Defensive much?

Johnny Con is feeling a little caught out. And defensive:

    1. It’s been recently suggested that I should be ashamed for getting the Hugo for Redshirts (by an author who hasn’t himself read the book).

    2. To be clear: I am not. I am deeply pleased it won, and I think it was entirely deserving of the award, and the other awards it won.

    3. It’s funny and an easy read, and if you think that’s easy to accomplish as a writer — and still pack an emotional punch — well, try it.

    4. The same author suggested (again without reading it), that it was a “social justice” sort of book, which lent itself to winning.

    5. It is, in fact probably the least racially/sexually diverse book I’ve written BECAUSE the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show.

    6. Indeed, when the TV script for it was written, they CHANGED the sex of a couple of characters to make it more diverse! This is true.

    7. So it really is a bad example of a Social Justice-y sort of book. Much worse, in fact, than my OMW series in general.

    8. Also, if the “SJWs” vote en bloc, why would they award me, SWM, when Saladin Ahmed and Mira Grant were on the ballot?

    9. The only answer here would be because the SJWs secretly crave straight white male leadership, which would be kinda not SJW-y at all.

    10. I’m happy with the politics I have and I try to be a good human, which is apparently what makes me an SJW. But Redshirts is, in fact…

    11. … a genuinely TERRIBLE example of a book to show influence of the SJW cabal, both in content, and in its year. It’s a bad argument.

    12. The book won for a number of reasons, including people just liked it. But because of an SJW cabal? Really, no. That’s dumb.

    13. I’m done.

My rebuttal:
 

“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.

“What?” Dahl said.

“What?” Hester said.

“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a
favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s
a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of
habit. It’s just an expression.”


“Got it,” Dahl said.


“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”

“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”

“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.  

Best Novel-worthy prose or Participation Hugo? You decide. This is nearly as amusing:

I do find the fixation on me weird, and I really do think it comes down to the fact that I would be the perfect flag-bearer for the sort of person who identifies as a Puppy, if for the inconvenient fact of my personal politics. And also because Beale really has a thing for me, which is straight-up pure envy, as far as I can tell.

Yes, because contempt is so easily confused for straight-up pure envy. What It was a little more than two years ago that I was informed I was desperately jealous of Mr. Scalzi because his blog readership was “ten times the size of mine.” Now that my blog readership is three times the size of his, I’m envious of what, his failed career as a game writer? I’m the lead designer on six different games. His career as a writer? If I find an hour to write every other day, I’m fortunate.

John Scalzi has been attacking me and calling me names for just over ten years now. He’s been attacking my readers and calling them names for nearly as long. It’s absolutely stupid for the pathetic fraud to pretend he doesn’t know why we continue to go after him. He’s squirmed, he’s dissembled, and he’s spun, but he’s never simply admitted that he lied. He’s never apologized. He’s never simply admitted that he was wrong.

It’s kind of a pity the traffic didn’t quite hit 2 million this month, but fell 90k short. Because this would have been the perfect time to juxstapose that graphic with Scalzi’s 2010 interview with Lightspeed, in which he exaggerated his traffic by a mere 1.7 million.

there’s more to John Scalzi and his writing than meets the eye. For one
thing, his blog gets an extraordinary amount of traffic for a writer’s
website–Scalzi himself quotes it at over 45,000 unique visitors daily and
more than two million page views monthly. And it’s well-deserved
traffic, too, in light of the man’s reputation for posting unique
content.

I find it amusing that so many SJWs still try to pretend that 300k pageviews per month was “extraordinary traffic” while simultaneously insisting that more than 6x that much is nothing. The lesson, as always: SJWS always lie. Case in point:

Re: “Feud” with VD:

I kind of get exasperated with it being regarded as a feud. What it
is, is Beale obsessing about me and maneuvering that obsession into my
path so I have to deal with it. Which I would submit is less a feud, and
more dealing with something akin to a persistent stalker.

Right, which is why he put together his mock charity drive and put pressure on the SFWA Board so they would pretend to expel me just to keep him and PNH in SFWA. The Scalzi cries “stalker” as he attacks you.

Moderates gonna moderate

You can always trust a right-wing moderate to shoot at a potential ally:

Starting three years ago, Larry Correia, successful science fiction
writer, decided to test his suspicion that the Hugo Awards of the World
Science Fiction Society were increasingly being awarded through the
action of a small group, and increasingly reflect the tastes of that
small group rather than a more general population of science fiction
readers.

There were many ideas what the reason could be: a desire by the
active voters to reward more “literary” work. An ideological bias toward
“liberal” writers and themes — which seemed to be more plausible after
attacks on more “conservative” writers like Correia, attacks on the
movie Ender’s Game because the author of the original novel,
Orson Scott Card, is opposed to same-sex marriage, and the expulsion of
Vox Day from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
arguably in violation of their own bylaws, for having offensive views on
race and sexual roles.

