Author: VD

NSA whistleblowers back Snowden

More importantly, they note that his approach was more successful than theirs:

USA Today has published an extraordinary interview with three
former NSA employees who praise Edward Snowden’s leaks, corroborate some
of his claims, and warn about unlawful government acts….

In other words, they blew the whistle in the way Snowden’s critics suggest he should have done. Their
method didn’t get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in
the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on.
But they are nonetheless owed thanks.
And among them, they’ve now said all of the following:

  • His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security.
  • What Snowden discovered is “material evidence of an institutional crime.”
  • As
    a system administrator, Snowden “could go on the network or go into any
    file or any system and
    change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure — because he
    would
    be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So
    that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That’s why he
    said, I think, ‘I can even target the president or a judge.’ If he knew
    their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target
    list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be
    collected, yeah, that’s right. As a super-user, he could do that.”
  • “The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth.”
  • Congressional overseers “have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are
    totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling
    them what they are doing.”
  • Lawmakers “don’t really don’t understand what the NSA does and how it
    operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don’t understand.”
  • Asked
    what Edward Snowden should expect to happen to him, one of the men,
    William Binney, answered, “first tortured, then maybe even rendered and
    tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even
    executed.” Interesting that this is what a whistleblower thinks the U.S.
    government will do to a citizen. The abuse of Bradley Manning worked.
  • “There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know
    wrong is being done. There is none. It’s a toss of the coin, and the
    odds are you are going to be hammered.”

What a tremendous surprise to learn that the government isn’t telling the truth about Snowdon and his revelations!

Ideological cleansing

In much the same way Sami Abu Al-Ala was recently calling for ethnically cleansing Egypt of Jews, a pinkshirt by the name of Amal El-Mohtar was calling for the ideological cleansing of SFWA the other day.  She appears to find me insufficiently enthusiastic about the equalitarian jihad and is obviously hoping to make use of Twittergate in order to expel me from the organization   I didn’t bother responding to her call initially, since El-Mohtar’s opinion is no more important to me than Al-Ala’s.

What was amusing about the post with which she followed up that call, however, was the shock and dismay it reveals about her discovery that many sane and intelligent individuals actually tend to agree with me rather than with the fascist pinkshirts of the SFWA.  A number of my critics quite clearly do not recognize how the numbers line up; they’re still babbling about the problem of giving me “a platform” and clearly failing to recognize that I already have a much bigger platform than most of my outspoken critics.  For all that the pinkshirts are desperately trying to pretend something else is at stake, this is a very clear test of where one stands on the freedom of speech and expression.

Anyhow, this brave pinkshirt is feeling drained and wearied and constrained in her speech and expression by the fact that people actually disagree with her about “the horrors” of my opinion, despite the fact that I paid her no attention at all.  So, clearly, that is a situation that requires rectifying:

There are roughly seven thousand things I would rather be talking about
right now, but nevertheless. This is very important to me.

On Wednesday I called for the expulsion of Theodore Beale,
aka Vox Day, from SFWA. The reasons and proposed methodology are
detailed in the link. In brief, he very obviously, knowingly, and
deliberately broke the rules over what kind of posts could be tagged for
inclusion in SFWA’s promotional Twitter feed by posting a racist attack
on N. K. Jemisin. This is not a one-time occurence, but part of a
pattern of behaviour that shows malicious contempt for the organization
as a whole.

While the vast majority of responses — through
pingbacks on the post, in e-mail, over Twitter — have been positive and
supportive, over the last few days I have seen the following in various
places on the internet:

– people refusing to acknowledge that there was anything racist or misogynistic about Beale’s post
–
people wringing their hands over how we shouldn’t ban people from
organizations for their opinions (when that is not the argument I am
making)
– people saying we should just ignore him — that banning him from the Twitter feed is enough of a reprimand
–
people being more outraged at the idea that I would call Beale’s post
racist than at the fact that he called a black woman “an ignorant
half-savage” who couldn’t possibly be “fully civilized” on account of
her ethnic heritage.

I have also seen people belligerently
questioning or deriding my command of the English language, my religion,
my ethnicity, and my nationality, as a consequence of having made that
post.

I would be remiss if I failed to note that like NK Jemisin before her, El-Mohtar is lying about me.  I did not deliberately break the rules concerning the Twitter feed, I simply forgot them.  Nor do I have contempt for the entire organization, as my contempt is reserved for the current set of SFWA officers who are steering the organization into self-parody and complete irrelevance, as well as for the pinkshirts, who are mostly relatively new and unaccomplished members attempting to ideologically cleanse the organization of dissenting opinions.

