Archive for June, 2015

The Hatreds of the Left

Posted June 12, 2015 By John C Wright

A boorish reader takes me to task for speaking the plain truth bluntly. He greatly surprised me by backing away from his boorishness for a moment, and, to return his courtesy, I owe him an answer to his question.

This is the statement he doubted, saying this had nothing to do with Marxism, and saying that Leftism was a term I had not defined.

They [the Left] hate money making. Hatred of being productive is the core of their thinking, next to hatred of truth, beauty, life, love, unborn babies, and Christ. «

Hatred is the emotion that accompanies a desire to abominate and destroy the object of hatred. Hence, without being a mind reader, the hatreds of the Left can be rightfully deduced by their acts and their rhetoric. They do not hide what they believe.

1. They hate making money.

While there are heterodox Leftists, the core of Leftism orthodoxy is the mistrust of something called Capitalism, which is a deceptive mischaracterization of the free market.

In the free market, free and equal men exchange goods and services through indirect barter to their mutual benefit.

In capitalism, a coherent class called Capitalists manipulates the power of the market and the state to deceive the proletarian class into a situation of exploitation: per Marx, the value of a good is based solely on the labor expended on making it, and this is equal to the contribution of the laborer.

The expense of arranging organization, bringing articles to market, advertizing, tools, training and a shed or factory in which to work, including maintenance and replacement of worn tools is called capital. All these are up-front costs, that is, they must be expended before the good is made. Per Marx the capital contribution counts for nothing. The goods are sold at the labor value, but the wage of the worker is necessarily below this. The profit of the investor or owner, paying him back for the up-front costs, is necessarily taken from the sale price of the good; the sale price is the labor value; the laborer hence, by definition, and in all cases and under all circumstances, is being cheated and exploited by the investor, whom Marx sneers at with the word capitalist, a term he invented for reasons of political correctness, that is for the purpose of describing a good thing as evil or an evil thing as good.

(The term has since, as all politically correct terms do, taking on the normal and honest connotations of the idea it represents in the common mind, and so is now no longer a slander word or sneer word, but used by free men with pride to describe themselves.)

Hence, under Marx, by definition, and under all circumstances, the investor being paid back for his investment, making a profit, is immoral and hateful. Marx blames the immorality on the institution of private property.

In real life, the free market is a positive sum game: both parties win. In the make believe of Marx, Capitalism is a negative sum game where the rich always win (or lose less) than the poor, and fatten themselves on the misery of the masses, which they inflict for profit. The iron law of wages always drives wages to starvation level; the economies of scale always force corporations into ever larger combinations and monopolies, until finally only one world monopoly will exist. The fact that these vapid errors in the science of economics were disproved a generation or two before Marx ever took pen to paper has never deterred a single zealot of the cult called socialism.

Most modern Leftists have not read Marx and know nothing of his abortive economic arguments, such as they are.

However, the vocabulary and raw emotional appeal of the sense of wounded self-righteousness remains, and parts of the analysis remain. One still hears the Politically Correct terms ‘social justice’ from time to time, or  ‘wage slavery’ , words used to make evil seem good and good seem evil. Newspeak is a pure Marxist invention, merely popularized by George Orwell.

Leftism includes as its core the psychopathology of phobia toward the free market, and a faith in the institutions of government to correct for alleged errors in a functioning free market system based on rule of law and the sacredness of private property.

Leftists define themselves as those who seek to overturn the rule of law and have law based on persons: one rule for the rich (to be taxed) and one for the poor (to receive the tax money).  In recent years, the naked evil of this lawlessness has become too plain, and instead race relations rather than rich and poor are often substituted, so that Black lives Matter, but saying White lives Matter is racist and condemned. The effort again is to substitute rule of law with rule by Mandarins, intellectuals, and self-anointed enlightened ones, law based on persons.

A person who departs from Leftist orthodoxy on this main point, fear and hatred of the economy, of the free market, cannot truly be called a Leftist.