(Just for full disclosure: Scott Card has been a personal friend for
something like 30 years, and along with Ray Bradbury was the first to
suggest maybe I actually could do this writing thing. Sarah Hoyt, who is
also involved in Sad Puppies, is a close friend and as most PJ Media
readers know, my partner in the Book Plug Friday column. Larry Correia
is a Facebook friend who I’ve never met personally. And I think Vox Day
is an obnoxious and unlikeable dolt, as I’ve said in these pages in the past.)

Over the years, I’ve observed two things about people. First, people always
do what they find most rewarding; and second, every human institution
optimizes its behavior to maximize rewards — and while money isn’t
everything, when you’re looking for what’s rewarding it’s the way to
bet. Who stands to get a monetary benefit from the direction the Hugo awards have taken?

Now, at that point, we have to go back and reference something Vox
Day — who, let me remind you, I think is an obnoxious and unlikable dolt
— published.
If we look back at the last several years, there is a surprising
regularity to be seen: the same people are nominated over and over again
for several of the down-list awards, like Best Editor; those people are
all associated more or less closely with one publisher, Tor Books; and
much of the most vehement objection has been from authors and others
directly connected to Tor Books. The number of votes that decide the
election is very small — tens of votes.

Wait, Charlie, I’m not entirely sure on your position on Vox Day. Could you repeat it?

Translation: I DISAVOW VOX DAY, I DISAVOW AND DENOUNCE VOX DAY, I DISAVOWANDDENOUNCEANDDONOTLIKEVOXDAY! (please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don’t hit me!)

They do not like me, wet or dry
They do not like me, low or high
They do not like me, dry or wet
Because they are so moderate

They do not like me here or there
They do not like me anywhere
They do not like me on the Net
Because they are so moderate

If only I would be more nice
And pour out sugar in place of spice
Then it would all be duly meet
We’d march off to our brave defeat

They do not like me when we win
They do not like me for my sin
They do not like me as a threat
Because they are so moderate

Say this for Charlie, at least he’s not afraid to go show:

William Strunk, Jr. ‏@cdrusnret
you say you referred to @voxday as a dolt in the past, but your link doesn’t appear germane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
That’s just his way of putting up his hands and saying “please don’t hit me!”

Charlie Martin ‏@chasrmarti
Vox, let’s just cut to the chase. You wave your hands and scream, I say “fuck off”, we go on with our day.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Maybe if you just denounce me once more, the SJWs will finally love you for who you are, White Buddha.

Compare and contrast

The SJWs in science fiction believe that if they can control the narrative, if they can convince the media to tell the story their way, they are going to retain their control of the science fiction establishment. They are given every opportunity to spin the narrative and make their case; Brad, Larry, and I were contacted by a Wall Street Journal reporter yesterday, which was a welcome change from most of the coverage that we’ve been seeing of late, but so too were John Scalzi and George Martin.

It’s just like one sees on the cable news. If a talking head has on a liberal guest, the liberal appears alone to sell the narrative. If a talking head has on a conservative guest, a liberal guest usually appears to dispute the narrative. And although it is only a guess, I suspect that the way that the story is likely to go will be moderately anti-Puppy, in light of the reporter actually “playing devil’s advocate” in conversation with me.

When I pointed out how the Puppy case is bolstered by comparing the number of Hugo nominations belonging to those in the Making Light clique, (15 for Charles Stross, 15/14 for Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and 9 for John Scalzi compared to 12 for Isaac Asimov, 12 for Robert Heinlein, and 7 for Arthur C. Clarke), the reporter shot back, and I quote, “yeah, but they’re editors!”

Although I pointed out to him that a) Charles Stross and John Scalzi are not, in fact, editors, and b) Isaac Asimov was an editor as well as a writer, I got the feeling that he was not likely to quote me concerning those readily observable and very telling facts. We’ll see, perhaps I’m wrong.

But the anti-Puppy influence over the mainstream media is largely irrelevant. Because, when people look more closely at the situation, here is the sort of thing they are seeing the Anti-Puppies say:

Anna Feruglio Dal Dan: “It’s not the Hugo ballot – that is a problem, but I am solving it by gleefully voting No Award to lots of categories, and I think I will make a point not to read any of it just to annoy you – it’s the strutting and posturing and pronouncing of you guys that I find hilarious. OK, I tell a lie, some of you are just boring and lame, Kratman for example can’t even insult people creatively, but you have moments of pure comedy genius.”

Hampus Eckerman: “Honestly, when you are saying that there are no unwritten rules, the
only thing you’re really saying is that you haven’t got the social
competence to notice them. Even when people write them on your nose.

Mickey Finn: “I’ve been making my way through the short stories, novellas and
novelettes, and so far haven’t even encountered a competently polished
turd.

NelC: “I’m not absolutely convinced that you’re not the type of loony who
thinks he can gain advantage by pretending to be a (different kind of)
loony, but either way, you’re seriously fucked in the head.”

