John C. Wright's Journal » John C. Wright's Journal Fancies, Drollery and Fiction from honorary Houyhnhnm and antic Science Fiction Writer John C. Wright Sat, 23 May 2015 10:43:52 +0000 en-US hourly 1 No One Cares About Your Hooey Sat, 23 May 2015 09:47:43 +0000 Someone with the socialist yet anarchic name of Bakunin writes in with a link to an anonymous accuser who is linked to a second anonymous accuser:

It’s not social justice. It’s basic human decency to speak out against a man who says:

“In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons, but that is the instinctive reaction of men towards f***” (

It is also basic human decency not to lie, not to libel, and not to make false accusations.

For the record, Mr Bakunin, the words you are repeating are the answer to a specific question of what I thought the writers of LEGEND OF KORRA were thinking when they decided to use lesbians rather than male homosexuals as the couple of choice in a children’s cartoon to lure innocent and trusting kids into believing homosexuality is right and normal and ergo Christianity is wrong and abnormal.

But, oddly enough, you are only the second person, out of all of them who commented on that quote, to ask me about it.

No one else did me the courtesy of addressing a question to me. Technically, you did not either, but one does not expect a raven to lay the eagle egg.

So you are ahead of your peers in courage, or, at least, courtesy.

But it seems as if you did not consider the possibility that this quote should be read in context. If you read the question to which this quote is an answer, a reader is asking me to speculate on the motivations and thought process of writers supporting your position.

Yes, your position.

You see, your side, not my side, thinks of rednecks and conservatives and Christians as being obsessed with a psycho-pathological phobia and hatred of gays. Your side coined an silly term for the alleged phobia because it did not exist until you invented it: homophobia.

My question to you is this: do you believe that some, even most, hetero men have a visceral and instinctive desire to beat homosexuals to death?

If so, why is it bigotry if I report that your side believes this?

Why is it bigotry if I speculate that this belief in homophobia, fairly common among your side, was perhaps the reason behind the writers’ decision to use Korra and Asami as their couple of choice rather than, say, Aang and Sokka?

Let us suppose I shared your belief. Why is it bigotry when I report that heteros have this barbaric and grotesque instinct and not when you report it?

Answer: it is not. Which is why the opening part of the quote where I made that clear is missing.

I wonder at the rank incompetence of the dishonesty in which you are engaged.

Here you link to an anonymous writer who offers an edited version of the quote. The beginning part, stating the question, is missing.

The context is missing.

That part that makes it clear this is me impersonating your voice is missing.

But anyone bothering to click through the link provided can see the missing parts, and know what attempted deception you are practicing.

Here is the question from a reader I was answering:

Lesbians, lesbians, lesbians. Why is it always lesbians? When did “same-sex relationship” in fiction become identical with “lesbians”? I once made a list of the homosexual relationships I had seen in various TV shows and movies I watched and, without a doubt, each and every single one was a lesbian pairing. It’s only very recently that a show I watched featured a gay man in any way other than as a comic relief.

I’m trying to figure this one out. When the media tries to shove sexual perversions down our throat, why is it always in the form of lesbians? Is it related to porn (for surely “hot girl-on-girl action” gets more clicks than “hot guy-on-guy action”)? It seems that, for whatever reason, all leftist creators and media outlets have decided that, for making the unpalatable palatable, their audience is more accepting of lesbians. This can’t be a coincidence.

He is asking why Leftist activist in the media think their audience is more accepting of lesbians. And here is the first part of my answer that was edited out:

I am not sure, but I have a theory:

It is because the two sexes differ.

Lesbians in fiction look like Asami Sato, young and pretty. Even guys who have no fetish for seeing pretty lesbians make out understand their attraction to each other, because we also are attracted to pretty girls. It does not trigger a puke response. Woman also can look at female beauty and see it, that is, see the beauty.

The reverse is not true. Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level. While girls sometimes are attracted to them, they tend to be ‘bishounen’ rather handsome, if effete, men.

So a man who is attractive is attractive for his spiritual qualities of leadership, manliness, courage, and strength, even if his face is as pretty as that of Humphrey Bogart, who turns out to be homosexual is neither attractive to a male nor to a female general audience.

In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons.

Got that? I was asked about what I thought the thought process of “leftist creators and media outlets” and I answered with a theory about THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS.

Which was what I was asked.

So why is that part missing: the part that makes it make sense?

Is the misquote here coincidence? Innocent mistake? Or libel?

Nor, even without that context, does the quote in any way, shape, or form express approval rather than horror at the alleged revulsion. It expresses no preference. It merely says (sarcastically) that such an instinctive revulsion exists.

Even if you missed the sarcasm, any honest man would have to see that the words on their plain meaning express no approval. As if I reported the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and you were to conclude that I applauded the attempt of the Nazis.

