A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

[For the journal (guidelines, focus, etc.), go to www.theamericandissident.org ].
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Friday, October 13, 2017

Alexandra Alter

The Hillary Poets of the Hillary Resistance

Poetry has become very important again, at least according to New York Times hack-journalist-for-the- publishing-and-literary world Alexandra Alter.  In her article, “American Poets, Refusing to Go Gentle, Rage Against the Right,” she quotes a number of Hillary poets, though somehow doesn’t mention Hillary in it.  Under the previous political regime, the poets were conspicuously silent… or rather lap-doggie.  Poet Jane Hirshfield explains: “When poetry is a backwater it means times are O.K. When times are dire, that’s exactly when poetry is needed.”  Yes, everything was wonderful under Obama and yes, somehow poetry will take down he, who Hillary couldn’t.  
Across the nation today, poets have awakened and are walking like groupthink zombies out of the “backwater,” though only partially, because they’re still holding their PC-pens and writing from the confines of their groupthink “backwater” safe-spaces.  They are raging, though not against the poesy establishment, not against the poesy academy chancellors, not against the black poesy laureate autocratically-anointed by the black Librarian of Congress appointed by the former black president, not against the poesy academic gatekeepers—those poesy executive directors of poesy societies and poesy academies and publishers of establishment poesy rags—, not against their well-fed poesy idols usually entrenched in academic sinecures, and not against the inherent corruption in the according of poesy stipends, poesy grants, and poesy tenure slots.  
Most poets couldn’t even fathom questioning and challenging such things and persons.  After all, doing that would mean being free-minded and going against the academic grain, rocking the establishment boat, and bucking the literary system, those giant hands that feed only poets in lockstep.  Not a good poesy-career move at all!  Far too risky!  Far too much individuality required!  
As for the new raging verse, Jeff Shotts, one of those poesy executive editors (Graywolf Press), argues:  “This isn’t just confessional poetry, but poetry that’s meant to stir us into action.”   Action for Hillary, the Prevaricator, once again in 2020?  Action for more Russian-collusion inanity?  Alter informs that the poets are forming part of the Hillary-resistance movement (without mentioning Hillary of course).  Will their icon Maya Angelou step out of her academic cocoon to denounce Trump?  Well, I guess not.  She’s dead.  “There’s going to be a major shift in our poetry,” announced Alice Quinn, yet another of those poesy executive directors.  Poetry Society of America is her fiefdom, you know, that members-only society, where only members can anoint new members. “The poems that I have been reading, which are freshly minted, most of them, have a powerful sense of urgency and reckoning and responsibility,” she stipulates.  Responsibility to speak truth as staunch individuals and to poesy-power figures like her?  Of course not!  
Self-declared gender-free poet Danez Smith, whose verse is used by Black Lives Matter, provides some lines of “urgency and reckoning”:  “on the TV/ is the man from TV/ is gonna be president/ he has no word/ & hair beyond simile/ you’re dead, America.”  Brilliant!  Daring!  Original!!!  Well, apparently Alter must think so.  “We turn to poems in moments of crisis for comfort,” announces Jennifer Benka, yet another of those poesy executive directors.  Yes, poets with lofty titles!  Her fiefdom is the omnipotent Academy of American Poets.  Dare criticize it and be banned forever!  Yes, that’s what happened to me quite a while ago!  Read all about it here!  After all, curiosity didn’t kill the poet, PC-groupthink did that!  Do the Hillary poets care about my banning?  Of course not!
“We’ve seen this spontaneous swell of people coming to read poems that speak to this moment,” says Benka.  Oh, yeah, now they’ll be putting some of those Academy-approved poems in those academic safe-spaces next to the crayons, legos, and teddy bears!  
Alter informs that “Poetry readings around the country have come to resemble leftist political rallies.”  Does she mean the violence and rioting against those with the wrong opinions?  Such rallies are of course not inclusive or at all open to diversity of thought and remind of Stalinist Pravda poetry and of the incarcerated Cuban poets, who could not and did not walk in lockstep with the communist Castro regime, the one praised by, well, you know.
According to Alter:  “Major publishing houses are rushing out their own volumes” of resistance verse.  And yet what is really needed is a drain-the-poesy-swamp movement, not more poesy-swamp- creature empowerment under the guise of resistance.  Alter notes, for example, that Boston Review published “Poems for Political Disaster,” which has a foreword by academic poet laureate, Juan Felipe Herrera, and includes poems by academics Stephen Burt, Monica Youn and Jorie Graham.  Alter, however, does not inform that they are indeed academics and, of course, is incapable of questioning and challenging the poesy establishment.  Her job depends on that incapacity.   All she can do is ahh and ooh before elitist establishment names and titles.  Can she and those establishment poets possibly comprehend the words of Emerson, which inevitably damn them?  I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.”  
Interestingly and again without any manifestation of capacity to question and challenge, Alter notes “But poets tend to be liberal, and the submissions skewed heavily to the left.”  But if the poesy machine is liberal then clearly the poesy machine will be actively suppressing poets not deemed liberal (i.e., of the groupthink PC-mindset).  In other words, in the darkness of suppression, how can one know just how many poets might not be of that liberal-ilk?  
Amit Majmudar, editor of Resistance, Rebellion, Life, a book of 50 poems published by Knopf, argues regarding to his call for submissions:  “I was equally open to an anti-globalization poem as I was to a Trumpocalypse Now poem.”  Was he sincere or would sincerity have eliminated him from being chosen editor?  Likely the latter!  Alter, again mesmerized by “badges and names,” notes poems by former academic poet laureate Robert Pinsky, Eileen Myles, Kevin Young and Solmaz Sharif will be in that volume.  
Finally, most poets shamefully hate and reject vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.  When criticized they will normally remain silent, especially if the critic is not of the known elite-poesy variety, or they will call the critic a “troll” or some other infantile ad hominem, or they will simply respond with vacuous politesse.   Burt chose silence regarding my critical cartoon with his regard, “The Professors—Why Poetry Doesn’t Matter.”  Myles called me a “troll,” regarding the critical cartoon with her regard, “The Poets—Identity Politics, But Still Bourgeois to the Core.”  Majmudar chose the vacuous-politesse option regarding the critical cartoon on him and others, “Poetasters of the Resistance.”  “Thanks for your creative engagement, George! Keep up the good work!”  Oh, yeah.  I’ll try to do that, Mr. Majmudar!  And if he were not a flaming hypocrite, why did he reject my poem, “The Fall of Hillarius, the First,” but publish Frederick Seidel’s poem, “Now”?  “Now a dictatorship of vicious spineless slimes/ We the people voted in has taken over.” […]   Brilliant!  Daring!  Original!   Now, if Alter possessed an iota of “fair and balanced” in her literary reportages, she would have included a counter sentence or even two in her extremely PC-biased article.  Now, which establishment poesy magazine out there would be willing to publish this counter essay?  Not one, of course!  And that constitutes the core flaw embedded in the heart of the lit resistance…