Alexvdl: “I think you have articulated better than anyone else why Beale’s (and
other puppies) reliance on rating systems shows how far outside fandom
they are.”

Whatever reader: “I had a great time voting “No Award” today… I’d rather give the award to a trash can than to the crap they spent years working on.”

By contrast, here is how the non-Puppies in the field see the situation.

Rick Moen: “I think it’s abundantly clear what about the Beale and Torgersen
campaigning and (apparent) acquisition of nomination votes has made
habitual Hugo voters and Worldcon co-goers very annoyed and (in my
estimation) in a mood to terminate what they see as behaviour hostile to
the Worldcon.”

Whereas here is how at least some of those outside science fiction are seeing it:

Greg Ellis: “When all of this blew up I was not even a non-attending supporting
member of WorldCon. I’ve known about the Hugos for years, but never knew
I had, as a fan, a chance to vote for nominees or on the final ballot.
That all changed this year. What also changed was that I came down on
the Sad Puppies side of the debate. For awhile I was trying to look at both sides and judge equitably. I
was trying to be fair and open-minded and non-biased. Then I asked the
wrong question of the wrong people at the wrong time. Even Brianna Wu
chimed in on that one. I was a “white supremacist” by mere association
with Brad Torgerson and Larry Correia because they knew Vox Day and I
was friends with Brad and Larry on FaceBook. Guilt-by-association. I do
not tolerate being accused of something that anyone who knows me
understands that I am not. You want to push me into somebody else’s
camp, make an accusation like that.”

RI: I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be
honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first
started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia,
and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am
rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books.

Bojoti, a Worldcon Supporting member appears to share similar sentiments:

I knew absolutely nothing about the Sad Puppies until this year. I knew of the Hugos but little about them, either. I’d followed George R.R. Martin’s Not a Blog for years, and I remember him encouraging people to vote because the Hugos were their award (except now, they aren’t). But, back then, I had a house full of kids which meant less time for reading and fewer dollars for sure! Now, the kids are gone, and I have more of both of the aforementioned. When I discovered that WorldCon would be held in the Midwest in 2016, I was excited and decided to get a supporting membership for this year and attend the next.

I didn’t realize all the turmoil about Sad Puppies until after the nominations were announced. I came to the situation too late to nominate and unaware that my membership would be an affront to the TrueFans. I just wanted to participate in and give back to a genre that has been integral to my life. Instead, I find that I’m not welcome at the cool kids’ table, which is ironically hilarious, because my science fiction ways were unpopular to the non-science fiction crowd of my youth.

As is my researching way, I took to the Internet to look at all sides. I went all the way back to the inception of Sad Puppies. I read “Making Light.” I Googled, read, and digested from a wide spectrum from news sources (most very biased and inaccurate), authors’ websites, Twitter, and Facebook.

I think what the TrueFans and Sad Puppies don’t realize is that they are being watched by the great unwashed masses, hoi polloi, the little people of science fiction. Some of the behavior and rhetoric is so hateful and venomous that I regret my membership. Authors were saying that the new members didn’t love science fiction; they were claiming that they didn’t even read! Some were even saying stupid things like the Koch brothers bought my membership. TrueFans were disgusted by the thought of new members. They like the WorldCon being small and are actively against new members.

I’m rethinking attending WorldCon 2016. I’ll wait to see what happens at Sasquan before I decide. If people are going to act crazy like a frenetic bag of cut snakes, I want no part of that fandom (or Fandom). I don’t need to spend money to be ostracized, belittled, and hated. I’m sure I can get that for free, elsewhere!

The TrueFans are pushing the new members right into the Sad Puppies’ doghouse. I wasn’t a Sad Puppy, but if the TrueFans don’t want me, they have proven the Sad Puppies’ charge of insular exclusivity. When the TrueFans band together and decide as a bloc NOT to read the works and agree to vote No Award to Sad Puppy nominations, they’ve lost any respect or sympathy I had for them. When people advocate putting the Puppies “down,” I’m horrified. When people write “basically if the “hero” isn’t white and male, the Puppies will get all Sad at you and threaten to rape you to death. Like the good, tolerant humans they are, natch,” I’m sickened. When an author opines the correct way to treat the Sad Puppies is “Well, we make fun of them. We refuse to play with them. We refuse to share our resources with them,” I flash back to the petty games of the middle school mean girls’ cliques.

Baen Books author John Ringo has an idea where things are headed and why:

The SJBs, CHORFs, what have you are facing an uphill climb. Their ‘award winning authors’ are hardly popular in the mainstream (also frequently boring as shit on a panel) and every convention which has tried to stay entirely ‘SJW’ has found it has little or no market.

The CHORFs accuse the SPs of ‘fighting to retain white-male privilege.’ The reality is that the CHORFs are desperate to retain any sort of relevance at all. ‘Their’ conventions are failing. ‘Their’ books don’t sell as well as ‘pulp crap’. ‘Their’ magazines are losing circulation and closing. Lose control of the Hugos and they become irrelevant. And desperate regimes get crazier and crazier the more desperate they become.

