Shit I Never Tweeted: A Heretic’s Lament

So Salon columnist Charles Davis seems to be endorsing my harassment by threat of doxing that began when I had the queer nerve to find something homophobic,  by providing an additional reason for why it should continue.   The harassment Davis is adding his voice to and his rationale for doing so are described in detail here. The accusation is “snitch-jacketing” which he justifies with this:

Among the numerous problems with Davis’s complaint is this: I never tweeted that. Tarzie_txt is a malicious account that mixes real tweets with fake for the purpose of smearing me. I mentioned tarzie_txt (formerly BroTarzie) in this February post about how much harassment I was subject to for criticizing Glenn Greenwald. Journalist Alexa O’Brien was the object of this same ostracism technique when she covered Chelsea Manning’s trial.

I’d mentioned the account previously in this post, where I embedded the tweet below:

It should be obvious from the tweet to which Greenwald is responding, that it’s not me, especially when you factor in the adjacent thread and my remarks in the post where I wrote about it.

I said much of the above on Twitter yesterday which — with striking  alacrity — elicited this:

Let’s not linger on what kind of person indexes alleged screen shots of my timeline from close to a year ago and produces them in literally minutes intending to legitimize an unambiguously bogus, malicious tweet from February. Instead let’s note that this is a graphic image rather than actual tweets,  and entertain the likelihood of at least an ethical kindredness between the two accounts.

Some of those tweets are definitely mine, but the two at the top seem entirely unfamiliar.  It’s beside the point, though, because even if I owned all the tweets the above graphic credits me with, the tarzie_txt tweet, via its explicit earnestness, would still be a gross mischaracterization of offhand, untagged, deleted jabs in a locked account, and crediting it to me would still be disgustingly dishonest and malicious. Injecting this tweet into the ether again, almost a year after it was first concocted, also seems purely malicious and divisive. That apparent adults have credulously accepted the authenticity of  tarzie_txt as merely a block workaround, such that a journalist for whom Charlie resurrected the old tweet yesterday accepted it at face value, should surprise me, but it is this kind of infantile credulity that has made Twitter such a haven for liars and defamers.

I did tweet onefed but quickly deleted it because it was over the top. With the first impulse I felt justified in tweeting it, because onekade — Kade Crockford of the Massachusetts ACLU —  has spent months mischaracterizing and belittling Greenwald’s critics, including me, while demonstrating absolutely no acquaintance with anything I’ve ever written. On the single occasion  when Crockford directly engaged on misrepresentation of my posts, Crockford accused me of being a destructive provocateur, as well as in need of professional help. I don’t think people with vastly larger platforms than mine who dishonestly discredit me should expect kinder treatment in return. Nonetheless, I deleted the tweet because I regretted it. Had a malicious embellishment not been entombed on the tarzie_txt account, almost no one would be aware of it, including my own followers.

In the time since conflict over this and the Geronimo campaign erupted, Crockford has been carping about “losers” “prolonging stupid Twitter wars” to the detriment of — wait for it — “black revolution.”  Crockford directs this tough love message of peace not, of course, to the people who have been stirring shit with fake tweets via tarzie_txt for over a year or to Davis for resurrecting a bogus tweet from last February with menacingly doxxy talk of accountability  — that is, to the people who are unquestionably “prolonging stupid Twitter wars” — but to the low status targets of their smears and threats and a vanishingly small number of defenders. Pretty sure I want this over more than anyone else, for reasons that should be obvious, but still it’s me that’s the instigator apparently.

Innocent bystanders Davis and emoprog have ratified Crockford’s noble calls for solidarity via faves. No, really. Go look.  Does that mean this is over? Otherwise, I truly can’t fathom the story they, and the random people they’ve incited to get their hate on, again, are telling themselves that makes me the inciter here. Is it my dogged insistence that people who harass and smear me and their role models are not my allies? If so, I take it all back.  Really. You are my allies. You are, you are, you are!  Now stop with the threats, comrades, close those parody accounts, and apply your unique gifts to Black Revolution!

As to the alleged single-tweet “snitch-jacketing” of Charlie, who, like Crockford has a vastly bigger platform than mine: though his recent metamorphosis into splainy disciplinarian of Marxist women and anti-imperialists has struck me and a number of other people who used to like him as disappointing and weird, I recall making only one play on his handle which was charlieomidyarchy. But let’s assume I’m having a memory lapse. Considering how generic ‘archy’ is, I don’t think one could be certain cointelarchy has anything to do with Davis at all, especially since my melancholic misgivings about new, improved Charlie didn’t harden into unalloyed dislike until June, when he signed on for Sarah Kendzior’s orgy of misogyny and red-baiting at its most deplorable point. Whatever the case, it’s one tweet. If he continues to co-sign threat-infused campaigns against radicals based on malicious, hand-rolled tweets and smears, people are likely, and well within their rights, to call him all kinda things he doesn’t approve of, though considering the ratios on Twitter, very few are likely to do so.

I  freely admit that I believe there are operatives on Twitter, an idea I am sure Crockford and a number of others who openly dislike me, endorse. I will also freely admit that I have found the dedication of certain people online to ostracizing and harassing me and others for over a year odd enough to speculate about it, though I am as inclined to credit it to publicists and other private interests as to anything else. The level of dedication and malice seem weird, but maybe I just don’t know crowds. I am saying this not to implicate anyone in particular, but to explain the times I expressed general doubts about the environment as a whole.

