When addressing Martin Rayner (aka the fallaciously-pseudonymed "Red Tory"), one has always had to appreciate his unique talent for living in a fantasy world.
He imagines himself to be an "intemperate" -- yet jumps on the back of every inflated pseudo-controversy he can find. He pretends to be an "original thinker" -- yet echoes the hateful bile offered by his lord and master at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink. He pretends to be an intellectual -- then stalwartly refuses to ever debate a real issue.
Writing from a personal note, I recieved a rather unique birthday present today -- a tacit admission from Martin Rayner that he simply isn't up to the task of actually debating an issue:
"So let me get this straight. You write long, pretentious articles and post them on a shitty, broke-ass little blog that precious few people read and nobody comments on, then you skitter over here and start name-calling.
I think you should seek some counseling. Or better yet, get a life? a girl/boyfriend, or whatever. Guess there's not much shakin' out there in Saskatchewan, huh?
Go pester someone who gives a shit.
p.s. You're banned. I don't have time for your bullshit."
Apparently, debating real issues is "bullshit". So what if thousands upon thousands of aboriginal Canadians continue to live in desperate, griding poverty on reserves despite the billions of dollars the federal government spends per annum to try and alleviate it?
Better to call Pierre Poilievre a douchebag for even daring bring up the idea that maybe, just maybe, money isn't enough to solve that problem.
And if someone dares challenge you to discuss the real issue -- the poverty, and the people living in it -- well, fuck that. Fuck them. Better to turn your back on those thousands of people living in poverty than to ever dirty your hands ever talking about how to solve that problem.
Instead, Rayner tramples the very principles he claims to stand for, and does so while other people suffer under the blight of an issue that he insists we dare not even talk about.
It's really almost a shame. But if Martin Rayner wants to live as a chariacture of his own personal fantasies, no one's ever going to stop him from doing that.
What more do you expect of a guy who deleted the previous incarnation of his blog lock, stock and barrel?
You certainly don't expect a discussion of facts. We're reminded that this is an individual who thinks that facts are below him, and dispenses with them whenever at all possible.
Take, for example, the old topic of the Nexus' readership. Marty insists that nobody reads the Nexus. Yet the facts state otherwise.
That's an awful lot of "nobodies". But then again, who needs facts when you have ideology?
Who needs to actually adhere to the principles of the noble tradition of red toryism when you can simply trample it to death while insisting that you don't need to behave like a red tory if you can only claim you embody that tradition?
It's hard to feel bad about being banned from the website of an individual who has built up his blog and his reputation off hatemongering, intellectual dishonesty, intellectual laziness, and outright philosophical fraud.
If Marty thinks that banning me from his halsoscan will change anything he's dead wrong.
At the Nexus, I'll always be here. And I'll never stop pointing out every fallacy and dishonesty offered by Martin Rayner. If he wants to indulge his fantasies within the comfort of the Martin Rayner/Canadian Cynic echo chamber of politically-motivated hatred, he's certainly free to do that.
It's more than merely a personal hobby -- it's a public service.
Great post. I can't stand the Red Tory. Everyday he posts something ridiculous about America and Conservatives and tries to embarass everyone he disagrees with on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteMartin Rayner is a perfect example of why Liberals are nothing but a bunch of goofballs.
P.S ( i will be visiting your site daily thanks to that douchebag Martin Rayner.)
PR:
ReplyDeleteYou do not debate. You spew invective. Of course we all do from time to time, but you more so than most.
If you don't like Red Tory, then stay away. Seems like an easy enough choice to make.
In the final analysis, the "new conservatism" is merely Grant's prophecy about liberalism and the demise of Canada coming to fruition.
Now, please trot-out your stock rebuttal which will feature the tiresome:
(1) "Careful Aeneas, you are no better - and perhaps worse - than the rest of us" - implied is the threat that I will become your next target;
(2) Choice mandates the existence of free-exchange - no matter how noxious, and anyway "how is Rayner's banishment of PR an example of free discourse," and "Martin Rayner is a hypocrite."
(3) And then something along the lines of: "pretentious twat, who cares about Grant anyway ..."
YAWN.
For what it's worth I like your blog Pat...it's a daily read but I lurk and don't post..that should change if you're so inclined.
ReplyDeleteNow about this thing with Martin Rayner. Personally, he bores me for all the reasons you have cited and the fact that this type of retrograde indoctrinated Turtle Bay evangelist are a dime a dozen in cyber space...you read one you read them all...they all come from the same ideological clone factory remember...deviation is not allowed....they all have an industrial drum of "blue pills" to keep their virtual reality real.
That said, I can think of far more interesting things to obsess over than the daily fecial deposits of one dimensional intellectually mastrubating diaper-douches like Martin Rayner.
Move on to something more interesting cyber commies bore me.
"You do not debate. You spew invective. Of course we all do from time to time, but you more so than most."
ReplyDeleteNonsense, Aeneas. You know entirely different than that.
"If you don't like Red Tory, then stay away. Seems like an easy enough choice to make."
I see no reason to allow miscreants like Martin Rayner to continue taking gratuitous dumps on a noble political tradition.
If you, yourself, as a self-proclaimed red tory are, then that's your sad issue to deal with. Personally, I'm simply not.
"In the final analysis, the "new conservatism" is merely Grant's prophecy about liberalism and the demise of Canada coming to fruition."
Nonsense. The only Canada about to meet its demise is the fictitious Canada that thousands of Canadians were taught existed, yet never really did.
Did you never stop to wonder precisely why the Reform party crept up on Canadian politicians so quickly? Did you never stop to consider where that came from?
I'm sure you'd like to suggest, like various other individuals, that there was something un-Canadian about that party, and that there remains something un-Canadian about the modern Conservative party.
Yet approximately 30% of Canadians remain regular supporters of that party.
I think Brooke Jeffrey described this derision at its utmost arrogance when she insisted that the "new conservatism" (as you yourself describe it) violated the "post-war Liberal consensus".
Yet up to 30% of Canadians evidently don't support that consensus.
My question to you, as is my question to Martin Rayner -- the very question he adamantly refuses to answer -- is thus:
Precisely what do you think up to 30% of Canadians are supposed to do? Stop participating in the political process -- by whatever means they choose -- in order to avoid violating the "post-war Liberal consensus" that they were never privy to in the first place?
How, precisely, does the effective banishment of 1/3 of a country's citizens give rise to the "social cohesion" that is central red toryism?
And how does Martin Rayner believe that he's contributing to that cause by maintaining a website built on nothing more than sheer and utter contempt for anyone who dares disagree with him?
I think it's really rather a shame that you're so eager to ride to the defense of someone who, very factually is a hypocrite, and has demonstrated himself to be so time and time again.
And don't bother trying to lecture me about George Grant. It's purely evident that Martin Rayner has no idea whatsoever what George Grant had to say about much of anything, and when anything Grant had to say seems applicable to anything Rayner has to say, it's largely because it's been gratuitously cherry-picked.
And finally, Aeneus, that's an extremely odd way to defend someone who's response to the suggestion that there are real issues to be debated is "oh, yawn. That's boring."
Then again, something here really seems to have hit a nerve, hasn't it, Aeneas. I just think it's pretty funny I'm being accused of spewing invective by someone who showed up here precisely to spew invective.