Anyone clicking through the link there will come to this:

  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
  • I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
  • I believe everything the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.

So, from your reaction, I take it you did not click through the link.

You apparently did not even have the strength of character, or the strength of a finger on the keyboard, or the curiosity, to click through the link you yourself provided allegedly as proof of your accusation.

Ah, but what about the accusation that I changed the wording, out of shame and fear that my inner evils would be revealed?

This is a better lie than most, but still not convincing:  I removed one part of the line of the last paragraph. A friend brought to my attention that, even as sarcasm, that clause contained  swear word, which I do not allow on my blog, and which in any case did not show the respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward the homosexuals which I am obligated to show. I am not allowed to show them disrespect merely in order to show you scorn.

Did the removal of the clause change any part of the meaning?

Not at all.

Did the removed clause say homosexuals should be or ought to be beaten to death?

No. The meaning and the point is unchanged.

So why did I dare to change my own words on my own blog?

To remove a bad word, one which violated my own rules and sense of honor.

But the Internet remembers everything!

Be that as it may, I care not. If other people want to maintain bad words on their sites, they can answer.

But now John C Wright can be accused of being afraid!

I can also be accused of talking about myself in the third person. I can also be accused of being a flying purple people eater.

No one cares about your hooey accusations.

You and yours shower the same degree of defamation and contumely on writers who use the word ‘man’ for ‘human’ or who profess a belief that suicide is a sin and sodomy an abomination. Since I make no bones whatsoever about these beliefs of mine, why in the world, if I did hate homosexuals, would I bother to hide it?

I do not hide that fact that for all my adult life I was pro-gay and pro-libertine, until I was talked out of the position, step by step, rather late in life and every much against my preference and inclination, very much against my will. I can share the chain of reasoning to anyone curious enough examine it.

I do not hide the fact that my views on homosexuality were changed back I was an atheist. One reason why I became a Catholic  was because I found logic alone, not belief in any god or gods, forces a belief in the virtue of chastity, and therefore that unnatural sexual acts are vice. I do not believe unchastity is wrong because I became a Christian; I became a Christian because logic convinced me unchastity is wrong.

Nor do I hide the fact that there was a death in my family due (I believe) to his uncontrolled gay lifestyle which you and yours always say is harmless. It was not harmless for him. And yes, I do blame you for your part, no matter how small, in creating the social atmosphere that led to his death.

If a family member of mine died in a plague, I would blame every disease bearing soul who broke quarantine and spread it. It is contributory fault.

I do not hide the fact that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, perhaps a neurosis, but an objectively disordered sexual passion no matter its cause, and that indulging in the act is a sin, an offense against nature and nature’s creator.

If you believe as a matter of dogma that no one who believes homosexual acts are licit can be talked out of it with a logical argument, but that the belief can only be motivated by hatred, ignorance, or bigotry, all I can reply is that your dogma is an arbitrary decision to hate and accuse the innocent.

As you have done here.

And when the accusations fall short, you lie, as your side has done for years to Orson Scott Card, playing the half-quote, half-truth, all lies trick.

As you have done here.

]]> 2
From the Pen of James May Fri, 22 May 2015 21:46:44 +0000 As concise a depiction of the motives of the Evil Legion of Evil Authors, and our push for the Lame Uberleftist Message Fic Makes Puppies Sad, as I have yet seen. I applaud and condone these words:

The problem to me is pretty clear: the core community used to act as custodians of their art. They promoted and taught art appreciation and acted as curators. The Hugo Winners and SF Hall of Fame anthologies operated much like a museum. People said “This is what we think is good” and they made a case for it. They understood the evolution of their genre. Now Jack Vance dies and they say “Who was that?” They’ve never heard of Lord Dunsany.

Today that same community has replaced a curatorship with judging work by its value as a medium to achieve social justice. People are publicly stating they care more about who’s in the books than if they’re any good. Many more are openly promoting work merely by the identity of the authors. On top of that, at the same time they’re hanging “Not Welcome” signs to other identities. They’re on a crusade and with a lot of flat out racial and sexual hate speech to boot. Too many books are being laid open to whether they benefit this weird feminist ideology. They’re even attempting to mass boycott Game of Thrones.

Throw all that into any other arena, whether it’s engine design, architecture, whatever. It will be destroyed.

]]> 7
Petty Puppy-Kickers on the March Fri, 22 May 2015 17:20:31 +0000 From the blog of Theodore Beale, the Most Hated Man in the Solar System:

Glenn Hauman issued a second call for anti-Puppy Amazon reviews, this time on File 770:

Glenn Hauman on April 15, 2015
You can game Amazon ratings as well. Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review. Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

Glenn Hauman on May 20, 2015 at 10:51 pm said:
Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well.