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Hadrien Chénier-Marais

Liberté d'expression—Frapper ou ne pas frapper…  et qui frapper quand on frappe?
To understand America's crises today, one must first understand what has happened to two institutions: the university and the news media. They do not regard their mission as educating and informing but indoctrinating.  [Pour comprendre les crises en Amérique aujourd’hui, il faut tout d’abord comprendre ce qui s’est passé dans deux institutions:  l’université et la presse.  Ils ne considèrent leur mission d’instruire et d’informer mais plutôt d’endoctriner.]    
           —Dennis Prager

Le titre d’un article dans Le Devoir, “Liberté d'expression — Est-ce correct de frapper un nazi?,” a attiré mon attention car il me parait un tantinet aberrant puisque la réponse à la question est archi-évidente. Un meilleur et plus honnête titre, bien que moins politiquement correct, aurait été:  Est-ce correct de silencer (censurer/bannir) les opinions qu’on n’aime pas?  Et donc cela pourrait inclure non seulement le nazisme, mais également le communisme, le socialisme, et surtout l’islamisme.  C’est-à-dire la gauche.  

L’auteur de l’article, Hadrien Chénier-Marais, candidat à la maîtrise, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, témoigne d’un manque d’objectivité sinon d’une certaine indoctrination universitaire anti-droite, pro-gauche.  Il écrit correctement que “la plupart des sociétés occidentales ont limité celle-ci [la liberté d’expression] en excluant certains types de discours, tels les discours haineux ou incitant à la haine.”  MAIS cela ne veut pas dire que c’est donc forcément bien.  Pourquoi pas?  Parce qu’en toute évidence “haineux” et “haine” sont deux termes archi-subjectifs et donc faciles à appliquer à quasiment n’importe quoi.  Si, par exemple, on cite un fait, on pourrait être arrêté, ce qui s’est passé à Paul Weston, qui a simplement cité Winston Churchill vis-à-vis de l’Islam.  On pourrait également être arrêté sous la guise de discours haineux, si on critique, par exemple, la politique d’immigration d’un gouvernement, moyennant l’évocation de faits qui contredisent cette politique.

L’auteur aurait dû quand-même noter que les Etats-Unis constitue une société occidentale importante qui n’a pas adoptée de la législation anti-haine du fait de ce problème de subjectivité. Il stipule que “Cependant, les autorités n’ont pas tendance à punir certains groupes usant de ces rhétoriques…”  Et pourtant la liste des gens qui ont été punis d’une façon ou d’autre est importante et comprend, à part Paul Weston, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer et Pam Geller (interdits en Grande-Bretagne), Sébastien Jallamion, Ezra Levant, Mark Stein, Dan Park, John Salvesen, etc.  Un peu de recherche sur internet révélera sans doute d’autres.  Il faut des statistiques à cet égard!  

L’auteur manque d’objectivité car il note la présence de nazis à Charlottesville, mais ne dit rien sur celle d’Antifa et sa violence.  Il cite “le néonazisme, le suprémacisme blanc et d’autres mouvements de ce type,” mais reste silent vis-à-vis du suprémacisme noir (Nation d’Islam, Panthères  Noirs, BLM) et celle de l’islamisme, ainsi qu’Antifa.  Il y a aussi un certain mouvement anti-blasphématoire vis-à-vis de l’Islam (i.e., anti-liberté d’expression) qui semble être en voie d’augmentation au Québec et dans le reste du Canada. 

L’auteur conclut avec les deux possibles réponses à la question présentée:  oui et non.  Mais pourquoi ne pas rajouter au nom de l’objectivité:  “alors, est-ce correct de frapper un nazi ou un islamiste?  Est-ce correct de frapper un communiste ou socialiste ou antifasciste?”  Finalement, l’auteur devrait sortir de son “safe space” idéologique pour vraiment chercher la vérité.  Recevra-t-il cette suggestion à l’université?  Malheureusement, il ne la recevra pas dans les pages du Devoir car, dans l’esprit d’anti-liberté d’expression, ce journal ne permet que les abonnés commentent les articles…   

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Doug Lederman and Scott Jaschik

Censored Yet Again on Inside Higher Ed

The left has been praying for an event like the one at Charlottesville.  The left sees right-wing Nazis all over the country, and for that cannot see Muslim terrorists at all.  Finally, their prayers were  answered.  Hardcore left-wing ideology inevitably blocks out uncomfortable and unwanted TRUTHS.  What about the anti-white racist Antifa and BLM protesting instigators?  Silence!  Silence by too many shameful journalists!  After all, if the protesting instigators were not present, violence would likely not have occurred in Charlottesville.  Antifa wants violence.  Antifa got violence.  Why is that not reported?  We hear about white supremacists.  But what about the black supremacists?  Silence.  
It is really sad that so many academics like Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University (“Charlottesville, American Tragedy Redux”), prefer hardcore ideology (i.e., indoctrination and consequent censorship) to uncomfortable TRUTHS (i.e., education), including blacks were slaveholders in America; whites were slaves; Muslims are still slaveholders and traders today.  Evoke those facts and be “ad hominized" as racist and islamophobe by the ideologically manacled like McGuire.  Reading the latter's article, one would think 95% of southern whites held slaves.  Instead, the figure is more like 5%.  And what about the blacks who sold the slaves in Africa?  Uncomfortable truths!  Silence!  Censorship!  
“The greatest danger the United States faces today is not from a hostile foreign power, scary though the threats may be, but rather from our own domestic terrorists and those who aid and abet them,” argues McGuire.  That has been the left’s spiel.  And yet statistics likely indicate the greatest danger (besides increasing left-wing ideology and resultant censorship, banning, and other affronts to the First Amendment) to be Islamic jihad terrorism.  So much talk about Hitler, and almost no talk about Stalin and Mao, who had many more people murdered!  Why?  Left-wing ideology!  Moreover, Hitler was a devout left-wing socialist, who the left has been trying to turn into a right-wing conservative.  Mussolini, uber-fascist, was a devout Marxist.  
“We must continue to promote education as the best, perhaps only, means to confront our national tragedy of racism,” concludes McGuire.  Education or rather indoctrination?  Promoting ideology inevitably means demoting TRUTHS, including the other side of Affirmative Action (e.g., unprepared blacks intellectually overwhelmed in college).  What might the result of incessant ubiquitous hardcore focus on racism be?  Certainly, the reality has been the increasing divide among the left and right (and blacks and whites) that resulted from 8 years of Obama.  For the left, increasing Stalinist indoctrination is the only way to somehow solve the racist problem, and that includes heavy and constant emphasis on making all whites feel guilty and all blacks feel victimized.  Will it work?  Let's hope not!   
“Charlottesville was yet another act in a long-running saga of racial hatred, writes Patricia McGuire, and the mobs of white men on the march have made the best possible case for affirmative action,” notes a faceless Inside Higher Ed journalist at the very top of McGuire’s article.  Not very objective for a journalist!  Yes, finally we have “mobs of white men.”  But what about the “mobs of black men” in the past riots from Baltimore to UCal?  Was it put that way?  Of course not!  Journalists are the shame of America today because of their egregious lack of objectivity.  Well, will this comment be censored?  Perhaps…  Thus is the way of higher ed today.  [And unsurprisingly, the comment was censored (i.e., removed after it was posted).]


