Tag: rabbitology

Mammoth hunting requires no math

Which appears to be a good thing, seeing as how David Futrelle can’t grasp the relevant rape statistics:

I thought I’d seen every variety of rape apologism known to humankind. But this is a new one for me: Fantasy author and garbage human Vox Day has decided that all claims of rape directed at white guys are suspect because … white guys don’t rape.

No, really. That’s his actual argument:

    White American men simply don’t rape these days. At this point, unless a woman claims it was committed by a black or Hispanic man she didn’t previously know, all claims of rape, especially by a college woman, have to be considered intrinsically suspect.

His, er, source for these claims? A post from the website Women For Men — founded by familiar names Suzanne Venker, Helen Smith and Christina Hoff Sommers — about a video of unknown provenance of a shouting match that involves a white woman accusing a presumably white man of rape. (There are no details on the alleged incident, and it’s not clear from watching the almost literally unbelievable video what exactly happened or if the video is even real.) Needless to say, even if the video is 100% real it doesn’t actually provide anything even remotely approaching evidence for Vox’s racist claims.

Which isn’t surprising given that they aren’t, you know, true. When it comes to rape, of course, whites and blacks are overwhelmingly — roughly 8 out of 10 times — victimized by members of their own race And in most cases, as is well-known, rapes are committed by people the victim knows, not the proverbial man hiding in the bushes.

Well, no, that’s not “my actual argument”. It’s always amusing to see how the anklebiters try to pretend rhetoric is dialectic and vice-versa, depending upon what suits their purpose at the moment. Futrelle’s posturing is nothing but pure rabbit rhetoric; statistical analysis is not apology. If he actually wants the dialectical form of the argument, it is this: all claims of rape directed at white guys are intrinsically suspect because white men in America are disproportionately disinclined to commit rape. If he wishes a dialectical debate on the merits of that argument, then let us entertain his critique, by all means.

But Futrelle has no genuine intention of contesting the dialectical level, he is merely countering rhetorically-charged dialectic with dialectic-flavored rhetoric. Nevertheless, let us take Mr. Futrelle’s pseudo-dialectic at face value. According to the FBI, there were 13,886 rape arrests in 2012. Of them, 9,027 (65%) arrestees were “white” men, and 4,512 (35%) were black men. Wow, that just completely disproves my point that white men don’t commit much rape, given that 65 percent is reasonably close to the white percentage of the population (72.4), right?

Not so fast. The FBI counts both white and Hispanic offenders as “white” for statistical purposes. But there are other ways to fill in the missing information, which is to say estimate how those 9,027 arrests are distributed between white men and Hispanic men.

While no comprehensive reports have been done, every smaller report I have read indicates that Hispanics commit rape and other sex offenses at a disproportionate rate; some even show that they do so in excess of the black rate. (It is a basic police heuristic that if it’s a financial crime, it’s a white; a violent crime, a black; a sex crime, a Hispanic.) But, in order to be conservative, we shall assume that the Hispanic proclivity to commit sex offenses is no greater than the known black rate. Since the rate of black arrests is 2.77 times the black percentage of the population, applying the same multiplier to the Hispanic percentage indicates that 45.6 percent or 4,113 of the “white” men arrested for rape were actually Hispanic.

This means that actual white men only represent 29.6 percent of rape arrests, which indicates that white men are 59 percent less likely to commit rape than the average individual and 85 percent less likely to commit rape than a black or Hispanic man. For those who think in ratios rather than percentages, this means that the risk of rape posed by the average black or Hispanic man is at least 6.76 times greater than that posed by the average white man.

Since a number of Mr. Futtrelle’s readers have foolishly assumed that I am defending white men out of self interest, I should point out that for good or for ill, none of these statistics apply to me. While there are no relevant crime statistics for multiracial individuals, it turns out there are for men who are “American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races”. With a 0.59 arrest/population ratio, we are 1.43 times more likely to commit rape than white men.