2. Hatred of truth.

Political Correctness is a core Leftist orthodoxy, the belief that the manipulation of words to manipulate minds to manipulate social mores and customs to correct alleged social injustices is not only morally allowed, but morally required. The core of Political Correctness is factual incorrectness, that is, an opposition to the truth as dangerous and hateful. Countless examples are at hand: I will point to the recent false accusations of rape appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, the false accusations of neonazism directed against me personally, the false accusations of global warming against modern industrialism, and in each case the lies were defended on the grounds that it was moral and proper to lie and immoral and improper to tell the truth.

3. Hatred of beauty.

Go into any modern art museum. I need not repeat myself on this point. Here are my conclusions, with examples: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/politics/robbed-of-beauty-by-the-left/

4. Hatred of Life.

Euthanasia and aborticide are sacraments of the orthodox Left.

The holocaust of the Jews, the mass starvations of the Kulak, and the repeated mega-genocides of the Chinese were all accomplished in the Twentieth Century by socialists of the brownshirt or redshirt type, using the same philosophy. Leftism is a death cult. One cannot be a Leftist properly so called without being an apologist or a denier for a holocaust of human life, either of unborn children or some undesirable class needing liquidation. Perhaps in the past, before the fall of the Soviet Union, a belief in the benevolence of this deadly, humanity-destroying, mass-murdering political philosophy was excusable. Now, such ignorance is either negligence or willfulness. I do not believe any man is honestly unaware of the enormities of the Left in the Twentieth Century, the bloodiest in history. The whole of the Spanish Inquisition killed fewer people than Mao killed in one day.

5. Hatred of Love.

It was not always so, but modern orthodox Leftism exalts fornication and sodomy as the highest expressions of human sexuality, and they are praised in terms of their sacred and inviolate character. My school age son just this day was upbraided in a Boy Scout class for saying that there is only one form of family life, that is, monogamy, and was chided for calling children born out of wedlock bastards, and saying that a single-parent family is not a family, no more than a single-wheeled unicycle is a bicycle.

Love does not exist outside chastity, monogamy, and romance. These are unique Christian social artifacts. Marrying for love is unknown outside areas influenced by Christian thinking: absent the oath of matrimony, love is not true love, but mere lust, which is in many ways its opposite. The attack on the sacred character of monogamy has been unrelenting and lead to the current absurdities of transvestites and eunuchs wearing dresses barging into women’s dressing rooms.

Romance depends on the opposite and complementary nature of the sexes. A major branch of Leftism, and one which bids fair to bring all other branches to heel, makes any observation of the differences between the sexes to be a sign of oppression, and therefore is met with absolute hostility. I point to the firing of Larry Summers, dean of Harvard, as one example of countless.

6. Hatred of Unborn babies.

There are too many examples to mention. See, for example, this http://www.euthanasia.com/will.html

7. Hatred of Christ.

There are too many examples to mention. See, for example, this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/mojave.asp

One cannot be a Leftist and be a Christian. The worldviews are logically incompatible at every point. There are, to be sure, Leftists who call themselves Christian. Logic is not their strong suit.

Definition of Leftism

The cult of darkness variously known as Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Brights, Socialists, Pinkos, Late Moderns, Collectivists, Traitors, is controlled by a Seven Bad Ideas around which their various emotions and interjections orbit.

The Seven Bad Ideas are:

  • Solipsism — the paradox that asserts that truth is personal, hence optional: “It is not true that truth is true.”
  • Relativism — the paradox that asserts that virtue is subjective, situational, relative: “It is wrong for you to judge right and wrong.”
  • Subjectivism — the paradox that asserts that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As if putting a urinal in an Art Museum, and betraying the standard somehow proves the standard wrong, not the betrayal.
  • Irrationalism — the paradox that asserts reason is untrustworthy. Each man’s reason is too biased by upbringing, class self interest, sex, race, and background such that no one, aside from members of a given race and sex and victim group, can be expected to understand or advise other members of the victim group. Of course, reaching this conclusion from that premise is itself an act of reasoning, requiring the reasoner to trust his reason, despite the background and race and sex of the reasoner.
  • Pervertarianism — the paradox that asserts it to be licit to seek the gratifications of sexual union of the reproductive act without the union, without the reproduction, and, in the case of sodomites, without the act. The same insane paradox asserts that females should be feminists rather than feminine; and that sexual predation is more romantic than romance.
  • Totalitarianism — the paradox that asserts that freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, ergo it must be smothered and killed.
  • Nihilism — the paradox of that the meaning of life is that it has no innate meaning.

