The question is simple: Why do the writers at Loonwatch hide their identities?
Monday, 21 September 2015
Loonwatch's Loons, Wackos & Sociopaths
The question is simple: Why do the writers at Loonwatch hide their identities?
My guess is that Loonwatch writers use fake names for one very simple reason: they have something to hide. Why else would Loonwatch writers use false names?
So are the writers at Loonwatch mainly Muslims with a couple of Trotskyists/communists (nowadays called “progressives”) thrown in for good measure? Or are they mainly Trotskyists/communists with a couple of Islamists thrown in for good measure?
No one knows because every Loonwatch writer uses a fake name.
Indeed it's hard to get your head around the fact that atheist (Marxist) materialists could have so much sympathy and respect for Islam without thereby also becoming (or being) a Muslim. Unless, that is, it's all cynical political opportunism.
Loonwatch's Danios, for example, wrote a book (The J Word: Jihad, Between Hype and Reality) which tells us that jihad really and truly is all about peace, love and cuddles. He's also written many articles defending all things Islamic. So why isn't he a Muslim? If he's a revolutionary International Socialist, perhaps he's doing what many Leftists are doing: attempting to “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” (as the the UK's Socialist Workers Party puts it). In addition, perhaps “the worse it is, the better it is” (Leon Trotsky's mantra) for revolutionaries in that the more violence and conflict Islam brings to the West (along with mass immigration), the more they can make use of such “revolutionary situations” to further their own non-Islamic causes.
As I said, what else can explain this omnipresent and supremely perverse convergence of theocratic Islam and atheistic Leftism?
It seems that Garibaldi has stopped writing for Loonwatch (at least for the time-being). Though how could anyone know that for sure when 'Garibaldi' is a fake name in the first place?
The main writers nowadays are Emperor and Dorado. In fact Emperor seems to write the vast majority of stuff at Loonwatch... or does he? For one, who's to say that Garibaldi and Emperor (or Dorado) aren't the same person? Indeed perhaps Emperor is a collective name used by many Loonwatch writers. The writers at Loonwatch might also have decided to use the same name/s in order to put readers off the scent (as it were).
In any case, Nathan Lean denies being Garibaldi. The solution to that problem (as with Danios) is that Garibaldi should come clean. It really is that simple. What's he hiding? He should give up on the cloak-and-dagger student Leftism/Islamism and tell us who he really is.
Garibaldi did ask why Nathan Lean would use another name when he regularly publishes stuff about counter-jihadists and Robert Spencer in his own name. The answer is again uncomplicated. Nathan Lean's Huffington Post, interfaith, etc. stuff is written in a journalistic style and his books are seen to be academic and objective. However, as Loonwatch's Garibaldi, Nathan Lean can indulge his other persona: a vicious, nasty (red) fascist who's utterly intolerant towards all who dare to disagree with him. He would never get away with such viciousness, student sarcasm and intolerance at, say, an interfaith meeting or event. Only Loonwatch caters for such extreme rhetoric and nastiness. Nathan Lean may simply be letting off steam through his alter-ego: Garibaldi.
Thus Nathan Lean has two personas:
i) A vicious loud-mouthed Leftist.
ii) A cuddly interfaith academic.
The former preaches violence, direct action, hacking and the denial of free speech. The latter preaches religious/political pluralism, peace and equality.
And what I've just said about Nathan Lean will probably be equally applicable to most/all of the other writers at Loonwatch. After all, they use fake names too.
Actually, one Loonwatch writer, Danios, did appear to come clean about who he is when he wrote the following in 2010:
“.... I am currently a post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university. Coming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me, which is why I have chosen to do it at a later date. Does this answer your question, Spencer?”
However, because Danios also uses a fake name, there's no reason to believe a word of that. Then again, it is, in fact, plausible that Danios is a Leftist “post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university”. After all, UK and US universities are full of Leftists who have the hots for their free-speech-hating brothers – the Islamists. Despite that, it's also possible that Danios (or Garibaldi/Nathan Lean) works for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In reality, judging by his prose style, I would go for the Marxist academic option even though it's very difficult to distinguish Leftist totalitarians from Islamist totalitarians nowadays. Or as Mark Humphrys puts it:
“Loonwatch.com - run by leftists or Islamists, it's hard to tell. And isn't that a sad comment on the left!”
These people are so desperate that they even make the claim that people in the “counter-jihad movements” (all those wackos and loons!) also use pseudonyms. So what's the big deal with Loonwatch anonymity?
Take Danios again.
He cites various examples of counter-jihad writers who use pseudonyms; as in the following:
“Nonie Darwish and Nahid Hyde are the same person. 'Sultan Knish' is actually Daniel Greenfield. 'Baron Bodissey' of Gates of Vienna is actually Edward May. 'Bonni' of Bare Naked Islam is actually Bonni Benstock-Intall. Fjordman is actually Peder Jensen.”
So Danios informs us that Sultan Knish “is actually Daniel Greenfield”. Hah! Daniel Greenfield himself tells us he's Sultan Knish on his Sultan Knish website! Similarly, you can find this out within a second if you Google his name. You can't do that with Danios because there's no Wikipedia piece on him.
As for Nonie Darwish, her face can be found all over the Internet.
I suspect that some of the other examples cited by Danios keep their names secret because if they didn't, they'd very likely be killed by the kind of Muslim fanatic Danios defends. Could Danios himself be killed for what he's writing? That would be highly unlikely. In any case, that's not the reason why he uses a pseudonym. He uses a pseudonym for the simple reason that were it known who he is, his job (of enabling Islam and jihad) would be made a whole lot harder. (Danios himself admitted this when he said that “[c]oming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me”.)
The other bizarre thing is that, in one breath, Danios tells us about the counter-jihad loons and wackos who use pseudonyms; and then, in the next breath, he tells us exactly who they are. That kind of defeats the object... doesn't it?
One article, by Sheila Musaji, repeatedly tells us that Robert Spencer (of Jihad Watch) has “avoid[ed] debating with those who are skilled debaters”. The prime example of a skilled debater is, I presume, Danios himself. That's odd. Can you really call a man who uses a pseudonym – and who's never debated anyone face to face - a skilled debater? Can you call a man with no acknowledged tenure or details about his employment history a skilled debater? (Danios and Loonwatch often criticise Robert Spencer's credentials.) Indeed perhaps not all of Danios's pieces are by Danios – how would we know?
“Robert Spencer at first said that I am willing: if 'Danios of Loonwatch' reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I’m ready when he is. Spencer expanded on the issue of Danios pseudonym saying Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. 'Danios of Loonwatch' can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.”
And this is what Danios himself says about Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:
“It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock. Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you 'know [you] can’t refute what I say' and will 'resort to…haughty refusals to debate'...”
That reads like something you'd see in a student Trotskyist rag. Firstly you've got the tabloid “sensationalist crock”. Then the machismo “cower in fear”. This stuff makes Facebook/Twitter seem like University Challenge. I mean after all that Leftist/Islamist vitriol and viciousness, would a debate between Danios and Robert Spencer really be worthwhile?
In any case, you get the feeling that the writers at Loonwatch would like to skin alive the tens of millions (or more) of us IslamophobicNazifascistracistbigots who exist in the world today. Yes, all those millions who dare to have a problem with Islam and its massively murderous impact on the world today.