The Self-Besotted Philosopher and other political nuttery at Only Sky

Yes, that's you, Jonathan M.S. Pearce. That is, if it's not The Self-Besotted Asshole.

As I told him on Twitter a month ago, his insistence that I had to watch one of his three different daily videos on geopolitics to really understand the Russia-Ukraine war came off like History for Atheists' Tim O'Neill insisting years ago that I had to listen to his podcast.

They're peas on a pod to a fair degree, only Pearce's asshole stretches wider.

This is an expansion of a post about the ongoing nuttery of Gnu and semi-Gnu Atheism at Only Sky, from a month ago.

Specifically, I got into a Twitter spat with him over that post.

And in that post, I linked this: "Putin's Russian sacrifice at the Chinese altar." It's a compendium of modern Western imperialist stances against both countries, something any Nat-see Nutsack, per a term at my main blog, would love.

And, yes, the political bothers me as does the Gnu or semi-Gnu Atheism. Especially given, per one of my previous blog posts, with this link, Pearce is already a documented Islamophobe. As does the fusion of secular humanism and atheism I noted a year ago. None of that is likely to change. (Sadly, Patheos totally 86-ed all atheist blogs when chasing away said bloggers; the Wayback Machine may have them, but maybe not.)

Spanky has since told me all about his separate "channel" for geopolitics and talked about a genocidal dictator. I trumped him with the 2014 Odessa genocide, which he didn't directly refute, the Amnesty International report on Ukrainian war crimes, reading Ivan Katchanovski and more.

He came back with a shitload of shit. After again saying watch my videos he came on with smears. Said I was being a Putin apologist. Called Katchanovski a "Kremlin apologist," and cited this blog with his name on it, full of post-Maidan smears and half truths, plus the Bulwark, as proof. Claimed, contra his OnlySky piece, that he does actual complexity on this issue. Said the AI piece was controversial.

I called him out on the straight smears. Called him out on his "complexity" claims being hypocritical. Said I knew AI had been called controversial and knew by who and why. Muted and exited Twitter convo.

And, since then, I see he's hoist by his own lying petard. A January piece has him openly calling this a proxy war (a rare bit of honesty in his take on something), and going on to say "we" must win this.  

The piece is also disgustingly anti-Kantian, talking about NATO wargaming via Ukraine, etc. In other words, fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian used as an object.

And, late last year, he showed himself in one piece to be both a conspiracy theorist and also either a liar or ignorant about past years of history of Russia-Belarus relations. In fact, on his conspiracy theory, two months later, Belarusian opposition leaders, who would have reason to stoke a Putin poisoning if it happened, admitted Belarussian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei was a suicide.

And, since you claim to be a philosopher, you want me to watch your videos knowing you wrote THAT?

That said, beyond his Western imperialist blatherings, there's nothing worth reading in Only Sky's whole "war and peace" vertical. M.L. Clark doesn't say anything wrong on Israel, but she doesn't say anything you couldn't find in The New Republic 3 years ago, in The Nation 5 or more, and in Counterpunch 20 years ago. Daniel Sharp claiming the Iraq War was worth it is of course monging for neoconservativism. Andrew Fiala, in arguing for a war crimes tribunal, does admit that Ukraine has committed an apparent violation or two, and then goes on to talk about My Lai and Abu Ghraib trials. Both were actually laughable. The people giving orders generally escaped trial, and even those following them generally got off lightly. Why? The US was trying itself, of course. Interesting that Falia does NOT talk about Slobodan Milosevic being in the ICC dock. Nor does he talk about the hypocrisy of the US not being an ICC signatory. Nor, beyond torture of Iraqis and other war crimes, does Fiala talk about US use of depleted uranium. Let me introduce you to Joshua Frank on that subject.

And, with that, that's enough wasted for many months. The only thing to add is that this is again proof that atheism and secular humanism aren't necessarily the same thing.

No, let me add one other thing.

In that previous post, I misspelled his last name. (I had gotten it correct in previous posts.) He called me out on Twitter. I apologized, said I would correct it, and did. Never a thank-you back.

Self-Besotted Philosopher, or Asshole.

Per Pierce's comment below, and my reply, let's go to this tweet:

What a bizarre situation when someone (@real_gadfly) is incredibly rude about you in a public piece, and when I mention he's spelled my name wrong, then adds a further insult at the end for me not thanking him for correcting my name?!?! How bizarre. (I hadn't even checked back.)

— Jonathan MS Pearce (@ATipplingPhilo) May 21, 2023

Going beyond whether I was rude or not, he doesn't engage with the facts on the ground. Being a conspiracy theorist on Russia-Ukraine issues right there means his opinions on anything associated with the war deserve discounting.

Openly admitting this is a proxy war, plus his Islamophobia? Calls into account any claim of his to be a secular humanist.

And, per my comment below, he utters a shitload of smears on Twitter then accuses me of being rude? 

Tell this to your Jason Boyd fanboi. Or is it sock puppet with 33 following, 0 followers, no tweets, and only replies apparently being to you.

As for Boyd? 

Once a legend always a legend..being rude is ignorance.
Ignore it.

— Jason Boyd (@jboyd49642) May 21, 2023

Since I'm not ignorant, then I'm not rude! Thanks! You're also right on JMSP being a "legend," but probably not in the way he meant it.

Update, June 27: I'm sure JMSP and others at Only Sky are, like US-UK mainstream media and Nat-sec Nutsacks, gloating triumphally over the non-coup (as in, it was a mutiny, not a coup) of Yevgeny Prigozhin and claiming this means Russia is about to fall apart. They'd be wrong.