Sensitivity and Finesse? Or Hysteria and Aggression?

A reader wrote to us today (via anonymized email) to take us to task for the exposé of Maajid Nawaz, my follow-up about “moderate” Muslims in response to Oren, and Dymphna’s comments. I’ll post his entire message, but first here is my emailed reply:

There’s a lot that could be said about your message, but it’s Christmas Eve and I don’t have much time. I find it ironic that you criticize me for “hid[ing] behind a fictitious name” when you yourself felt it necessary to anonymize your email to us. To lay the irony on even thicker, I am not anonymous. I have been public for five and a half years; that is, half the time I’ve been blogging. I retained my pseudonym because that was one of the two names under which Gates of Vienna had been “branded” since 2004. However, I used my real name (with the publicly acknowledged connection to the Baron) when publishing at Big Peace and FrontPage, and when speaking in public at the OSCE and the conference in Brussels in 2012.

I’m not “hiding”, and if you had actually read more than a superficial selection of what’s posted at Gates of Vienna, you would know that.

I’ll post your critique, and let readers judge it on the merits. All reasonable points of view deserve a public airing.

Ned May
a.k.a. “Baron Bodissey”

For the record, our critic is apparently unaware of the context of the scriptural reference I used when I wrote “Get thee hence, Satan”. It is a quote from Matthew 4:10 (in the King James Version):

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus said these words when He was tempted by Satan, to indicate that He would not succumb to temptation. He repeated them later to Peter (Matthew 16:23) for a similar reason: Peter wanted to persuade Him that He did not have to follow the path laid out for Him that ended on the cross.

I used this reference because the idea of the “moderate” Muslim is very tempting to us as Westerners. It offers us hope that we might be able to get out of this mess without a civilizational war. But such hopes are illusory; we must put them aside.

Also for the record: I had no idea who “Oren” was when I wrote my first response; he was just another commenter. But even if I had known he was the Michael Oren, it would have made no difference. I judge arguments on their merits, not by the curriculum vitae of the person who formulates them.

Below is our reader’s rebuttal. You all may judge it on the merits, and are welcome take me to task if you agree with him:

Dear Gates of Vienna,

I never engage in writing comments on blogs nor participate in any form of social media. In fact I never even read the comments to articles. Yesterday I made an exception by reading the comments to the piece, “Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed.”

Baron Bodissey launched a vicious, ad hominem attack on one of your readers, Oren, who posed a question. If the Baron’s utterly unnecessary attempt at humiliating Oren was not sufficient, he then followed it up later with a piece in which he clearly could not resist re-posting his attack in the body of a regular post for all to see and read.

There are several annoying and pitiful ironies in his attack. First, the Baron uses Oren’s question to prove that Oren himself has been hypnotized by stealth jihad and as a consequence Oren is now himself part of the problem; an unwitting agent as it were of stealth jihad. The irony here is that the Baron’s attack argues much more strongly that the Baron himself has become the unwitting agent. The goal of stealth jihad and other subversions is to get the “enemy” to imprison himself and turn against himself, saving the aggressor the trouble of having to wage all out, overt war. The clear sign of success of this type of subversion is when we become so paranoid that we turn against those who are on our side. Oren is clearly on our side. It certainly may be the case that Oren is somewhat naive, or that he doesn’t possess the intellectual faculties capable of incisively analyzing an admittedly complex and subtle process (subversion) at the same level as the Baron. However it is clearly the Baron who, even with his superior knowledge, has fallen victim to this subversion. His paranoid, excoriating recrimination of Oren – calling him an agent of stealth jihad – is unequivocal evidence. He turned on an ally.

Not for nothing, but should someone have happened upon Gates of Vienna yesterday for the first time, he would have the impression from multiple examples that for you, no one other than yourselves is beyond reproach. I refer in this case to the aspersions made on Douglas Murray by Chatterjee and then further, the nauseatingly “holier-than-thou” schadenfreude-tinged sermon by Dymphna in her piece (or comment section) of “Enemy of State.” There, Douglas Murray is criticized for not being sufficiently “folkish;” Hirsi Ali, although personally injured, possesses inferior knowledge of Islam; Geert Wilders, well, he’s just a politician. Putting aside the utter arrogance, what are you doing? How can you deny that you are alienating allies at the very time when those allies are scarce and our enemies formidable?

