Monday, August 31, 2015

Why we need to replace Wikipedia

This technological innovator's experience is far from the only one of its type, and demonstrates that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders Wikipedia unfit for purpose:
My primary reasons for writing this article are to record a bit of personal history, describe programming before the personal computer, and reminisce a bit. But I have another reason — some of my regular readers know there's an article about me on Wikipedia, but that article is likely to be deleted (update: it's gone — see below). The stated reason for deleting it is because it doesn't have enough references for its claims — for example, that I wrote a solar system model that was used by JPL during the Viking lander mission. Wikipedia rightly requires documentation for any claims made in its articles, and until this article, the article you're reading, that claim wasn't documented. It is now, by this article and by its attached correspondence. Nevertheless, once I saw that the article was being considered for removal, I added my own vote in favor of deletion. Why? Because it had become a cheap sounding board for people annoyed at my positions on controversial topics, particularly psychology and stockbrokers.

That's the real reason the self-appointed editors over at Wikipedia moved to delete the article (remember that anyone can sign up and edit Wikipedia articles). I've been tracking the article since it first appeared in 2006, and there have been any number of efforts to delete or destroy the article by people of varying levels of skill. One of the cleverer tactics has been to delete the list of references, wait 24 hours, then argue for the article's deletion on the ground that the article's claims have no references — that's been tried several times.

What's behind this? Why does anyone care so much about a short article that describes my activities? Well, I've noticed a correlation between my publishing something about psychology (I'm a critic of psychology's theoretical basis and practice, example: The Trouble with Psychology) and a subsequent effort to delete the Wikipedia article. Apparently some psychologists or fans of psychology think it's an appropriate response to criticism of their field — not to debate the issues honestly in public forums — but to try to remove any references to the critic.

The single best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. That's also the single worst thing. It was my hope that a Wikipedia editor, one who doesn't care that I'm a psychology critic, would add a footnote reference to this article's documentation in the Wikipedia article, thereby removing an excuse to delete the article. That wouldn't have solved the problem, because I plan to continue criticizing psychology, but it woiuld have made it harder to justify future attacks.

Update: Through a combination of my efforts and that of others, and since I couldn't protect it from vandalism, the Wikipedia article has been deleted. During my research on this topic, I encountered this almost identical incident:

    Seth Finkelstein reported in an article in The Guardian on his efforts to remove his own biography page from Wikipedia, simply because it was subjected to defamation:

        "Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia's content, the article's existence seemed to me overall to be harmful rather than helpful. For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an "attractive nuisance". It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

    In the same article Finkelstein recounts how he voted his own biography as "not notable enough" in order to have it removed from Wikipedia.

As explained above, once I saw how often opponents of my views on psychology tried to rewrite or delete my Wikipedia article, I took the same action for the same reason. Those who want to read a short biographical note, one not subject to controversy or vandalism, may click here.

What does this mean about Wikipedia? It means that controversial issues and people won't be described fairly, or sometimes at all. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it's a people's encyclopedia, not an ivory tower production. The problem with this egalitarian ideal is that special interests can, and do, struggle to see their particular outlook become the only outlook in the pages of Wikipedia. And, since my view of psychology is quickly becoming the majority view, psychologists found themselves unable to argue against that position using reason and fair tactics. So, just as when they chose to study psychology in college, they took the low road, the easy path — they resorted to gangster tactics.
We're going to do this, the only questions are a) when, b) how much will it cost, and c) who is with me? I've had much the same experience. The three most notable and significant things I have done are completely absent from Wikipedia despite my being deemed notable by the editors and those three things being documented by reliable sources. And I'm far from alone in that.

Labels: ,

There is no escape

It's not possible to escape SJWs anymore. They are everywhere, in corporate America, in the universities, and on social media. Or perhaps I should say zhee are everywhere.
Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as “illegal alien,” "male," and “female,” or if they fail to “defer” to non-white students.

According to the syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss’ “Women & Popular Culture” class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that Breikss considers “oppressive and hateful language.”

"Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”  

The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, Breikss warns, includes “but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.”

Breikss is not the only WSU faculty member implementing such policies.

Much like in Selena Breikss’s classroom, students taking Professor Rebecca Fowler’s “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course will see their grades suffer if they use the term “illegal alien” in their assigned writing.

According to her syllabus, students will lose one point every time they use the words “illegal alien” or “illegals” rather than the preferred terms of “‘undocumented’ migrants/immigrants/persons.” Throughout the course, Fowler says, students will “come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”
In the immortal words of USMC legend Chesty Puller, "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us. They can't get away this time."

So lock and load, ladies and gentlemen. Lock and fucking load.

Labels: ,

"one of the most important books you will read"

Chris Nuttall, an Amazon Top 100 author and contributor to Riding the Red Horse, reviews SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:
In the current climate this book may have a fair claim to being one of the most important books you will read. It is no surprise, therefore, that most of the one-star reviews on Amazon are insults directed at Vox Day personally, rather than the book itself. The unspoken intention is to mock the messenger, thus discrediting the message.

Read this book. You may hate it, but at least you will have the pleasure of knowing you made up your own mind.

One of the most heartbreaking stories to come out of the Soviet Union came from a man who’d been sentenced to the gulag (prison camp for dissidents); he asked himself, afterwards, why he hadn’t fought or run when the police came for him. He just sat in his house and awaited his fate. The answer, of course, is quite simple. The USSR was a prison camp above ground (and a mass grave below); the inmates – sorry, the population – were conditioned not to resist authority, even when authority was brutal, capricious, untrustworthy and quite thoroughly hypocritical.

Many people will say ‘it can’t happen here.’ But it can and it does.

Our society is under attack by Social Justice Warriors (or, as I prefer to think of them, Social Justice Bullies). They have, as Day points out, become the new thought police. Tell an off-colour joke? Lose your job, reputation and perhaps even your life. Disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy? Get harried into silence and then buried below a wave of focused scorn and contempt. Question the claims to victimhood of the aristocracy of victimhood? Get called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.
I think Chris is correct to point out that the choice of the SJW used as the example demonstrating the Three Laws of SJW can be seen as a weakness, but the fact is that there is no other SJW whose lies I know as well, that I can refute in such documented detail, as those told by that particular SJW. It is precisely because I have been in direct conflict with the man for the 10 years since he started attacking me that I have so much information on hand about his lying, his doubling down, and his psychological projecting.

As for the other weakness Chris mentioned, which is to say that he wanted to go deeper into the belly of the beast, that is easily rectified. As I mentioned to Spacebunny this morning, I now know what will be my next book project after I complete A Sea of Skulls.

Professor Nick Flor of the University of New Mexico called it The Art of War for the Digital Media Generation and even provided a brief review in a series of tweets:
Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Okay, so you can probably tell from my Kindle Tweets that I thought @VoxDay's book "SJWs ALWAYS Lie" was superb. 5/5 stars

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFSJWinguts are EVERYWHERE—  @voxday's book teaches you how to recognize & effectively neutralize them. Must read.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Man it's tough to do a 140-character review. The book is like the Art of War, except for the Digital Media Generation.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFI really enjoyed the GG chapter and I finally understand Literally Who, Literally Who 2, and Literally Wu.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFHe does a great job of putting everything in context, and it really makes you feel good about everything #GamerGate has accomplished.

Labels: ,

The sour grapes of Mensa

The Aesopean analogy doesn't quite work, though, given that foxes are a symbol of intelligence. And it's just so hard to maintain the pretense that you're the smartest guy in the room when you didn't even qualify for the high-IQ society with the lowest bar to membership. It doesn't take a, well, a Mensa member, to figure out why Mensa is such a sore spot for McRapey.
    Pro tip: Bragging about your Mensa card as an actual adult signals that while you may be "smart," you almost certainly are not wise.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) August 31, 2015

In the various recent kerfuffles surrounding science fiction and its awards, there have been a couple of people (and their spouses, declaiming about their beloved) who have been slapping down Mensa cards as proof that they (or their spouse) are smart. Let me just say this about that:

Oh, my sweet summer children. Just don’t.

If you want to be in Mensa, that’s fine. Everyone needs hobbies and associations, and if this is the direction you want to go with yours, then you do you. Not my flavor, but then, lots of hobbies and associations aren’t my flavor.

That said:

1. Literally no one outside of Mensa gives a shit about your Mensa card. No one is impressed that you belong to an organization that has among its membership people who believe that because they can ace a test, they are therefore broadly intellectually superior to everyone else.