No claim is being made that all Leftists believe all these things. They have their heterodoxies, as any heresy does. The claim is that about these seven core ideas most or all leftist ideas inch near and orbit near. They may throw up trivial distinctions or exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of Leftwing commentary follows these main lines of thought.

A Leftist who says he does not believe one of these seven will nonetheless speak of it with respect. A man who denies all seven is not a Leftist. Most Leftists are remarkably stupid people, unwilling to examine their own axioms, unaware of their own premises, and illiterate of their own founding doctrines and patrons.

No proof is being offered here that Leftists believe these ideas or make these assertions. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by listening to them talk, reading their works, and reaching his own conclusion.

If you cannot see it by reading what they say, you will not see it by my repeating what they say. Look for yourself.

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Beale v Sandifer

Posted June 11, 2015 By John C Wright

Here is a transcript of am unexpectedly polite mutual interview between my publisher Mr Beale, whom the Elves name Vox Day, and the orcs of the Dull-Eyed Land call Morgothrond the Voxinator, and a satanist named Mr Sandifer.

They each agreed to discuss one book the other finds terrible. I am curious whether anyone aside from myself agrees the debate has a clear winner, and who that was.

I note particularly each instance where Mr Sandifer will read directly from the text of ‘One Bright Star to Guide Them’ and then offer an interpretation directly and diametrically opposed to what the text says.

Again, I noted when Mr Sandifer’s criticism applied to plot elements, characterization, or craft (nearly none) as opposed to his personal allergic reaction to Christianity, which is nowhere explicitly advocated, or even mentioned, in the tale (nearly the whole).

He particularly dwells for an undue time on a monologue by the villain Richard, under the claim that real occultists do not actually perform the make believe rituals made up for my make believe story. Since the monologue is merely elements taken from Shaw and Nietzsche thrown together with the sacraments of the modern Democrat Party, namely, aborticide and fornication, I suspect Mr Sandifer’s offense comes mainly from the clarity of the looking glass: He is Richard.

I note also that he lambasts the tale for its Christian apologetic message, apparently without knowing that this story, in its first and short form, was written by an atheist. I penned it about the same time as LAST GUARDIAN OF EVERNESS, and it has the same theme; I did not erenow think the theme was hidden or indirect. Indeed, I recall fretting over how unsubtle I was.

But each reader reads a different tale, and the wise writer knows least of all men what his story means. Readers see the face of the story; writers see the mask from the concave side, and sees the joints and wires which makes the lips and eyelids of the mask to move.

Below are the opening remarks, enough to give the alert reader a taste of the difference in the mental caliber of the two men.

The full transcript is here: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2015/06/the-vox-day-interview-transcript.html

The original audio is here: http://pexlives.libsyn.com/pex-lives-and-eruditorum-press-presents-the-vox-day-interview

Read the remainder of this entry »

66 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Nethereal is Here

Posted June 11, 2015 By John C Wright

My pen pal and (as of now) fellow writer Brian Niemeier announces the birth of his first born. Novel. First novel, I meant.

Today marks the release of my first novel, Nethereal.
http://www.brianniemeier.com/2015/06/nethereal-is-now-available.html

.Nethereal

40 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Honor is Satisfied

Posted June 10, 2015 By John C Wright

A reader asked what I meant when I said, that as a matter of formality, Irene Gallo’s pro forma and possibly insincere apology for her pro-forma and possibly insincere insult satisfied my sense of honor.

It is difficult for me to explain something that is second nature to me, which is alien to the modern world at every point. In the military, the soldier is obligated to salute the uniform wore by officers of higher rank, not the man wearing it, and the man wearing it is obligated to behave as the uniform requires. The salute satisfies the formality.

If an apology is offered me, and I do not accept it, I am the one violating protocol. A gentleman, rather than fight a duel, will accept an apology for anything less than a blow.