And once again, SJWs have obediently responded to his call.

I am proud to have Mr Beale as my publisher. For one thing, he answers my emails without leaving me hanging for months, for another, he knows how to edit a manuscript.

I hesitate to call him ‘Vox Day’ or ‘Ted’ because of the recent discovery, touted by scientists, alienists, chrononauts and posthistorians investigating the degenerate subuman descendants of British workingmen found in dank caves and sewers, that Morlocks do not understand nicknames. This is a quality they share with the reptiloids of Alpha Draconis, and the Badoon of Capella.

This is not to be confused with the fact that the aliens from the Quinn-Martin TV show THE INVADERS cannot bend their pinky fingers. Each different invader creature has a different set of ‘tells’ which betrays his nonhumanity. See your Peterson’s Field Guide for details.

It must be noted that these entities, though dire and potent in their own spheres, often misunderstand simple human conventions, such as nicknames, or the process of voting based on the merit of the case, and can be thwarted by the agile wit of a diligent and observant mortal. I quote from our casebook:

“No; there is ample at hand,” declared the creature, speaking through Iucounu’s mouth. “But now I feel the need for relaxation. The evolution I performed a moment or so ago has made quietude necessary.”

“A simple matter,” said Cugel. “The most effective means to this end is to clamp with extreme intensity upon the Lobe of Directive Volition.”

“Indeed?” inquired the creature. “I will attempt as much; let me see: this is the Lobe of Antithesis and here, the Convolvement of Subliminal Configuration … Szzm. Much here puzzles me; it was never thus on Achernar.” The creature gave Cugel a sharp look to see if the slip  had been noticed. But Cugel put on an attitude of lackadaisical boredom; and the creature continued to sort through the various elements of Iucounu’s brain. “Ah yes, here: the Lobe of Directive Volition. Now, a sudden vigorous pressure.”

Iucounu’s face became taut, the muscles sagged, and the corpulent body crumpled to the floor. Cugel leapt forward and in a trice bound Iucounu’s arms and legs and affixed an adhesive pad across the big mouth.

Note here the importance of nonchalance when dealing with such creatures, as the pretense that their activities are undetected often lulls them into error. A strong cord, a sharp dirk, and an emulsion of Pharisms’ Excellent Nontelluric Expurgative, either in liquid form or suppository, is also useful.

They like to think they can pass for human, despite the encroachment of extraterrestrial verbal signifiers into their language,  such as “Szzm” or “cisnormative” or “transmisogynistic.”

Alas, I am too busy today to comb through Amazon to downvote and report graffiti being left on my sale goods by malign Morlocks. I ask any reader impatient for my next work to be published to alleviate my workload by shouldering this task, please.

I ask any undecided onlooker who has noticed the kerfuffle to observe who has played straight, honest, aboveboard, and continually and openly identified their goals and platform, and who has lied, cheated, lied, slandered, lied, libeled, lied, betrayed, lied, invented falsehoods, resorted to dirsty tricks, lied, defamed, lied, called people racists, lied, organized defamation campaigns in major media, lied and lied again.

I ask any undecided onlooker who has noticed the kerfuffle to observe whether anyone on the Sad Puppies side of things has called for posting false and defamatory reviews of rival works, or attempting to blacklist or undermine the income of fellow authors?

Allow me to quote the wise Cail Corishev

I’m still trying to figure out if they truly hate the work

The works are irrelevant, if they even read them. They aren’t making anti-Puppy attacks because they honestly think the works are bad, any more than Soviet commissars killed Ukrainian farmers because their cabbages were too small.

]]> 6
The Uncorrectors are Never Right Thu, 21 May 2015 20:04:34 +0000 The groundlings over at 770 — I am too lazy to provide links —  seem to be baffled that I make the following simpleminded yet goodnatured jest:

“I actually have rather plebeian tastes. Albeit I suppose a real plebeian would not know the word “plebeian”. He would use the phrase “the hoi polloi” instead.”

Joining with our own Dr Andreassen, they rushed in an avalanche of sophomoric vainglory to point out that the article in Greek repeats the article in English, and then excused their remarkable solecism by saying that *I* was the pedant. It was not just one jackanape who made such a remark, but a plethora: a veritable avalanche of gaffe.

One braying jenny congratulated herself on having ‘called me out’ for this alleged malapropism, by which she evidently meant, posting the erroneous correction under an assumed name on a blog I avoid reading, of whose existence I was blissfully unaware until the blog owner, Mr Glyer, started vexing, snarking and snarling at me, for reasons which yet elude explanation. To call someone out means to challenge him, that is, to direct an offer of combat not to a third party in an unvisited location, but to him.