2. Your Mensa membership does not imply or suggest that you are the smartest person in the room. Leaving aside the point that the intelligence that Mensa values is a narrow and specialized sort, a large number of people who can join Mensa, don’t, for various reasons, including the idea that belonging to a group that glories in its supposed intellectual superiority is more than vaguely obnoxious.

3. Your need to bring up the fact you have a Mensa card suggests nothing other than it’s really really really important to you for people to know you’re smart, and that you believe external accreditation of this supposed top-tier intelligence is more persuasive than, say, the establishment of your intelligence through your actions, demeanor, or personality. Which is to say: It shows you’re insecure.

4. Your Mensa card does not mean you know how to argue. Your Mensa card does not mean you do not make errors or lapses in judgment. Your Mensa card is not a “get out of jail free” card when someone pokes holes in your thesis. Your Mensa card does not mean that you can’t be racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted. You may not say “I have a Mensa card, therefore my logic is irrefutable.” Your Mensa card will not save you from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and if you think it will, then you are exactly who the Dunning-Kruger syndrome was meant to describe. You Mensa card will not keep you from being called out for acting stupidly, or doing stupid things.
See, you're not supposed to brag about your Mensa-qualifying IQ and having one doesn't mean you know how to argue. What you're supposed to do is brag about your BACHELOR'S DEGREE in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago, which institution we are reliably informed does not hand them out like gumballs, and appeal to the authority of that degree whenever someone happens to observe your incompetence at constructing syllogisms and formulating sound arguments. Which, as it happens, is practically every single time McRapey attempts to construct an actual argument rather than simply posturing about his assertions.

As I noted back in 2013, McRapey hasn't changed what passes for his debating technique since at least 2005.
  1. Make an obviously questionable assertion.
  2. When the assertion is questioned, appeal to bachelor's degree.
  3. When the appeal to the bachelor's degree is questioned, question the questioner's intellect and/or good will.
  4. Avoid further questions.
  5. Posture as if one has thoroughly proved one's point.
He even went so far as to claim that I had never bested him in any argument. "As for besting me in argument, well, no, not at any point I can remember."

SJWs always lie.

Sure you don't remember, Johnny. Read SJWs Always Lie, Amazon's #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. It will serve to refresh your memory in brutal and well-documented detail, and it even contains a chapter devoted to rhetoric that you will find educational.

Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, McRapey is a walking, talking example of the syndrome in action, particularly when it comes to rhetoric. For all that he majored in something that could be considered akin to it if you squint hard enough, he clearly doesn't know the first thing about it. The rhetorical device to which he habitually resorts is a sophistical and dialectically illegitimate one called "ambiguity", not that he could correctly identify or name it despite his famous bachelor's degree. But then, as we know, we shouldn't be too harsh on him considering that he's not even smart enough for Mensa. Aristotle had Scalzi's kind pegged more than 2,000 years ago.

"Now for some people it is better worth while to seem to be wise, than to be wise without seeming to be (for the art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality, and the sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom); for them, then, it is clearly essential also to seem to accomplish the task of a wise man rather than to accomplish it without seeming to do so."

As for me, I don't brag about my Mensa membership. Why on Earth would I? The requirements for joining aren't even within a standard deviation of my IQ or the three other residents of the Digital Ghetto back in the day. I joined Mensa after starting my WND column as an efficient and effective way to defang the inevitable "right-wing writer is stupid" disqualifications from the left. And that is precisely why some people on the right brandish it like a shield, because that is exactly what it is: a rhetorical shield that successfully blunts the left's most frequently used rhetorical disqualification: "dey stupid, DISQUALIFY!"

And since we're on the subject of SJWs lying, where, exactly, is the "bragging about your Mensa card" in Sarah's post, to which, of course, McRapey does not link? Go ahead, see just how much importance she and her readers place on it and note the context in which it was mentioned.

But do tell us more about how it is actually membership in Mensa that is stupid and totally doesn't matter and doesn't mean that one is intelligent at all, Johnny. Let it all out. You'll feel better after a good cry.

UPDATE: It turns out that Mr. "Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago" graduated with a 2.8 GPA. See, obviously he was one of the cool party guys... at the University of Chicago.
I was not hugely grade-intensive. I didn’t stress out: I had a 2.8 GPA…. I did well in the classes that I liked, and I did very poorly in the classes that I did not care about.
Apparently he didn't care about his IQ test either, or he totally would have done well enough to qualify for Mensa.


Sunday, August 30, 2015

Europe starts getting serious

As I expected, Europe will be addressing its Third World invasion before the USA dares to do anything about its own:
Austria has just made a new law: Muslim imams will no longer be able to conduct their sermons in Arabic, but in German; all Korans will now have to be written completely in German, and Muslim groups will no longer be able to accept foreign money.

The updated “Law on Islam,” which was prepared by the coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party, aims to regulate how Islam is managed inside the country, and includes provisions requiring imams to be able to speak German, standardizing the Quran in the German language, and banning Islamic organizations from receiving foreign funding.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan strongly criticized Austria on Feb. 28 for approving a controversial bill that revises the status of Muslims in the European country.
There is the fair warning. Unlike Americans, Europeans have never, ever, bought into the "melting pot" bullshit. And they are not going to permit their countries to be overrun, because also unlike Americans, the nation is the country.

Labels: ,

No one ever cared

Unwitting testimonial evidence concerning Chapter Seven: What to do when SJWs attack at Sarah Hoyt's place.
I can’t walk away anymore. I can’t stay on the sidelines anymore and pretend it doesn’t affect me.

Two reasons. First, thanks largely to you, Larry, Mad Mike, and Brad Torgersen, I’ve rediscovered great science fiction (mostly Baen authors, admittedly), and despite my best efforts, I seem to be turning into a science fiction author as well. I don’t want the Kickers to destroy the genre that I’m once again growing to love and am slowly becoming a part of

Second, and the main reason, is that I saw what the SJWs and CHORFs ad TruFans did to you and the rest of the Puppies. I was horrified and disgusted by their actions, but not in the least surprised. Because I’ve been there. It’s too long a story to post here, but back in college I found myself caught in the crosshairs of those so-called Right Thinking Moral Crusaders. I had my academic career, and very possibly my entire future put in jeopardy becausea small screaming minority of foaming at the mouth CHORFs took offense at something that was published in the student-run newspaper, of which I was one of the copy editors.

Nobody came to our defense. A few brave souls tried, only to abandon us when the Administration made clear that they would suffer the same extreme academic penalties that we were facing(read: loss of credits, possible suspension or expulsion) for doing so. The only reason they didn’t follow through with their threatened punishments was because the school’s lawyers pointed out that such actions would leave them wide open to a slew of bad publicity and – worse – a myriad of lawsuits.

I can’t do that. I can’t stand by and do nothing while the SJWs and CHORFs try to do the same thing to you.

What I’m trying to say is that I am with you. Through Sad Puppies 4 until the end, no matter how long that may be, I am with you. Come hell, come high water, come an avalanche of sh*t flung by the Social Justice Monkeys, I am with you, and I will do whatever I can to help the puppies, though admittedly given my present situation that probably won’t be much more than moral support and acting as a repeater on social media. But win or lose, I’m with The Sad Puppies until the bitter end.
From Chapter 7: 1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

This indifference on the part of bystanders is one reason why the SJWs have methodically proceeded from one victory to the next despite their relatively small numbers. They take out one Narrative skeptic and silence 100 others who henceforth fear to express doubt, let alone denial, of the most shameless falsehoods. The reason that Roosh, Mike, Milo and me, to name four, enrage them so greatly is that they have been unable to discredit us despite their best efforts, and as a result, ever so slowly, dozens, scores, hundreds, now THOUSANDS of people are beginning to understand what has been taking place and why our society is where it is.

And they are not happy.

I'm not saying you should care about the SJW war on truth and Western civilization because then you will be a good person. I'm not saying you should stand up the SJWs because it is a moral imperative. I'm saying you should care and you should stand up to the SJWs in your own naked self-interest and in the interest of salvaging and maintaining as much of Western civilization as possible.

Do you think either the Bolsheviks or the Russian people they conquered had any idea that the Impossibility of Socialist Calculation was going to leave them condemned to poverty and economic stagnation? If not, then it should be possible for you to understand that neither the SJWs nor the average individual who sees no harm in them realizes that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders the SJWs a serious threat to the survival of Western civilization.