UPDATE: Since I hadn’t read the woman’s entire first post, I didn’t realize quite how cognititively handicapable she is.  Check out her bolding-for-emphasis:

Marking blog posts for inclusion that include threats or personal attacks or obvious trolling will also be grounds for removal. (Emphasis mine.)

The woman obviously doesn’t realize that “removal” does not mean “expulsion from the organization”, but rather, “removal of the offending blog from the Twitter feed”.  Which, you will note, has already taken place.

El-Moron also lies again when she claims that I have “repeatedly and aggressively used SFWA platforms to
broadcast and disseminate these views with obvious malicious intent.”  I used the Twitter feed once.  Ever.  And I never used any “SFWA platform”, because the Twitterfeed guidelines clearly state: “While SFWA does maintain the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed for the benefit of its members, ultimately the posts that appear in the feed are the responsibility of the authors of those posts, and are in no way endorsed by SFWA, nor do such posts reflect the opinions or policy of SFWA.”   It’s not as if I spoke as an officer of the organization, hijacked the SFWA Twitter account, posted anything on the SFWA web site or published an article in the SFWA Bulletin.

Finally, she doesn’t so much lie as display outright neuroticism by claiming “This last reads to me very much like a threat, especially coming from a
white man to a black woman in a country where public lynchings are a
matter of living memory.”

This last bit certainly helps explain why people have been deriding El-Moron’s command of the English language. First, it’s obviously not a threat.  I’m the only one who has actually, and repeatedly, been threatened here. Second, Jemisin made her speech in Australia.  Third, I live in Europe, not in the Americas.

Let rhetoric be silent when the readily observable facts gainsay its blather.

A befuddling mystery of decline

Zerohedge republishes Michael Snyder’s recounting of the way in which the city of Detroit has changed in only 53 years:


1 – Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, and in 1960 Detroit had the highest per-capita income in the entire nation.
2 – Over the past 60 years, the population of Detroit has fallen by 63 percent.
3 – At this point, approximately 40 percent of all the streetlights in the city don’t work.
4 – Some ambulances in the city of Detroit have been used for so long that they have more than 250,000 miles on them.
5 – 210 of the 317 public parks in the city of Detroit have been permanently closed down.
6 – According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit.
7 – Approximately one-third of Detroit’s 140 square miles is either vacant or derelict.
8 – Less than half of the residents of Detroit over the age of 16 are working at this point.
9 – If you can believe it, 60 percent of all children in the city of Detroit are living in poverty.
10 – According to one very shocking report, 47 percent of the residents of Detroit are functionally illiterate.
11 – Today, police solve less than 10 percent of the crimes that are committed in Detroit.
12 – Ten years ago, there were approximately 5,000 police officers in the city of Detroit.  Today, there are only about 2,500 and another 100 are scheduled to be eliminated from the force soon.
13 – Due to budget cutbacks, most police stations in Detroit are now closed to the public for 16 hours a day.
14 – The murder rate in Detroit is 11 times higher than it is in New York City.
15 – Crime has gotten so bad in Detroit that even the police are telling people to “enter Detroit at your own risk“.
16 – Right now, the city of Detroit is facing $20 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities.  That breaks down to more than $25,000 per resident.

It is, of course, a baffling mystery and no one has any idea what could possibly have accounted for the transformation of this once-great American city.  Perhaps one day, a future Gibbon will be able to decipher the great conundrum of Detroit’s decline and fall.  But in the meantime, we can at least take heart in the knowledge that the innocent and suffering denizens who live amidst the wreckage are, thanks to the effects of the housing crash on house prices, now finding it possible to move to suburbs such as Southfield that have thus far escaped the general decay of the city.

Thank St. Diversity that those poor, but totally civilized Detroit residents, who are without question absolutely capable of maintaining a self-sustaining and technologically advanced society as well as every other collection of humans on the planet, have been able to flee that inexplicably cursed geography.  I have no doubts at all that this change of location will also completely alter what can only be described as their coincidental misfortune of the last five decades.

Celebrate Diversity!

Mailvox: leaving the Scouts behind

DC is standing up for the now-defunct moral code of the late Boy Scouts of America:

I’ve pulled my three sons out of Scouting and brought them over to a church that sponsors an Outpost for Royal Rangers. See…I want my sons to learn to be strong Christian men with morals, not rainbow loving losers that have no fear of the God of the Angel Armies.

Since I’ve clearly stated that I’m doing this, and why, so far I’ve been called intolerant, angry, stupid, and seriously, even Christians (?) that I go to church with don’t agree with me! I was stunned at that one. But today my friend sent me an email saying this:

“I don’t think u should use being a Christian as an excuse to judge gay people.  I thought Christians believed in not judging people. You said you don’t consider it as “judging” but that is exactly what it is. “

I think I was ready to hear all sorts of things from people, but was most surprised by the responses from those directly surrounding me.