They are not completely irrelevant yet. But they will be. And they fear it. Their over-the-top reactions make that very clear indeed.

Hug rape!

Someone alert David Pakman! There are SERIAL HUG RAPISTS on the loose in Virginia:

A Hug Now Requires “Affirmative Consent” At UVA — Or You’re Guilty Of Sexual Assault

If you don’t explicitly ask for and get permission for your clothed body to touch another person’s clothed body in a hug, you could now be accused of “sexual assault” through “sexual contact” at UVA.

It’s part of UVA’s broad new “sexual assault” policy, explains Hans Bader at Liberty Unyielding:

Because U.Va. lumps together touching, “however slight,” and intercourse when it comes to sexual assault, requiring “affirmative” consent for both. (“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include many forms of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.”

Here is the essential bit from the new UVA “sexual assault” policy:

    A. SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual Assault consists of (1) Sexual Contact and/or (2) Sexual Intercourse that occurs without (3) Affirmative Consent.

    (1) Sexual Contact is:

    •     Any intentional sexual touching
    •     However slight
    •     With any object or body part (as described below)
    •     Performed by a person upon another person

    Sexual Contact includes (a) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching another with any of these body parts; and (b) making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts.

Better not hug your wife tonight. Not without Affirmative Consent. You might think “hug rape” sounds ridiculous now, but it wasn’t all that long ago that “marital rape” sounded totally nonsensical too.

They also serve

It was suggested that they also serve, who inadvertently and unknowingly do the bidding of the Evil Legion of Evil through their ludicrously predictable reactions. And lo, a badge for this brigade of Unwitting Minions was created. Evil Legion of Evil minions are free to award it to those whose behavior is so egregiously stupid or shortsighted or self-destructive that they could not possibly serve your Supreme Dark Lord better if they were consciously doing His Evil Bidding.

Given that they are, without exception, unique and special snowflakes, they naturally all bear the title “Minion #1”.

On a not entirely unrelated note, RI explains why he is now reading this blog and Larry Correia’s books:

I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia, and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books. I’d like to think I stand somewhere in the between you and Corriea. I’ve noticed you’ve been calling attention to some of the unethical book reviewing practices of the SJWs and I found one I thought you would like to point out on your blog.

This person openly admits to downgrading her review after finding out about Correia’s politics.

If I am any evidence of a growing trend, then the SJWs are basically screaming themselves into irrelevance. I am glad you have decided to wade into this and stand up for your beliefs and stand against the terrorism of the left. God bless you, sir.

This is the perspective that is so often ignored. What people are assumed to perceive, and what they will actually perceive, are often two different things. Larry once said that the benefit of telling the truth is that you have no need to worry about keeping your stories straight, and another one is that people tend to recognize those who tell the truth, whether they accept the truth on that particular subject or not.

Who needs that pesky “civilization” anyhow?

Apparently we need to readjust our vocabularies again. It’s no longer white/yellow/red/brown separatism, it’s just militant-shaming.

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We
see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see
communities actively struggling against mental health crises and
premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being
smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable
responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical
decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political
results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful….We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and
“peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing,
tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and
queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily.
Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only
lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a
deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

Black people know this, and have
employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them
uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist,
and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent
political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our
centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective
strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other
current movement for justice.

There is your choice, white America. Racism, aka “civilization and the Constitution” or living amongst an entitled and vibrant population that feels entirely justified in burning down the city around itself. I think it’s long past time for forced integration. But not for schoolchildren, for those who claim to oppose separatism. Let’s bus every self-professed “anti-racist” to Baltimore and make them live and work there.

They seem to think all of White America would rather die than be called racist. And they’re probably not wrong about the SJWs. But what the advocates of multiculturalism forgot is that Mexicans and Asians despise blacks in a way that few whites ever have, and they feel absolutely no guilt for the so-called “legacy of slavery”.

And if you’re going to try to make American Indians feel guilty about racial separatism, well, good luck with that.

THEY are in retreat

I told you that George RR Martin has lost the plot. After publicly declining the very debate for which he called, he actually repeated his call for what he already rejected:

Here’s an idea — debate the issue without epithets. Namecalling, whether with old epithets or new ones, is no substitute for actual discussion.

Oh, come on, you cowardly sad sack of an SJW. I gave you the opportunity to debate the issue. Honestly. Civilly. Rationally. You declined. So, guess what that leaves? And while we’re at it, just get it over with and hand the books over to Brandon Sanderson or Joe Abercrombie to finish already.