An apology satisfies the demand for apology; if the person proffer it did so with deceptive intent, God Almighty, who sees and knows the hearts of the sinners, will punish the falsehood with penalties nightmarish, vehement, absolute, and infinite, that my heart quails to contemplate them. I cannot burn a disembodied soul in hell forever, and neither can I read minds and hearts. Hence, I am not in a position judge the sincerity of an apology, nor do I have the least desire to do so.

Honor is an external thing, a matter of form. If the form is satisfied, honor is satisfied. Refusing an apology on the grounds of its insincerity is a privilege reserved to women.

In the case of Irene Gallo, I do not need any further words from her, nor does she owe me anything more. I look forward to working with whomever Mr Doherty hires to replace her.

The honor of my readers, who were also equally or perhaps more gravely insulted, however, is theirs to look to.

I have heard that some of my readers are stacking up all their Tor books, photographing them, and sending the photo to the Tor and Macmillan management with a politely worded note mentioning how welcome the lady’s resignation will be when it comes.

I, for one, will regret the event, since a woman of such superlative skill will be hard to replace, but I am confident that Mr Doherty will not insist on keeping her at her tasks in the face of her own shame and regret.

How could she, in good conscience, design a book cover for authors she has so bitterly, absurdly and erratically libeled, and proffer it to book buyers for whom she equally has shone such scorn and mind-destroying hate? It would be cruel of Mr Doherty to insist on Irene Gallo continuing to labor under such adverse and unhappy conditions.

40 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Tom Doherty

Posted June 9, 2015 By John C Wright

Mr Doherty was pulled out of his sickbed to make the following announcement concerning the Irene Gallo affair.

A Message from Tom Doherty to Our Readers and Authors

The Science Fiction community is populated with engaged authors and fans many of whom have strong and varied opinions on many subjects. Tor supports that diversity of viewpoints by publishing a widely varied group of authors and books through Tor/Forge and by posting a variety of material and reader comment on Tor.com.

Last month, Irene Gallo, a member of Tor’s staff, posted comments about two groups of science fiction writers, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and about the quality of some of the 2015 Hugo Award nominees, on her personal Facebook page. Ms. Gallo is identified on her page as working for Tor. She did not make it clear that her comments were hers alone. They do not reflect Tor’s views or mine. She has since clarified that her personal views are just that and apologized to anyone her comments may have hurt or offended.

The Puppies groups were organized to support a slate of authors for the Hugo Awards, given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. Media coverage of the two groups initially suggested that they were organized simply to promote white men, which was not correct. Each Puppies’ slate of authors and editors included some women and writers of color, including Rajnar Vajra, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson and Amanda Green. Some of the authors on the Sad Puppy slate have been published by Tor and Tor.com, including  Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright, Ed Lerner and Michael F. Flynn. Many, many Hugo Award nominees and winners are our authors too, including Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright and Katherine Addison this year and John Chu, John Scalzi, Cherie Priest and Jo Walton in past years, just to mention a few.

In short, we seek out and publish a diverse and wide ranging group of books. We are in the business of finding great stories and promoting literature and are not about promoting a political agenda

Tor employees, including Ms. Gallo, have been reminded that they are required to clarify when they are speaking for Tor and when they are speaking for themselves. We apologize for any confusion Ms. Gallo’s comments may have caused. Let me reiterate: the views expressed by Ms. Gallo are not those of Tor as an organization and are not my own views.  Rest assured, Tor remains committed to bringing readers the finest in science fiction – on a broad range of topics, from a broad range of authors.

You can leave your own comments on Mr. Doherty’s statement at Tor.com.

You will see a number of comments left by persons outraged that Tor Books is mildly distancing themselves in tepid language from Irene Gallo’s statements. Some threaten boycott on the grounds that Tom Doherty is a National Socialist racist bigot in favor of the Fourth Reich. I wish I were exaggerating.

If any man reading these words toys yet with the notion that this is a dispute between two equally sincere sides, each with a legitimate viewpoint, I invite, challenge, and enjoin you to go to this website and attempt to engage the Political Correction Zealots in any sort of rational dialog.

If you think both sides are equally at fault or that both sides use excessive and intemperate language, I invite, challenge and implore you to go look, and see, and judge.