I was surprised how few got the reference to Gilbert and Sullivan, whom, frankly, I did not think so very obscure. Once fellow who did catch the reference further surprised me when he opined that I intended no one to catch the reference, which was therefore evidence of something intolerable or uncomely about my person. Perhaps he thought I was telling a joke I meant no one to get? His reasoning was elliptical and, I fear, eludes my grasp.

PEERS: Our lordly style
You shall not quench
With base canaille!
FAIRIES: (That word is French.)

PEERS: Distinction ebbs
Before a herd
Of vulgar plebs!
FAIRIES: (A Latin word.)

PEERS: ‘Twould fill with joy,
And madness stark
The hoi polloi!
FAIRIES: (A Greek remark.)

I was taught, and experience confirms, that the alleged correction of “the hoi polloi” is the very soul and exemplar of pedantic error and half-learned buffoonery.

No learned man ever offers that correction, and no one ever offers it innocently, but only in vulgar pretense of erudition they do not possess. (A man with a modicum of real education would look in the OED, and see this phase is correct in English.)


]]> 57
The Customer is Always Right Thu, 21 May 2015 14:04:05 +0000 It would be untoward for me to comment on the mental processes of any readers disappointed in my humble work. If I fail to please, the fault is mine, not theirs. Nonetheless, from time to time the causes for discontent are worthy of note.

For example, in the novella ‘One Bright Star to Guide Them’ the characters as children, around age 10, stumble through a magical well that opens to a fairytale world, where they have a strange adventure, but then are returned to our world, where they age and grow into adults. As is the custom in English speaking nations, the children are called by a diminutive of their names, so in the flashback scenes, Thomas is called Tommy, Richard is called Dick, Sarah is called Sally, and so on.

The following exchange was brought to my attention.

nickpheas on said:

OK, reads Hugo Packet. One Bright Star To Guide Me By [sic]

Is there an in story reason why Wright seems to use Sally and Sarah to describe one of his characters, or just did he forget what he called her?

rob_matic on said:
He may be using Sally as a diminutive of Sarah, although I can imagine it reading oddly if both are being used.

Alexandra Erin on said:

Sally did originate as a nickname for Sarah, but given that I’ve seen his editor switch back and forth on a female character’s name in a book before, I’m not sure the more charitable reading is warranted.

Peace Is My Middle Name on said:

Given Wright’s stated attitudes towards women, I find it utterly unsurprising that he cannot even remember the name of his own character.

In his Hugo-nominated turgid and pompous pseudointellectual religious screed “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds,” the only female present is the cat, which he uses as a symbol for treachery and disloyalty.

SocialInjusticeWorrier on said:

I don’t think switching between Sally and Sarah is a problem, so long as the author has a good reason for doing it. I could see O. Henry, for example, using the shift in names very effectively to make a point about how different someone is/appears in a formal setting (as Sarah) as opposed to their normal life (as Sally). What I don’t see is John C Wright having any such purpose in his narrative, which argues for incompetence or carelessness.

The poster above wasn’t trying to make a joke about having more than one word for people, they were pointing out that Wright apparently forgot what name he gave the character and changed it in mid story. — this is the same Chris Gerrib who from time to time commented here, doing a pitch perfect impersonation of a teenaged girl that had me fooled for a season.

(Oh, and I checked – somebody on File 770 thinks that Wright forgot the name of one of his characters, and changed it from Sarah to Sally randomly. Not so – she is referred to as both names, but there’s no explanation as to why in the story. It would have been better to be consistent.)

When readers, who are always right, depart from comments critical of my humble work, step into the role of the Holy Office for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and examine my airy thoughts and dark heart for evidence of hidden heresy, however, they depart from the immunity to criticism or comment to which their exalted station entitles them, and they become droopy-drawer pigeon-toed and cross-eyed pantomime clowns it is right and just to belabor with a pandybat in the midst of their antic floundering.

For the record, my attitude toward women is one of deep and worshipful respect akin to awe. However, my attitude toward cats is one of continual fear, horror, and wretchedness, unless one is discussing Catwoman from DC comics, or the Black Cat from Spiderman, in which case my attitude is one of fanboy concupiscence.

How in the world the irenic mesonym called Peace is My Middle Name can interpret my attitude toward the fairer sex to be a negative one I leave to a psychotherapist to explain, or an exorcist.

Ah, but it seems the Grand Inquisitor is ready to explain all things to me, in the role of a reverse Paraclete.

In reference to these paragraphs in one of my essays, where I explain why it is not cute for mommies to teach their six-year-old daughters to drop the f-bomb I made these observations:

“The female spirit is wise rather than cunning, deep in understanding rather than adroit in deductive logic, gentle and supportive rather than boastful and self-aggrandizing.”