From: George Slone 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 6:48 PM
To: editor@insidehighered.com
Subject: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education
To Editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Education:  
Perhaps you ought to at least inform people, whose comments are censored on your website, as to why your decisions were made.  Wouldn't that indeed be helpful in the realm of "let's have a conversation," as opposed to "let's not counter the accepted narrative"?   You have censored other comments I'd made over the years and w/o notification or explanation.  Does that sound like democracy to you?  It sure doesn't to me.  In fact, have I been banned from commenting all together?  My censored comment figures below and will be posted on my website with or without your response.  And I do expect no response.

From: George Slone 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:08 PM
To: president@trinitydc.edu
Cc: editor@insidehighered.com
Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

To Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University:
I suspect you are a partisan of censorship of viewpoints you do not like.  If so, that's not very surprising for higher education in this sad day and age of increasing groupthink.  In any event, below is the comment I posted regarding your Inside Higher Education article.  Unsurprisingly, it was censored or moderated as the euphemists like to call it.  And of course it angers me that censorship seems to be the way of higher education today.  But one must still fight on!   You will note, no swear words, no sex, and no threats in it at all.  Ah, but you will also note that it rigorously challenges your assumptions and blindspots.  Thank you for your attention.  BTW, how about getting your library to subscribe to The American Dissident, where your students could actually read and be exposed to such opposing viewpoints.

From: Pat McGuire
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:33 PM
To: George Slone
Cc: editor@insidehighered.com
Subject: RE: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education
Dear Dr. Slone:
Thank you for your message.  However, you are wrong on many counts.  I have nothing to do with the comment moderation of insidehighered.com, but I can tell you that the comment you offer below [above, not below:  "Censored Yet..."] is incoherent and certainly not publishable for that reason.  As for me, you insinuate a lot about me that’s simply not true, but I have learned through long experience that there’s no point responding to such vituperation other than to thank you for letting me know your thoughts.
With best wishes,


From: George Slone
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:58 PM
To: Pat McGuire
Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education
Hi Pat,
Thanks for responding.  I didn't think you had anything to do with censoring out my comment.  BUT I did think you wouldn't care about the comment being censored and would likely not request the two editors not to censor it.  So, I was not really wrong at all on that account.  And at the end of your email, you definitely argued in favor of the censorship incident.  
As far as my comment being "incoherent," how could it possibly have been coherent... for the alt-left?  Also, if it were me, I'd certainly cite an example or two in an effort to back my criticism of lacking in coherence.  You didn't do that.  You simply put forth a general dismissal of all of my comments with one word, "incoherent."  That sort of reaction sadly seems to be widespread amongst academics whenever criticized.  In essence, it is akin to ad hominem.   To argue my comments "not publishable" is really a non-argument, especially when you fail to cite one particular comment that is "incoherent" and thus "not publishable."    
You ought to really contemplate your usage of ad hominem-like argumentation, which is really not a counter-argumentation at all.  It is simply an indirect form of shooting the messenger in an effort to kill his message.  
Why, one must ask, did you purposefully exclude from your article mention of Antifa, which was definitely a part of the Charlottesville problem?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Why didn't you mention that the cops did nothing to quell the confrontation between the right-wing Nazis and left-wing Antifa fascists?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Your article really did fail to evoke a lot of what really happened at the Charlottesville riot.  
What precisely did I insinuate about you personally that was false?  Again, you do not stipulate.  Are you not staunch left-wing?  Thus, I cannot even apologize if indeed I were wrong about that or anything else.  Proven wrong, I have no problem at all admitting it openly.  Do you?  
Your final sentence is typical of far too many academics who hate vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy: "there’s no point responding to such vituperation."  Again, you use another ad hominem-like term, "vituperation," and fail completely to disprove anything at all written in my criticism of your article.  It is a great shame that academics like you and academic journalists like those at Inside Higher Education seem to seek to push only one point of view, while crushing any other viewpoints, including mine, that might question and challenge that point of view.  
Anyhow, thank you for responding.  From my rather lengthy decades-long confrontations with academics across the country, responding is quite rare... and thus I sincerely commend you for it.  BTW, I am a libertarian (i.e., staunch advocate of the First Amendment and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy).  
G. Tod
[No further response received.]

Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman

Permanently Banned from Commenting on Inside Higher Ed?

The times are getting quite Soviet-like!  Inside Higher Ed censored my comments twice in one week.  The Nazis censored!  The Commies censored!  But InsideHigherEd.com doesn't censor.  It moderates!  Might I be permanently banned from commenting?  If so, why?  Sadly, neither editor Lederman or Jaschik will respond to that question.  Sadly, they do not really seem to stand out in the ivory tower, but rather fit right into its mold of correct-think... 

Below is the censored comment I posted to former University of Virginia president Robert M. O'Neil's rather dull opinion piece, "Why Charlottesville"?  And in an effort not to get censored, I self-censored by not using the term "dull," and got censored anyhow.  In 2009, I'd sketched a cartoon on Herr Lederman, though posted it in 2014.  It was inspired by Lederman's passion for censorship.  I guess the lad hasn't yet forgiven me for that horrendous cartoon thought crime...