I am not proud of some of some of the things I tweeted along these lines but they’re mild compared to stuff that was coming at me every day. You might be surprised that watching people you once respected — even liked — shrug at, cordially interact with, or join up with people who have newly committed themselves to driving you off the internet/insane/to suicide via smears and harassment is not in the least bit ennobling. Since many people were accusing me of being, well, all the awful things, including a government agent of some kind, I didn’t feel obliged to be super careful in my own remarks about them and their enablers. Throughout this whole conflict I have been genuinely shocked by how vicious trolls and character assassins feel entitled to better treatment than they dole out, but then avid, malicious trolling runs on narcissism, sociopathy and social psychosis. As Crockford’s “Twitter Wars” bullshit suggests, the mob becomes entirely convinced the heretic is the aggressor if s/he does anything but retreat in the face of more shit-throwing, and usually even that’s not enough.

I should not have to say this at all, but snitch jacketing is more than expressing suspicions about Twitter culture generally or one-off jabs that, were it not for screen capping shit-stirrers, would come and go in less than a half-hour. It’s campaigning. Certainly everything I do and write presupposes that I’m a pariah for the most part. I’m someone Charlie, Kade and emoprogs ostentatiously feel superior to. I don’t feel anything I say matters except to a handful of people who are also of limited influence.  Therefore I am constantly puzzled by the extent to which people who obviously despise me monitor my thoughts, talk about them, shamelessly lie about them, and apparently meticulously file screenshots of them. I have zero power to influence anything, let alone a snitch jacketing campaign against people with followings five times the size of mine, with affiliations to mainstream organizations and publications, and who enjoy signal boosting by Greenwald and Chris Hayes, among others. The erasure of power differentials in these discussions is one more way in which they’re grossly dishonest.

Of course if you confront these power differentials, you then must admit who among all parties has the means to defame and who doesn’t. Who can — and will — stoke a smear campaign by, say, a second injection of a bogus tweet and who can’t. Who’s “prolonging Twitter wars.” Who the bullies are and who’s being bullied. That there are multiple “parody” accounts along with tarzie_txt dedicated to smearing, mischaracterizing and ridiculing me, should, by itself, settle the question, especially given that no less than Glenn Greenwald can be seen above cracking wise with one of them at my expense, which inarguably constitutes both endorsement and incitement. (Funny story: Greenwald’s trolls say I bully him!)

As one might guess, instigation by a revered dude with half a million followers yields far more harassment than just multiple defamatory “parody” accounts and almost everyone observing Left Twitter for the past 15 months knows it.  If you want to burn yourself into my brain as someone I need never take seriously ever again, say something along the lines of  “both sides”, “peas in a pod” or some other dimwitted erasure of the acute asymmetry of this “conflict”. People who recognize this for what it is only differ on whether or not I have it coming, for leaving the church after jeering at the service and the uniquely belligerent congregation. Is this ostracism campaign — going on fifteen months now —  made innocuous if it doesn’t include snitch-jacketing?

We needn’t dwell on that question, because my ostracism did not exclude it. Which brings us to the double standard at work here. Charles Davis is proffering this trumped up charge of snitch jacketing to suggest I’m a fed. In other words, he’s snitch jacketing — in an inciting, harassing way —  predicated mostly on a ten-month-old tweet that is indisputably fake.  I am absolutely certain Charlie also knows it’s bullshit, and one can only guess why he’s really, under very thin cover of “accountability,”  joining in harassment that clearly began when I had the audacity to find homophobia homophobic, and doubtlessly wouldn’t be happening otherwise. Though he and I only know each other from the internet, we go back four years or more. I read his blog and other writing regularly and enthusiastically promoted his work on Twitter. Until fairly recently, we followed each other and interacted amicably. If I’m a pro bent on his destruction, I’ve been taking my time. I’ve also done a bum job of accumulating anything near the social capital to counter his. As spooks go, I’m a bit of a flop.

Considering that the tweet Charlie produced as “evidence” is from February, and that when first published the tweet provoked light-hearted ridicule more than anything else, the timing here seems odd, as if it’s simply a convenient pretext to join defamation and doxxing campaign Tor has shark-jumpingly embarked upon, which having dispensed with anti-Greenwald gadfly Geronimo, now trumps up charges against anyone who’s pointedly withholding applause. There’s a stenchful purgi-ness in the air, as the beatdown kangaroo court adds new prohibitions and blatantly fabricates infractions.  Pointing out Tor developer Andrea Shepherd’s use of homophobic insults is now “libel” in this strange new world. It’s revealing that Charlie presented the bogus tweet attributed to me in a conversation in which he also offered a manual RT as proof of JB’s anti-semitism, which was later shown to be fake by an archive of the actual deleted tweet. Yet Charlie presented it — a fairly obviously concocted RT — as legit. That’s two fakes out of two for those keeping score.