“Contrariwise, when women in the kitchen or the nursery use the name of the Lord in vain, and the children they are nursing and teaching hear them, the vulgarity has the negative effect of deadening the emotions of the youngsters and making them vulgar and indifferent to vulgarity.”

“Also a woman who is crude inspires contempt, because she has contempt for God and man. The difference is that a woman who loses her native delicacy and modesty does not become an object of fear and respect, but an object of contempt and loathing, because the aura of sanctity women naturally inspire in men is tossed away.”

On the 770 blog, that wretched hive of scum and villainy, I unwisely left a gentle remark where I noted that a hiccuping hapless lackwit quoted this passage of fulsome praise to support the contention of my alleged dislike of womankind, rather than taking it as evidence to the clear contrary.

Emma, a zealous Inquisitor of the Thought Police, helps explicate the enigma.

@John C Wright:”It is similar to people who claim I don’t like women, and quote passages where I praise women fulsomely in support of the contention.”

I haven’t seen anyone cite passages where you “praise women fulsomely”. I’ve seen people cite passages where you speak of women in patronizing and condescending ways, utilizing some truly idiotic stereotypes to pander to a madonna/whore ideology that 1) has no basis in reality and 2) insults and degrades women in every conceivable way. (And having now read the work in its entirety, it is clear that these passages were not somehow taken out of context. Your attitude toward women really is that vile.) That you think your words “praise” women shows a foolishness that is beyond compare.

It is difficult for me to untie the Gordian knot of this intestinal bafflegab (madonna/whore ideology?) since I do not have my Morlock-to-Reality dictionary at hand.

Again, in reality a woman is either chaste (a virgin or a wife) or unchaste (a non-virgin non-wife). I suppose, technically, a divorcee, widow, or the bride before the marriage is consummated, might occupy the borders of this category, but, again, the sex act is either within marriage, hence chaste, or outside marriage, hence unchaste. It is a case of A or non-A, and the basis in reality is that one reproduces the species with the father present, and the other not so much.

So how it is that marriage, the mere existence of marriage, the mere existence of a dividing line distinguishing chaste sex from unchaste degrades women not merely in one way nor some ways, but in every conceivable way, is a verbal duck-noise not intended to make sense, merely to express the fatuous vehemence of inchoate emotion.

I am sure that the editors of bridal magazines and the authors of romance novels would be disorientated to learn that their product pleases none of their customers, but degrades them in every conceivable way.

How my words of praise and adoration are interpreted as vile, and it be a folly of mine not to see praise as vile, is beyond explanation and (I suspect) deliberately so. A sane accusation can be refuted. An insane accusation, one that makes no sense on any level, cannot be refuted, cannot even be addressed, because it is insolent nonsense. There is no sober way to defend oneself from the accusation of being a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.

So what is this accusation allegedly supposed to mean?

My best guess is that the pragmatic, traditional and Catholic attitude that approves of chastity (and hence distinguishes between wives and maidens who abide by this rule, versus paramours, harlots and demimondaines who do not) is one that casts too bright a light on the lamplike eyes of the Morlocks, exposing their moral shortcomings, imprudence and injustice toward their womenfolk, and, since they cannot (with a straight face) criticize decency for being decent, they must invent some unconvincing substitute to attribute to the pragmatic and temperate attitude, to mischaracterize it.

What the unconvincing make-believe might be does not matter a whit. It is the act of accusation that offers the Morlock a momentary relief, not the realism of the accusation.

Meanwhile, please keep in mind that when the Sad Puppies claimed that there was a political correctness bias among the Hugo voters amounting to a political inquisition, we were soundly mocked, and (with considerable umbrage and disdain) informed that all parties merely judge works on their merit, not on the politics nor personal opinions of the author. There is no political inquisition, hence no heresy hunters! And to say there is an inquisition is heresy!

Res ipsa loquitur.


]]> 74
Morlockery and Progressivism as Futurism Thu, 21 May 2015 13:00:36 +0000 The SJWs are wolves in sheep-garb when it comes to leftwingers. Leftists believe in a future of peace and equality, and old hatreds between nations, races, and creeds forgotten.

The honest Leftists want to see the bridge crew of the Starship Enterprise, oriental and occidental, male and female, white and black, including a Russian, a Scotchman, and a Vulcan thrown in for spice.

The SJWs want Kirk humiliated and forgotten, and then the rest of the crew dead, until only Uhura of planet Twofer is left, and then only if she has the sexual orientation of the actor who played Sulu, and even she is insufficient, because she is neither in a wheelchair or taking meds for a neural disorder.

Leftwingers are the Eloi for the SJW Morlocks, merely food animals waiting to be exploited, hoping to be eaten last. If they are willing to turn on Heinlein and then Joss Whedon, the loudest and clearest voices favoring racial and sexual equality imaginable, then the Morlocks are willing to turn on anyone.