All of this stuff, from the universities to the churches to science fiction to games are the same evil, dyscivic, and dyscivilizational campaign. No aspect of it, however seemingly trivial, should be ignored.

Labels: ,

The media wanted a race war

It looks like they've got a budding one on their hands:
Authorities have charged a 30-year-old man with capital murder, after they say he ambushed a Texas county sheriff’s deputy at a suburban Houston gas station in an attack motivated by "absolute madness."

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman identified the man in a news conference Saturday afternoon as Shannon J. Miles, who is in police custody.

Miles — who has a criminal history that includes convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm — was arrested less than 24 hours after authorities said he ambushed Darren Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff's Office, at a suburban Houston Chevron station.

"I am proud of the men and women that have worked swiftly to apprehend the responsible person who posed a significant threat to both law enforcement and the community at large," Hickman told reporters Saturday. "Our deputies return to the streets tonight to hold a delicate peace that was shattered last evening."

Hickman said the motive for the killing had not been determined but investigators would look at whether Miles, who is black, was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the "Black Lives Matter" protest movement. Goforth was white.
Somehow, the news media doesn't seem quite as enamored of how this race war is going as one would have expected considering all that they've done to bring it about. I guess they were expecting for white Republican suburbanites to be the targets rather than white reporters, white cameramen, and white cops.

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Adventures in rhetoric

It's intriguing to see how a simple mention of an easily verified observation brings, shall we say, the medicated, out of the woodwork:
Vox Day ‏@voxday
It's impossible to balance constant SJW claims of "laughing" and "hilarity" with how many of them are on anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
well, the world's a meritocracy, innit? We can't all be as sane as you and the other WorldNetDaily writers.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
And here I thought you believed in equality, Popey. Are you "laughing so hard" all the time too?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Nah. Definitely sometimes though. Thanks!

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Are you trying to claim that people who need to take drugs to be mentally stable are more sane than those who don't?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I would never throw shade at your mental stability Vox. How can a crazy person like me question someone so sane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn't answer the question. Are those who require drugs to be mentally stable more or less sane than those who don't?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Less, by most definitions. And that's important. How can we aspire to your clarity of thought without getting sane first?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
By correctly applying sound logic to observed facts. Don't you understand yet that your rhetorical antics accomplish nothing?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
How could they against an intellect like yours? I'm crazy, your sane. Let people value sanity accordingly.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
They would accomplish nothing against a stone  as well. You might as reasonably attempt to achieve your goals here by juggling.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
never! Juggling is part of the gutter culture of carnies and non-Europeans

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You're doing a fine job of demonstrating the pointlessness of speaking dialectic to a rhetoric speaker. Please continue.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I'll agree you're operating on an entirely different plane than I am.

Vox Day ‏@voxday 
I'm delighted to hear we can reach an accord on something.
As predicted in SJWs Always Lie, speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric speaker is totally pointless. The information content is irrelevant. Popehat will continue in this vein, seeking to provoke an emotional response, or at least one that will permit him to play the victim, as long as he thinks there is a chance he can provoke something.

Another example. Notice how every comment is an attempt to provoke some kind of emotional reaction, combined with an amount of posturing.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It's impossible to balance constant SJW claims of "laughing" and "hilarity" with how many of them are on anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
That is not how depression works, T. Pratt.

Vox Day @voxday
Are you the expert, then, Feckless? How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
Oh, I do love when Ted "Theodore" Beale tweets me. How's your dad doing?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn't answer the question, Jeff. How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
I am currently on fluoxetine. I have also used Lexapro.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject. In answer to your question, my father is very well. Got an email 2 days ago.

Labels: ,

SJWs and parody

What is it with SJW parodies and long titles anyhow?

The Angel Vox Day and the War for the Heavenly Gamergate Puppies (Give Me a Hugo!): Chapter 1: The Wicked Victory of Shoeless John! (The Chronicles of ... Angel Vox Day and His Flaming Sword!!!!!!)
by Tim Lieder

John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels by Theophilus Pratt aka Rainbow Brite Boy

My favorite aspect of this is the way in which they've now roped in John Scalzi to read a parody that draws attention to the fact that he lies about his traffic and jokes about being a rapist. Nearly 30 pages of audio of Rapey McRaperson talking about himself? The Pink Rabbit Posse is practically beside itself with anticipation.

It's also amusing how some SJWs are frantically insisting that they are totally LAUGHING and they find the whole thing HILARIOUS even as others talk about how depressed and upset and hurt they are. Remember, McRapey went with the whole "ha ha ha, this is SO ADORABLE" line for 26 months until he cracked and began angrily denouncing the "obvious lies" I was supposedly spreading about him.

SJWs always lie.

UPDATE: Apparently Peddy Phil didn't read Chapter 10.

23m23 minutes ago
Vox’s claim that SJWs aren’t really laughing at him is shrill and desperate even by his standards:

The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it's just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation.
Is it not fascinating how they repeatedly prove the truth of my words as they seek to undermine them?

Labels: ,

Allan Davis reviews SJWAL

His article Counter-Attacking in the Cultural War is featured on Lew Rockwell today:
Last weekend, the SJWs who rule science fiction fandom were forced to retreat with a “scorched earth” tantrum, as they refused to award five of the sixteen Hugo categories–rather than see them presented to a winner not approved by the ruling faction.

Gamergate is a line in the sand, “this far, no farther.”  The Puppies demonstrate that SJWs can be beaten.  What the world needs now is a combat guide–a field manual exposing the SJWs and their tactics, and describing the most effective ways of fighting them, and beating them.

Vox Day has written that manual.

“SJWs Always Lie:  Taking Down the Thought Police” is a no-holds-barred depiction of the SJW “in the wild.”  It contains detailed information on the motivations and behavior of the SJW and, most importantly, how to fight back against them.

Vox, who was active in both the Gamergate and Puppies campaigns against the SJWs, lays out the full story of both fronts in the war against Political Correctness.  He details how his long-running feud with John Scalzi and his “purging” from the Science Fiction Writer’s Association helped him to formulate the Three Laws of the SJW:

    1. SJWs Always Lie
    2. SJWs Always Double Down
    3. SJWs Always Project
One of the things I've noticed in the Amazon reviews is that those readers who have themselves either been the object of an SJW attack, or who have witnessed one, recognize the patterns I am describing in the book. I am pleased to see this, as it testifies to the veracity and utility of SJWs Always Lie.

Also, by sheer happenstance, Castalia House makes a second appearance on Lew Rockwell today. David the Good, Extreme Composter, explains why you should start planning your spring garden now that fall is approaching:
As the main growing season winds down and fall gardens are being planted across much of the country, you might think it would be time for me to post on fall gardening.

Fall gardens are well-worth doing, but instead of jumping on that train I’m going to focus on what you can do right now that will make your spring gardens better than they’ve ever been.

Gardeners, like most people, tend to think of their gardening in terms of one season. When you step back, however, and see how building up your plots and planning ahead will benefit your gardening for years to come, a whole new window opens.
In related news, Castalia will have a new gardening book out from David the Good before the end of the year.

Labels: ,

Breaking the duck

Although I started last season well, scoring six goals in the fall half, I missed nearly half our games in the spring and didn't score at all, missing far too many good opportunities. Scoring is funny for an attacker; when it comes easily it comes effortlessly, but the more you think about it, the harder it gets. Some of it is bad luck, some of it is nerves, and some of it is poor decision-making.

We started the season this weekend and I figured I'd get less playing time because we've got two new attackers in their early thirties who have moved up from the first team due to losing their starting positions to younger, better players. Along with a pair of new midfielders, they are much-needed reinforcements that should see us back in competition for the league title that we used to own. Rather to my surprise, I ended up starting at left wing, although only because the usual starter was arriving late since he was coaching one of the kid's teams on one of our other fields.

We needed a referee, but our captain turned down Ender when he volunteered because the team we were playing is an all-Albanian team new to the league. Albanians are famous throughout Europe for their volatility, even in comparison with Italians, and it was easy to understand why a teenage referee would be a suboptimal choice. The guys were pretty pessimistic about the game in general, as apparently the Albanians had one former second-league player and at least two former third-league players, which was three more high-level players than we had.

However, I tended to like our chances a little better after the Albanians arrived and five of them turned out to be former teammates, two of whom I particularly like. The atmosphere was the exact opposite of heated, as everyone was visibly glad to see each other, many handshake-hugs were exchanged, and I realized that three of their players were technically skilled players who made our team worse two years ago because they seldom pass the ball and never, ever look outside. Better yet, the really good striker who played two games with us two seasons ago and is a serious scoring machine (5 goals in those two games), was injured and had come only along to watch, so that left the guy who had been my favorite partner up top being the only serious cause for concern among the known quantities.