Talk to them. Ask them a question.

48 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Irene Gallo

Posted June 8, 2015 By John C Wright

Irene Gallo is the adroit, talented and able director of the Art Department at Tor Books. In many places and at many times, I have praised and thanked Irene Gallo for her wonderful work on the cover art for my books.

I thought she and I were members of the same team, partners in a joint endeavor to bring you high quality science fiction. I have always treated her with courtesy, and, indeed, loyalty. I would have expected the same in return.

She has decided to join other top brass at Tor Books in describing me and Kevin J Anderson, a small and a large Tor author currently up for Hugo Awards thanks to the effort of the Sad Puppies, in the following terms:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTqQDGd5pyM/VXMZNP9TFxI/AAAAAAAABSg/O6897FvCNw0/s1600/Tor_FB_Gallo.jpg

I am not making this up. The original link is here

https://www.facebook.com/igallo/posts/10152728739637461?hc_location=ufi

And the link to the archived page is

https://archive.is/3Mtt1

I had no idea she had this opinion of me, or so much contempt for the books she adorned so skillfully.

My father in law, may he rest in peace, was a Jew serving in the US Military during World War Two in the European Theater. In fact, he won a Purple Heart medal for wounds to his hands he received while liberating a Nazi death camp. His unit was standing about idly, troopers on one side of the wall, ragged prisoners on the other, waiting for the carpenter to arrive with tools to tear down the planks, but in a fury of impatience he did it with his bare hands, like a superman. He turned down the award, thinking others whose wounds were from the enemy deserved it, not he. That is the kind of man he was, an odd mixture of towering ego and meek humility.

Irene Gallo should have been penning me polite notes of congratulation on receiving an historically unprecedented number of  awards for the prestigious Hugo Award, and rejoicing that any victory for me or for Mr Anderson (who would be receiving his first ever Hugo for his life’s work producing over 50 bestsellers) would reflect well on our main publisher whom we both loyally serve, Tor Books.

Instead, Irene Gallo just said I was a member of the barbaric and racist National Socialist totalitarian political movement that my family fought, suffered, and shed blood to expunge from the earth.

What is the honorable thing for me to do, dearest readers?

I am not asking what is in my short term fiscal interest, which is not my sole, nor even my primary, motive.

More to the point, what is the honorable thing for you to do?

* * *

Allow me to forestall any uninformed comments asking me to merely get over my emotional reaction or hurt feelings.

There is no emotive reaction. There are no hurt feelings. I have little or no concern with feelings.

The question here is not Irene Gallo as a private person uttering these libels. The question here is why she is repeating the libels issued by Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Moshe Feder, who are likewise highly ranked editors within the corporation.

This implies, but does not prove, that we are not dealing with private opinion but the official stance of the corporation. I have asked my editor to have Tor Books rebuke this libel. Time will tell.

Hence, to continue to deal with this corporation in a loyal, professional and businesslike way, when I am being treated unprofessionally by libels which hurt our mutual sales and demean both my good name and the good will of the company’s patrons, this becomes a matter of honor, that is, a matter related to the logic of dignity, due worth, and mutual respect.

We are not dealing with a mob. We are not dealing with a stranger.

We are dealing with the person who (very ably) designs my book covers, that is, a partner.

She and I make the book together and present them to the reader. It is a team effort. Well, one member of the team is cheering for the rival team.

Let no one pretend emotion is involved. This is a matter of principle. I trusted, and I was betrayed. It is rational for me to trust again? Or should I ask my readers and patron to boycott my work, and the work of other able authors (including Gene Wolfe) whom I greatly admire?

I ask because I am not certain, and I would like my readers to help me with this question.

But it is no help to answer another question, an emotional question, where I have no confusion and need no advice. How to deal with any alleged hurt feelings is a question I did not ask.

***

UPDATE: Well, that was quick.

Irene Gallo has posted again:

About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.

Since she did not insult me by name, she need not apologize to me by name. The modern fashion is to assume one knows facts not in evidence, and to pretend one knows the inner hearts of others, and judge accordingly. The judgment is always condemnatory. The modern fashion is to reject apologies if they seem insincere.