As Martin’s befuddled post demonstrates, it is readily apparent that science fiction’s CHORFs aren’t entirely confident they are winning anymore. Jim Hines steals yet another page from John Scalzi’s playbook, this time playing the classic “hey, forget my past attacks on you, we’re all just friends who happen to disagree” card:

I am so damn tired of the insistence on shoving everyone and everything into an artificial “Us vs. Them” framework. The Puppies thing is just the latest example. The only clearly defined “side” in this mess is the puppies themselves, and even that’s a slippery argument. Is Theodore Beale of the Rabid Puppies on the same side as Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia? Correia suggests they are: “Look at it like this. I’m Churchill. Brad is FDR. We wound up on the same side as Stalin.” But what about the commenters? Can people support some of what the puppies said they wanted — say, greater awareness of tie-in work in Hugo nominations — without having to swear allegiance to all things rabid?

There is nothing artificial about it. The main reason SJWs were successful in infiltrating the science fiction establishment and imposing their ideology on it was due to their Fabian strategy of denying any conflict was taking place. Their entryism depended entirely upon stealth and plausible deniability. That’s why the single most important aspect of both #GamerGate and #SadPuppies was the way in which it was made perfectly clear to everyone that there are, in fact, two sides.

There are those who want to be able to define what is permissible to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say, (SJWs) and those who wish to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say whatever the hell they happen to please. (Everybody else)

Jim Hines isn’t “so damn tired” of “an artificial Us vs. Them framework”. He is simply alarmed that their most effective tactic has been exposed and rendered impotent.

 I keep coming across commentary and arguments that assume you have to be either pro-puppy or anti-puppy. In broader discussions, you’re either us or you’re the enemy. Left or Right. Puppy or CHORF. Lately, I’m seeing more accusations of blacklists and gatekeepers and people’s careers being hurt because of their politics or beliefs or whatever, because some publishers are for Us and some are for Them, and you can’t succeed in this business without swearing allegiance to the Evil Gun Nuts of Baen or the Evil Tree-hugging Lib’ruls of Tor. To be honest, that last bit is funny as hell.

His point might be more convincing if we didn’t have Charles “15 Hugo Nominations” Stross on record warning me about the danger to my career if I didn’t stop writing my op/ed column and start sucking up to the then-Toad of Tor and Tor Senior Editor PNH. Or testimony from everyone from Larry Correia to Sarah Hoyt. You certainly can succeed in this business by fighting the establishment, but that doesn’t mean the establishment doesn’t exist or that it won’t attack you. It’s not like everyone doesn’t know that opinions deemed badthink can not only ruin your chances of getting published by an SJW-dominated publishing house, but get them to conspire to have the SFWA Board vote to “expel” you.

I know some of the Sad Puppies desperately want there to be some kind of
Social Justice Warrior Conspiracy that’s been manipulating the Hugos
and persecuting them for years, because that creates a simple narrative
with them as the feisty rebels striking a blow against the Evil Empire.
But there’s been zero evidence for it. Correia himself said he’d audited
the Hugos a few years back and found no sign of anything suspect.

The lesson, as always, SJWs ALWAYS lie. Correia found no sign of anything suspect in the ballot-counting by the WorldCons. He did not admit there was no SJW conspiracy. A very dishonest switcheroo by McCreepy.

Part of my anger at Torgersen and Correia is because I feel like they deliberately encouraged this Us vs. Them mentality in order to win support and votes. They invented an evil cabal of “Them,” then rallied people to join their side against this fictitious enemy. Which only increases the abuse and the hatred. And please note: I’m angry at them as individuals, not because they’re conservative, or because of their views on gun control, or because they might have a different religious belief than I do. I’m angry because whatever problems were out there, these two individuals actively made them worse, and they hurt a great many people in the process. Themselves included.

Fandom is not two distinct sides. It’s a bunch of people who like things in a really big genre, a genre that has guns and spaceships and dinosaurs and dragons and magic and manly men and genderfluid protagonists and grittiness and erotica and humor and hard-core feminism and sexism and racism and hope and stereotypes and anger and messages and politics and fluff and were-jaguars and superheroes and so much more.

Criticism is not war. Choosing not to read or support things you don’t like isn’t censorship. Liking something problematic doesn’t make you a bad person.

He shouldn’t be angry at Brad and Larry, who both seriously attempted to fix the Hugo system. He should be angry at me, because I have successfully exposed that which Hines and the other SJWs desperately wanted to keep hidden, for the same reason they hid their history of embracing child molesters like Breen, MzB, and Kramer, to name a few. But we didn’t make anything worse, any more than Deidre Saoirse Moen raped any children when she helped bring MzB’s behavior to light.

Criticism isn’t war. But taking over the SF establishment for ideological purposes is war. Of course they don’t like the fact that an opposition has arisen and is fighting back. That’s why they tried to discredit and disqualify and defenestrate me 10 years ago. They correctly sensed a potentially dangerous enemy and attempted to marginalize me. But I’m still here, and more importantly, I am not alone.