Perhaps it's time the left, especially academics like Robert M. O'Neil, search for black scientists to celebrate, instead of the tired trope of black ball hitters and players.  Also, the KKK is bad, but BLM is equally bad.  The left needs to open up to TRUTH.  The "far right" AND the "far left" are also "the people."  MissyB, hiding in anonymity, doesn't understand that.  Demonizing Breitbart and Trump does not constitute reasoned argumentation.  Facts do that.  MissyB asks, "When will the far right take responsibility for its incitement of violence?"  Well, the same could be said about the far left!  But successful indoctrination prevents MissyB from making that point.  "Where are all the typical conservative trolls on IHE this morning?" she asks.  [Ah, sweetie, they've been CENSORED!] Calling people "trolls" is also not reasoned argumentation.  Facts are reasoned argumentation.  Focus on a proven lie spouted by an alleged "troll," rather than lazily call the latter "troll."  Now, will I be labeled a right-wing, Nazi "troll"?  Likely!
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident

Friday, August 4, 2017

Kate Ryan

Issue #18                                        Winter/Spring 2009

Editorial Issue #18/ 2009

Against the Established OrderCheck out the new AD blog wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

Given the times, The American Dissident ought to be receiving a lot of submissions decrying corrupt politicians, left and right, corrupt lobbyists, corrupt CEOs, intellectually-corrupt professors and poets, etc.  On the contrary, it does not.  And what it does receive tends to be scribbled by writers who cannot seem to comprehend the journal’s focus and guidelines. Poets, editors, and other writers seem content relegating American literature to mere ornamentation. Guernica: A Magazine of Art & Politics boasts, for example, a blurb from Howard Zinn, but publishes interviews with Pinsky, Hass, Kooser, and others anointed by the established order.  In that light, how could it possibly take my criticism of the National Endowment for the Arts seriously (see pp 30-38)?  “We don't do rants, which is what your piece reads like to me. It's really self-involved and paranoid,” wrote co-editor Joel Whitney, who does not have the guts to publish those who would criticize the NEA, preferring instead to publish self-admitting sellouts like Billy Collins, who states unabashedly:  "Suddenly you're asked to stop looking at specifics—I mean, I write about saltshakers and knives and forks—and talk like a politician.”  Well, I don’t write about saltshakers, nor do I talk like a politician (left or right-wing), therefore I must surely be, in the words of Whitney, “blinded by ego and rage.”  A decade ago, Michael Parenti (Z Mag) simply wrote me: “we’re not interested in literature.”  In retrospect, his statement makes sense.  
          The NEA will not be according The American Dissident public grant monies because its panelists unanimously proclaimed: the “artistic merit of the publication is low; the design and readability of the publication is [sic] poor.”  Some pipedream that was, eh?! In vain, I challenged the NEA on its negative unanimity, asked for precision, and got none at all (read the essay). After all, I’m just a citizen “blinded by ego and rage.”  Clearly, the NEA’s decision was a political one, and such political decisions should not be legal… and perhaps are not, but what the hell can I do against the vast government wall?  
          On a positive note, the Concord Free Public Library allowed me to hold a watercolor display in its art gallery for the month of August. There, I was actually permitted to criticize the local pillars, while advertising The AD.  One curator noted: “The only thing I know is that I have never seen anything like your work in the Gallery.  You don't soothe, you awaken.”  That alone made it worthwhile. I asked curator Nick Capasso of DeCordova Museum to check it out. He did.  “While DeCordova Museum does have a long track record of presenting politically engaged contemporary art, I’m afraid that we will not be able to include your work in our exhibition program. Good luck fining [sic] other venues for your work.”  So, I painted a watercolor depicting him as a Nazi at the gates of the art museum autocratically determining acceptable aesthetics (see p. 3).  He’s depicted in the center of the illustration surrounded by colleagues Kois and Rosenfield.  The pig and hearts actually exist at the museum, which tends to promote, despite Capasso’s assertion, diversionary art that doesn’t question or challenge much of anything at all. Now, when was the last time you’ve heard of an artist satirizing an art curator? The editor wishes to thank subscribers for making The American Dissident possible.  Robbins Library (Arlington, MA) is a new institutional subscriber!  

Friday, June 30, 2017

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Amit Majmudar


From: George Slone
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:57 PM
To: amajmuda@neomed.edu; kevin.young@emory.edu; juan.herrera@ucr.edu; eileenmylesstudio@gmail.com; alison@blueflowerarts.com; nitz@graywolfpress.org; solmazs@stanford.edu

To Amit Majmudar, Editor of Resistance, Rebellion, Life: 50 Poems Now; Eileen Myles; Jane Hirshfield; Kevin Young; Juan Felipe Herrera; and Solmaz Sharif:

A cartoon I just sketched on you and your new book is attached and also published on the internet (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com).  Feel free to comment.  Comments are NEVER censored, uh, moderated.  

Well, Hirshfield’s email address was simply unavailable on the internet.  She is too high up on the elitist literary ladder for a plebe like me to contact.  Like Trump, each of you form part of an elite, quite apart from We, the Plebes.  In your case, it is the literary elite.  

You do not respond to criticism, for you are part of that buffered elite, where not truth, but hagiography, PC, and money constitute the modus operandi.  

Calling me a “troll,” like Eileen Myles did, is certainly not an intelligent point-by-point counter response to the criticism, but rather an indication of being intellectually-challenged.  Myles like you can simply not comprehend anything beyond the hagiographic business-as-usual m.o. of the academic/literary establishment. 

How sad it is that not one literary journal out there, besides the one I publish, would even consider publishing the cartoon or any real criticism of your ilk.  Each of you cower--such great fear of hardcore criticism!!!  

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Linda Sarsour

The front cover and editorial for issue #33 of The American Dissident...

Ideology Trumps Reason
O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.
—Koran 33:59

It seems students in perhaps many universities today are learning to scorn the principles of democracy. And indeed when their professors and academic administrators manifest scorn or at best apathy regarding those principles, how to be surprised?  As an example, my academic bosses, Dr. Gregory Stratman, Dr. Lorna Wheeler, and Dr. Grace Glass, at American Public University System  (American Military University & American Public University) ordered me to cease exercising my purported right to freedom of expression (no threats issued, no prohibited vocabulary used) and refused to provide me with further courses until I’d taken one of their unremunerated, deadly tedious re-education “netiquette” workshops.  Well, I didn’t take the latter and ended up disobeying the order and was thus finally “separated from the university” (their term for fired) after six years teaching for $130 per student head. What I’d done was simply respond to Dr. Dean Givens, a faceless character operating from an unnamed student financial organization, who’d contacted me out of the blue regarding “The few [student] comments I received indicate: sarcasm, racism, bullying, and a ‘flaming’ tone. I urge you to attend a netiquette course immediately.”  So, accused of being a racist bully with a “flaming” tone, I was ordered not to respond!  The irony: the military (and APUS), where absence of free speech, purportedly protects free speech.  Go figure!   