Why is this ok when things I do that are far less inflammatory and a good deal more honest arent? And what about these, just a small sample of  what’s out there: Here’s a tweet from a member of the emoprogarmy that isn’t fake:

@fucktardtrole tarzie’s fed ass gave them a heads up

— lindsey (@lindsberty) (locked account)

Here’s one, faved by Charles Davis no less:

Here’s one suggesting the idea was rather widespread:

soooo yeah the whole “tarzie’s a fed” thing is just fucking absurd on its face ❤ OR MAYBE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT ME TO THINK (locked account)

Lots of people suggested many if not all of Greenwald’s detractors were members of the surveillance apparatus, an idea that Greenwald fostered with a post on The Intercept that neatly coincided with a rare and brief flowering of online criticism and mockery of The Greenwald Show. With reference to sock puppet accounts and “fake victim blog posts,” Greenwald left no detractor too small to avoid suspicion, including someone like me, who’d vexed, only hours before, former Rancid Honeytrap commenter Glenn with a post about how his army of authoritarian trolls and he were such a fitting match. It was widely believed and expressed for months that anyone casting aspersions on Greenwald and Snowden were operatives of some kind. This tweet is hardly unique:

Finally, putting aside the shamelessly bogus foundation for Davis’s complaint, and that it came bundled with another fake tweet against someone else, I call bullshit on his quaint idea that jabs suggesting government sponsorship are a particularly feddy kind of aspersion which uniquely justifies “accountability” by doxxing mostly over a single alleged tweet. Are we to assume that Feds don’t use the same bag of tricks rank and file authoritarians use to control people? Pathologizing? Character assassination? Harassment? False accusations? Libels? False attributions? Threats? Of course, we can’t assume that at all, unless we have some interest in manifesting bad faith as feigned stupidity yet again. Seems logical to me that a propensity for prolonged smearing, harassment, lying and ostracism suggests nefarious provocation more than a one-off jab. Why is no one calling for a dox of tarzie_txt or the army of anons routinely harrassing people — mostly radicals — on behalf of celebrity lefts and Tor? No doubt it’s for the very same reason clownish Crockford hasn’t accused them of postponing Black revolution with “Twitter wars:”  status and politics. Punching up is “in-fighting.” Punching down is just good clean fun.

It’s truly surreal getting a stern lesson in proper smearing from people like Davis, whose indeterminate, hybrid politics mostly reveal themselves through sliming and ridicule, who concoct and RT fake tweets for no reason but to generate animosity, and who obsessively harass red feminists and anti-imperialists. But then they would know the rules, wouldn’t they, since they make them, the way bullies always do.

I actually prefer the people who accuse me of being a Fed to people like Davis, Crockford and emoprog, who misrepresent what I say and pathologize me. I prefer it to the juvenile sociopaths who spend evenings filling my mentions with ugly photos and insults. Of  course the heretic doesn’t get to choose the harassment and defamation methods. He just gets defamed and harassed. He sure can’t insist that differences be talked out. Had anyone ever attempted to engage with me on the merits of what I actually wrote, things would have never gotten this nasty. But few except me wanted a discussion that got past the question of my right to have opinions, which suggests to me a paucity of arguments and an authoritarian attitude toward discussion generally. If there is something more high-minded here than insistence on uncritically admiring the same people, I genuinely don’t know what it is.

I don’t think most of the people who trash me have read a single thing I’ve written, considering it perfectly sufficient to breathe the fumes from parody accounts and hearsay.  Writers know when they’re arguing with someone who actually reads them, and I recognize actual readers among my critics very little. Twitter has completely normalized talking entirely out of your ass about people with lower status than you. You look like a complete jackass to people who know better but fortunately none of those people matters.

Anyway, I’ve learned by now that there is no reasoning with mobs, especially when it comes to double standards, but here’s the thing: this fever that’s overtaken left Twitter for beatdowns and doxxing and whatnot will bite a lot of people in the ass. I’ve watched bullies disappear this year after they got a taste of their own medicine. Would be nice if some sober minds prevailed if only for self-preservation.

Have you noticed that the same group of people are at the heart of every beatdown?  Do you seriously contemplate with anything but disquiet, a group of people administering discipline via trolling, smears, parody accounts and threats, especially now that doxxing and libel are becoming part of the the mix? Why the threats? Why the resistance to settling things with dialogue? What, exactly, is identifiably “left” about a discourse increasingly fixated on who gets to speak and who doesn’t?

Seems this culture has way bigger problems than an almost entirely unknown blogger with unpopular opinions. Maybe it’s time to start punching up again. In the meantime, the Twitter swamp is all yours.


Advocates, Liberal Pundits, and Nazi-Rapist-Snitch Allies Make Case for Doxxing Critics. You Are Literally Next. (RancidSassy at 100 Flamingos)

The Friends of Glenn

The Celebrity Left Wars

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Shit I Never Tweeted: A Heretic’s Lament

  1. This post might be, as you claimed, a little rough, but it’s very powerful and makes two important points. The first, of course, is establishing the longstanding bullshit of that fake account. (You might want to make clear in the text that its name has changed from BroTarzie to tarzie_txt.)

    The second point is equally important and I think you’ve put it perfectly: this fever that’s overtaken left Twitter for beatdowns and doxxing and whatnot will bite a lot of people in the ass. Would be nice if some sober minds prevailed if only for self-preservation. The same group of people are at the heart of every beatdown I don’t know if this could be said much more clearly or in any way better, and if I had a shred of optimism, I would hope that you’d be listened to on this. Because it’s only going to get worse.

  2. ted boner says:

    delete your account

  3. emoprog says:

    This post is a joke. Let’s review:

    Earlier today you disputed Charlie’s claim that you Fed-jacketed him and Kade.

    Your argument against Charles rested on the fact that the tweet from Tarzie_txt reproduced at the top of this post is not something rightly be attributable to you.

    At this point I produced a screen-shot of the (deleted) tweets which inspired the Tarzie_txt tweet, where you unambiguously play with the idea that Charlie, Kade, and Greenwald are Feds.