We got off to a bad start, however, and it was partly my fault. The captain told me to play with a defensive orientation, as Sylvan, the defender behind me, was the weak link in the back four, being short and the only player on the team older than me. (It's generally not a good sign when the average age of your left side is 47 and their attackers and center mids are all in their early 30s.) But despite our age, both of us are in very good condition, and for the most part, we managed to control the left... except for the one time - the ONE time - I didn't hang back and attacked.

By that point, I knew I could beat my man, their right wing, whenever I wanted, so when we had the ball in their half and I saw the left defender follow an attacker inside, I waved at our center mid and broke hard. The timing was perfect and I was onside with a clear path to goal, but Sandro mishit the ball and it curved well behind me. Their right wing intercepted it and passed it immediately up the field to Vallon, a former teammate who doesn't pass, but is strong, fast, and formidable on the ball. Sylvan did his best and fought him the whole way, but was overpowered and outrun, and Vallon beat Giuseppe, our keeper, without any trouble.

Despite being down, we were starting to control the action and just missed on two half-chances. The regular left wing showed up not too long after the second one, so I came out just before we started scoring. Their left wing just couldn't cope with our right wing, who sent over a pair of crosses that both ended up in the net. Then a missed offsides call gave us a one-on-one break that one of our new attackers finished in a clinical manner, so it was 3-1 at the half.

A penalty kick and another headed cross made it 5-1 before I finally went back in, this time as an attacker. I beat the defenders on the left and had a great chance, but shot the ball a little too high, at waist-level, which let the diving goalie get his arm on it. Our left wing followed me in and should have scored on the rebound, but he tried to play around with it before shooting and was promptly shut down. My second chance was much the same, a weak left-footed shot that was blocked, but it was worse because I somehow missed seeing a wide-open Sandro in the center. (In fairness, he didn't call for the ball, so I had no idea he was there.)

Sandro didn't hold it against me, though, when later he dribbled around both defenders on the right, drew the goalie out to meet him, then slipped the ball backwards to me as I trailed. I probably should have driven hard to the left to clear the keeper then passed the ball into the empty net, but instead I hit it on the first touch from outside the box, putting it in a nice high arc that cleared the goalie before abruptly dipping down into the upper right corner. Thus was the duck broken. Our captain put in one more to close out the game, and we ended up winning 7-1 against the team everyone had expected to beat us.

The lesson: a team that runs and plays well together will easily beat better players who don't run well. Losing both wings killed them, because for all their ball skills, that meant they were forced to attack straight down the clogged center, then deal with our wings and outside defenders collapsing on them if they managed to break through the two center mids and the two central defenders. At times, their wings were 20 or 30 meters behind ours, so they were consistently reduced to trying to attack 3 or 4 on 8 in limited space. It was a testimony to their skill that they managed any pressure on us at all.

Tactics + athletics beat skill. The two least-skilled starters of the 22 men on the field were our right-wing and me, and the normal starter who replaced me on the left wing isn't much better, although at least he is left-footed. But all three of us can run, and it doesn't matter how good your ball skills are when you're consistently 15 meters behind the ball. And if your worst players can contribute two assists and one goal, plus control both sides of the field between them, then your team is probably in pretty good shape.

The guy who had been their keeper in the second half was my former attacking partner; he'd gone into the net at halftime. He came up to me after the game and gave me a hard time about getting stuffed on the two easier chances, then hitting on the difficult shot. I explained that I am a football artist and scoring in easy and obvious ways only bores me. He laughed, but I don't think he bought it.


Friday, August 28, 2015

The adjective modifies the noun

I wonder if all those people who were going on and on about how I hated and didn't understand science are going to come back and apologize now that my skepticism about scientistry is being supported by dozens of failed attempts to confirm previously published studies? I don't think I'll hold my breath.
The past several years have been bruising ones for the credibility of the social sciences. A star social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers. A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized. The journal Science pulled a political science paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters’ behavior because of concerns about faked data.

Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested. The analysis was done by research psychologists, many of whom volunteered their time to double-check what they considered important work. Their conclusions, reported Thursday in the journal Science, have confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.

The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work.

“I think we knew or suspected that the literature had problems, but to see it so clearly, on such a large scale — it’s unprecedented,” said Jelte Wicherts, an associate professor in the department of methodology and statistics at Tilburg University in the Netherlands.

More than 60 of the studies did not hold up. Among them was one on free will. It found that participants who read a passage arguing that their behavior is predetermined were more likely than those who had not read the passage to cheat on a subsequent test.
Most "social science" is not science at all. It's nothing more than science-flavored fiction concocted by people who look and talk like scientists, but are merely mimics.

Now, my dear critic, are you still entirely comfortable with your decision to dismiss out of hand my various other controversial statements about science? Are you still certain that your feelings trump my logical conclusions?


Directly over the target

We know SJW posteriors are burning like Dresden after Plate Rack passed overhead because their antics in response to the release of SJWs Always Lie are off-the-charts crazy. There are, of course, the expected fake reviews, whose authors somehow seem to think that by illustrating the premise of the book in living color, they will somehow discredit it.
Waaah! Nobody likes me!
By Paul Spencer on August 27, 2015
A pitiful rant by an intellectual weakling with a persecution complex. The literary equivalent of stealing a five year old's favorite toy.
16 of 63 people found the review helpful

One of the most loathsome people currently writing
By Alex on August 27, 2015
The author of this book has stated that the Taliban's attempts to silence women's education activist Malala Yousafzai was "perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable" - [...] What more is there to say?
17 of 58 people found the review helpful

One Star
By Kindly Sodoff "peripatetic"on August 27, 2015
An unintentionally amusing account of how a pudgy, angry, little boy grows up into a pudgy, angry, little man.
32 of 129 people found the following review helpful

One Star
By Trouble O'Hara "iagorune"on August 27, 2015
Adorable whining from a guy with a hardon about losing at the Hugo's
37 of 152 people found the review helpful

He is the only person to be kicked out of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America in its nearly fifty year history.
By C. Buser on August 27, 2015
... as a fleshed-out rehashing of his blogspot posts, previous commentary and opinion stated by the author about his personal political philosophy serve as valid advertisement as to whether or not an impartial Amazon shopper would be interested in this product, and a review of his previous statements and blogspot posts serve as a review of this book, which is repackaged and expanded for your convenience for the cover charge.

The book itself is named after one of his "Three Laws of Social Justice Warriors", a reference to Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

#1 - SJWs always lie.
#2 - SJWs always double down.
#3 - SJWs always project.

Thus, if you like his blogspot, and the previous examples of his political philosophy, and admire him for his expulsion from the SFWA, then this is something you would enjoy reading. If you disagree with his three laws, you wouldn't enjoy this book.
56 of 188 people found the review helpful
I'm not sure which I find more astonishing, the fact that a few SJWs actually took the time to post these "reviews", the observation that nearly 60 SJWs showed up to pretend that they were helpful, or the idea that I got the idea for the three laws from Asimov. At least the latter does tend to explain why they prefer fantasy to SF. But what definitely takes the cake is Rainbow Brite Boy publishing a brief parody entitled John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels, which has now reached #2 in Political Philosophy, right behind the book it is attempting to DISQUALIFY. And wait, there's more! The SJWs are also engaged in a charity drive so that John Scalzi will read it for the audio version.

 As you can see, this is a masterful rhetorical response that totally proves the falsity of the Second Law of SJW: SJWs Always Double Down.

One of my friends sent me an email last night that I think aptly describes the situation. "WTF, are you PAYING these people or something?" And just to ice the crazy cake, we've now officially gone meta as there are now fake fake reviews being posted.

And while I'm not surprised by the nature of the reaction of the science fiction SJWs to the book, I am amazed by the vehemence behind it. They are absolutely furious to see that a book unmasking them was not only published by me, but is riding the very wave of media attention that they themselves created to success. That's the importance of the parody in their minds; if it can become even more popular than SJWs Always Lie, that will disqualify it and render it harmless, thereby relieving the stress they are presently feeling. As I said back in 2013, these people are cargo cultists; the concept of the way in which they have volunteered to serve as my de facto publicists doesn't even cross their twisted little minds. Their priority is to wave the totem that will allow them to strike a superior pose and thereby make the feelbads go away.
Totally Legit Review
ByEssJayDouble U "OppressedTumblrette"on August 27, 2015

I was told by my echo chamber to come post a nasty review here. I also have lots of time seeing as my job is being an internet activist. As you can tell I actually haven't read this book but it was written by a white man. The era of the white man is over. It's time for them to shut up and move over so that the muffled voices of their victims can speak up.