That’s why they are suddenly declaring there is no war. But it’s too late. The mask has been ripped off and too many have seen the true face of the SJWs…. as Dave Freer of the Mad Genius Club notes their recent behavior:

But seriously, what have the AP [Anti-Puppies] tried so far, and what success has it brought them?  They’ve brought out media attacks accusing the Puppies and nominees of being sexists, racists, misogynist, homophobes – the usual made-up get out of jail cards rubbish with no substance and some funny twists – we’re all white Mormon men. Especially Sarah Hoyt. And a twenty year bi-racial marriage makes Brad Torgersen a racist. Then the voters weren’t real fans but slaves who voted to order (which was a true PR disaster, angering a huge circle of people).

Then there were the ‘you’ll never work in this town’ again threats to careers and reputations – with the Nielsen-Haydens and David Gerrold shrieking ‘who will rid us of these troublesome puppies?’ and providing precise instructions of what to do. Not a ‘blacklist’ of course (slither). Just things that people would do, like exclude them from publications, cons and reviews. Unlike the puppies, who actively said that their people shouldn’t, for example, boycott Tor, no such criticism came out of the AP. We’ve had people inform us we’re mad (at great length. It was funny, and very revealing – about the bat-sh!t loony writer), and bad, and just downright unfeeling to poor David’s tender sensibilities. Some AP camp-follower called Jane Carnall of Edinburgh, who has written a few opinion pieces in ‘The Guardian, went off and followed the instruction issued on ‘Making Light’ and started issuing fake 1 star reviews on Amazon on John Wright’s stories.

Oh and the cheering announcement that they will ‘No Award’ the Pups nominees out of existence, and we’ll never ever win Hugos. The latest (from a chorus, including Scalzi) has been that if the puppies and nominees do not immediately and forthwith viciously denounce Vox Day they will declare us stupid dupes and one with him. Deserving of his fate too. I’ve kind of lost track of the ‘if you do’ offer. Maybe we’ll be allowed to live out our short miserable lives like penitent whores in a nunnery, being kindly permitted to clean their chamber-pots with our tongues. Think for yourselves what you’d do given that choice: live free and maybe win or die, or surrender and live as a second – or third or fifth class citizen, continually used as a kicking boy?

And if the AP told me otherwise, I wouldn’t believe a word, given their track record. The AP really have credibility issues they need to work on.

Never believe an opponent who tries to tell you the game hasn’t even started yet. And never believe an enemy who tells you that because there is no war, you should stop shooting at him and lay down your arms. Remember, rabbits only win when wolves refuse to fight.

Interestingly enough, after an amount of his usual meandering, R. Scott Bakker reaches much the same conclusion:

 The fact that Beale managed to pull this little coup is proof positive that science fiction and fantasy matter, that we dwell in a rare corner of culture where the battle of ideas is for… fucking… real.

Only it’s not a rare corner. The battle of ideas is ongoing and everywhere throughout the culture. It’s in Games, it’s in Science Fiction, it’s in Comics, and it’s in TV and Movies. And for the first time in decades, those who favor liberty are on the offensive.

THERE WILL BE WAR: The ten best stories

This is just my personal list of favorites from Volume I and Volume II. I’m only considering the fiction here, not the essays, articles, or poems.

  1. “Cincinnatus”, Joel Rosenberg, Volume II. This story about a retired, possibly traitorous general brought back for one last command is probably my favorite-ever mil-sf story. As excellent in conception as execution, it has had a distinct influence on the world of Quantum Mortis.
  2. “On the Shadow of a Phosphor Screen”, William F. Wu, Volume II. The series features several stories from this world where wars are settled by professional gamers. It reads like a prophecy of Sega’s Total War series, but has a haunting edge to it that gives it a timeless feel.
  3. “Superiority”, Arthur C. Clarke, Volume II. A clever and amusing exercise in explaining how technological superiority can be a weakness. Particularly interesting if you’ve read van Creveld’s Technology and War. It’s more relevant than the average general would like to think.
  4. “Ender’s Game”, Orson Scott Card, Volume I. “Ender’s Game”. The original novella. Enough said.
  5. “In the Name of the Father”, Edward P. Hughes, Volume II. This is possibly the most light-hearted post-apocalyptic tale ever told. I like the stories of Barley’s Crossing.
  6. “Time Lag”, Poul Anderson, Volume II. A tribute to the significance of female steadfastness in times of war, as well as an illustration of how time and distance factor into the martial equation.
  7. “His Truth Goes Marching On”, Jerry Pournelle, Volume I. As Tom Kratman once called it, “the Spanish civil war in space”. Philosophically deeper than you might think at first.
  8.  “‘Caster” by Eric Vinicoff, Volume II. A little longer than it needs to be, not quite as artfully written as the others, but an inspirational and optimistic war story.
  9. “Ranks of Bronze” by David Drake, Volume I. Drake does Roman legions playing mercenary for aliens. A little short, but it’s a good battle scene.
  10. “Call Him Lord” by Gorden R. Dickson, Volume I. Less about war than the price of leadership. A bit artificial, but it comes to an emotionally powerful close.