Returning to the Baron, had he paused for just a moment to learn about Oren before pulling out his knife, with one click he would have been brought to Oren’s website. Although in Hebrew, Google translate would have done just fine. The Baron would have discovered several things. First that Oren – in his free time – populates his blog with thoughtful articles on a number of topics in which Oren tries to expose hypocrisy and darkness. Even a cursory review of his writings would have further proven that he is on our side. Second, on his “About” page, one learns that Oren is no is no lightweight in terms of intellect and integrity. He is a graduate of the Technion and then served in the IDF for six years – three years beyond his compulsory service precisely because of his desire to be a guardian at the Gates of Israel. He does not hide behind a fictitious name and he is clearly ready to sacrifice something far more precious. I do not know Oren – have never had any communication with him. However I call your attention to overwhelmingly convincing evidence that he is an ally and not a deserving target of humiliation and accusations.

The second tragic irony is to be found in the Baron’s patronizing plea to Oren: “Go thee hence, Satan.” I certainly hope you see the nasty, subversive insult. The Baron, using a dishonest device characteristic of subversive campaigns, is calling Oren, Satan. He so much as explicates this accusation in his comment. But the irony resides in the meaning of this sentence. Even as a Jew, I understand the wisdom here. From an empowered place, through unwavering conviction, one can “banish” evil. There is an obvious element in this statement concerning the adoption of a stance of indifference; in fact this indifferent stance is not only exigent to success in this regard, but also is a sign that one has achieved this elevated level of conviction.

In that the Baron is clearly guilty of not abiding by his own advice, he is certainly not “indifferent” either to Oren nor to the “Satan” that the Baron accuses him of being. How could anyone be blind to the Baron’s utter lack of indifference? In the very beginning of his comment, we learn that although he doesn’t have the time to respond thoroughly, he certainly has the time to attack. A little further in the comment, we learn of the Baron’s “bitter” journey over the last ten years – the subtle plea for sympathy does not go unnoticed. And then the act of regurgitating his attack in a brand new blog entry to further expound upon his exasperation. And the pièce de résistance: “This is why people like Vlad and me are on short rations while devotees of “moderate Islam” rake in millions in foundation money.”

The sum total of his comments and writings wreaks of self-righteous indignation that is periodically dressed in self-pity. He deserves his indignation and self-pity; he also deserves to keep it to himself. His fiery outrage feels like a ticking bomb vigilantly seeking a target to justify detonation. This is neither indifference nor passion; it is pure, egocentric emotionality and it has no place in a respectable blog. In all his wisdom, the Baron has yet to learn that his feelings are interesting to no one but himself. This device in which individuals, regardless of their intellect, exploit their access to the public in order to vent their “issues” has two consequences. The first and less severe one is that they themselves come across as shallow, exploitative fools and thus they are not taken seriously. The far more destructive consequence is the undermining of the integrity of respectable platforms such as Gates of Vienna. Should you want another example of this phenomenon, find the recent comment by Dymphna in which she pitifully burdens all your readers with her past, personal involvement with a malignant narcissist/psychopath. She conjures up this written regurgitation with the clear intent of establishing the superior nature of her opinions on the basis of her personal war scars. Her personal history has no place in this blog.

I am infinitely sensitive to the terribly difficult task of helping others to emerge from their sleep in order to see the horrible truths about Islam and what is occurring in our world. Of those who can potentially be reached, they are on a continuum. One cannot “jar” them into reality. Thus all allusions to or prognostications about doomsday scenarios are counter-effective. If you do your job right, every reasonably rational person will come to this conclusion on his own. This type of enlightenment requires sensitivity and finesse. Frankly, it requires that indifferent, empowering stance and not a hysterical, aggressive one. Clearly the Baron does not possess this finesse and thus I would suggest that he stay away from writing about subversion or stealth jihad lest he further alienate your readers. He has formidable knowledge and when disciplined, his contributions are extremely valuable. However we all must know our limitations.