    And now, embarrassed that I called you out on your Fed-jacketing tweets, you write a blog post suggesting that I was behind the Tarzie_txt account, and, yet again, it’s you who is the real victim here.

    Bullshit. Tarzie_txt was created to make people aware when you defamed them from behind your locked account. I was not an administrator of this account, but I did follow it and I did supply it with the screenshots of you Fed-jacketing the three individuals posted above. You’re not the victim here. You’re just a self-centered, paranoid jerk.

    • Tarzie says:

      Thanks for clarifying, but the screenshot is no more reliable than tarzie_txt. I copped to onefed and explained. She’d done the same thing to me in addition to constantly misrepresenting my views and smearing me. I have also copped to being generally suspicious of the energy being dedicated to campaigning against people. I do not cop to cointelarchy.

      It is utterly hilarious that you guys have campaigned against me for over a year and now complain that I defame people. It is also hilarious that you want to monopolize the right to suggest government affiliation. Why are you so obsessed?

      Thanks for stopping by. It’s your first time commenting I guess. In an entire year not one of you has attempted to engage on the merits of my posts. It’s always about my right to make them. What a strange group of people.

      • emoprog says:

        If any of your readers really think I care enough about your deluded little mind to go to the trouble of faking a screenshot of your tweets, well, that kind of goes to my point, I guess. You and I both know you’re just a liar.

      • Tarzie says:

        If any of your readers really think I care enough about your deluded little mind to go to the trouble of faking a screenshot of your tweets

        You and your pals pass off fake tweets as real tweets and then call me a liar. Good one, especially in light of Charlie’s magnificient manual RT in lieu of actual tweet to just casually libel someone as anti-semitic.

        And hovering over my account and taking screen shots for over a year, to the important end of apprising people who loathe me of how much I loathe them back, why that’s just the embodiment of a healthy indifference that surely precludes dishonest embellishments. If the emoprog army stands for anything, it’s complete indifference to people they differ with! Also fair play.

        Now you want to claim a monopoly on snitch jacketing.

        You and your little army are priceless, troll. Keep up the necessary work of ostracizing people you couldn’t care less about.

    • Tarzie says:

      I plead guilty to very much disliking people who have campaigned with psychopathic resolve for over a year and and saying so. Hundreds of people seem perfectly comfortable badmouthing me. This snitch-jacketing this is trumped up bullshit. You guys want a monopoly on opinions.

      • Just Sayin' says:

        Glenn is not the only celebrity with a few Rick Ellensburgs, Thomas Ellers or Ellisons up his sleeve. This is what these sort of people do, as it often takes psychopathic resolve to get to the top in the entertainment business (which Glenn is in).

        I worked for a famous musician for a while and he was obsessed with controlling what was said on his fan forums. He read private messages of perceived enemies on his official forum and he harassed them and gaslighted them based on what he learned from that. If he thought of grabbing their passwords and checking their personal email accounts, he may have done that too.

        My point? It does happen, but it’s almost impossible to prove, so such thoughts tend to drag the accuser into a spiral of self-doubt which eventually causes them to go crazy or move on.

        Good luck to you, sir.

  4. roastyagain says:

    The emoprog army and their cadre of juvenile psychopaths that swarm on command are precisely the reason I killed my roasty Twitter account. The sad thing is they have a good amount of people I consider otherwise reasonable and genuine convinced their bullshit is worth overlooking.

    I don’t know if they’re Feds or just opportunists, but their harassment campaigns are certainly coordinated in a way only a platform like Twitter can really lay bare, and given they’re relationship to the Intercept & GG I have no hesitation in naming them suspect at the very least.

    Anyway, it’s sick that a post like this is necessary, but as has been shown time and time again documenting their bullshit absolutely IS necessary.

    I used to be a huge fan of Charlie as well, prior to his brain switch or him being snagged by body snatchers or whatever, but if anyone trusts him after his treatment of you (and of OLAASM also), they’re asking to eventually get doxxed/stabbed in the back.

  5. Dirty says:

    If the offended “radicals” would just assess content of tweets and posts they find offensive and respond, not double down with threats that entail outing, shaming, and silencing, perhaps they could find common ground, engage in dialogue, or save time by dismissing harmless trolls. Unfortunately, it appears they’re more interested in nurturing ostracism, flexing their muscle, group high fives, and showing lesser folk who runs things. This form of bullying is infantile and will eventually, as Tarzie notes, bite back. That is how things go, not a threat. Also, they demean anonymity on Social Media as something cowardly as they curate public images for a paycheck. Excellent work Tarzie, a nice addition to KandyKrischev’s essay.

    • Tarzie says:

      Thanks Dirty. Yeah, I would have really appreciated discussion where we worked out differences. I am open to being shown where I’m wrong. But that never happened. Before you can argue anything online now you must first prove your right to do so. Your social status has to be high enough. Your motives must be very obviously pure. Rarely do the people who have nothing to gain from the argument — who are the people with social capital — grant that right. Tor is very much like the Greenwald dust-up in this regard, although a year+ of social decay in this environment has raised the viciousness and, by extension, the stakes. It’s just not worth it to deal with this shit all the time. I’m shelving posts I was planning on writing. Need to move on from the pack of wolves.

      • Tarzie says:

        One question which I’ve been curious about: are you Slim? If so, I’m glad you came back. I have never been more inclined to forgive and forget than in the aftermath of a year of this bullshit.

