Tag: conspiracy

Evidence of a false flag

ISIS commended the “three lions” of San Bernardino. All the early news reports talked about three shooters. I personally heard the police on the scanner talking about three suspects, including one taken into custody. So, where is the third shooter? And more importantly, why did an eyewitness report seeing three tall male shooters?

We now know that ATF investigators recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters. This key detail was leaked by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview after she had overheard a newsroom report that doesn’t fit the official narrative.

We also know that active shooter drills actually took place near the crime scene just days before and possibly even on the same day of the mass shooting as reported by Mac Slavo.

Additionally details from an eyewitness, who came forth on the day of the shooting, may have been overlooked by investigators and suggest that there were actually ‘three white shooters’ instead of the radicalized husband and wife natural-born killer team portrayed in some mainline reports.

The witness, Sally Abdelmageed, worked at Inland Medical Center where the attack took place and saw it all unfold firsthand. It’s also important to note that Abdelmageed is likely not lying and that this quite possibly might be the most accurate eyewitness account publicized to date. After all how can two shooters, a man and a petite woman, be mistaken for three white military men with athletic builds?

In a phone interview with CBS Abdelmageed explained:

    “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon. […] very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”

When asked what the gunman that shot into the room looked like the eyewitness replied:

    “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same”.

“You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked Abdelmageed.

“Yes,” said Abdelmageed.

    “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”

Now, who is more likely to be lying, this woman or the government? Which party has a longer track record of being less than entirely honest. And the strange behavior of the married couple makes a lot more sense if one considers the possibility that they were simply patsies who were flushed and then identified; the way in which the police found them struck me as just a bit odd at the time.

The US is supporting ISIS

The document trail, the lame explanations, the reports of CIA involvement, the behavior of allies, the declassified documents, and the eyewitness evidence in Iraq all tell the same story:

On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”

While U.S. military officials “say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a response”, what is much more far-fetched is the idea that they cannot bomb the Islamic State’s oil facilities for fear of endangering the Desert Snail Darter or whatever their lame excuses are.

The US outrage over Russia’s intervention in Syria, as well as the Turkish ambush of the Russian plane, are clearly indicative of the fact that the Obama administration is allied with ISIS and wants it to succeed in taking out Assad. After all, we know US forces are not welcome there by either the Syrian government or the Iraqi government.

Before you dismiss the idea that the US is actually pro-ISIS out of hand, keep in mind that the US government also bombed the Serbs in order to keep them from defeating the Muslims in Bosnia. Or, you know, read the relevant Defense Intelligence Agency document.

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.

Considering that the mujahideen in Afghanistan were originally envisioned and armed as a U.S. strategic asset against the Soviet Union, it should not be terribly surprising to learn that the Islamic State is a similar arrangement.

Ranger School coverup

The Army is attempting to bury the evidence that it relaxed standards in order to permit women to graduate from Ranger School:

Congressman Russell contacted the Secretary of the Army on September 15, 2015, and requested the Ranger School records for Captain Kristen Griest and First Lieutenant Shaye Haver.

The Secretary of the Army stalled Russell for nine days and then asked for an extension to obtain documents readily available.

The Army waited another two weeks to tell Russell the documents had been shredded.

The Army refuses to tell anyone what the school’s policy is for the storage and destruction of Ranger School records.

The Army refuses to tell the media why they shredded Griest’s and Haver’s records.

The Army refuses to tell the media what they are doing with the third female graduate, Major Lisa Jaster’s records.

The Army wants us to doubt that journalist Susan Keating’s Ranger School sources are real because they are anonymous.

The Army wants us to believe that if Susan Keating’s sources were real they would come forward, when in fact, they are frightened of retribution. Considering the Obama administration’s treatment of whistleblowers, these fears are more than justified.

I very much doubt anyone is even remotely surprised by this. But consider the silver lining: given the way in which recent administrations appear to regard American citizens as the enemy, there are worse things than social justice convergence debilitating the U.S. military.

Destroying the evidence won’t do the Army any good. Everyone knows that the standards were dumbed-down and that the women who “passed” the course are frauds and an insult to all real Rangers, past and present. Want to argue otherwise? Fine, show the records.

Put a fork in the Republicans

They’re done. They’re not only sell-outs, they’re never going to be seriously competitive with the Democratic Party because apparently they have hamstrung themselves and agreed to never challenge voter fraud:

The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

    The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

    The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

    The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

Do you seriously believe any party that would agree to such handcuffs is even remotely capable of defending American interests?