Previously I provided you with some information about Oren in the hope that it gives writers pause before shooting from the hip. The Baron could also have considered the following – something which I hope you will keep in mind. Chatterjee’s piece was very weak. The examples he used were inconclusive and unconvincing. It read as a piece of persuasion by innuendo. I, and many others are convinced that Nawaz is a deceptive phony – how dangerous he is remains to be seen. However with all your collective knowledge about subversion and stealth jihad, you are obviously aware of the fact that its hypnotic effect is frequently ineffable. In most cases, it is only long after the fact that one can retrospectively find concrete, indisputable evidence to support what everyone can feel in their gut. But in real time, there is a danger in portraying partial, inconclusive evidence as overwhelming proof of subversion. It creates the impression that you – and not your subject – are not rigorous and that you are using facts spuriously to back up a narrative. The slew of empty, cheer-leading accolades from the bleachers that populate your comments section further undermine your credibility when you present shaky data to support a claim of subversion.

I bother to make the previous point because Oren, like me, may have had the same impression. His question, admittedly a doubting one, may have reflected doubts that arose as a result of Chatterjee’s piece. As I said, I have never communicated with Oren and do not know what was going through his mind. However the Baron could have considered this possibility and given him the benefit of the doubt (no pun intended). This would have been a more responsible and more generous route.

It is certainly my hope that you or the Baron remove his attacks on Oren and that the Baron send him, privately, an apology. On a more important level, I hope you will contemplate – calmly – what I have written here. Our world is becoming more unstable by the minute and it is exigent that those of us who see the reality acknowledge and take into consideration the overwhelming fear in those who don’t yet have a clearer understanding of what’s going on. They need reliable, trustworthy places to go to clear their confusion and it is your responsibility, should you wish to serve as such a bedrock of clarity, to ensure that you do not on the one hand insult or intimidate your readers, and on the other hand, maintain the integrity of your blog. If your comments are mediated, you could easily have merely not posted Oren’s reply if it seemed too egregious at the time. However it is my impression that you should have a mechanism that picks up on and blocks inappropriate and/or “non-indifferent” and thus non-empowering entries, either in the blogs pieces or in the comments section. Your editorial oversight and comments monitoring should not be performed by the person writing the piece – as you very well know. We turn to sites like Gates of Vienna precisely because we believe it to lack the pithy stench rampant in social media, in the left and Islamist dreck,

As our unfortunate world situation heats up, and as more and more people become confused, emotional and irrational, you are going to have to become even more self-monitoring so as to maintain an empowered, “indifferent” stance to the evil you wish to counter. All of your contributors should be reminded of such.

I shall remain anonymous in the spirit of staying on point and not getting personal.

42 thoughts on “Sensitivity and Finesse? Or Hysteria and Aggression?

  1. Oh, yes, pretty please with Play Doh on top, make Gates of Vienna a safe space, mmmmm k? Because, as we ALL know, Muslims are gentle souls and truly appreciate our gentleness in return. Where’s my little fluffy bunny?

  2. I shall remain anonymous in the spirit of staying on point and not getting personal.

    If that screed was your idea of staying on point and not getting personal…BWWAAAAH!

    Sometimes, when it seems cogent to the discussion, I do indeed talk about my personal history. If you’d paid any attention to my statement, you’d have noticed it was an admission to a commenter that I wasn’t objective, that I had an agenda. So my personal revelations had a point.

    Wanna hear about my years in the orphanage when Christmas was a big, bright navel orange and some cream-filled chocolates?

    Want a lemon pie in the kisser for your many officious judgments? It’s a kosher pie: I just made it. Oh dear, there I go bragging again…

    Baron, please, ban this fellow – at least during the Octave of Christmas. If his email is any indication, the man doesn’t bother to read closely or with much comprehension, at least he shows little evidence of having done so based on his email…

    This is my home, the place I live and move and have my being; he deserves neither seat nor voice here any more than did those mean-spirited, smarter-than-thou academics who showed up in droves after Breivik. His tone and his song reverberate at the same ugly level.

    I know we have a policy of never taking down a post once it’s up. I agree with that rule and understand why it is in force. Obviously, this fellow doesn’t understand how the way back machine works, but he can learn it somewhere else. However, I am asking in sweet helpmeet terms that you not permit any further verbiage from this personage to take up room here. Not only does this fellow have a terminal case of cluelessness, but I seriously doubt anyone would allow him to own a clue bag.

    I have a few suggestions about what you can do with further emails from anonymous, but I have to obey our rules. Meet me in the kitchen and I’ll tell you…

    • Who is the more trustworthy writer, Anonymous (in general, not just this specific writer) or One with An Acknowledged History?

      A writer who acknowledges his/her history and is aware of how it may impinge upon current events *and says so* in related writings is, to my way of thinking, MORE trustworthy than an Anonymous writer whose point of view we have no way of checking.