Now here comes the part where I'm suppose to tell you about the writer (which may or may not be true, but you better listen and believe what I say as a victim of this white man's world) and why this should be reason enough not to buy the book even though me telling you about the writer gives you no actual details about the book and why it isn't worth the purchase. Instead it's me telling you why we must dismiss this horrible person all based upon his identity.

For starters he's white. White men have oppressed us minorities for long enough. Secondly, I hear that this guy likes Chinese food. That's offensive and oppressive to the Chinese. Those smart people can't speak up for themselves so I'm doing it for them! I also hear that his wife loves wearing kimonos. Talk about being offensive and oppressive to the Japanese. And his son... My gosh I hear that his son calls ISIS a terrorist group. Looks like he's daddy's little islamophoic boy. Racist boy. And his daughter. Oh his daughter says she doesn't need feminism. The poor thing must have internalized misogyny. How dare a woman claim not to need feminism. All women are feminists!

And then there's that Milo guy. I hear he works for some right wing turd of a media outlet. RIGHT WING! I've also seen Milo going around proudly saying that he gives Donald Trump positive coverage all in exchange for strands of Trump's own hair that he then uses as hair extensions. Did I mention RIGHT WING!

Do you really want to support horrible racist, oppressive right wingers? Instead take you 5 bucks and donate to one of the awesome women that these men have help to harass. By buying this book another poor oppressed child dies over in oppression land.

Oh did I mention that my reasons may or may not be true? Just listen and believe or a poor oppressed women of color will die over in oppression land.

Trust me, after reading this book it isn't worth the money.

Labels: , ,

Harbingers of #GamerGate

Decades before the thought of cheating on Eron Gjoni was even a stirring in Zoe Quinn's meaty loins, there was this infamous review of Doom in Edge magazine.

If that doesn't sum up the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence, I don't know does. To say nothing of the way it shows how the SJW's instinct, when faced with an acid-throwing Baron of Hell, is to want to make friends with it rather than strafing and shooting a rocket in its face.

What more do you need to understand that SJWs are pure and unadulterated evil? They see a Baron of Hell and think: "He seems nice! I wonder if he will be my friend?"

Speaking of SJWs and GamerGate, this dialogue was so beautiful and succinct that it nearly brought a tear to my eye.
Young Snake @117Baz
If #GamerGate hit's the 1 year anniversary I will dress up in a French Maid uniform and keep it as my twitter profile pic for all time. Xenimme @Xenimme 9:09 PM - 27 Aug 2015
Get the dress.
It is, as they say, the very toppest of keks.

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The end of air supremacy

ESR called this one in "Battlefield Lasers", which appeared in Riding the Red Horse.
If history teaches us anything about military technology, it's that cheap systems scale up faster than expensive ones do. It is already easy to imagine an up-gunned version of Rodriguez's laser pointer slaved to a radar with a couple of bog-standard servomotors. Off-the-shelf parts, incremental cost less than $3K each, with most of it the development budget going for the targeting firmware. Cost per shot, effectively free.

Call it the PlaneZapper. You could sit it on a roof, power it off wall current, and it would blind every pilot it can see. Including drone pilots; even if there's a peak-clipping filter between a drone's sensors and its pilot's screen, the effect will be like whiteout. Altitude and cloudy skies might save pilots from the early versions of the PlaneZapper, but for anything that has to fly low and slow this could already be a death knell. Close air support and medevac are obvious vulnerabilities.
Apparently someone at Boeing was reading Raymond:
Wednesday morning, the company showed off its Compact Laser Weapon System for media in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It’s a much smaller, significantly more portable version of the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) Boeing demonstrated last year. This setup looks like an overgrown camera, swiveling around on a tripod.

In the demo, Boeing used the laser to burn holes in a stationary, composite UAV shell, to show how quickly it can compromise an aircraft. Two seconds at full power and the target was aflame. Other than numerous safety warnings to ensure no one was blinded by the two-kilowatt infrared laser, there was no fanfare. No explosions, no visible beam. It’s more like burning ants with a really, really expensive magnifying glass than obliterating Alderaan.

Instead of a massive laser mounted on a dedicated truck, the compact system is small enough to fit in four suitcase-sized boxes and can be set up by a pair of soldiers or technicians in just a few minutes.
This means that the battle for air supremacy is going to have to move higher, which is to say, space.

Labels: ,

The first two reviews

Interestingly enough, the very first review of SJWs Always Lie is by an individual whose SJW attack is mentioned in the book, Paz Dickenson:
Vox Day’s short new book “SJWs Always Lie” is essential reading for anyone interested in modern online moral panics triggered by Social Justice Warriors. Vox explains what these people are, how they function, and what to do if you’re attacked. As someone who has personally lived through his own political correctness lynching I agree wholeheartedly with his recommendations.

The book includes chapters that comprise the best short summaries I’ve read of Gamergate and the Sad Puppies movements to date, and having just been released it includes even the most recent developments.
I'm very pleased to see others who have experienced SJW attacks can endorse both the descriptions of the attacks as well as the recommendations on how to react to them. Another reviewer who is mentioned in the book, Gorilla Mindset author Mike Cernovich, one of my GGinParis cohosts, reviews SJWs Always Lie with a completely different angle in mind, and frankly, one I'd never really considered, which is to say professional public relations:
No one ever attacked me with such rabid dishonesty as the social justice warriors.

SJWs lied about every area of my life. They lied about verifiable facts. For example, SJWs claimed I wasn’t a real lawyer. (Anyone can ascertain my ability to practice law by checking the California State Bar website!)

SJWs called me a racist, a rapist, and accused me of moving to Vietnam for underage sex tourism.I also had to stay in a hotel after SJWs attempted to have a police SWAT team sent to my home. A 350-pound woman falsely accused me of threatening her with rape.

Fortunately my business model is anti-fragile. The more hate I receive leads to more books sold. SJWs actually helped me make Gorilla Mindset a best seller, as my unwavering mindset in the face of their death threats proved the power of mindset. SJWs lined my pocket with their attacks, and for the most part have moved on to exploit vulnerable people.

Yet even I was a bit shell shocked by the attacks. I had never encountered such hateful people in my life.

SJWs Always Lie would have helped me anticipate their tactics and thus fight more effectively. SJWs Always Lie is the public relations book every celebrity and public relations strategist will deny owning.
It's interesting to see Mike declare that the book isn't a polemic because I am a polemicist, I had conceived of the book as a polemic, and indeed, began writing it as a polemic. But then, the patterns that I kept seeing over and over in the different SJW attacks, across different industries and in different countries, were too obvious to ignore, and after describing those patterns, it seemed only natural to explain some strategies for dealing with them. And somehow, in the process, what began as a specific polemic was transformed into a more general cultural 4GW handbook.

And Skittles Boy violate Amazon's review policy when he scribbled a one-star review that is even less intelligent than the fake one. I particularly liked how I'm supposed to be "piggybacking on a topic he knows will be popular for his own obvious self-aggrandizement." All together now: SJWs Always Lie! 

"We have a zero tolerance policy for any review designed to mislead or manipulate customers."

Labels: ,

Happy Birthday, #GamerGate

This is the chapter-heading cartoon for Chapter Eight: Striking Back at the Thought Police, from the #1 Political Philosophy bestseller, SJWs ALWAYS LIE: Taking Down the Thought Police.

From the Dedication:

This book is for all the gamers around the world who simply wanted to be left alone to play their games in peace. You didn't go looking to fight a cultural war, the social justice warriors in game journalism brought their war to you....

This book is for the thousands of sealions whose names I don't know, who sent emails and created memes, who persisted and leveled up, and who, in doing so, shattered the SJW Narrative.

This book is for #GamerGate.


Cheating with nonexistent women

Forget the data hack, this revelatory analysis about Ashley Madison should kill the entire online dating business. Such is the sexual desperation of men that I don't know it will, but it absolutely should:
When hacker group Impact Team released the Ashley Madison data, they asserted that “thousands” of the women’s profiles were fake. Later, this number got blown up in news stories that asserted “90-95%” of them were fake, though nobody put forth any evidence for such an enormous number. So I downloaded the data and analyzed it to find out how many actual women were using Ashley Madison, and who they were.