      • deb says:

        i’ve always been suspicious of tor and that crowd. the thanksgiving incident just makes clear to me that they think an end they deem worthy justifies any means. same sort of reasoning to justify state violence. so by viciously silencing him they proved the truth of what he claimed about them. i cannot see how if they aren’t agents or sympathizers of some sort they could feel anything but ironic and overwhelming disgust at being ‘online privacy advocates’ publicly outting, shaming and fucking up the home & job of a heckler critic. take care.

  6. availablealias says:

    Glad someone documented Charles Davis’ pervasive lying. And there’s this tweet which I found a little chilling:

    Charles Davis:
    @samhusseini The guy you tagged has anonymously suggested I and many others are feds. The gravity of such charges requires accountability.


    Accountability. In this environment. The threat is clear, and it’s clear it’s a threat.

  7. Not CNN says:

    Dirty wrote:

    If the offended “radicals” would just assess content of tweets and posts they find offensive and respond, not double down with threats that entail outing, shaming, and silencing, perhaps they could find common ground, engage in dialogue, or save time by dismissing harmless trolls.

    I think this great suggestion.

    However, “locked Twitter accounts” make this ideal difficult to realize. When tweeps decide to hide behind locked accounts, non-followers may have no way of knowing what is being said about them — sometimes to large audiences. Private accounts effectively disable Twitter’s vital public feedback mechanism. On one hand, they only provide real victims the illusion of security — as Tarzie’s year-long experiment with locking his account proves, on the other, they afford real aggressors a stamp of victimhood and a base from which to further injure the reputations of others.

    For example, presently, the doxing Torist is behind a locked account. I suspect she is doing this to reinforce the perception that she’s been victimized. After trying to get a man fired and depriving the man’s parents of privacy for having her choice of make-up insulted, her claim of victimhood appears to be rather weak. I hear Tor skeptics wondering what she’s saying about them to her private club of followers (which is huge). They are right to be concerned.

    You don’t know what people are saying about you behind locked accounts with large followings. Disavowing locked accounts ourselves and ridiculing those with large followings who feel a need to hide inside them would help to uphold a culture of open feedback and mutual respect.

  8. Dirty says:

    I’m Slim. The sentiment is shared.

  9. Internet vacations can be wonderful, especially when matched with something nice irl. You’ve got an impressive body of work behind you (I still muse about the long-form piece that could come out of it); it’s my opinion that those blog posts contribute far more to the general conversation than twitter posts.

    Remember that explosion of undisciplined cross-talk that was the web circa 2006? It really has felt like we’re watching the closing of a commons over the past couple of years. Some of this closing comes from platform changes with their new limitations and policies. Some comes from the fashion mores of the style police. (I’m still annoyed at all those *hipsters* who made a thing of making fun of kids and nobodies experimenting with flash and glitter on their MySpace pages – of course it looked awful, so the fuck what!?!) Some shutting down comes from people who want to make money off the internet; people promoting their own brand and shaming or terrorizing others. Anyway, I’m rambling… I guess what I’m saying is that the whole celeb-left-twitter-personal-attack thing is part of a process that’s larger than just the falling part of a public, self-described left. I think the internet really does / did pose a threat to established social orders, and I think we’re seeing the correction of that. (I wonder, sometimes, what all this looks like in Europe.)

    Whatever. Just wanted to drop by and say “Well done” or “Take it easy” or something… you know, vaguely supportive. I also think it’s entirely Okay for people to take a break now and then. But, since I’m a white, anglophone male with liberal tendencies, a retiring, conventional lifestyle and relative economic security… I’m probably just making a subconscious argument for the status quo. So do what you want – your vision has always been a little more clear than mine. 🙂

  10. Xelcho says:


    Much like what Schnley Park SpyCam has offered, I want to reinforce distancing yourself from these child-like folks. Your posts make it clear that you are like a laser on meaningful facts and logic and logical fallacies. You posts speak for themselves. I am very impressed with your careful, detailed and important analysis of GG, Chomsky and more recently Gary Web. More importantly, there are oh so very few out there who even come close to doing this level of work.

    I was actually hoping this post would be the post concerning our old buddy Matt Taibbi that you alluded to a few weeks ago. While these mischaracterizations and accusations are not pleasant, please do not let them distract you from what you do best, research and posting. It is clear to me that these clowns are employing a variety of acrimonious attacks in an effort to distract you from what you do best, please do not give them the attention they crave. I would take it as a compliment, you are having an effect upon them that they do not appreciate.

    My 2c


  11. NotAnAsshole says:

    “Lots of people were saying I was a member of GCHQ, an idea that Greenwald fostered with a snitch-jackety post on The Intercept, complete with reference to “fake victim blog posts”, published the day after I had written about his infamous trolls.”

    So you’re suggesting this TI post: was written because of you? That it included “fake victim blog posts” because of a post you wrote here? When people say that you’re deluded and narcicistic this is what they’re talking about. Some of us read your post and find your take mostly interesting but you go over the top with this narcicistic shit and that’s to the detriment of the interesting points you bring up.