      I’ve given many scrips and scraps of my own background here and there on GoV, as they seemed relevant and appropriate to a topic. I suppose someone who was really motivated could put them all together somehow and put together a partial profile and (try to!) place me on the political map.

      I’ve been here at GoV only since the Charlie Hebdo horror in January 2015, and the writers and commenters whose material I find most credible are those who acknowledge, right up front and center, their relevant background. Otherwise, who can know whether they have true expertise/experience in the field discussed?

      “Trust me; I’m not going to tell you *anything* about myself” does NOT inspire confidence in this commenter. Just speaking for myself, but I *may* represent the opinion of others. Let’s wait and see….

  3. After reading the On-point Anonymous’s (OPA) Critique, Oren’s original post and the Baron’s rebuttal of the latter, I have become convinced that Oren is an Islam-enabler, and that OPA is either Oren himself or a shill for Oren. What clinches it is the length of OPA’s critique vs. the apparent inconsequential nature of the original (Oren’s) post. Whoever invests such time and effort in a matter of little weight must have an agenda.

  4. What a waste of my precious time to read this convoluted piece of [redacted]. Unlike Mr. Chatterjee’s analysis, your blabber added ZERO to the discussion at hand.

    Please stop wasting the Baron’s and everyone else’s time or add more than hot air to the discussion. There are bigger fish to fry these days and resources are scarce.

    Suggestion: donate 1 cent for each word you wrote to Gates of Vienna. That should do it.

    Merry Christmas!

    PS. If you know German, here’s some advice: In der Kürze liegt die Würze. (Keep it simple [stupid]. Aka the KISS rule.)

  5. “..we might be able to get out of this mess without a civilizational war. But such hopes are illusory; we must put them aside..”

    this “war” is already rolling, but how can it go beyond isolated, gang-style attacks?

    just for the sake of comparison – it was an outburst of war recently, in Ukraine.
    with all that jazz, – trenches, MRLS, long range artillery, tactical missile strikes, tank battles, IEDs, countless ambushes, besieged cities, urban warfare and so on.
    the real war.
    it took about year for initially non-existent and still much weaker Ukrainian army to stabilize front and stop the Russians – the nuclear power BTW.

    Ukrainian losses are for now about 3500 military and 1000 civilian.
    this is very high price.

    however, the military capabilities of all jihadis in Europe combined, won’t constitute even a thousandth of capabilities of the Ukrainian army.
    NATO forces in Europe are bigger and much stronger than the Russian army.

    so, in any “civilizational” confrontation, losses can not exceed a fraction of what Ukraine absorbed in 2014-2015.
    jihadis won’t have any weapons/ammunition resupply, their logistics will be cut immediately, they will fight suicidal missions here and there, but that is maximum of what might happen militarily.

    what type of “war” are you talking about?

    haven said that – I must admit, the writings of this guy look like complete abracadabra to me, maybe because I’m not native English speaker.

    as to the question of “moderate muslims” – the only important practical aspect here is the integrity threshold of European “umma” under critical pressure. judging by what I see here in real life, it shouldn’t be high; I think it will crumble quite fast.

    • The “war” will not be what we normally think of as war. It will be like 9/11, Beslan, the Bataclan, the Boston Marathon, and San Bernardino, lots of such attacks, all happening simultaneously. You need to do some extensive background reading, starting with “The Project” and the Al Qaeda timeline. Despite a lack of centralized leadership, formal hierarchy, and command structure, the Great Jihad has the years 2016 and 2017 fairly well mapped out.

      In addition to death, bloodshed, terror and general carnage, think of what will happen to the economy of the West. The emergency services, police, forensic investigators, and judicial system all tied down for months and months in order to “bring the perpetrators to justice”. Lawyers, motions, discovery, stays, trials, and appeals for thousands of defendants, going on for months or years. Billions upon billions of dollars poured down politically correct rat holes. That’s not to mention all the billions lost to commerce as ordinary people avoid shopping malls, stadiums, street events, and public spaces.

      As their economies sink under the weight, Western leaders will eventually and reluctantly be forced to acknowledge that what they are dealing with is warfare, and not criminal acts. Warfare of a sort they’ve never really seen before. And then they will have to change their approach to how they deal with it. It will be a slow and painful process (painful for them and even more painful for us), but they will eventually have to put aside their cherished politically correct visions of Islam and accept its ghastly Reality.