That said, the Eloi and the Morlocks of AD 802701 proceed from the same starting point, which allows them to dismiss any man favoring human dignity and freedom as an neanderthal. Even the term ‘conservative’ is a term the contains a hidden and false assumption, just as the term ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’. Each term defines things by their time period, not by their truth value.

According to the unspoken Marxist axiom, history proceeds always from the benighted past into the enlightened future. A man who prefers freedom to slavery, free market to socialism, free thought to political correctness thought policing, is defined as being someone loyal to the past, and the motive assigned to him (no matter what the real motive is) is nostalgia for the benighted past.

This is true even if the political ideals he upholds, free thought and free markets, never existed in the past. But anyone who loves freedom opposes the Marxist program, and, by Marxist logic, this means they oppose the future, oppose the inevitable, are sitting astride history shouting ‘stop’.

As if favoring limited and constitutional government were to be called “Wednesdayism” and unlimited totalitarianism were called ‘Sundayism’ because you expect the dictatorship swell into full bloom by this weekend. The labels identify the nonessential feature, future versus past, rather than the essential feature, limited versus unlimited government. By these stupid labels, a Monarchist resisting the rise of a constitutional republican form of government is ‘conservative’ because his land used to have a monarchy, whereas a madman who wants a felinocracy ruled entirely by man-eating cat-people created by genetic science is ‘progressive’ because the scientific progress needed for this state of affairs has not yet occurred.

The whole idea from top to bottom is risible. It is Leftwingery that is stuck in the past, namely, the sexual revolution and race riots of the 1960s, the abolitionism of the Civil War, and the alliance in England between the ancient landowning families and the new industrial corporations.

The Leftwing are trying to free the slaves that have already been freed, and shatter the sexual morals of the Victorians, which have been in tatters for over half a century, and reform industrial-labor relations that had been reformed successfully and nonviolently since roughly half a century before Marx took up his pen to complain about them. The miserable working conditions of the factory system in England, which was hardly a free market, were old news and out of date from even before Marx’s time.

Their economic solution is to ignore the finding of the science of economics, to own all property in common as did the Spartans, or as a primitive tribe with few enough possessions and few enough members that he, in his own mind, can simply see to it each brave has a bow or tomahawk and each squaw has a teepee. It is Cargo Cult thinking at its most primitive, the belief that goods and services come out of nowhere for no reason, and that the evil people horde what is rightfully tribal property, not due to their greater productivity and organization, but due to some occult magic, such as ‘white privilege.’

‘White privilege’ for those who do not know the term, is a magic word which allows Harvard educated lawyers raised in the lap of luxury with a silver spoon in her mouth, if she is black, to sneer at a Portuguese ranchhand raised in grinding poverty, on the grounds of his European ancestry. She is allowed to claim that a colorblind system, where all men are judged by the contest of their character rather than the color of their skin, is racist, hence undesirable. It is another form of primitive tribalism.

So who, precisely, is mired in the past?

]]> 8
From the Pen of Matt K Wed, 20 May 2015 23:35:37 +0000 A comment over at Brad R Torgersen’s blog, concerning the honesty, decency, and morality of voting as a way of making political statements:

“What are the Hugo Awards?

The Hugo Awards, to give them their full title, are awards for excellence in the field of science fiction or fantasy.”

First two sentences of the Hugo Awards FAQ, on the official Hugo Awards website.

To vote based upon any other criteria besides “excellence in the field of science fiction or fantasy” thus is inappropriate.

Voting “No Award” over a work that one thinks has been “nominated inappropriately” is really a vote against the process of nomination, and should take place in a different venue, at the WorldCon business meetings where the Hugo rules can be discussed for possible change.

Voting “No Award” over another work based on your perception of the ideological views of the author is a stand that you should make with your pocketbook, or your own internet pulpit, and not by subverting the Hugo process for your own preferred social or political purposes.

Voting “No Award” over a work because it doesn’t contain the requisite number of women/gays/minorities portrayed in the politically correct fashion of the week actually does superficially start to bear on the idea of the merit of the work. However, only someone who has lost all sense of the real purpose of art could believe the idea that the faddish political checklists of the day have anything to do with “excellence in the field of science fiction or fantasy.” Excellence in the field of social and political propaganda is quite a different category entirely, one with which historically prominent figures named Adolph and Josef were very familiar, back in my grandparents’ day. Many of us are tired of being told that “science fiction” which scores highly on that particular metric is the best that the field has to offer today — especially when it only tangentially seems to be science fiction at all. As has been noted elsewhere many times, political art is to art as military intelligence is to intelligence. In deference to our host, I’ll say that I suspect that comparison may be somewhat unfair to military intelligence.