    • Tarzie says:

      If you think Glenn wouldn’t put a line in a blog post to ostracize even a small critic, a man who routinely visits small blogs — including this one — to spew venom when they criticize him — even politely — and spends whole days on Twitter berating detractors with five followers, you really don’t know him very well. I guess it would also be narcissistic to think the three fairly lengthy comments he dropped on this blog — including this overwrought stream of vitriolic troll incitement — when I first started posting about him suggests that he cares about what I wrote. I guess it would also be horribly egotistical to think that when he fought with me and a friend over the troll post on Twitter, while the trolls he cultivates and incites went into overdrive, blog suggests it touched a nerve. Interesting story: same day I wrote my post about his trolls, friends and I were attempting to put up parody accounts, but funny thing, Twitter kept pulling them down with a speed far beyond what they normally do when you complain. Ever tried to get an acccount suspended from Twitter? I’ve yet to get a parody killed that is actually impersonating me, but Twitter knocked ours taking aim at Greenwald and Omidyar in minutes. We kept putting them up and eventually they gave up.

      It is obvious Greenwald’s approach to criticism is kill it before it grows, an approach that compliments his revolting pettiness and authoritarianism. The grandiose narcissist in all of this is him, not me. Undoubtedly Greenwald’s Fed-jacketing post was inevitable, but the fact remains, he put it up during an uptick in criticism and ridicule he was experiencing online.

      Some of us read your post and find your take mostly interesting

      How nice. I’m flattered! But what does it say about a person who sees merit, but instead of focusing on that, or engaging in an interesting argument about it, elects instead to tell me why vermin I have spent over a year not giving two shits about — despite their obsessive attempts to matter to me — think I’m weirdo.

      Your handle is false advertising, bub. As I keep trying to tell you assholes, the topic around here isn’t me. I’ve left Twitter to get away from this nonsense so fuck off for good. You offer nothing except an unpersuasive performance of superiority and a hackneyed insult. I’ve met you ten thousand times and it hasn’t been interesting even once. Go run and play with the kiddies.

      • NotAnAsshole says:

        “If you think Glenn wouldn’t put a line in a blog post to ostracize even a small critic, a man who routinely visits small blogs — including this one — to spew venom when they criticize him — even politely — and spends whole days on Twitter berating detractors with five followers, you really don’t him very well.”

        From what I have seen from following him for quite a while (I remember the days when you guys had friendly banter on twitter on a regular basis) I know he posts comments on people’s blogs -not only yours- more often than most recognized authors do. I also know that if he hadn’t answered you you would’ve accused him of elitist Celebrity Left behavior so if he does answers then he is troll inciting?

        “Undoubtedly Greenwald’s Fed-jacketing post was inevitable, but the fact remains, he put it up during an uptick in criticism and ridicule he was experiencing online.”

        Post hoc ergo propter hoc really? Or you can concede that those articles take several weeks to write just so the editors and the magazine can cover their asses and it had cero to do with your post?

        “But what does it say about a person who sees merit, but instead of focusing on that, or engaging in an interesting argument about it, elects instead to tell me why vermin I have spent over a year not giving two shits about — despite their obsessive attempts to matter to me — think I’m weirdo.”

        Think about why do you say asshole to people all the time and then you will see why I comment on that shit. Also, I said mostly interesting, the merit of each post varies but hey, who cares right?

        “I’ve left Twitter to get away from this nonsense so fuck off for good.”

        Oh come on, you know that’s not gonna last, or at least I hope it doesn’t.

      • Tarzie says:

        StillAnAsshole —

        Oh God, I know how you nitwits like to dwell on the personal strengths and deficiencies of the people who inhabit your infantile Manichean world, but really, dipshit, whether or not Greenwald was thinking of what I’d posted only hours before he mentioned “fake victim blog posts” — while Twitter bizarrely played whack-a-parody with a friend and I — his post was unambiguously snitch-jackety and became fodder for other snitch jacketers like the one I embedded in my post.

        So that means my point about the double standard on snitch-jacketing — which was clearly my main point — is sound. That Greenwald has emitted thousands of words on this blog makes the point that, for whatever the reason, he is not indifferent to what I write here and clearly the crowd he plays to and incites on Twitter isn’t either. So even if I’m wrong about the intent of that one line in that one blog post, my speculating on it in no way makes me irrationally egotistical, especially considering someone whose details disclose a more-than-usual acquaintanceship with Greenwald has shown up to corroborate me on how he operates.

        Therefore, I’m not going to jump through hoops proving that Greenwald was deliberately taking a shot at me in this post because it’s not important and your argument is neither challenging nor interesting to me. But here’s sample of the kind of mind-knumbing antfuckery I want to avoid:

        you can concede that those articles take several weeks to write just so the editors…

        This would be devastating if I’d said the whole post was about me, which I didn’t do, which makes you one more fucking idiot who makes an ass of themselves thinking s/he’s frightfully clever. One who thinks I give a flying fuck about their thoughts on my expletive usage in regard to trifling obsessives I vehemently loathe.

        As for what you hope for, I don’t give fuck and you needn’t bother with compliments, because as with insults, they only matter to me from people I like and respect. As almost your entire interest here has been in determining the precise amount of egotism my account of GG’s snitch-jacketing discloses, that is emphatically not you. You trifling little hive people just can’t fucking deal with someone who doesn’t live every day seeking your or anyone else’s approval. Know this: I will never care what you think of me except to the extent you dumb down and limit discussion every time you put finger to keypad. I suggest you move on.

      • NotAnAsshole says:

        “his post was unambiguously snitch-jackety and became fodder for other snitch jacketers like the one I embedded in my post.”

        As you said earlier, that post was inevitable (if the docs in the leaks included info about it) and relevant. Secret ops are, after all, a basic pilar of disinformation campaigns.