      One of the first PC luxuries to be abandoned will be the “moderate Muslim”.

      • Yes, this is, more or less, how I see it – low-level insurgency.

        I hope decision-makers in US Army and NATO are well aware of all that, and ready to minimize damage – even now.

        Among examples you draw – 9/11, Beslan and Bataclan were clear intelligence/fast-reaction failures.
        Boston Marathon and San Bernardino were OK fast-reaction-wise.

        Separate question is – is there any threat to the systemic stability of the West.

        I reckon there isn’t.

        All logistical issues, conventions and regulations (“economy”, etc.) are supposed to be flexible/adaptable and in the end following common sense.

        • Although I hope with all my heart that America does not suffer its own “Beslan”, I’m afraid that may be a forlorn hope.

          If it _does_ occur, I hope – as blood-thirsty as it may sound – for an open season on muslims. For there are no “moderate” muslims, no “radical” muslims, but only muslims and non-muslims.

          Those who purport to be “moderate” either need to abandon islam (as they are already ignoring the commands of the qur’an and hadith anyway) or stop pretending to be “moderate”. Stop using taqiyya and kitman to hide their true desire to see a universal caliphate where all non-muslims either submit or die, whether they actively participate in its creation or merely hide until it happens.

          islam demands submission. There is no alternative but death. Unless the whole of Western civilization is suicidal, there can be no response to islam but eradication. Anything less is like treating an infection with too small a dose, or for too short a course of therapy, of the appropriate antibiotic..

          Those who do not wish to die for islam can convert or simply abandon islam. Since islam refuses to coexist with any other religion or culture (sharia being mandatory), every other religion and culture needs to refuse to coexist with islam.

          The alternative is to isolate islam and its muslims hordes in one, fixed location. If muslims cannot be sequestered on one small piece of real estate, such as Madagascar, for example, with the inability to move from or beyond it, then islam needs to be eradicated for the safety, well-being, even continued existence of every other religion, culture, or nation. Period.

  6. I may be wrong, but I have seen this kind of writing before; its use that time was by an avowed communist to counter valid criticism and thus destabilize its source. The anonymity of this piece confirms an agenda, the methodology is extremist ‘left’. The content, well what content? it says in many words what could be said in few; B is a meddling buffoon, D is Daft and C is cheap, Does a multiplicity of words make ad hominem attacks valid? Not in my book, “It is truth that sets us free” (For the ignorant, this is also a New Testament quote).

    The truth is that GoV is highly successful and a pillar of the CJ movement, anonymouse (sic) should perhaps consider heeding his own advise and stop nibbling at the plinth.

    This email is 99% pure waffle, the 1% remaining is based upon an opinion that we only need to drop leaflets on Nazis, no HE please.

  7. I used the word Barbarian to define Islam and the Baron removed it, as his right as the owner of the website, I did not like it but I accepted it. I would also point out that this web-site has done so much to educate people which is why I often suggest people come here and read the articles.

    I would also point out that my tolerance for people who misunderstand Islam is very low at this point, I think them fools and have no concerns in saying it to their face and very aggressively, I say if you do not understand abrogation, the timeline of the Quran in terms of Mohammed’s life and what verses are deleted plus if you have not bothered to read the Reliance of the Traveller and certain key ahadiths you have no idea what the hell you are talking about in terms of Islam.

    Also understand what is meant by “spreading mischief” and what an innocent really is for Islam, then you can at least understand what the hell is going on.

    This website enables people to see more of the reality and the Baron has every right to tell people like me where to go and people who don’t get it where to go to, he has my total respect.

    Keep it up Baron!

    • Thank you. I must have mistakenly thought you were calling a fellow commenter a “barbarian”, and that’s why I redacted it. You can call Muslims barbarians all you want!

      • First of all Merry Christmas to you and your family.

        It was a Muslim commentator to be honest, but I did understand it as I did call her a barbarian meaning Islam as a whole, no issue for me at all.

        I just mentioned it because the key thing is that we are all adults here and I did not take offence, something that this poster should note, our ego’s and hurt feelings have to be left aside, its more important to fight against Islam and its destructive nature and the Baron does that and more at his own risk.

        So I would say to this person let go of your hurt and fight the fight against the real evil.

