by me).  Out of those 31 threads, there were 62 instances of Angemon posting a comment in response to one of my comments in which I had not mentioned him.  Every one of those comments by Angemon is picking at me in some way.  In all 62 instances, I had not mentioned Angemon.

Now, among those 31 threads, I did post a few comments mentioning Angemon.  Let's tally those up, shall we?  My total comments in which I mention Angemon first (then he responds after) is 5.  There were two other threads where I commented about Angemon, but only after he started it.  We are counting here gratuitous sniping, where someone mentions someone else out of the blue (and with the vast majority of those, in addition, I ignored Angemon altogether).

Let's recap:

Gratuitous mentions of the other person out of the blue out of 31 randomly sampled comments threads:

Angemon about Fessitude: 62.

Fessitude about Angemon: 5.

What were gravenimage's words...?  Oh yes:

gravenimage says
May 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm
When faced with the horror of Muslim savagery on display here, Fessitude appears to believe that this is “Angemon Watch”.

62 to 5, and I'm the one she worried about diverting our counter-jihad concern into an "Angemon Watch"...?

More like a Fessitude Watch by Angemon.

At least if you can do basic arithmetic.


3 Angemon 0 Fessitude GG only after 2 Angemon
4 Angemon 0 Fessitude
2 Angemon 0 Fessitude (GG only after Angemon + others)
9 Angemon 0 Fess + others piling on me me only responding ATF
3 Angemon GG only after + others piling on Fess 1 only after one A
1 Angemon + followups A obtusely not registering what I said
4 Angemon 0 Fessitude
2 Angemon 0 Fess
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 3 Fess 0
2 Angemon Fess 0 Fess 1 A 1
Angemon 1 F 0 / F 1 A 1
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon (Jayboo) 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Fess 1 Angemon 1 (+ Champ)
Angemon 3 Fess 0 (except responses) graven zoomed in to answer coinidentally
Champ talking to Angemon about "the clown fessitude" and his "piece or garbage" blog
Angemon 1 Fess 0 / Fess 1 Ang 1
Angemon 1 Fess 0 / Fess 1 Angemon 0
Amgenon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 2 (Jay boo) Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0 (+ F on Trump, no Angemon)


Two links included in the list above merit additional explanation: the last one from early April also contains a comment where I explained my whole stance on Trump -- how initiallly I was anti-Trump, then with new data I changed my mind about Trump.  A few days ago, Angemon zoomed in to pester me after I wrote a comment about Trump in which I made no mention of Angemon, taunting me about why I was anti-Trump long ago, as though that is some kind of a "gotcha" moment of victory for him.  That early April link (in which he was active, zooming in to pester me about something else) shows that I had already explained myself about Trump long ago, and Angemon ignored it.  Secondly, there's a link where early on in my "Fessitude" career (early March I think) Angemon apparently had guessed it was really Hesperado, and Champ chimed in to thank Angemon for his "good catch" on that, then she laid in about how I am a "clown" and my blog is a "piece of garbage".  Did gravenimage hasten to gently correct her?  Why, of course not!

Beyond that, if gravenimage or any other Jihad Watch regular really cared about the truth, they might study Angemon's 62 gratuitous needlings of me and see what ideas exactly they are opposing -- and by implication what other ideas are they thereby defending -- and ask themselves, is this what the Counter-Jihad should be standing for?

But why take the trouble to be fair in scrupulous detail, when one can just be lazy and defend one's in-group, right?


Egghead said...

With Robert Spencer having been funded by 'former' leftist 'muscular Zionist' David Horowitz, it is likely that Jihad Watch has been 'controlled opposition.'

It is possible that Angemon and others are paid to harass you for two reasons:

1. To demoralize you so you stop commenting.

2. To influence the reception of your ideas by other readers - because your ideas challenge the preferred narrative of the controllers of the opposition.

Jews do NOT want Westerners talking about deportation of foreigners who hold hostile ideologies.

Richard James said...

You're the Spectre at the Jihadwatch Gabfest, Hesp. You remind them of what has to be done and what they don't want to admit has to be done to remove the threat from Muhammadanism to our civilisation, which is to remove Muhammadans from it.

The Jihad watch regulars can't really counter your arguments, all they can offer is legalistic BS and incoherent moral posturing so people like Angemon harry you personally to try to drive you away and remove the discomfort your arguments cause them.