It seems students in perhaps many universities are embracing the inane principle of islamophobia, the fear of Islam. Well, I am definitely islamophobic. The front cover of this issue surely outs me there! Many female students in America celebrate “Wear Hijab Day” in full blissful ignorance that in Iran, for example, females are forced to wear them. When a line of Swedish women with covered skulls walked past Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, UN Watch rightfully called it the “Walk of Shame.” What made it truly shameful was that those women professed to constitute part of the “World’s First Feminist Government”! How aberrant could it possibly get? 
     Standing on the soap box on the front cover is American Muslim national co-chair of the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour, who is openly pro-Sharia Law, which demands not only the head cover, but also submission of females in general.  Islam means submission, not peace.  Now, how did someone like her become a co-chair?  Again, can it get any more aberrant?  Next to her stands  Swedish Trade Minister Ann Linde, who argued: “It is law in Iran that women must wear the veil. One can hardly come here and break the laws.” Some feminist, eh!  Next to her is Swedish Ambassador to Iran Helena Sangeland. On the opposing side is Masih Alinejad, Iran-born journalist in exile in England, who wrote, “By actually complying with the directives of the Islamic Republic, Western women legitimize the compulsory hijab law.” Then depicted is chess champion Nazi Paikidize, who decided against wearing the hijab, thus could not  go to Iran for the Women's World Chess Championship (2017). Kudos to those two women! Not depicted is another heroine, Dorsa Derakhshani, Iranian chess champion, expelled from the national team for refusing to wear the hijab.  Hillary, of course, chose to wear the hijab, but politicians Marine Le Pen (France) and Ingvil Smines Tybring-Gjedde (Norway) refused and thus had their scheduled meetings annulled. Other courageous feminists exist, including Malak Al Shehri (the “Saudi Rosa Parks”), arrested, imprisoned and receiver of many death threats for not covering her head, and Qandeel Baloch, a young Pakistani celebrity, who posted selfies without her head covered, then was strangled to death by her brother in an “honor killing,” who boasted:  “I am proud of what I did. I drugged her first, then I killed her. She was bringing dishonor to our family.”  Hillel Neuer, UN Watch, reasonably argued: “If Sweden really cares about human rights, they should not be empowering a regime that brutalises its own citizens while carrying out genocide in Syria; and if they care about women’s rights, then the female ministers never should have gone to misogynistic Iran in the first place.”  Yes, I am islamophobic!  

On another note, it has been impossible for me to find literary/art magazines willing to publish any of the critical essays or cartoons I create with the exception of Global Free Press, an online Canadian journal. Otherwise, upsetting editors with uncomfortable truths has in fact become my modus operandi: writing or sketching what I know won’t get published, and not because of some fault in the forme, but rather in the fond (substance). And yet I continue probing, as the Literary Letters section at the end illustrates (please do send letters!). And I continue presenting futile challenges like the following to Matt Gill, editor of Cape Cod ART because, well, that’s what I do.

Why not, for example, include just one little page at the end of Cape Cod ART devoted to rare artists on Cape Cod who criticize the art establishment, including you? Or how about 1/8th of a page?  Get my drift? Yours is likely the same “absolutelynot’ism" found in poetry and writing magazines across the country, not to mention newspapers. 

Futile? Of course! I’d sent three of my aquarelles to the guy… and likely he  and the other art judges knew the local pillars of Cape Cod satirized in them. So, why bother? Well, bothering, as mentioned, has become my principle inspiration for writing and sketching.  Well, the guy actually responded, and we had a short back and forth. He terminated the “dialogue” with some compliments:  
Excellent points made in this letter.  I admire your convictions!  I do see the irony of phrases and philosophies such as "all the arts for all of us," and then, yet, there's exclusion. However, I cannot take on that particular battle on this particular day (day off). 
    Of course, his last sentence was bullshit, obfuscating the real reason: he who seeks to keep job and climb the ladder must not “take on that particular battle” on any day, off or on.  Period.  And that was the last I heard from him.  BTW, I voted AGAINST Hillary and didn’t care if Hitler himself were running against her.
For Blind Followers and Hack Surrogates
Trump is a businessman and now a politician.  
He is thus a Machiavellian, not a truth teller.  
He is like Obama and all those who preceded him.  Like it or not! 

Regarding my Sturgis Library battle, I recently engaged in a rather fruitful dialogue de sourds with the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, James LaRue. Yes, Orwellian definitely comes to mind! Thought-poems created from the ashes of that battle appear on p47. Kudos to John Lauritsen (p10) and David Seidemann (p37) for also creating from the ashes of their particular battles with the establishment!  In any case, everything we humans do, including such battle, is but a diversion away from the reality awaiting each of us: the Black Hole Abyss…    

Wanted: Pro-bono legal assistance. The editor has no civil rights in Barnstable, MA, where he lives, and would be arrested and incarcerated if he attempted to attend a political or cultural event held at Sturgis Library, his neighborhood library.  No due process or trial took place.  The post-facto justification for the permanent banning was “for the safety of the staff and public.” Yeah, dangerous!

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Elayne Tobin

Individualism is the enemy of collectivism and vice versa.
—P. Maudit

When criticized, the academic/literary establishment was all so predictable—the inevitable deafening silence.  Partisans of the establishment overwhelmingly rejected vigorous debate regarding their openly expressed thoughts and ideas.  When a rare partisan responded, she or he would inevitably not respond to the counter arguments put forth, but rather employ an arsenal of unoriginal epithets.  
My creativity, as a cartoonist, was more often than not provoked by comments devoid of reason, replete with vacuity.  One such comment stemmed from an open letter in the Washington Square News, the student newspaper of “elite” New York University, penned by members of the collectivist Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group.  Even Orwell couldn’t have made up a better name for it.  A more honest name would have been Collectivist Studies Uniformity, Inequity and Exclusion Working Group.  But academe alas was not known for honesty.  
The open letter was written to castigate Michael Rectenwald, an untenured NYU Clinical Assistant Professor of Liberal Studies, whatever that might entail.  Rectenwald had made anti-PC comments on the internet.  Oddly, he argued he was not right-wing but rather “left communist.”  Go figure!  No matter.  What grabbed my attention was the following statement made in the open letter:  

“We fully support Professor Rectenwald’s right to speak his mind and we welcome civil discourse on the issues that concern him. But as long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas. The cause of Professor Rectenwald’s guilt is certainly not, in our view, his identity as a cis, white, straight male. The cause of his guilt is the content and structure of his thinking.” 