  8. The boy fairly likes the sound of his own voice, eh.

    Belongs to the “why say something in one sentence when you can say nothing in a page and a half?” school of thought.

    Therefore, ignored. Who’s got the time to read all these ramblings? If he can’t be bothered getting to the point, there’s no reason why I should bother reading him (or her)

    • No, I think you were right the first time. Although women certainly *can* write like this (and I have, as an exercise, done so), the tone sounded like a strident man trying oh so hard to make *us* understand that poor “Oren” had been misunderstood. Over and over he did this.

      Yes, I think a man wrote the “Anonymous” email. I’m open to evidence that the author is a woman, but I’d say I’m 95% sure the author is a man.

  9. Meh… If it’s being done so wrong here, start your own blog.
    Someone might read it and be so kind as to criticize you.

  10. Anyone participating in online for a – topic irrelevant – better have thick skin and a H U G E tolerance for insults, personal attacks and the jerking of knees.
    The cyber world seems to attract a disproportionately massive percentage of people with large egos but thin skin, which is a very bad combination.
    It is also the natural habitat of nerds and geeks, who would never dare to say a peep to someone’s face in real life, but turn into Rambo, King Arthur or Tamerlane once safely ensconced behind the anonymity of a keyboard, cozily wrapped in a onesie and hugging a cup of hot, fairly traded organic latte cocoachino.
    Not every soldier of Allah is training to become a suicide bomber or gang rapist in a paramilitary camp along the Turkish border.
    Some of them prefer typing at Starbucks.

    • “It is also the natural habitat of nerds and geeks, who would never dare to say a peep to someone’s face in real life, but turn into Rambo, King Arthur or Tamerlane once safely ensconced behind the anonymity of a keyboard, cozily wrapped in a onesie and hugging a cup of hot, fairly traded organic latte cocoachino.”

      OMG! Such a wonderful description of Internet trolls and terrors I have rarely seen! 🙂

      Thanking you and sending you a (belated) Merry Christmas. (If you happen to be Orthodox and on the Julian calendar, may Nativity find you well and happy.)

  11. This is all above my head. I just stopped by to wish you both a Merry and Blessed Christmas!

    Also a heart-felt thanks for running a place where I know I can learn things that are not always presented elsewhere.

    Thank you for your hard work.

  12. Dymphna mentions reading comprehension, and in that spirit, I want to thank the Baron for explaining the phrase “Get thee hence, Satan”, whose meaning may have been perfectly clear in the days of King James but which makes no sense in modern English. I know “hence” only in two meanings: (1) “therefore”, as in mathematical reasoning, and (2) “from this point in time forward”, as in “henceforth”. The meaning “Go away” makes sense in this context, but how can you derive that meaning from “Get thee hence”? I finally looked up “hence”, and found that its original meaning is “from this place; away”. In my experience, such a meaning for “hence” is hard to find in modern English. And in this phrase, “Get” is an imperative, so both the subject of this verb and its direct object are the same person, whom we usually call “you”. In modern English, we would have to use the reciprocal “Get yourself away from here”. Wouldn’t people in King James’s time say “Get thyself hence”?
    Bottom line of this long-winded digression: Get thee hence! = Go away!

    Continuing the theme, here’s another example of my poor reading comprehension:
    “[Oren’s] question, admittedly a doubting one, may have reflected doubts that arose as a result of Chatterjee’s piece. As I said, I have never communicated with Oren and do not know what was going through his mind. However the Baron could have considered this possibility and given him the benefit of the doubt (no pun intended).”
    Okay, I give up. Where is the pun? I keep looking for a word that makes use of two different meanings (which is what a pun is), but I can’t find such a word. Somebody please explain what the pun is.

    • The word ‘doubt’ is used twice referring to ‘Oren’s doubts” in the quote prior to “…given him the benefit of the doubt.”

      That’s the best I can do.

    • >”[I]n this phrase, “Get” is an imperative, so both the subject of this verb and its direct object are the same person, whom we usually call “you”. In modern English, we would have to use the reciprocal “Get yourself away from here”. Wouldn’t people in King James’s time say “Get thyself hence”?”

      Use of the reflexive is optional, even in modern English. A simple direct object may be substituted.

  13. Dear Mr Anonymous,

    You seem to have a problem with Dymphna alluding to a troubled earlier marriage in a Counter-Jihadist blog. If you were a regular reader you might also have a problem with the Baron referring to his eyesight problems. You evidently disapprove of the raising of such personal matters as indecorous or irrelevant at best. And self-pitying at worst.