You want to know how I feel now?

I am even MORE firm with what I feel is right. I will NOT allow the World to dictate what is right and wrong, period.

My biggest reason is that the kids need to see the clear, defined limit of where Christianity Meets The World. I’m refusing to be part of an organization that has taken a stance regarding homosexuality that is in conflict with my Christian beliefs.

First, removing your children from a corrupt organization is not “judging” anyone.  Discernment is not judgment.  Second, Christians believe that people will be judged, they simply don’t believe it is their responsibility to do the judging.  And one of the things God has judged people for in the past is tolerance of what He has deemed to be wicked.

I doubt your friend would say you should not use being a Christian as an excuse to judge a rapist or a murderer if you were keeping your children away from them.  She’s simply rationalizing her decision to arrogate the line between Christian morality and immorality, which is ridiculous since she doesn’t sound as if she’s even a Christian. Non-Christians have neither the ability nor the right to determine what is correct according to Christian precepts.

DC is absolutely doing the right thing by pulling her sons out of the now-corrupted scouting organization.  Every God-fearing Christian parent should do likewise.

Those dratted hackers

I exchanged a pair of friendly emails with the intrepid book reviewer “Icefog” this morning after my good friends at the NSA provided me with his contact information last night.  “Icefog” explained that his Amazon account had been hacked and he was quite happy to remove the fake reviews that had been posted on Amazon using it.  I’m entirely content to take his explanation at face value, and I would appreciate it if Mr. Kulkis would please remove his four reviews that were posted in response to the now-deleted fake ones.

Edward Snowdon’s liveblog Q&A

If there is any doubt that Snowdon is a hero, the fact that he is openly taking questions from the public and addressing them should settle that one.

1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?
2)
How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many
different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still
exist?


1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other
whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of
a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that
the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an
unforgivable crime. That’s not justice, and it would be foolish to
volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than
in it.

Second, let’s be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against
legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked
civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private
businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal
acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a
technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems
crash. Congress hasn’t declared war on the countries – the majority of
them are our allies – but without asking for public permission, NSA is
running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent
people.

And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a
country we’re not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a
potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our
own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a
government does in its name, or the “consent of the governed” is
meaningless.

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be
able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and
it cannot be stopped.

Two great quotes:

“The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.” 

“Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply
because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it.”

Those are the words of a free man and a hero of human liberty.

The raw terror of the gun

A woman nearly scares herself to death by wearing an gun on her hip… an empty gun:

I started my 30-day gun trial with a little window-shopping. I visited a gun show and two gun dealers. I ended up buying a Glock 9mm
handgun from Tony, a gun dealer four miles from my house. I settled on
this model because it was a smallish gun and because Tony recommended it
for my stated purposes of protecting myself and my home.

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing
about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7
minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then
the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.”  Too easy. I
still knew nothing about firearms.

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when
I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I
freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my
mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in
the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an
earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the
adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this
30-day experiment.

I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over
another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an
on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought
through….

I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked
him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He
took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was
empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was
and how he had one just like it.

The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

So here I sit at Starbucks, and the irony couldn’t be thicker. On
March 12, 2010, I was surrounded by big hairy men with guns on their
hips, yelling at me as I led a protest against Starbuck’s gun policy.
Today, I’m surrounded by five-year-old boys sitting with their moms at
the next table. Now I’m the one with a gun on her hip.

The gun makes me
more fearful than I could have imagined.

Keep in mind that there are people who genuinely think I’m crazy because I believe permitting terrified little mice like this a voice in governance is likely to lead to the loss of human liberty.  What the writer clearly doesn’t understand that it is not the gun that makes her fearful, fearfulness is her essential state of being.

She’s not the only one.  I have personally witnessed women reduced to tears by the sight and sound of men checking to confirm that their guns are completely unloaded. It was like seeing someone come unglued because the driver buckled his seatbelt.