I am not a modern man. The insult was pro forma, ergo a pro forma apology is sufficient. I do not care about her emotions any more than I care about mine. I do not care about sincerity.

My personal honor is satisfied.

I do not need any further words from her, nor does she owe me anything more. I look forward to working with whomever Mr Doherty hires to replace her.

The honor of my readers, who were also equally insulted, however, is theirs to look to.

I have heard that some of my readers are stacking up all their Tor books, photographing them, and sending them to the Tor and Macmillan management with a politely worded note mentioning how welcome the lady’s resignation will be when it comes.

I, for one, will regret the event, since a woman of such superlative skill will be hard to replace, but I am confident that Mr Doherty will not insist on keeping her at her tasks in the face of her own shame and regret.

How could she, in good conscience, design a book cover for authors she has so bitterly, absurdly and erratically libeled, and proffer it to book buyers for whom she equally has shone such scorn and mind-destroying hate? It would be cruel of him to insist on her continuing to labor under such adverse and unhappy conditions.

128 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Finished!

Posted June 6, 2015 By John C Wright

The manuscript of the sixth and final volume of my Eschaton Sequence, COUNT TO INFINITY, is done. Well, it needs a reread and a spelling check, but I just wrote down, this very hour and minute, the curtain line I first put in my outline notes in May of 2005. Ten years and one month. Except for some polish and a spit-shine, all done.

Now who wants to find out what happens?

53 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Meet the Hugo Nominee!

Posted June 5, 2015 By John C Wright

From the Superversive site, a talk with Arlan Andrews, Sr:

http://superversivesf.com/2015/06/04/interview-with-hugo-nominee-arlan-andrews-sr/

Be the first to comment

From the Pen of Andy Robertson

Posted June 4, 2015 By John C Wright

In his last published essay, Mr Robertson speaks about his wife, his life, his website, and he writes a review and commentary on the stories I wrote for him.

The Superversive website reprints the article today. Below is an introduction. Please follow the link to read the essay.

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2015/06/04/superversive-blog-guest-post-by-a-ghost/

I am reposting this essay because I love it so much. It was written by Andy Robertson, the man for whom John wrote his Night Land stories.

Mr. Robertson ran a website dedicated to William Hope Hodgeson’s book, The Night Land. Back when all the other magazines were paying 2 and 5 cent a word. Mr. Robertson paid 10…and John writes a lot of words! Furthermore, Mr. Robertson paid in British Pound Sterling, so by the time the check was converted, we had a nice chunk of change–more than enough to buy a major appliance.

At one point, our refrigerator, our stove, and our dishwasher had all been paid for by Mr. Robertson. (Our dishwasher has been replaced twice, but the others are still going strong.)

Last year, Castalia House gathered all John’s Night Lands stories into an anthology. A day before Awake in the Night Lands was published, just about two weeks after penning this essay, Mr. Robertson permanently rejoined his wife.

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

With a combination of pity and dismay, I read this

http://file770.com/?p=22824&cpage=3#comment-272798

I suspect the Rabids aren’t fans of SF so much as they are “members of the cult of Vox Day.” Partly, this is the only thing that truly seems to explain the works on the slate — the ones that aren’t published by Beale’s own press anyway — the point isn’t that they are any particular thing, the point is that he chose them, and there they are.

I don’t know what that implies for the future. Beale himself obviously believes in nursing a grudge to the end of time, so HE’S not going anywhere. But how many minions does he actually have? What’s their staying power? Are they really going to stay interested enough to do this again next year?

But to my infinite amusement, I read the reply: There are, as of last count, 367 vile, faceless minions of the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil Authors.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/367.html

The International Lord of Hate has even more, and some of them are Mormons. Sarah Hoyt includes the Women’s Auxiliary of Evil, and as the Grand Inquisitor for the Congregation of the Evil Doctrine of the Evil Faith, I can grow additional followers from the noneuclidean spores transported here in brass jars from planet Yuggoth.

But the true treasure of the expressions were in Vox Day’s comment’s section, which I reprint here out of sheer delight. Go, minions!

Read the remainder of this entry »

36 Comments so far. Join the Conversation