What I discovered was that the world of Ashley Madison was a far more dystopian place than anyone had realized. This isn’t a debauched wonderland of men cheating on their wives. It isn’t even a sadscape of 31 million men competing to attract those 5.5 million women in the database. Instead, it’s like a science fictional future where every woman on Earth is dead, and some Dilbert-like engineer has replaced them with badly-designed robots.

Those millions of Ashley Madison men were paying to hook up with women who appeared to have created profiles and then simply disappeared. Were they cobbled together by bots and bored admins, or just user debris? Whatever the answer, the more I examined those 5.5 million female profiles, the more obvious it became that none of them had ever talked to men on the site, or even used the site at all after creating a profile. Actually, scratch that. As I’ll explain below, there’s a good chance that about 12,000 of the profiles out of millions belonged to actual, real women who were active users of Ashley Madison....

It’s worth noting that those 12,108 women’s accounts may represent the only true number we’ve got for women who used the site. After all, paying to delete an account is a sure sign of activity, though of course it’s evidence of disengagement rather than the amorous engagement that Ashley Madison promised.

Overall, the picture is grim indeed. Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created.

The men’s accounts tell a story of lively engagement with the site, with over 20 million men hopefully looking at their inboxes, and over 10 million of them initiating chats. The women’s accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.

Sure, some of these inactive accounts were probably created by real, live women (or men pretending to be women) who were curious to see what the site was about. Some probably wanted to find their cheating husbands. Others were no doubt curious journalists like me. But they were still overwhelmingly inactive. They were not created by women wanting to hook up with married men. They were static profiles full of dead data, whose sole purpose was to make men think that millions of women were active on Ashley Madison.
Granted, it's hard to feel any sympathy for men whose primary interest was cheating on their wives, but this sort of scam is an unconscionable preying on the lonely and the desperate.


Wednesday, August 26, 2015

SJWs Always Lie

There WILL be an offer tonight for the CH subscribers, so if you are one, you might want to hold off on buying it today. The official announcement is tomorrow, but seeing as the cat is out of the bag, there is no harm in mentioning that it is available on Amazon now.

UPDATE: Sweet Smoked SJW, I was NOT expecting this, particularly not after what may be the most haphazard and lackadaisical "book launch" in history. I'm turning in, so if someone wouldn't mind keeping an eye on the numbers and posting them in the comments, I'd appreciate it.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #842 #306 #286 #251 #238 Paid in Kindle Store
Just because this made me laugh. Vox Day... Machiavelli... Plato.

Labels: , ,

Targeting the media

"A gunman killed WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and photographer Adam Ward during a live interview about a local business in Franklin County, Virginia, on Wednesday morning."

Based on Alison Parker's age and appearance, it doesn't look like a romance-related killing, does it.

This is an open thread. Feel free to post updates in the comments.


The trademark family incompetence

There are two ways to look at this column by the entire NYT editorial board. Either the New York Times really fears the Democratic Party candidate running against Jeb Bush, or he was simply so horrendous at his staged appearance at a Mexican restaurant that they actually had to address the facts for once:
Jeb Bush went to the border town of McAllen, Tex., on Monday to raise money and to talk about immigration, in English and fluent Spanish. Because the Republican presidential campaign has been so fixated on border security and the immigrant peril — thank you, Donald Trump — it was a chance to see how the supposed expert on this fraught subject handled it.

Short version: He was awful.

In less than 15 minutes, Mr. Bush managed to step on his message, to give Mr. Trump a boost and to offend Asian-Americans, a growing population that is every bit as important as Latinos in winning presidential elections. And he failed to give Latino voters any persuasive evidence that he had anything better to offer them than his opponents in a revoltingly xenophobic Republican campaign.

It may be time to offer this forlorn candidate some free advice. Although if he really is the smarter Bush, he knows these things already:

1. He should never let himself say the words “anchor babies” ever again. He got in trouble for using that derogatory reference to the children of unauthorized immigrants in passing, in an interview, then dug himself a hole by defending his use of it. On Monday, he dug deeper. He tried to explain that he had been talking about “Asian people” who arrive on tourist visas through organized schemes to give birth to American babies on American soil.

Though the phenomenon is real, Mr. Bush was blasted by Asian-American groups for repeating the slur. And, astoundingly, he handed Mr. Trump the opportunity to send out tweets like this: “In a clumsy move to get out of his ‘anchor babies’ dilemma, where he signed that he would not use the term and now uses it, he blamed ASIANS.”
Speaking as a great-grandson of a Mexican revolutionary, Jeb Bush's positions on immigration aren't merely wrong, they are obscenely stupid. Trump is going to crucify him on this issue; the imbalance here could actually win Trump the nomination despite all of Bush's structural advantages.

Labels: ,

Stick to the rape rape, fat boy

George Rape Rape Martin tries to put a little SJW spin on the Hugo Awards:
I had picked Mike Resnick in Short Form and Toni Weisskopf in Long Form, and indeed, each of them finished above all the other nominees in the first round of voting... but well behind No Award. This was a crushing defeat for the slates, and a big victory for the Puppy-Free ballot of Deirdre Moen. Honestly? I hated this. In my judgment the voters threw the babies out with bathwater in these two categories. Long Form had three nominees who are more than worthy of a Hugo (and one, Jim Minz, who will be in a few more years), and Short Form had some good candidates too. They were on the slates, yes, but some of them were put on there without their knowledge and consent. A victory by Resnick, Sowards, Gilbert, or Weisskopf would have done credit to the rocket, regardless of how they got on the ballot. (All four of these editors would almost certainly have been nominated anyway, even if there had been no slates).

((Some are saying that voting No Award over these editors was an insult to them. Maybe so, I can't argue with that. But it should be added that there was a far far worse insult in putting them on the ballot with Vox Day, who was the fifth nominee in both categories. Even putting aside his bigotry and racism, Beale's credential as an editor are laughable. Yet hundreds of Puppies chose to nominate him rather than, oh, Liz Gorinsky or Anne Lesley Groell or Beth Meacham (in Long Form) or Gardner Dozois or Ellen Datlow or John Joseph Adams (in Short Form). To pass over actual working editors of considerable accomplishment in order to nominate someone purely to 'stick it to the SJWs' strikes me as proof positive that the Rabid Puppies at least were more interested in saying 'fuck you' to fandom than in rewarding good work)).
It's amusing how the SJWs in science fiction are claiming five awardless categories as a win while simultaneously trying to figure out how to prevent it from happening again next year. And, Martin demonstrates the truth of the observation SJWs Always Lie, as he tells a whopper about Toni Weisskopf when he claims she would "almost certainly have been nominated anyway, even if there had been no slates".

The fact is Toni Weisskopf never even came CLOSE to being nominated prior to Sad Puppies 1. In 2012, she finished in 14th place. In 2011, 10th. In 2010, 11th. She wasn't even trending in the right direction! Without the Puppies, she would never, ever, have received a nomination and the data shows that the 2015 Long Form nominees would have been virtually identical to the pre-Puppy years, including the aforementioned Liz Gorinsky, Beth Meacham, to say nothing of the Torlock who lobbied for the creation the award so he and his fellow Tor editors could finally win something, Patrick Nielsen Hayden.

And it's fascinating to hear this particular fat old white man speaking about the "bigotry and racism" of this particular American Indian. A few of you will know why. In any event, my credentials as an editor - the correct word is plural, Georgie, perhaps someone can explain that to you - are observably better than Rape Rape's editor, considering how fat with filler his recent novels have become.

But here is a free piece of editorial advice for you, Rape Rape. I know you like it an awful lot, but even so, I recommend you include a little less rape and deviant hate sex in your next book and a little more conventional human affection between men and women who actually love one another. The world you have created is not grim and realistic, it is a cartoonish and nihilistic nightmare. And worse, it's gotten really boring.

Martin is also lying about there not being any anti-Puppy party. As Chaos Horizon has demonstrated, there were observably six different statistical factions voting in the 2015 awards.
Core Rabid Puppies: 550-525
Core Sad Puppies: 500-400
Sad Puppy leaning Neutrals: 800-400 (capable of voting a Puppy pick #1)
True Neutrals: 1000-600 (may have voted one or two Puppies; didn’t vote in all categories; No Awarded all picks, Puppy and Non-Alike)
Primarily No Awarders But Considered a Puppy Pick above No Award: 1000
Absolute No Awarders: 2500
2,500 Absolute No Awarders, up from 600 in 2013. They exist, Rape Rape. Unlike you, statistics don't lie. We know who the SJWs are. The maximum number of principled "No Slate" voters was 285; that's how many people voted No Award over Guardians of the Galaxy compared to the 2496 who voted No Award over Toni Weisskopf, the 2350 who voted No Award over Kirk Douponce, and the 2672 who suddenly decided that 38-time nominee and 5-time winner Mike Resnick was no longer worthy.