Technology and the decline of the gatekeepers

The same forces are at work undermining the power of gatekeepers in every entertainment industry, film, books, and games:

“Let me give you the simplest math,” he replied. “The simple, simple, simple math.”
Good,
I thought. Because my friends and I are not so great at math. I can
guesstimate the budget of a big movie to within a hundred thousand
dollars by reading the script, but I can’t add the columns therein.
“The
movie business,” Peter said, “the historical studio business, if you
put all the studios together, runs at about a ten percent profit margin.
For every billion dollars in revenue, they make a hundred million
dollars in profits. That’s the business, right?”
I nodded, the good student, excited that someone was finally going to explain this to me.
“The
DVD business represented fifty percent of their profits,” he went on.
“Fifty percent. The decline of that business means their entire profit
could come down between forty and fifty percent for new movies.”
For
those of you like me who are not good at math, let me make Peter’s
statement even simpler. If a studio’s margin of profit was only 10
percent in the Old Abnormal, now with the collapsing DVD market that
profit margin was hovering around 6 percent. The loss of profit on those
little silver discs had nearly halved our profit margin.
This
was, literally, a Great Contraction. Something drastic had happened to
our industry, and this was it. Surely there were other factors: Young
males were disappearing into video games; there were hundreds of home
entertainment choices available for nesting families; the Net. But
slicing a huge chunk of reliable profits right out of the bottom line
forever?
This was mind-boggling to me, and I’ve been in the business for thirty years….
When Peter referred to the “transition of the DVD market,” and
technology destroying the DVD, he was talking about the implications
of the fact that our movies were now proliferating for free—not just on
the streets of Beijing and Hong Kong and Rio. And even legitimate users,
as Peter pointed out, who would never pirate, were going for $3 or $4
video-on-demand (VOD) rentals instead of $15 DVD purchases.
“When did the collapse begin?”
“The bad news started in 2008,” he said. “Bad 2009. Bad 2010. Bad 2011.”
It was as if he were scolding those years. They were bad, very bad. I wouldn’t want to be those years.
“The
international market will still grow,” he said, “but the DVD
sell-through business is not coming back again. Consumers will buy their
movies on Netflix, iTunes, Amazon et al. before they will purchase a
DVD.” What had been our profit margin has gone the way of the old media.

This is the very point that the SFWA members didn’t understand when I tried to warn them about the sale of ebooks through non-Amazon channels such as games.  The big mainstream publishers, (and more importantly, the genre publishers owned by them), not only don’t have these channels, they can’t even sell through them because their legacy distribution contracts prohibit them from selling books for virtual currencies.  And I very much doubt Ingram or Barnes & Noble is going to allow publishers to rewrite contracts in order to help them bypass the conventional channels into which they are locked.

Amazon is putting serious pressure on ebook pricing, but it is also maintaining a strong floor.  That floor will disappear once the in-game channel starts to see decent volume. So on the one side, their profit margins are going to decline as ebook prices continue to fall – the average price of an ebook bestseller fell from $11.79 in October 2012 to $6.59 in May 2013 – on the other, they’re not going to be able to sell game tie-in books much longer once Microsoft starts selling HALO ebooks through the Xbox and Disney starts selling Star Wars ebooks through its in-game stores.

It will probably surprise no one to discover that the primary response of the forward-thinking futurists was to declare their opinion that First Sword was unlikely to sell enough ebooks to matter one way or the other, as if the universal adoption of 3D hardware texture-mapped acceleration that Big Chilly and I introduced in Rebel Moon, and the 16-bit color we introduced in Rebel Moon Rising, had anything at all to do with how many copies of those games were sold. 

Speaking of First Sword, I’m working on the standard contract for in-game ebook sales right now, and I would welcome any comments or suggestions those interested in selling either original Selenoth-related fiction or unrelated material through First Sword and other games might have.

Mailvox: the lessons of history

JD demonstrates that one of the benefits of aging is that one has the ability to look back and determine who was, and who was not, correct:

At college in 1980, my Government Studies prof also served as Secretary
of the Socialist Workers Party of Minnesota (the real one, not the DFL).
We clashed over Robert Mugabe, just coming to power in Zimbabwe, he
asserting it spelled salvation and I, that it spelled ruin.

I
e-mailed him a year or two ago, asking if I could get a retroactive
grade increase since my predictions had proven more accurate than his.
His explanation was that he truly believed Mugabe was an agrarian
reformer whose program of taking land from Whites to give to Blacks
would benefit the country; but things just hadn’t worked out as hoped.

I
didn’t bother to send him the famous Heinlein quote about Bad Luck. And
I didn’t really expect the grade change. But it certainly was
satisfying to say “I told you so” 30 years later.

I doubt it will take until 2043 for “anti-racists” and those who are blinded by rage at the suggestion that not all human populations are equally civilized to ruefully explain that they truly believed that Africans were every bit as capable of maintaining and sustaining advanced technological civilizations as Europeans.

The question is: how many human beings will have to die by starvation and mass slaughter in America, Africa, and Europe before they consider the possibility that they might be wrong?  Based on how long it took the same sort of people to begin considering that perhaps communism was not, in fact, capable of economically outperforming capitalism, my estimate would be around 250 million.