If you think the field can do better than John C. Wright, Jim Butcher, Brad Torgerson and Vox Day, then prove it next year by working towards getting your preferred works nominated. Any other response betrays someone not really concerned about the Hugo Awards as such, but only about making sure that the “right” people/works win, and it dooms the Hugos to continue their 10+ year slide into irrelevance.

Of course, within the frame of the publicly-stated underlying purpose of Sad Puppies, the Hugos are already irrelevant. Evidence has proven the hypothesis. Experiment concluded. Case closed.

]]> 13
On Conservative Taste Wed, 20 May 2015 18:13:19 +0000 A reader writes:

I write you as a fellow reader.

I had the opportunity to download the newly released Hugo voting packets this morning. I express my unvarnished sentiments when I say that I find Sex Criminals stupid and gimmicky, Ms Marvel barely disguised ideological tripe, and Rat Queens another piece of ‘watch women do the disgusting things guys do in the name of equality’.

In fact, I actually find Ms Marvel’s attempt at incorporating Hindu elements offensive to the religion.

The only work which I find promising is Saga.

Am I hopelessly blinkered by my conservative tastes?

The answer to your question is not just ‘no’ but ‘hell, no’.

Conservative taste is taste. We stand for standards: melody in music, perspective in drawing and painting, soaring & sublime beauty sculpted in stone for architecture, plot and theme in storytelling, and so on.

We have the Saint John’s Passion by Bach, the paintings of Bouguereau, the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and the Lord of the Rings by Tolkien.

Morlockery is untaste. They stand for scrawling graffiti on standards and urinating and vomiting and excreting on them. They stand for atonal cacophony in music, bleary visual mess in drawing and painting, inhuman blocks of concrete and featureless steel in architecture, dreary incoherent psychopathy in the written word.

They have the music of Scriabin, the spastic scrawls of Picasso, the soul-crushing ulginess of Corbusier, and Ulysses by James Joyce.

]]> 49
From the Pen of Jeff Duntemann Wed, 20 May 2015 16:53:36 +0000 A balanced view and trenchant insight in a column from an interested onlooker to the ongoing world-shattering Holy War and  foodfight-in-a-phonebooth between the subterranean Morlocks and the lachrymose Sad Puppies

Some of the more interesting observations from Mr Duntemann are in his comments below the column.

SP authors have nothing to lose in the conflict, and AP authors have nothing to gain. It’s pretty much that simple.

My comment:

He hits the nail on the head.That is why I reject calls for reconciliation and a return to the status quo ante with umbrage and scorn.

Even with the utmost of humility and meekness I can summon up, I cannot honestly believe my work is inferior to tales which have won awards in recent years, prose poems with not a scintilla of science fiction present, or genre-free drolleries dwelling on politically correct messages but lacking both a sense of wonder and a competence of storytelling craft.

Even if peace terms were offered, what could the Morlocks offer me?

What purpose do semi-unpublished lacktalent lackwits like Damien G Walter of the Guardian or interstitial poetasters like Alex Dally ‘nonbinary’ MacFarlane of (whom together, in their whole careers, have sold fewer works than I sold in the last twelve months) — what purpose, ask I, do such peripheral figures  serve in the Science Fiction field, except to drive out the science and the fiction, the storytelling and sense of wonder, to make room for dreary finger-wagging lectures about the alleged glories of yet one more sexual deviancy or other morbidity?

To win their applause is no goal of mine.

I do not want the harpies to cook or wait tables. I merely want them to cease befouling the feast.

No one has offered me peace terms. No one has opened negotiations with me. No one has apologized, retracted, or condemned the outrageous libels offered in major media outlets. Instead, one or two rare voices, speaking in measured tones rather then hysterical screams, has asked for all parties to remain calm, and for the Sad Puppies to concede the field and withdraw, in return for which we are offered … nothing.

What we want is science fiction. That is our demand.

What we want is for works to be judged on the content of their story telling, not the hue of the hand of the workman who wrote them, and not the hue of the red banner nor the black banner under which he marches on his political crusades.

I am a conservative, nay, an arch-conservative. I regard  capitation, or other direct tax, as unconstitutional, and denounce Woodrow Wilson as a dangerous and experimental innovator certain to damage the republic. I am moreover a faithful Christian, and, indeed, a Roman Catholic, a member of the only minority, aside from Mormons, whom it is regarded as acceptable and amusing to libel, slander, mock and rob of our God-given civic rights.

Ergo my chance of having my work judged on its merits by an openly bigoted clique of Christ-hating male-hating family-hating conservative-hating politically-correct hacks and moles who have controlled the Hugo Awards for the last fifteen years is indistinguishable from zero.

So what would I gain from accepting any offer of reconciliation from the flesh-eating zombies of the political death cult dwelling in the dank and stygian depths of intellectually vacuous and morally leprous Morlockery?