They talk big about the Islamic threat and my how they gloat about what's happening in Europe as if it isn't happening and won't happen in the US but they offer no suggestions that would work. They don't understand that "might work" is not enough any more, we don't have time, we now need "will work".

As the knife saws at their throats they'll still be saying, like Theo van Gogh, "Can't we talk about this?".

While you remain commenting BTL at Jihadwatch you remind them that they fail to make the hard moral decisions they need to make for self- and civilisational protection, which are "I accept that there is no way that I can tell whether a Muslim is a good person or not because Islam insists on propagation by violence and insists that Muslims can lie about their true intentions. I must assume that by choosing Islam Muslims are by default bad people. Given these two things I accept we must protect ourselves from Muslims and the very least thing we can do to ensure our safety is to remove them from our civilisation and keep them outside its borders."

The Jihadwatch regulars would, from my observation of them and from your own, prefer to cling to their bogus sense of moral superiority ie much though they repeatedly assert "Islam isn't a race" they behave towards Muhammadans as if it were. They fear at heart that being harsh to individual Muhammadans makes they themselves racist, fascist, Nazi. That stops them from making the right but difficult choice to accept and press for the removal of Muhammadans that you remind them is urgently needed.

I think over the top responses to your presence, such as Angemon's hail of attacks demonstrates you're achieving something. You're getting under their skins and you're also giving a vision of a clearer, more thought-through response to the Muslim threat than is common even on counter-jihad sites, a response that might be the first source of clear thinking for those people who are new to Jihadwatch and the fight against the Muslim evil..

Almost the entirety of the West, Left, Centre and even Right, even the Conservatives of the former Allied powers, are behaving as if we are in danger of becoming Nazis in response to this new wave of jihad, as if Nazism were our default or our civilisational original sin.

That bizarre misapprehension infects even in the so-called Counter-jihad. We are not Nazis and removing and excluding Muhammadans would not be a Nazi act, it would simply be an act of self-protection in the face of an murderously violent and barbaric threat to our countries.

I tire of hearing "not all Muslims are terrorists just as not all Germans were Nazis" as if it were in some way an insightful remark. All Muslims are Muslims, with all the violence and deceit that entails, just as all Nazis were Nazis.

I originally found this site years ago through your BTL comments at Jihadwatch under one of your nicks but nowadays I rarely look below the line there, I use that site only as a news source. "Peanut gallery" is right.

Richard James said...

Hesp, I note from reading some of the comments you've listed in your post above that Godless[Girl?]understands that given the violent and deceitful nature of Islam and those Muslims who follow its teachings properly and given that we are not telepaths who can mind-read the intentions of muslims we must assume for our own self-defence that every Muslim intends to do us evil.

I also note from one of the responses to a post making this point by Godless (I've lost the post) one of your assailants, probably Angemon or Gravenimage, draws the opposite conclusion - that given our lack of telepathy we must assume that any given individual muslim is not guilty until proved so. Innocent until proven guilty is fine in a Court of Law in peacetime but suicidal on the battlefield in wartime. And once one has allowed Muhammadans into one's country one has turned one's country into a battlefield in permanent wartime.

Despite all they know about Islam and Muslims I doubt most Jihadwatchers really understand deep in their hearts that we are now at war in our own countries with these evil people and can't extend "innocent until proven guilty" to Muslims. I have litteral seen the blood of an innocent young woman stabbed to death by a Muslim on the streets of my city. This is real to me, not some abstract on the TV news.

Muslims are guilty by default. Just by choosing Islam Muslims commit a foundational evil that renders them guilty - they have chosen the waging of unprovoked unending violence and war on all non-muslims.

We need to stop giving Muslims the benefit of the doubt and start giving it to ourselves instead. It's that simple.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Richard James.

As the knife saws at their throats they'll [the Counter-Jihad Mainstream in Jihad Watch comments] still be saying, like Theo van Gogh, "Can't we talk about this?".

And, as the last of their blood gurgles out of their throat and chest, pooling into the street around them, they can console themselves: "At least I wasn't a disruptive bigot like Hesperado..."

Richard James said...

Bull's Eye, Hesp!

Egghead said...

Can we safely assume that Mossad (among other nations) employs agents in the United States?

If so, who would be the logical choice to be those agents?

What would be the logical choice of actions for those agents to commence?