It is an interesting question to direct towards my critics, though.  Is there any number of deaths caused by starvation and mass slaughter in a five-year period as a result of the structural breakdown of society in one or more countries that would convince you to at least consider my time-to-civilization hypothesis?  If so, how many?

Rejecting the Lie

A few people, both sympathetic and otherwise, have asked me why I am willing to hold and defend such controversial and upsetting opinions as I have done of late.  And providing more evidence that rabbits simply do not have the capacity to understand not-rabbits, the SFWA is absolutely rife with various theories concerning my supposed mental instability.

After all, who but a deranged lunatic would think to challenge the received wisdom of the warren’s long-accepted consensus goodthink?

As it happens, the reason is fairly straightforward.  If you will not stand up for the truth when pressed, you will not stand up for the Truth when persecuted.  Now, I may be wrong about the process of civilizational development and the extended period of time I believe it requires to fully transform tribes of primitive savages into an advanced and civilized culture; I have no problem changing my mind when a compelling case contra my position has been made.  I have, as the regulars here know, done precisely that with regards to free trade and open borders, among other things.  But I have not seen one single person, not one, even attempt to demonstrate that I am incorrect in any way.

I’ve seen rants, I’ve seen outrage, I’ve seen anger, I’ve seen insults, and I’ve seen assertions that certain subjects are beyond debate. What I have not seen is anyone make a case, let alone a coherent or compelling one, that opposes the logic and observations I have presented.  This is because the Lie cannot compete with the Truth, it can only attempt to obscure it and silence those who dare to speak it.

But the Lie never wins in the end.  The ongoing controversy somehow reminded me of this passage from Panzer Commander, a war memoir written by one of Rommel’s favorite officers, Col. Hans von Luck, which I found moving in the way it showed how even enemies at war can find common ground in the light of the Truth.  More importantly, it shows how even a rage that burns hotter and more violently than the rage of the SFWA’s delusional members cannot destroy the hunger of the human spirit for truth and Truth alike.

“Smolensk looked as though it had been abandoned. Destruction in the industrial quarters and of the bridges over the Dnieper was immense. In the midst of the ruins, Smolensk cathedral pointed to the sky. It appeared largely unharmed. I followed the women and the old men and as I entered the cathedral, was deeply impressed by its beauty. It looked intact. The altar was adomed; burning candles and many icons richly embellished with gold bathed the interior in a festive light.

As I went up to the altar with my companions, an old man, poorly dressed and with a flowing beard, spoke to me in broken German.

“Gospodin officer, I am a pope who used to preach here before the Lenin-Stalin era; I have been in hiding now for many years, scraping a living as a shoemaker. Now you have liberated our city. May I say a first mass in this cathedral?”

“How is it,” I asked, “that your cathedral is in such good condition?” His answer surprised me. America in tsarist times bought the church and all its treasures “Immediately after the Revolution, Russians who had emigrated from the Russians who, at the time, were in urgent need of American dollars. The cathedral is American property, which is why everything is-almost-unchanged.” 

I have never been able to verify his statement, but it was not very important to me. Without referring to HQ, I gave the pope permission to celebrate mass the next day, for which he wanted to bring in an additional pope.

The following day, I went to Smolensk again, having informed the divisional commander in the meantime; as a precaution, I took along an armored patrol.

The sight that met our eyes when we arrived was breathtaking.

The square in front of the cathedral was full of people moving slowly toward the entrance. With my orderly officer, I jostled my way forward. Already, there was not a corner left in the cathedral in which people were not standing, sitting, or kneeling. We remained standing to one side to avoid disturbing the service by our presence.

I was not familiar with the Russian Orthodox ritual, but the ceremony that now began drew me more and more under its spell.

Invisible behind the altar, one of the two popes began with a monotone chant, which was answered by a choir of eight voices standing in front of the altar. The chanting of the precentor and the choir filled the vast space of the church. The acoustics gave the impression that the chanting came from above, from heaven.

The people fell on their knees and prayed. All had tears in their eyes. For them, it was the first mass for more than twenty years. My companion and I were greatly moved.”

In rejecting NK Jemisin’s call for reconciliation within the SFWA, I declared there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.  Still less can there be any compromise between the Truth and the Lie.

The liars can ban the services. They can revoke memberships, they can deny access, they can reject publications, they can close their eyes, and they can put their hands over their ears. But one thing they cannot do is make their lies real.  And sometimes, it is necessary to imitate the marshwiggle, stick one’s hand into the fire, and raise a stink capable of penetrating their illusions.