The post-awards spin that the 2,500 SJWs in science fiction voted No Award on the basis of unmerited nominees simply doesn't hold up to either statistical analysis or a comparison with past Hugo winners.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

What will Vox do?

The SJWs are worried:

“The real burning question is, 'what will Vox Day attack next?'”
- Charles Stross

"What will happen in 2016. We both know the question is what will Vox Day do? The Sad Puppy plans are secondary to what ever Vox Day does. I assume he will try to run some kind of disruption campaign but what kind we won’t know until next year."
- Camestros Felapton

Of course, I am not at liberty to reveal the Rabid Puppy 2 strategy, in part because we are still in the first two stages of the OODA loop, observing and orienting. (Sorry, Tom, I couldn't resist.) But in the interest of further demoralizing the already-retreating enemy, I'm not reluctant to reveal one of the new weapons in our arsenal.

That's right. The Evil Legion of Evil is training a corps of Amphibious Assault Otters. Armed with acid-filled squirt guns and supported by a crack squad of Attack Manatees, they will emerge from the rivers and literally melt the faces of the SJWs attempting to burn bridges as they continue to retreat. Good day, sir! I said good day!

In other news, the International Lord of Hate has pronounced his verdict on the 2015 awards. He does not sound especially pleased with SF fandom. Consequences may never be the same.
Before Sad Puppies came along, Toni had never received a Hugo nomination. Zero. The above-mentioned Patrick Nielsen Hayden has 8 15. Toni’s problem was that she just didn’t care and she didn’t play the WorldCon politics. Her only concern was making the fans happy. She publishes any author who can do that, regardless of their politics. She’s always felt that the real awards were in the royalty checks. Watching her get ignored was one of the things that spurred me into starting Sad Puppies. If anybody deserved the Hugo, it was her.

This year Toni got a whopping 1,216 first place votes for Best Editor. That isn’t just a record. That is FOUR TIMES higher than the previous record. Shelia Gilbert came in next with an amazing 754. I believe that Toni is such a class act that beforehand she even said she thought Shelia Gilbert deserved to win. Fans love Toni.

Logically you would think that she would be award worthy, since the only Baen books to be nominated for a Hugo prior to Sad Puppies were edited by her (Bujold) and none of those were No Awarded. Last year she had the most first place votes, and came in second only after the weird Australian Rules voting kicked in (don’t worry everybody, they just voted to make the system even more complicated), so she was apparently award worthy last year.

Toni Weisskopf has been part of organized Fandom (capital F) since she was a little kid, so all that bloviating about how Fandom is precious, and sacred, and your special home since the ‘70s which you need to keep as a safe space free of barbarians, blah, blah, blah, yeah, that applies to Toni just as much as it does to you CHORFs.  You know how you guys paid back her lifetime of involvement in Fandom?

By giving 2,496 votes to No Award....

The real winner this year was Vox Day and the Rabid Puppies. Yep. You CHORFing idiots don’t seem to realize that Brad, Sarah, and I were the reasonable ones who spent most of the summer talking Vox out of having his people No Award the whole thing to burn it down, but then you did it for him. He got the best of both worlds. Oh, but now you’re going to say that Three Body Problem won, and that’s a victory for diversity! You poor deluded fools… That was Vox’s pick for best novel. That’s the one most of the Rabid Puppies voted for too.

Here’s something for you crowing imbeciles to think through, the only reason Vox didn’t have Three Body Problem on his nomination slate was that he read it a month too late. If he’d read it sooner, it would have been an RP nomination… AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NO AWARDED IT.
There is no question that the Rabid Puppies and I won this year. In addition to hand-picking Best Novel and burning five awards (we should have had seven, dammit), I received more votes for Best Editor than Patrick Nielsen Hayden ever has. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I'm not going to be fired for attacking a female Tor Books author in public at a professional venue.

Screaming about "blood libels" at a woman of Jewish descent, Patrick? Really?

Labels: ,

Schengen is dead

Mass deportation or mass migration. Those are the two choices facing Europe. And only one of them will permit the avoidance of systemic violence. Americans would do well to understand what "free trade" and "open borders" looks like when labor has the mobility of capital.
The migration crisis that Europe has feared for so long has now materialised. At the weekend, the Italian navy picked up 3,000 people from ramshackle craft in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Libya. The Greeks are struggling to cope with the thousands arriving via Turkey. On the Macedonian border with Greece, riot police tried in vain to hold back hundreds of migrants making their way towards Germany and beyond. In the end, they relented and put many of them on chartered trains heading north.

What is to be done?

The problem for the EU is that the clamour from desperate people wanting to enter its gilded portals cannot be heeded without causing domestic political upheaval. It is all well and good refugee groups and other humanitarian grandstanders calling for the gates to be thrown open to all-comers; this will simply not be countenanced by Europe’s voters. In Berlin, where Angela Merkel held emergency talks with French president, François Hollande, the pressure is mounting on the government after it was confirmed that Germany expects 800,000 refugees this year, more than the entire EU received in 2014.

Unsurprisingly, the Germans are now complaining that they are being asked to take too many migrants, all of whom must have arrived through other countries. The demands for “burden sharing” are growing as the crisis deepens. But what exactly does this mean? Since there are no borders in Europe under the Schengen Treaty, a quota system - whereby, say, Finland takes 50,000, Ireland 30,000 and the UK 100,000 - is meaningless: once the migrants are in the EU, they can go where they want. Conditions could be attached to residency qualifications and working rights, but how would they be enforced? ID cards would have to be issued throughout the entire EU; all incomers would have to be fingerprinted and have their biometrics taken and stored; restrictions would need to be imposed on family reunion.

When the founding fathers of the old Common Market established free movement of people as a fundamental principle, they did not for a moment envisage a borderless entity of 26 continental countries (including four non-EU nations), not least because much of Europe at the time was under the heel of the Soviet Union. When the Schengen agreement was signed, in 1985, there were 10 member states - and only five wanted to take part. Britain and Ireland retain an opt-out to this day. In 1990, the formal abolition of frontiers and visa controls coincided with the collapse of communism and the first wave of immigration into western Europe began, principally from countries that have since joined the EU. This latest encroachment is far more problematic since there are, in theory, millions of people who would like to come to Europe.
Considering that refugee camps are already being attacked in Germany, Italy, and Sweden, and that Hungary and Serbia are building walls of the sort they never needed to erect during the Cold War, this is is not immigration, this is not migration, this is invasion. Europe has fought off invasion from the South before, and it will do it again. As the 700-year history of the Reconquista shows, there is no such thing as an irreversible trend.

Labels: ,

Institutionalized Islamophobia

Monday, August 24, 2015

Of this, that, and the other thing

All right, a few things that require addressing. First, the Closed Brainstorm meeting to discuss the 2016 strategy will be Thursday, August 27th, at 7 PM EST. Annual and pre-existing monthly members only, since we don't want to share our thoughts with the SJWs. No decisions will be made, this is simply what it's called, a brainstorm session. I'll also share some information about the No Award vote that has been brought to light; still working on documentation. Check your emails tonight for the registration information.

Second, we should probably get going rolling with the VPFL before it gets too late. If you haven't played before and want to give it a shot, post your name here and I'll randomly select the winners who will receive a team to manage. If you qualified to come back, please point that out here. I'm a bit behind on this for obvious reasons.

Third, I have been informed that some are seeking Vile Faceless Minion status. Since I don't have the time to put up with being summoned in the mirror at the moment, you'll just have to email me requesting it with MINION in the subject. If you've recently done so, don't do it again, I've got five or six potential minions waiting to receive Malwyn's mark and get their number.

What is involved, you ask? Mindless obedience, no quarter, public silence, and gnawing on SJW bones. The Dark Lord speaks, the minion acts. If you're not down with that, that's fine, but then don't sign up. The VFM are the Legion's shock troops, the devourers and demoralizers, the breakers of enemy lines. If that's not how you see your role, then stay Dread Ilk, stay Ilk, or simply remain one of the vast numberless minions who also serve the Evil Legion of Evil.