First, I contacted Rectenwald, asking if he’d write a short essay for The American Dissident.  He chose not to respond.  After all, he was a tenure-tracker, seeking to climb up the establishment ladder and into a professional safety cocoon.  The idea for a cartoon then materialized, and I began sketching.  When I finished the cartoon, I sent it off to Editor-in-Chief Alex Bazeley and Managing Editor Bobby Wagner of the student newspaper.  Unsurprisingly, neither responded.  Such editors usually proclaimed independence while simultaneously being in lockstep with their journalist professors, and otherwise quite dependent on the thought-pabulum dished out at their respective universities.  
Next, I posted the cartoon, “In the High Court of Civility,” on The American Dissident blog site and sent notice to the targets depicted in it.  Because of space limitations, I did not sketch student Working Group members Asha Kuziwa, Felipe Gomes, Marsha Ho, and Tiger Kneller, though did include mention of their names at the bottom of the cartoon.  My email was the following:  

To NYU Professors et al of the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group (i.e., Suzanne Maria Menghraj, Sean Eve, Robert Squillace, Marion Thain, Elayne Tobin, Jonathon White, Hannah Pingelton and Michael Rectenwald): 
A new cartoon depicting each of you was just posted on The American Dissident blog site (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com).  About a week ago, I wrote to Prof. Rectenwald, hoping he might submit an essay RE his current battle with PC-academe.  He chose NOT to respond.  Likely, he is now cowering with regard to his career as a lifer academic.  So be it.  I then contacted the editor-in-chief of the Washington Square News.  He did NOT respond.  It seems to be the norm nowadays that such editors tend to be in lockstep with reigning professors, while, of course, boasting independence.  With his regard, I could be wrong.  Maybe he’ll respond in a week or maybe two or maybe next year.  Alas, VIGOROUS DEBATE tends NOT to be a cornerstone in most corners of academe.  Feel free to respond and even post your comments on the blog site.  Comments are NEVER censored.  I do not bite!  But I do tickle.  Nevertheless, my long experience with academics like you leads me to assume not one of you will respond.  BTW, it was the mind-numbing statement repeated in the cartoon that grabbed my full attention.  How not to question and challenge such inane statements?  Enjoy!   

A sketch at the bottom of “Literary Letters for the Public Record” appearing in each issue of The American Dissident features P. Maudit fishing and catching an academic on a hook.  Now, how not to think of that sketch when Clinical Assistant Professor of Liberal Studies Elayne L. Tobin responded?  

Dear George,
The Working Group was echoing Mr. Rectenwald's claims that he was "guilty of being a cis white male”—I assume before you posted this you read his original interview with the University newspaper, the Washington Square News, right? As a writer, I assume you did that? 
If not, here is the paragraph from the interview:
WSN: Could you talk a little about your thoughts on the entire push for diversity in general then?
MR: A cis, white, straight male like myself is guilty of something. I don’t know what. But I’m fucking sure I’m guilty of it. And I am very low on the ethical totem pole, you know? People who are doing different things, it’s like, “we are the most precious souls,” you know? The most beleaguered are the best, and the worst is the best. So there’s a one-downmanship that goes on. I despise it for the status seeking, the seeking after the most oppressed people position status that it involves, which is just utterly and completely eradicates any possibility of solidarity. But one thing I want to make clear is that I am not against diversity. What I’m against is the policing of identity that’s going on — the policing of behavior with reference to diversity. I’m not against diversity. I’m against the university using diversity as an ideology to make themselves look ethical..
Also, you are naming 18 and 19 year old students in this cartoon. Most of whom are minorities. You want to do that in a magazine about dissent? When they were actually dissenting? Free speech goes both ways. You say something and someone can say something back. That is how it works, as you know.
I am speaking for myself, not the Working Group. I want to make this clear. They are smart, empathetic people who I am sure will have their own responses, or not.
Mr.Rectenwald is on a paid leave that he requested.
And I am respectful of Cuba, unlike you. I have no idea what your site is about in general, except nastiness and the bizarre "tickling" comment.
Thanks, but not very much, for the head's up. I stand with these people.
Dr. Elayne Tobin

From there, the two of us engaged in what the French term a dialogue de sourds.  However, I responded to every point Tobin made, while she chose not to respond to any points I made.  Perhaps that sums up the new academic modus operandi.  
In my response, I congratulated Tobin for actually responding, while noting my doubts that any of her colleagues would also respond.  And indeed not one of them ever did.  And of course I had read the interview and had not found an iota of illogic or incivility in the paragraph she presented from it.  But then I was not one who looked through ideological glasses.  And logic would never/could never be the forte of an ideologue.  I noted I would have taken it much further than Rectenwald, as in eliminate the costly diversity ideology centers with their overpaid deans of diversity that served to indoctrinate, not educate, and replace them with First Amendment centers that would educate students on the importance of freedom of speech and expression and vigorous debate.  One would be hard-pressed to find just one university in America with such a center and equally hard-pressed to find just one university without a diversity center.  Sadly, academe and academics had a strong monkey-see, monkey-do tendency.  Tobin of course ignored my comments.  
Now, the sentence that had provoked my satirizing of Tobin and her group was, as noted above:  “But as long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas.” 
The “civil exchange of ideas” was of course code for mandatory groupthink.  Criticize the group and be judged uncivil.  The growing emphasis on civility in academe was a thinly-veiled anti-free speech ploy.  Why Tobin could not see that was easily explained by her position and ideology.  
Regarding Rectenwald’s request for a paid leave of absence, I would have thought such a request would be very difficult to obtain.  The norm would be that administrators dictate the paid leave because of unwanted controversy.  In fact, that happened to me once upon a time.  Moreover, I asked Tobin why she referred to Rectenwald as Mr. rather than Dr.  After all, he did possess a doctoral degree and she signed her email with Dr. because she had a doctoral degree.  Might that be subtle “nastiness” on her part?  
If Tobin were so respectful of Cuba, then she evidently did not respect that most basic of human rights, freedom of speech and expression.  Cuba was a dictatorship.  Poets and artists were in jail in Cuba for having simply expressed themselves openly.  Thousands and thousands of Cuban citizens had fled Cuba because of the ruthless Castro dictatorship.  For a writer, Tobin certainly did not seem to care about them or the absence of freedom of expression in Cuba!  Of course, when I brought those things to her attention, she did not address them. 
Furthermore and unsurprisingly, Tobin did not seem to understand what free speech encompassed. Her statement on the students, bizarre in itself, emphasized that lack of understanding:  “Also, you are naming 18 and 19 year old students in this cartoon. Most of whom are minorities. You want to do that in a magazine about dissent? When they were actually dissenting? Free speech goes both ways. You say something and someone can say something back. That is how it works, as you know.”
So, if someone were dissenting, then I shouldn’t question and challenge that person?  How aberrant!  And if that someone were 18 or 19, then I should give him or her a pass?  How aberrant!  How did that possibly jive with the concept of free speech?  Were minorities somehow exempt from questioning and challenging?  Oddly, Tobin evidently thought they should be.  
An 18 or 19-year old student was no longer a child, but officially/legally an adult.  Whether or not those students were minorities was immaterial.  Why should minorities be treated differently… and like children?  Was Tobin against equality?  If those students wanted to be safe and cocooned, they should not have joined her Working Group and become signatories of an open letter.  Surely, Tobin could agree with that.  But she didn’t.  
Tobin’s ”nastiness” comment served to deflect away from my message by killing the messenger. Aberrantly, she dismissed the entirety of The American Dissident website, which was composed of numerous pages, including essays by Thoreau, Emerson, Orwell, and Solzhenitsyn, as well as poems by Villon, Lorca, Mandelstam, Neruda, and Cuban dissident Raul Rivero.  Were they "nastiness"?  Tobin would not stipulate.  Moreover, without precise examples to back such a general “nastiness” criticism, it became meaningless.  
Regarding my “tickle” comment, well, it was clearly meant to be humorous.  Tobin would not specify why she thought it was “bizarre.”  Well, I did not expect responses to any of those questions because I’d be surprised if Tobin had any logical retort to offer, besides the “nastiness” non-argument.  Perhaps somebody should judge Tobin guilty of “illogic and incivility” and not for having contravened the ivory-tower community modus operandi but rather for having contravened that of the freedom-loving community beyond the tower walls.  Tobin responded with another non-response.  