An absence of evidence

Paul Craig Roberts is suspicious about the contradiction between the evidence and the mysterious vanishing confession in the Boston Bomber trial:

I have been contacted by attorney John Remington Graham, a member in good standing of the bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. He informs me that acting in behalf of Maret Tsanaeva, the aunt of the accused Tsamaev brothers and a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic where she is qualified to practice law, he has assisted her in filing with the US District Court in Boston a pro se motion, including an argument of amicus curiae, and an affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva. The presiding judge has ordered that these documents be included in the formal record of the case so they will be publicly accessible. The documents are reproduced below.

The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have.

As readers know, I have been suspicious of the Boston Marathon Bombing from the beginning. It seems obvious that both Tsamaev brothers were intended to be killed in the alleged firefight with police, like the alleged perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo affair in Paris. Convenient deaths in firefights are accepted as indications of guilt and solve the problem of trying innocent patsies.

In Dzhokhar’s case, his guilt was established not by evidence but by accusations, by the betrayal of his government-appointed public defender Judy Clarke who declared Dzhokhar’s guilt in her opening statement of her “defense,” by an alleged confession, evidence of which was never provided, written by Dzhokhar on a boat under which the badly wounded youth lay dying until discovered by the boat owner and hospitalized in critical condition.

I’m always mildly suspicious whenever the alleged perpetrators are found quickly before being killed in a lethal shootout. If only the police could track down missing children so effortlessly.

And suspicion would appear to be justified considering “he could not find a single attorney in the state of Massachusetts who
would sponsor his appearance before the Federal District Court in
Boston.”

What is it that they fear? What is it that they know?

Mailvox: whitewashing history at Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s gatekeepers are up to their usual shenanigans, in this case, attempting to casually brush the topic of Cultural Marxism under the carpet to keep it from innocent eyes:

In case you haven’t noticed the “Cultural Marxism” entry to wikipedia has been deleted and replaced by “conspiracy theory” at the body of the “Frankfurt School” page.

I noticed this a few days ago.  After reading a work on Critical Race Theory which wasn’t inspired by an article I read on the Baltimore riots.  It reminded me a lot of the line of thinking that Pat Buchanan describes as Cultural Marxism in “Death of the West.”  Naturally, I looked up Cultural Marxism on wikipedia and I find that the page had been deleted and replaced.  Orwell would be proud.  To be quite honest, this really has shocked me.  Call me sheltered, but the audacity and dishonesty of it is appalling.

Being an optimist (or a masochist) I looked at the talk page to see if I couldn’t reason with someone.  Turns out that the page replacement took place in November and that a single editor it engages in some serious gate-keeping.

Over the past five months several dozen people have expressed concerns with the page and he dismissed and passive-aggressively threatened them all without answering any arguments.

I decided to engage with him, but the results are about what you’d expect.

Here’s a summary:

Me:I don’t think Cultural Marxism counts as a conspiracy by any reasonable definition and this article leans way left.  Can you please define your terms for Cultural Marxism and give me your criteria for conspiracy theory.

Him :Ok go ahead and try to prove your conspiracy theory Mr. Tin-foil hat man.  Oh and Welcome (grumble)…can you please go away…be a shame if someone were to report you for vandalism…..and did you know Satanic, baby eating, white supremacist Anders Breivik used the phrase “Cultural Marxism” in his manifesto…you don’t want to be like him do you…be a shame if you got reported….

You can imagine two days of this I’m sure.  But if you have time, I’d love to know what you think of the debate.  I’ve rarely dealt with someone so completely unwilling to actually argue all the while claiming that the battle was over before I got there and that he’s the victor. 

I’ve finally got him to consider an academic source from Paul Gottfried, but it looks like this will take time.

So, what I’d really like is you to give a shout on your blog detailing what’s happened.  It’s bigger than two guys fighting on the internet considering how many people use wikipedia, if only to get oriented in finding out more about a topic.  I know I do, or before this did.  Just a link would get more people involved.

I’ve decided to ask you because a) Castalia has published work by William Lind, one of the (if not the) coiners of the phrase “Cultural Marxism” to describe the ideology, obsessions, tactics, and behaviors of the Left and their current diffusion in society at large and b) because no one should know better than you that so-called little issues like Gamergate and the Hugos are key battlegrounds in the culture wars and will lead to bigger things. 

Honestly I think keeping wikipedia honest (as far as it’s possible) is even bigger.  This isn’t just a case of “oh no!  Somebody’s wrong on the internet!”

What do I think? I think this is simply SJWs SJWing. And what do SJWs do? The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie. The ironic thing is that Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry on one of the more important cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, and even quotes him in some detail concerning the cultural Marxism he advocated, and which the SJWs practice.