Because as the 400 already know, I will call upon you.

Fourth, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police will be available in ebook on Amazon and Castalia on Thursday. I don't know when the hardcover will be available, but before the end of the year. To the left is an example of one of the excellent chapter-heading cartoons contributed by the artist Red Meat.

Labels: ,

There will come a day this will stop being funny

Today is not that day.

Labels: ,

The dangerous faith

I doubt it has escaped anyone's attention that with a few exceptions, the atheists, agnostics, and pagans around the world are content to make common cause with very nearly any religion except for one particular faith. As J.B. Bury observed nearly 100 years ago in his epic Cambridge Medieval History, which I cannot recommend more highly, this is not a new development:
Jesus Himself, had His followers allowed, might have had a place between Dionysos and Isis; but Christianity, which according to Porphyry had departed widely from the simple teaching of the mystic of Galilee, was sternly excluded from the Neoplatonist brotherhood of religions. Its idea of a creation in time seemed irreligious to Porphyry; its doctrine of the Incarnation introduced a false conception of the union between God and the world; its teaching about the end of all things he thought both irreverent and irreligious; above all things its claim to be the one religion, its exclusiveness, was hateful to him. He was too noble a man (philosopkus nobilis, says Augustine) not to sympathise with much in Christianity, and seems to have appreciated it more and more in his later writings Still his opinion remained unchanged: "The gods have declared Christ to have been most pious; he has become immortal, and by them his memory is cherished. Whereas the Christians are a polluted set, contaminated and enmeshed in error." Christianity was the one religion to be fought against and if possible conquered.

What Neoplatonism did theoretically the force of circumstances accomplished on. the practical side. The Oriental creeds had not merely gained multitudes of private worshippers; they had forced their way among the public deities of Rome. Isis, Mithra, Sol Invictus, Dea Syra, the Great Mother, took their places alongside of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, etc., and the Sacra peregrina appeared on the calendar of public festivals. As most of these Oriental cults contained within them the monotheist idea it is possible that they might have fought for preeminence and each aspired to become the official religion of the Empire. But they all recognised Christianity to be a common danger, and M. Cumont has shewn that this feeling united them and made them think and act as one.
From Communists to Muslims to SJWs, various philosophies and religions have been more than happy to attempt to coopt Jesus Christ, because they believe he is dead. What they cannot countenance are the servants of the Living God, the followers of the Risen Christ, who despite our manifold failings, our observable flaws, our complete falling short of the glory of the God we worship, insist on attempting to tread upon the hard and narrow path rather than obediently follow the gentle, easy, thoughtless ways they advocate.

Christianity is the dangerous faith because it is the one faith that is rooted in truth rather than lies. It is the one real connection Man can make to the Divine. Yes, our understandings are imperfect, yes, we see as though through a glass, darkly, yes, our interpretations are various and contradictory, and yet, only in doing so, only through relentlessly pursuing the truth to the best of our ability can we begin to approach Truth.

Those who consider Christians to be self-righteous entirely miss the point, including those who consider themselves to be righteous Christians. To be forgiven is not the same as being sinless. To be repentant is not the same as to be blameless. It is not necessary to put on sackcloth and with Augustine melodramatically label ourselves the worst of all sinners to recognize that we are no better, and in some cases are considerably worse, than the virtuous pagan.

For better or for worse, we are who we are. We have done what we have done and we can never change the past. But what we don't have to do is remain broken, frightened, sin-enslaved beings. That, through the grace of God, is the one thing we can change.

And that is what the enemies of God, in all their various guises, cannot abide. Because that is the one freedom they can never offer.

Labels: , ,

The Archmorlock's curse

John C. Wright explains why he will not write books for Tor in the future:
I am sad to report that I was mistaken. The Archmorlock himself displayed his courage against the short and girlish figure of my meek and gentle wife.

At the reception just before the Awards Ceremony itself, my lovely and talented wife, who writes for Tor books under her maiden name of L Jagi Lamplighter, and who had been consistently a voice of reason and moderation during the whole silly kerfluffle, approached Mr. Patrick Nielsen Hayden at the party to extent to him the olive branch of peace and reconciliation.

Before she could finish her sentence, however, Mr. Hayden erupted into a swearing and cursing, and he shouted and bellowed at the tiny and cheerful woman I married.

I should mention that during the last few months of the Sad Puppies kerfluffle, I once upon a time accurately described him, Mr. Moshe Feder, and Mrs Irene Gallo of Tor Books as ‘Christ Haters.’ The support of abortion, sodomy, and euthanasia rather unambiguously put a soul into the position of open rebellion against Christian teachings. In addition, any man who bears false witness against his neighbor, delights in poison-tongued gossip, and destroys writing careers of anyone who does not support his politics not only disobeys Christ, but violates the ordinary decency of ordinary men of good will of any faith.

It seems that Mr. Hayden is a Roman Catholic and was so deeply moved to offense by my words that he could not retain a levelheaded and professional demeanor while speaking with my short little wife. He shouted filthy words at her and stormed off. I do not know if there were tears in his eyes.

Before I continue, I should explain to the reader that Mr. Hayden, and no one else, was the driving force behind the corruption of the Hugo Awards in these last fifteen to twenty years.
One thing that Mr. Wright neglected to add: the only reason that the Best Hugo Editor (Long Form) category that was denied to Baen's Toni Weisskopf even exists was so that Mr. Nielsen Hayden could finally win an award after years of whining about his inability to beat Gardner Dozois for Best Professional Editor. Chris M. Barkley claims sole responsibility for the addition of a new category, but even he admits that Patrick Nielsen Hayden was his co-conspirator, publicly campaigned for the new award, and was the chief driving force behind the creation of the new category as well as the completely coincidental first winner of it.
I sought out Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s support for the Editor’s split and brought him into the fold; I needed a prominent editor to co-sponsor the amendment or it would never have been taken seriously by the Business Meeting. He was reluctant to do so at first but eventually, he concluded that a split of the category was the best option available at the time. Until I finally shook his hand at the LACon IV Business Meeting in 2006, I think he had doubts that it would ever pass. And, the very next year, it was he who was the recipient of the very first Long Form Editor Hugo Award. Was this a coincidence? Yes; Patrick Nielsen Hayden did not conspire to win his Hugo Award, he EARNED it from the voters for his superlative work.
Seriously, the man worked to create a new Hugo award just so he could win one. Here is PNH himself in 2006 whining about how he and David Hartwell of Tor never ever get to win a Hugo:
In a post to his own weblog, Scalzi expresses regret that I personally didn’t make the “Best Professional Editor” ballot, despite the fact that I acquired three out of the five Best Novel nominees and personally shepherded two of them to publication. This is generous of John, and I wouldn’t have declined the nomination, but in fact as every book editor in our field knows, while the Best Professional Hugo is regularly awarded to high-profile magazine editors and anthologists, it only goes to book editors if we die. It’s for this reason that there’s a pending proposal to split the editorial award into “long form” and “short form” categories; whether this will be ratified by this year’s Worldcon Business Meeting is anyone’s guess. Personally, I note that David Hartwell has been a finalist for Best Professional Editor 15 times, leaving aside his 17 further nominations for the New York Review of Science Fiction, and that he’s never won a Hugo of any kind. Pretty shabby treatment for an individual who is by any measure one of the best and most influential editors in the eighty-year history of our field. Whether or not the World SF Convention decides to reform the editor award, it’s years past time one went to Hartwell.  
The Best Tor Books Editor award was duly created, and the awards went to: Patrick Nielsen Hayden, David Hartwell, David Hartwell, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden for the first four years before before Hartwell talked PNH into turning down their nominations so Lou Anders of Pyr could have a chance to win. Hartwell, a gentlemanly individual who is John C. Wright's editor at Tor, continued to decline nominations, but PNH has eagerly continued throwing his hat in the ring and likely would have won the award again this year if the Puppies had not prevented him from being nominated a 16th time.

And that is why he was shouting and swearing at Tor author L. Jagi Lamplighter. Patrick Nielsen Hayden is a vain, pompous little freak who is furious that his influence over science fiction has been broken and he's not even being nominated for his own personal award. Here is his very professional comment after the ceremony.

#18 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: August 23, 2015, 02:55 AM:
I'll have more to say later. Right now TNH and I are at GRRM's Hugo Loser Party and all I have to say is, my, that is some tasty, tasty schadenfreude pie. 

Labels: ,

Newer Posts Older Posts