George, some of what you say I agree with, some things I vehemently disagree with and find quite knee-jerk, frankly. I didn't think the Working Group's letter was perfect, but then, nothing ever is. I simply can't talk about employee issues in any detail here, as it is not my realm nor my right. 
You can assume what you will, but your journalistic knowledge about this is, of course, severely and problematically limited by your lack of knowledge about the specifics. Painting Michael Rectenwald like some sort of religious martyr in the cartoon seems odd, at the very least. He claimed he was "guilty" in the most desperate and straw man way. He has been given all the benefits of employment at an elite university. You know nothing about our program and are distinctly out of line with the facts of the situation.
I am sorry you were asked to take paid leave once, but that only sours me to your objectivity on this issue.
As does your bio:
G. Tod Slone, aka P. Maudit (cartoonist sobriquet), is the founding and sole editor of The American Dissident, which was created in 1998 as a direct result of the corruption experienced first-hand at Fitchburg State University in Massachusetts (see genesis).  At that institution, I was a tenure-track professor of French and Spanish.  After arbitration hearings during my fifth year overwhelmingly pointed to intrinsic institutional corruption, I was offered a year's salary as settlement, but not further employment and, of course, no apology whatsoever. 

Many personal conflicts and events helped to form my critical nature and passion for the First Amendment. The following include a small sample of them. 

—Permanent trespass w/o due process from McKay Campus (Fitchburg State) due to the complaint of one professor, friend of chairperson DeCesare who wanted me out, that she was afraid of me 
—Three-month Trespass w/o due process from Watertown Free Public Library due to the complaint of the reference librarian (one hell of an uptight bitch!) 
—My arrest and incarceration in a Concord jail cell for a day for having had a non-violent dispute with a Walden Pond State Reservation Park ranger
—Permanent trespass from Sturgis Library due to written criticism of Lucy Loomis, its fascistic director (another hell of an uptight bitch!) 

But good luck With your cartoon and article.  I had never heard of your publication before, and probably won't again. Maybe I am, your words, "An uptight bitch"?

Then came a brief PS.  

Also I just found this [from The American Dissident website], so now I am laughing out loud at your free speech arguements [sic] and your cartoon, mocking us as a "J'accuse" Centered group.  

Public Citizen has been publishing a list of questionable doctors. In vain, I've requested that it also publish a list of dubious professors and college administrators. After all, public higher education shapes the very soul of the nation. At Fitchburg State College, a list of those apathetic to truth and justice ought to be topped by presidents Riccards and Mara, Dean Shirley Wagner, Emeriti Semerjian and DeCesare, former Director of Personnel Mary Scott, former Director of Academic Advising Joan Niehaus, former Dean of Continuing Education Michele Zide (who had been evaluating her teaching husband, a local judge), Professors Nan Wiegersmeier, Charlie Hetzel, Jane Fiske, Louis Lorenzen, Robert Champlin, Robin Dinda, Carol Sickul, James Colbert, Walter Jeffco, Richard Glidewell, and Maria Jaramillo. The list ought also include the lawyers and administrators of the MSCA professors' union (part of the all-powerful Massachusetts Teachers Association, which is part of the National Education Association), The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, The Sentinel, The Concord Journal, The Worcester Telegram, Thought & Action, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Adjunct Advocate, Lingua Franca, Academe, College English, as well as former Poet Laureate of the US Congress Robert Pinsky and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, both Fitchburg State College graduation speakers who preferred collecting their big taxpayer-paid speaking fees to responding to my correspondence regarding the corrupt administration inviting them. 