  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”[17]
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”[17]

It should come as no surprise that cultural Marxists, which is what the SJWs manifestly are, don’t want people to understand their core doctrine or its roots in the misapplication of a failed economic theory.

SJWs in OSS II

It’s being further investigated by others closer to the OSS dev community, but the evidence about SJWs invading Open Source Software is bolstered by additional emails posted to the London Ruby User’s Group mailing list:

Really great you both brought this up. I’ve been responsible for building up a small tech team within Barclays and we’ve had a push towards much more diversity. This has been driven by the huge lack of diversity within the existing tech teams. We are tasked with building prototypes which are not business critical so we have a lot of space to move around with then other areas of the company which require levels of experience & current ability which traditionally bias against minorities facing oppression.

  • We avoided posting adverts on tech mailing lists and in places where women and minorities are underrepresented, instead using the same budget we would have used on places like unicorn jobs, in places such as in Ethnic minority related magazines and publications, LGBT related publications and websites (such as out.com). The cost of advertising was so expensive in tech related spaces we could cover many more adverts in spaces that would reach to minorities and we got an excellent response.
  • We never assume to know someones preferred pronoun. When responding to applicants we always ask for their preferred pronoun, even if it seems obvious (there’s more than 2). The response to this has been great so far.
  • We’ve effectively had to create our own internal structure independent from the rest of the company to ensure that diversity is catered for. Slowly but surely though, we’re affecting the rest of the business.

So far we’ve grown the team to 6. 4 of us identify as female (with one
being transgender) and 5 of us are PoC.

That’s pure SJW entryism at work. Notice how the SJWs a) are safely ensconced in an area where they can avoid being held accountable for providing objective business-critical results, b) have created their own independent internal structure, c) have long range goals to enforce their ideology on the rest of the company.

It also shows how you can best hunt down and eliminate SJWs from your organization. Look for them in non-critical roles where the focus is internal rather than external. And don’t expect to be able to rely upon objective metrics to provide an excuse for firing them, they actively avoid being measured or held accountable in any way. Your best bet is to nail them on their consistent refusal to abide by company guidelines, their failure to fulfill certain specified responsibilities or follow clear directions, or their repeated hiring of people who are observably unqualified.

Mailvox: the Brainstorm Club

Several people seem to very much want to explore the limits of sanity. Minion #38 painstakingly inscribed the following note on a bone that was left outside my chambers this morning.
In one of your replies to a commenter on today’s VP post entitled
“Why kids hate nerds,” you mentioned that you dial down a lot of your
thoughts before presenting them on your blogs, and that they would be
more interesting if you could openly brainstorm.  As a VFM and daily
reader of both VP and AG, I couldn’t agree more.  I rarely comment on
your blogs, but I find your theories to be some of the most thought
provoking ideas I’ve ever read.  I’d love to hear more. Would
you ever consider sharing more of your “crazy theories and random
notions” somewhere other than on your blogs without as much of the
dialing down required for a wider audience?  Maybe via a members only
message board, youtube channel, voice/chat server, or really any medium
of your choosing?

I don’t object to the idea in principle, but I’m slightly reluctant to dabble in such things because I always want to provide unquestioned value for money. I have no problem with capitalism, obviously, but as should be obvious from the lack of advertising and tip jars and so forth, I’m not into the Patreon model either. You guys have been absolutely superb about supporting Castalia House for over a year now, and not only do I appreciate that, I’m perfectly aware that no well of goodwill is endless.

That being said, I also know that I would have leaped at the chance to take part in something like what is being suggested were the individual at the center someone like Umberto Eco. My interviews with him, John Julius Norwich, and Steve Keen have been some of the intellectual high points of my life.

My thought is that what might be interesting as well as useful would be a monthly members-only Skypecast, with a transcript that would be sent out to members afterward. Members could suggest topics and when possible, the topics would be listed ahead of time so that those interested could sign up and take part. I imagine it could be done for not much more than the price of a movie, although it might be desirable to not make it so inexpensive that too many people would take part. Memberships would be purchased through Castalia House, either one-time or annual with a discount.

Anyhow, if it’s of interest, feel free to throw out your own ideas here. I’m not saying that anything will be done at all because I am extremely busy. But given the amount of collective brainpower here, it wouldn’t be surprising if the concept proved to be worthwhile. The main questions, to my mind, are the number of members, the price of membership, and the frequency. The maximum number of Skype video is 10, and 25 for voice, while GoToMeeting Plus permits up to 100 video participants.

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.

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.