        “while Twitter bizarrely played whack-a-parody with a friend and I”

        I don’t agree with taking those accounts down but that’s hardly evidence of a campaign against you _directed by_ GG. I would guess that it’s easier to get an account taken down when the account it is impersonating it’s verified, but hey, maybe they’re all in on the conspiracy against you right?

        People online take up causes, some of those causes are troll-y and wrong but someone doesn’t need to direct them to take them up. You’re negating the agency of a lot of people (and hurting your argument in the process) if you think they need to be specifically directed by someone to defend people online.

        “So that means my point about the double standard on snitch-jacketing — which was clearly my main point — is sound.”

        Sorry bub but you can’t claim double standard when you manufacture the “second” standard, which is the whole point of my first comment.

        “This would be devastating if I’d said the whole post was about me, which I didn’t do”

        Which is not what I said either. This is what you said: “Lots of people were saying I was a member of GCHQ, an idea that Greenwald fostered with a snitch-jackety post on The Intercept” aren’t you implying that he wrote it to, at least in part, make people think you were a secret op? That’s what I’m arguing against. Had you said GG trolls used the post as reason to attack you no one would have objected.

        “One who thinks I give a flying fuck about their thoughts on my expletive usage in regard to trifling obsessives I vehemently loathe.”

        I don’t care about your expletive usage. In fact, many times they’re actually the best part of your posts so keep them up!

      • Tarzie says:

        I wish you were as clever as you clearly think you are. Done engaging. Feel free to do the troll thing of attributing my withdrawal to the ferocious power of your intellect and not your unutterable tediousness.

      • NotAnAsshole says:

        “I wish you were as clever as you clearly think you are.”

        Obviously no one is as clever as you Tarzie, but I have brought up some reasonable points, why don’t you enlighten me a little bit and address them? And how can this be considered trolling?

        “Feel free to do the troll thing of attributing my withdrawal to the ferocious power of your intellect and not your unutterable tediousness.”

        See? It’s not only “GG fostered” trolls that use discussion limiting tactics!

      • Tarzie says:

        Declining to talk about something after responding at greater length than the topic deserved in the first place is not a tactic, but feel free to do the *other* troll thing of crediting yourself with a devastating *gotcha.*

        I readily concede in advance any argument you might pick over my character deficiencies, if it’ll induce you go bore someone else. As I keep saying, I am not the topic around here. That’s why what you’re doing is trolling and why I’m going to ignore you.

      • NotAnAsshole says:

        It’s not about you, it’s about what you wrote. And yes, this has become boring but mostly because you have declined to argue further. Again, who is limiting the discussion?

        “I readily concede in advance any argument you might pick over my character deficiencies”

        I love your obviously sophisticated, argument-less, discussion “check mate”. I still think it would’ve been easier to just answer honestly two comments above.

    • anonymous, at least to the rest of you. says:

      It might sound narcissistic, but it isn’t – this is who Glenn is, and Tarzie isn’t the first or only person he has reacted in this way to – the others I know have unfortunately either had enough deference for Glenn OR not enough patience to deal with Glenn’s crap and have therefore shut up after the first instance. I hope that some of them will have the courage to speak about it publicly eventually.

      • mspbwatch says:

        It’s a standard practice among GG and his associates, the equivalent of a shitty subtweet, where to acknowledge it makes the acknowledger look self-involved, paranoid, etc. These people are also thin skinned and concerned about being exposed for their dirty tactics, lack of integrity, or whatever. Not all references may be directly aimed, but some are just lazily ambiguous such that the possibility exists that the recipient(s) would feel the sting but wouldn’t be able to complain. It’s passive aggression without owning it. In short, cowardice.

      • Tarzie says:

        Yeah, like the time GG referred to ‘rancid accusations’. Narcissistic to point that out too, I guess, so I didn’t. But other people did.

        It would be one thing if he seemed otherwise indifferent, but the asshole and his cohort shoot every fucking fly with a cannon. He aims to ostracize any naysayer that might get traction. He’s dropped thousands of words on this blog, cultivates trolls who spend whole days harassing me and cracks wise with parody accounts. But it’s ego-maniacal to believe he regards me with anything but complete indifference. I wish he did. I don’t write for him. Having his attention is not something I’d wish on anyone. He’s a fucking sociopath and he attracts sociopaths.

      • mspbwatch says:

        It’s a shame too because GG was in a position to expose the government’s dirty tactics without co-opting them to punch down. It takes away from his credibility massively and sullies the entire venture with Snowden, who by all appearances tacitly approves these brutish tactics. A year plus out and the rollout of the leaks has mixed results to show for it, and a lot of ugliness. What’s the point of teaming up with a coterie of journalists and advocates if the end result is embarrassingly unprofessional?

      • Tarzie says:

        It all depends on what the point is.

        I take no part of this at face value.

  12. anonymous, at least to the rest of you. says:

    I for one hope you’ll continue blogging. I’ve been reading for awhile and have learned plenty.

  13. Janex says:

    As a European who doesn’t use social anything on the web much of this twitter malarkey is lost on me. I come here for your analysis of left icons which has inspired me, in my own inadequate way, to question some here in the UK.

    I already miss the entries you’re not going to post. Ah well.

    • Tarzie says:

      You should continue to keep ignoring Twitter.

      Keep checking in. Probably still blog, but moving onto other topics. I need to look under some different rocks.