Now, should I be surprised that Tobin would be laughing out loud regarding the diverse injustices listed on my website?  Not in the least!  Her academic career depended on her having that kind of pitiful reaction.  I hadn’t thought of adding her to that list of dubious professors because I’d forgotten it even existed.  I’d composed it in the 1990s.  And again, Tobin essentially and unsurprisingly ignored the precise points I’d made in my response.  What points she found to be lacking in objectivity she, of course, did not mention.  I do not knee-jerk respond.  In fact, I carefully proofread and contemplate my correspondence prior to sending it.  She would not state on what precisely she agreed with me.  
Oddly, I hadn’t thought of the “martyr” aspect at all.  The main thought was the JUDGES.  I did not consider the inquisition idea.  I did NOT view Rectenwald as a martyr.  Not in the least!  If I had had the martyr thought, I would have depicted him in chains and dressed Tobin and the others as holy inquisitors.  Instead, I simply had them all wearing the chevroned regalia.  Again, my critique was focused on the Working Group statement, not on Rectenwald.  That was clear, though evidently foggy for Tobin.  
The items listed from my bio certainly helped turn me into an individual who questioned and challenged what perhaps most people did not have the courage to do, let alone the thought or interest.  My college degrees certainly did not form me in that sense.  From those events (i.e., listed items), I obtained so much grist for my creative writing mill:  poems, essays, plays, a couple of novels, hundreds of cartoons and aquarelles.  A dissident was always formed by conflicts with power.  Tobin would not/could not understand that because rather than question and challenge power, she instead chose to be part of power.  Only when one tested the waters of power and democracy did one truly come to realize just how murky they tended to be.  
Regarding my use of the term “bitch” to characterize library director Loomis, I was very much against ad hominem, though in that instance it was clearly not simple ad hominem because the case for labeling Loomis a “bitch” was presented in full detail.  Ad hominem was really the use of such terms with little if any backing at all.  It served to kill the messenger in a clear effort to avoid the message.  That was not what I did.  Loomis was someone who could not take any criticism of her little library fiefdom.  She hated free speech and hated due process, two vital cornerstones of democracy.  I wasn’t surprised Tobin had chosen to focus on the “bitch” comment and didn’t give a damn that someone could be banned for life from his neighborhood library without due process and for the crime of having written a critical open letter devoid of prohibited vocabulary, sexual innuendo, and physical threats.  Tobin’s pathetic reaction was typical apathy.  
Clearly, Tobin had never heard about The American Dissident because it was next to impossible for me to interest gatekeeper librarians like those at her university to subscribe to it and thus heed the ALA’s library bill of rights, as in “libraries should provide material and information presenting all points of view.”  That statement formed an integral part of Loomis’ collection development statement and was the focus of my open letter.  Why was Tobin so indifferent to that?  Well, she wouldn’t say.  
The academic/literary establishment hated criticism with its regard.  As for college libraries, normally I had to find a professor willing to suggest the journal to the college librarian.  Now, finding an open-minded professor willing to counter the taboo on vigorous debate and diversity of opinions was next to impossible nowadays.  Since founding the journal in 1998, I’d managed to bump into one such professor.  And I’d contacted so many, many of them.  Also, Poets & Writers magazine and NewPages.com amongst others refused to even list the journal.  Also, the NEA and state cultural councils refused to accord it any grants, despite its 501c3 nonprofit designation.  Institutional subscribers, however, did include New York Public Library, Concord Free Public Library, as well as Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Buffalo, and Brown universities.  Tobin would not respond to any of those things.  
Again back to the “bitch” deflection ploy, I would not call Tobin an “uptight bitch.”  However, I would call her an ideologue who didn’t give a damn about the principles of democracy.  That would be much more appropriate… and civil.  Also, she evidently placed career on a much higher pedestal than bold truth telling.  For those inflicted with ideological indoctrination, fact and reason were immaterial. 
And thus Tobin wrote her final non-response, addressing little if anything at all addressed in my responses, and manifesting total lack of appreciation for debate.   

Sorry, but don't have the time or inclination to respond to you anymore. Not because of my career, or because you call women "bitches" with crazy frequency ( a simple Google search reveals this, to answer your origin question), but mainly because my gut politics that say you are a nutcase, and my intellectual instincts say, given the hilarious ironies of each thing I read from you, that you are just not worth arguing with. It is a waste of my time, entirely.

Well, the crux of the Rectenwald controversy at NYU was debate and free speech.  Tobin and her Working Group wanted to turn both cornerstones off.  Period.  I did not have the habit of dismissing women with whom I disagreed with the term “bitch.”   Yes, I called one woman a “bitch.” And now and then I might have used the term.  How nonsensical of Tobin to turn that into “you call women ‘bitches’ with crazy frequency.”  How the hell did she come up with that one?  I did not hate women.  Did Tobin hate men?  When reason failed, employ ad hominem!  That’s something I never did.  Now and then I might include ad hominem but always accompanied with reason.  I spoke freely. Tobin spoke PC-career and ideologically.  There was a world of difference between the two.  I sought truth; she sought ideological compatibility.  Sadly, she refused to even contemplate the reality that careerism was inevitably a muzzle on free thought and speech.  
She labeled people who disagreed with her ideologically mind-forged manacles, to use Blake’s term, “nutcase.”  How original!  I’ll have to add that to the list.  When one couldn’t out-reason an opponent, just call him a “nutcase.”  Demonization 101 was the course Tobin should be teaching. Was calling me a “nutcase” any different from my calling Loomis a “bitch”?  Well, yes, because I included plenty of reason to justify the latter, whereas Tobin did not regarding the former.  Tobin’s evoking my "bitch" comment clearly served to deflect away from Loomis’ misdeeds.  One word, “bitch,” eliminated any intellectual curiosity on Tobin’s part to examine the evidence put forth.  One word, “bitch,” enabled her to remain in her intellectual safe-space cocoon.  Beware the Word Police are out there! Well, I for one would not be intimidated by them.  In fact, using prohibited vocabulary now and then served to fight against the dictates of the Word Police.  
Tobin failed miserably to provide any cogent examples to back her assertions.  She failed to respond to the points made, for example, about her treating 18-19 year old minority students as children, who had to be protected from free speech.  Intellectual discussion was not a waste of time, unless of course one was on the intellectual-losing side.  Well, it was fun while it lasted.  I informed Tobin that our “dialogue de sourds” would appear in the next issue of The American Dissident and told her to check it out next April at the New York Public Library.  Sadly, NYU’s student newspaper would never publish it!  Moreover, I knew I had the legal right to use her emails.  I’d already checked.                                                  
Furthermore, unlike academic literary journal editors, I not only brooked criticism, but encouraged and published the harshest received with my regard and that of The American Dissident in each and every issue.  I suggested she walk down to the New York Public Library and request the librarian to cancel the subscription because she was offended and so nobody can read it at that library.  That’s the kind of thing the Tobins tended to do, wasn’t it?  Shut people up with whom they did not agree.  Wasn’t that what she and her Working Group wanted to do regarding Rectenwald?  And thus I concluded in my email response:

These things said, I am not in the least bit angry or surprised by your responses and non-responses.  I’ve had much experience with academics like you over the past several decades.  Unlike you, I found our “conversations” intellectually stimulating.  I always find such “conversations” stimulating.  Attached, I include another such "conversation" I had a few years ago with another ideologically-manacled female.  It forms part of my manuscript, “Dissident X—Conversations with the Established Order and Other Parodias de Discursos and Diálogos con Sordos.”  Perhaps you could help me find a publisher?  And, oh my, I hope I didn't use the word "bitch" in it...