What I demand is that work be judged on its merits, not on the non-essentials of race, class, sex, or sexual aberrations of the author. What they demand, their only demand, the only reason for the existence of the cult, is to avoid all questions of merit.

The only reason for the existence of Social Justice Warfare is bigotry. That it is bigotry against Western Civilization, Christendom, rule of law, liberty, masculinity, fertility, decency, family life, and the white race rather than against blacks is of no moment: Martin Luther King did not dream of the day when his children could go to the park from which whites would be excluded, but of a society where men were judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

The social justice Morlocks dream of a day where men are judged on the color of their skin, and that alone, so that beneath a blind and godless heaven, their lack of character will be excused.

Mr Duntemann also has his finger in the wind on another issue:

The Manhattan gatekeepers are losing power year by year. This means we don’t necessarily have to give a damn about them. I was shocked at how liberating that realization was when I finally internalized it last year.[…]

The big fancy 2-story B&N store in Scottsdale where I used to drop so much cash when I lived there closed a year ago. I’ve heard of others closing as well, and those that are open are devoting more shelf space to toys and tchotchkes. This is not good news for traditional publishers, to belabor the obvious.

[…] I’ve said nothing at all about it publicly, but over the past year I’ve suggested to a couple of independent tech presses that they should consider launching experimental SF imprints. The money’s there; the trick is finding it. The Manhattan presses don’t know how to find sales; they literally buy them. (This is called “pay to play,” and it comes perilously close to bribery.) The smaller presses could adopt the Baen playbook and do quite well. People are reading more than ever, and small, nimble, tech-savvy imprints could go after the Manhattan fortress presses and beat them at their own game.



]]> 1
Guest Editorial: Social Justice as a Sacrament Tue, 19 May 2015 18:51:40 +0000 A commenter named Sherwood Family over at Vox Day said something so well, and so truthful, that it bears repeating in full:

“Social Justice” is a religion. It has saints, dogma, and sacraments. It also has backsliders and apostates. As any religion knows, apostates must be dealt with lest they lead the rest of the flock astray. So any expression that shows them to be in any way rejecting the creeds of Social Justice must be met with a inquisitorial zeal. They must be made to recant…not just for the safety of the flock but for the good of their own souls. If they, like the proverbial village in Vietnam, have to be destroyed in order to be saved…well…so be it.

The interesting thing is that positions that were blessed by the SJWs in the past become rapidly outmoded and outdated and thus…incorrect. Evolve too slowly and one is a throwback reactionary who does not believe in progress, despite the fact that one’s views may be utterly in harmony with the doctrine of the church of Social Justice from only a few years ago.

SJWs cannot evolve too quickly either. That risks alienating the mass of SJWs who are not yet ready for more advanced views. But they do have a vanguard group who agitates for the more extreme positions, knowing that a slighly less extreme compromise will lead the faithful by the nose to the positions staked out by the vanguard over time.

Four decades ago it was decriminalizing homosexuality and legalizing abortion. Suggesting homosexuals should have the ability to marry and adopt would have been unacceptable except among a small group. And pushing for things like partial birth abortion would not even have been mentioned because it would have been too barbarous to be considered. Today, subscribing to these views is a requirement, a holy crusade for equality. Denying these “rights” today is sin. And the SJW church will require one to immediately confess their sin and be forced to undergo a struggle session to get their mind right.

But the interesting thing to watch is the avant-garde views that are slowly assimilated by the mass and made mainstream. What are the avant-garde views today? Where, in other words, are the SJWs headed?

This seems to me one of the reasons that aging liberals often wake up and begin adopting more moderate and in some cases even conservative views…because they were comfortable with progress up to a point but the movement has gone beyond their arbitrarily chosen boundries and they too suddenly find themselves athwart history yelling stop.

It is also one of the reasons why the “former liberal conversos” are extremely dubious, in my opinion. They often fail to acknowledge that it was their own efforts to promote “progress” in the first place that has landed all of us where we are now.

There is no compromise with progressivism and trying to stop it at some line drawn in the sand is a fool’s errand. Trying to hold them at bay cedes momentum to the progressives. Only a concerted campaign to destroy progressives root and branch by forcing the march of history in the other direction will ever have an effect.

Don’t want to be forced to support and defend homosexual marriage? Then arguing for a live and let live approach is stupid. Homosexuals certainly aren’t content with that.

Only forcing the issue the other direction offers hope.

Don’t want to be forced to have your tax money pay for contraception and abortions on demand? Then stop tolerating the existence of abortion which makes that the likeliest outcome over time.

In short, the only solution is to crush the SJWs. Remember…nits make lice. Extirpate them early and often.


]]> 50