  14. Goldfish Training Institute says:

    I know it shouldn’t be a surprise, but it never ceases to amaze me how frightened and threatened the imperialist class is. They’ve got the money, the guns, the CIA, the FBI, the pigs, the judges, the congress, the White House, the U.N., the corporations, and the entire media apparatus, as well as all their paid and unpaid shills, mouthpieces, apologists, enforcers, and water-carriers.

    And yet they never let up. It’s their M.O. We’re bugs to be crushed. Their lieutenants do it for them in all manner of ways. Tarzie’s hitting nerves, now they’re on the offensive.

  15. nicercore says:

    I for one will be thrilled to see you continue writing great blog posts about anything other than the scummy Twitter cesspool of preening, self-mythologizing, corporate fake left careerist dipshits. In contrast to this blog, I haven’t learned ANYTHING from these fuckers, and it fills me with rage to read the shit they’re up to now. FUCK Twitter. Just get off of it and keep writing here. You have a healthy readership and your posts will spread around on their own. I made a Twitter account six or seven months ago precisely because of what I was reading about it on this blog, and ever since then I’ve only checked my feed with the same sense of apprehension, morbid curiosity, and creeping dread with which one gazes at a gruesome traffic accident. FUCK these corporate servants (and the servants of corporate servants) and get back to what you do best.

  16. Celeb Left says:

    Hey, I think you did good work for the most part. I respect that your reasons for hating GG were valid, but since I had no experience with him I could not hate him myself. I also think Andrea is a good person.

    You helped to expose the Molly Crabapple problem, which in my eyes took more courage than anything else you have done. She has much more power than GG, and has gotten hundreds of artists and journalists blacklisted simply for calling her out on her extreme classism and ableism. She is extremely well connected to the 4 major powerhouses that control politics/media which are:

    -GG (yes he is one but only one)
    -Warren Ellis
    -The New School NYC

    I believe it is GG who answers to her and not the other way around. Since her appearance is that of a hip young artist, nobody seems to get it. You are dealing with an extremely high functioning sociopath who is so far right economically, she pretends to be far left because *that is how she makes money since the left is doing well now.*

    So if nothing else, I thank you for your work in helping to expose her. I don’t know anything about the infosec drama. I do know that Crabapple is a horrible person.

  17. davidly says:

    Whatever. Brush ’em off and tune ’em out. Intercept is effectively discredited themselves to a lot more people than began with your humble following and those of the healthy sceptical few others.

    Even if it’s not a fed operation, or the like, the national security state couldn’t’ve wanted it to go so poorly so quickly. It was so useful in funnelling resentment into self-satisfaction. The harassment you’re experiencing still today is just a bitter meltdown. You don’t have to simmer in their cauldron.

  18. luis says:

    I just closed my Twitter acc. this horrible people are not worth it. I learned a lot from reading your blogs and twitter. you are really insightful and no holds barred with truth. Love the Gary Webb piece and the Phillip Agee information. Thank you again

  19. poppsikle says:

    I thought the most interesting part of your post, was where GG laughed with the Impersonation troll they unleashed on you. They are such cowards! they love their trolling so much, they are so clumsy at it though, even as much as they do it, they get so touchy when someone dares to call out their bullshit, LOL.

  20. Tarzie says:

    If I leave this up, Oxy, will you go away?

    What gets into a person that they go to such lengths to vigorously demonstrate what happens when one represses one’s perfectly natural, even laudable, instinct for having a perfectly formed cock shoved in one’s ass for far too long? This is why we can’t allow homophobia to go uncontested. It creates conditions where healthy men turn into people like you.

    At least masturbate, for god’s sakes, you trifling, pathetic little closet wretch.

  21. Tarzie says:

    You really might not be Oxy, since I don’t think he would ever entertain the ludicrous theory that my motive is my lack of access to a field I despise. This is how dipshits see everything, because principles is a concept you find entirely foreign as you have none. You arbitrarily perform adherence to principles to animate your witchhunts. Why would I want access to any field, when everyone knows I’m independently wealthy? You assholes need to get your stories straight.

    Whoever you are, to be lectured on scruples by the likes of you and emoprogarmy and people who concoct ‘anti-semite’ theories from manual retweets is most entertaining.

    If you review the tweet stream, you ass, you’ll note I announced I would blog about it, before the self-appointed, pig poop flinging liberal disciplinarians provided their little “screenshot.” I would have blogged about it in February had I known about it, but I make a point of blocking all this bullshit, including your malicious parody accounts.

    As I said in my post, even if those tweets in that screencap are all mine — and I admit some of them are — the tweet attributed to me is nonetheless a mischaracterization and a deliberately inflammatory lie. I also reserve the right to call creepy creep behavior by the name it deserves, just as so many of you assholes have felt at liberty to asperse me in a thousand and one ways of which ‘Fed’ is but one. I didn’t pick this fight. I just wrote a blog post about a dishonest asshole. Infantilized boobs who need everyone to believe in the same comic book tails they do have been obsessively hating me for it for over a year. Why do you idiots expect me to do anything but loathe you back?

    Aren’t you bored with this shit yet? I am, as well as thoroughly disgusted. Fuck’s sake.

  22. Pingback: ACLU Triptych | The Rancid Honeytrap

  23. Pingback: Corbett Report Interview 989 Pearse Redmond Peels the TOR Onion | Porkins Policy Review

  24. Pingback: James Corbett – The Corbett Report – Interview 989 – Pearse Redmond Peels The TOR Onion – 13 January 2015 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  25. Pingback: PODCAST — Interview 989 – Pearse Redmond Peels the TOR Onion | PN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s