As far as the non-fiction goes, while the articles on High Frontier are fascinating for their historical significance, my favorite is “Proud Legions” by T.R. Fehrenbach, which appears in Volume II. In fact, I have to confess that of the nine volumes of THERE WILL BE WAR, Volume II is my favorite. That is the very high bar that Volume X will attempt to clear.

SJW science

Whether they call themselves scientists or science fiction writers, the lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie. Robert Trivers writes about Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist he quickly learned was strongly inclined towards intellectual fraudulence and faux scientific fakery:

Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen personally thought he
was something of an intellectual fraud precisely because he had a
talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver,
while claiming exactly the opposite….

Recently something brand new has emerged about Steve that is astonishing. In his own empirical work attacking others for biased data analysis in the service of political ideology—it is he who is guilty of the same bias in service of political ideology. What is worse—and more shocking—is that Steve’s errors are very extensive and the bias very serious. A careful reanalysis of one case shows that his target is unblemished while his own attack is biased in all the ways Gould attributes to his victim. His most celebrated book (The Mismeasure of Man) starts with a takedown of Samuel George Morton. Morton was a scientist in the early 19 th Century who devoted himself to measuring the human cranium, especially the volume of the inside, a rough estimate of the size of the enclosed brain. He did so meticulously by pouring first seeds and then ball bearings into skulls until they were full and then pouring them out and measuring their volume in a graduated cylinder. He was a pure empiricist. He knew brain size was an important variable but very little about the details (indeed, we do not know much more today). He thought his data would bear on whether we were one species or several, but in any case he was busy creating a vast trove of true and useful facts.

I love these people—they work for the future and gather data whose logic later generations will reveal. Precisely because they have no axes to grind or hypotheses to prove, their data are apt to be more reliable than the first wave after a new theory. I have benefitted from them in my own life, most memorably when I was shown a large and accurate literature on ratios of investment in 20 ant species, gathered long before anyone appreciated why these facts might be of some considerable interest, as indeed they were.

In any case, Morton grouped his data by population according to best estimates of gross relatedness, Amerindians with Amerindians, Africans with Africans, Nordic Europeans with Nordic, and so on. It is here, Gould alleged, that all sorts of errors were made that supported preconceived notions that among the smaller cranial capacity (and therefore stupider)) peoples would be Amerindians and Africans. For example, Gould claimed that Morton made more subgroups among Nordic people than tropical ones, thus permitting more of them to be above norm, but in fact, the opposite was true. Morton reported more Amerindian subsamples than European and routinely pointed out when particular Amerindian subsamples were as high or higher than the European mean, facts that Gould claimed Morton hid.

In other cases, Gould eliminates all samples with less than four individuals in order to reduce the number of sub-samples with only one sex—a statistically meaningless goal but one that happened to be biased in his favor and permitted him to make additional errors in his favor by arbitrarily eliminating some skulls while including others. If you are comparing group means, you may not wish to use means of less than four, but if you are adding up sub-samples to produce a larger sample, there is no reason not to aggregate all data. Morton is made to look careless and incorrect when it is really Steve who is arbitrarily biasing things in his own favor.

There is an additional contrast between Morton and Gould worth noting. To conjure up Morton’s mistakes, Gould lovingly describes the action of unconscious bias at work: “Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action.” Indeed it is, but careful re-measures show that Morton never made this particular mistake—only three skulls were mis-measured as being larger than they were and these were all either Amerindian or African.

The same can’t be said of Gould. He came across distressingly objective data of Morton, and by introducing biased procedures (no sample size below four) he was able to get appropriately biased results. And by misrepresenting the frequency of Nordic vs Amerindian subpopulations, he was able to create an illusion of bias where none existed, by mere emphatic assertion (no one bothered to check).

Where are the unconscious processes at work here? Is Steve flying upside-down on auto-pilot, unconsciously making the choices (substitute Nordic for Tropical, delete all samples smaller than four) that will invite the results he wants while hiding his bias? Is the conscious organism really completely in the dark while all of this is going on? Hard to imagine—but at the end the organism appears to be in full self-deception mode—a blow-hard fraudulently imputing fraud, with righteous indignation, coupled with magnanimous forgiveness for the frailties of self-deception in others.

In response to the criticism of Lewis et al, the keeper of Gould’s Tomb—his longtime editor at Natural History, Richard Milner—had some choice comments in defense of Stephen. Gould acted with “complete conviction and integrity” (that is, with full self-deception). “He was a tireless crusader against racism in any form.” (In what way is misrepresenting the true facts about population differences—and then hiding this misrepresentation—a contribution to anti-racism?) And then, fully in flight, he says that any bias was “on the side of the angels”. Who of us is in any position to say what is on the side of the angels? We barely know what is in our own self-interest.

Quelle surprise. Anti-racism is intrinsically anti-science.