    Permit me to offer a different perspective. You see for me such occasional references make the people who run this blog …human. It lends verisimilitude to the broad notion that the Baron ( I know his real name and a little bit about his youth too!) and Dymphna (I don’t know her real name and don’t care that I don’t know) are actual people. With prosaic lives, children, physical ailments, financial constraints ( yes, some people do have them, surprising as that may seem), etc.

    In my wide, brown, tasty land there is very popular MSM columnist who projects, through his weekly print piece and radio talkback, a public persona, with a depiction of his personal life front and centre, that bears no relation to his actual life. I know this because I’ve known him since his late 20’s. I attended his 30th birthday and given him a wide berth since. He is indeed rich and famous and has a stratospherically high regard for himself as a consequence – such are the vagaries and ironies of human existence. Many hundreds of thousands think him marvelous, clever and amusing, because they are unaware that his projected MSM persona is wholly fraudulent. Is my attempted analogy unclear to you?

    Finally, were you never taught how to be succinct? I’ll give you a short lesson. Write what you want to write: stream of consciousness. Return to it the next day and tighten it up to half the length. Then the day after that, halve it again. In your case repeat this process for a week. Or two.

  14. Even as a serf I like Douglas Murray. He is against Islam, although I would admit it entirely possible that he has been duped by Nawaz given the well deserved reputation for deception that Islam has. My liking of him does not disqualify the truth of his faults.

    The Baron has a right to say what he wants, just as we have a right to agree or disagree with his opinion – he has the open minded reasonableness to at least question himself, publish dissenting opinion and the humility to “read comments” – oh – and Gates is his and Dymphna’s site.

    Michael Oren has been to University, congratulations. He has served in his country’s armed forces, again congratulations. He is a member of the Counter Jihad – congratulations.

    Being on the same side does not qualify a person to avoid criticism. Nor does their cv.

  15. Talk about ‘long winded!’
    Why do some people need several pages to say something the gist of which could be achieved in two or three paragraphs?

    Precis, Mr Anonymous, please.

  16. Please allow me to add a few remarks.

    First of all, let me make it clear that I have no connection with the anonymous person who has written the above post in my defense. I appreciate his concern, but I am perfectly able to defend myself. I also have no connection with Mr. Michael Oren, as some of you may have thought.

    Let me continue by saying that I was not offended by the Baron’s response to my original comment. As someone who has been debating Islamic supremacists, hard core socialists and sometimes even Neo-nazis on social media for years now, I have developed a thick skin. I am a long time follower of this blog, and I have a great appreciation for the valuable work done by its authors. This is exactly why I would like to see it maintaining high standards of reporting.

    I must say that it was very amusing to hear people calling me “an Islam enabler” or “a Taqiyya artist”, given that I am more accustomed to being called “an Islamophobic bigot” or “a Fascist” by the people on the left. As a matter of fact I cannot blame any of you for suspecting my motives, as you are not familiar with me or my work. This suspicion may have been averted had I introduced myself properly.

    However, I do believe the counter-Jihad movement should be open for a range of ideas. We often criticize the left for enforcing ‘group thought’, and promoting any kind of diversity except diversity of opinions. Let us then practice what we preach, and have a civil debate about everything. Yes, that includes the dreaded “moderate Muslim” issue.

    I shall end by wishing you all a merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

    • Yes, I agree completely. And a merry Christmas to you, too!

      I’ve been called a neo-Nazi by leftist Jews, and a tool of the Mossad by Aryan supremacists. After a while it all just makes me laugh. People who can’t develop thick skins don’t last long in this line of work.

      I commend you, Oren, for being willing to engage in a civil debate on these difficult and contentious topics.

  17. And, “all’s well that ends well”.
    Merry Christmas and hopes for a Happier New Year to all.
    Thanks for being here, Baron and Dymphna and Vlad, et al. The Internet would be a much poorer place without you.

  18. I think your anonymous respondent is a very sophisticated troll and should not be taken seriously,full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Ignore him/her.

  19. I have to say that your introductory picture UR DOING IT WRONG does capture the tone and content of that anonymous email to a “T”.

    • Heh. That one comes in handy from time to time when dealing with what are commonly known as “ankle-biters” — of which we have plenty.

Comments are closed.