Vile Minion pride

Dear Evil
Legion of Evil,

It has come to my attention that our vile faceless minions,
in their abject loyalty to Our Evilness, crave more than the
mere lash of our whips, the daily sustenance of SJW blood, and the occasional bones of an SJW on
which to gnaw. Such is their pride in the growing spread of the dark
shadow over lands hitherto unengulfed that they have begged for
badges of recognition with which they can strike yet more
fear into our craven and cowardly foes.

It is, of course, exceedingly risible to imagine that we should raise
them up to the extent of providing them with names. Or, as
one minion, who is unfortunately no longer with us after an
accident that involved six Hellhounds and the untimely ringing of a dinner
bell, once had the temerity to suggest, pay them wages. But it occurred to me, in a
stroke of Indubitably Evil Genius, that it might be
useful to be able to tell the difference between these
otherwise indistinguishable, and indeed, faceless,
creatures. Therefore, in my Tender yet Sinister Mercy, I have graciously acceded to their pleas.

An example of the first said badge is provided, one which has already been awarded to the first and most ruthlessly loyal of our minions. Should any
of these vile and faceless minions wish to boast their own number in the Evil Legion of
Evil, they have merely to humbly bring themselves to Our Superlatively Evil Attention via the word MINION.
My Inventively Evil and Aggressively Breasted Executive Assistant, Malwyn, she who is also known as the Whore-Mistress of the Spiked Six-Whip, will subsequently send them a uniquely numbered badge, which they can display
to the public with all the unseemly pride and haughty arrogance they will no doubt feel, filling SJW hearts with fear and horror thereby.

In Supreme Confidence of the Coming Day in which Darkness Shall Cover All the Land,

Vox Day
Supreme Dark Lord
Evil Legion of Evil


And in other news, I answer a few questions about my intentions at File 770:


“I don’t care about awards at all.”

None the less, your nomination of yourself has been noted. Also, your nomination of people who work for you.”

Yes, that’s obvious. And the statement is nevertheless true.

“Well, who cares how many page views he gets?”

Scalzi and everyone who claims how popular and influential he is. It was all self-puffery all along. When he claimed to have 2 million pageviews monthly in a 2010 interview with Lightspeed and everyone bought it, he actually had 305k.

“No-one’s conspiring to keep you from your just rewards, we just individually don’t like you.”

Yes, I know. I still don’t care. Why is it that you feel the need to keep pointing out the obvious? Do you find it that hard to accept that I place no value on your precious opinion? And yes, I will keep coming after PNH, but no I would not go after Stross, Valente, or anyone else unless they give me reason to do so. Leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. And unlike Scalzi, I have respect for Stross’s writing. I was one of the few people who used to nominate him for Nebulas back when he most deserved them.

“What is your ultimate objective regarding the Hugos this year? Is it to win a few for your writers?”

To see how the SF establishment responds. This was just recon. No, winning awards was never an objective. I do think John deserves to win a few, as with Stephenson and Mieville he is one of the best SF/F writers writing today. And if WorldCon prefers No Award to honoring Wright for works much superior to past winners, that will confirm what I suspected from the start. And what I expected.

See, I’ve never been interested in much more than convincing a large number of people that the SJWs in SF are, in fact, the cultural enemy. You’ve collectively played your part wonderfully well in that regard. Based on his recent piece, I think Jim Hines is one of the first to belatedly figured out what’s actually going on. But it’s far too late. The mask has not only slipped, it’s been ripped off.

“And what will your response be next year if SP/RP nominees are No Awarded this year, as some have threatened?”

I haven’t given the matter much thought, other than to point out the one obvious option. It’s no secret that a fair number of RP want me to declare No Award for everyone and everything THIS year. The idea had some appeal, but the SP asked me not to do that and I agreed to give WorldCon a chance to play ball. If they’d rather play war, well, I am a wargamer. That’s fine too.

“And what is the plan about getting yourself nominated as editor?”

I am the sharpest stick. And I am the best short-form editor this year, as it happens. Not that it is likely to matter with regards to the vote, but then, that’s sort of the point.

“In conclusion, if you don’t care about awards (and I believe you), why go through the exercise? Do you intend to advise your supporters how to cast their final ballot? Will you be actively coordinating the final ballot with Larry Corriea, Brad Torgersen, Jim Butcher, etc.? Will you be suggesting anything for No Award?”

To get a better grasp on what the other side can bring to the battlefield when motivated. Yes. No. I will either suggest everything or nothing for No Award, but I have not made a final decision. Out of respect for the opinions of SP and neutrals, I am leaning towards nothing but it is possible their opinions will change, given the behavior of the SJWs.

With regards to the vote, although Sasquan’s ballot is now open, I will not be posting my list of recommendations until several weeks after the Hugo packet is released. I have no idea when that will be, as I have not yet been contacted in that regard. However, those interested in reading the nominated works of John C. Wright can download them for free here.