So, while it is certainly correct to say that white men engage in an amount of rape these days, they commit such a relatively small percentage of them in comparison with their percentage of the population that if college women are reporting more rapes by white men than by black or Hispanic men, their reports must be regarded as statistically improbable, ideologically motivated, and intrinsically suspicious. But of course we all know that there are statistical outliers, given that John Scalzi is white and he has reliably informed us that he, for one, is a rapist.

As rhetoric or dialectic, the conclusion stands. Certain claims of rape are intrinsically suspect on the basis of their divergence from documented statistical norms.

Also, note in the comments this implied threat from the cyberstalker Yama. I am sure you will understand how it couldn’t help but cause me substantial emotional distress and placed me in fear of death and bodily injury.

Nequam | December 19, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Ugh. I’m starting to think of creepy indulgent revenge porn involving sharp blades and a garbage disposal (so there won’t be anything worth trying to sew back on)

yamamanama | December 19, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Is it wrong that I thought of Vox Day going through that ordeal and smiled?

Yes, Yama, it is wrong. And your public expression of that thought is also, in light of your 56 documented months of cyberstalking me, most likely unlawful.

Astroturfing 101

Rule No. 1: Post BEFORE screencapping:

A Spacedad appears! @SuperSpacedad
Yes Gamergate, it’s clearly other people making you look bad and not your own fault. Here’s your bottle and bonnet

Exposing Jihad @XposingJihad
@SuperSpacedad Wouldve been more effective you hit post before screencapping

Isn’t it fascinating how we’re still supposed to believe #GamerGate is all about harassing a few individuals despite the fact that no one has mentioned them in weeks? The SJWs are so desperate for evidence that they have to manufacture it themselves.

Remember, rabbits always lie. They have no sense of honor or self-respect.

UPDATE: Speaking of fascinating, we have a real rabbit here. Never heard of the guy before, so he must be blocking #GamerGate en masse while simultaneously trying to spoof us.

You are blocked from following @SuperSpacedad and viewing @SuperSpacedad’s Tweets. Learn more

An r/K perspective on the NYC cop killings

Anonymous Conservative observes a rabbit strategy at work in the Mayor of New York City’s response to the killing of two NYPD officers:

Two NYPD cops killed in retaliation for Eric Garner’s death, while DeBlasio observes from safety. When I see this, I see the transvestite cuttlefish seizing mating opportunities, while competitors are occupied fighting each other. DeBlasio is a hard core rabbit, who no doubt dislikes the K-selected culture of aggression, competitiveness, and loyalty you find in K-selected populations such as the Police. He seeks the support of the angry and aggressive in-grouping class of the black community. At the same time, he tries to appear neutral to police, to avoid open conflict with them. Yet by his actions, he fosters acrimony, to the point that the Police even begin to out-group him.

Remember, rabbits never want to fight. They always want someone else to fight you on their behalf. That’s why Yama is trying to present himself, however impossibly, as a victim, despite the fact that he is the individual responsible for cyberstalking me for the last 56 months, in addition to many other individuals over the last 11 years.

How to lose to SJWs

Here is an example of someone who is on the right side, but doesn’t understand that you never win by spurning your allies:

I felt like talking about this topic because I’ve noticed the ease of which people will dismiss you, especially if you happen to be on the other side of the Anita Sarkeesian/GamerGate argument and you’re not a woman-hating bastard.

Honestly it feels like I’m supposed to just keep my trap shut sometimes.

Now let me get one thing straight. By “Other side,” I don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith. I mean people who have valid critiques of Anita Sarkeesian and others like her. What I noticed from my petition post was the willingness of the people arguing for Anita to not even bother to ask what my own opinion on her were. Instead my post was met with “ugh” and Feminist Frequency videos. Not once was I asked, “Well why are you against Anita? Is there any particular reason why you don’t want her working on Mirrors Edge 2?” These questions weren’t even asked until I pointed out the fact that they were willing to automatically go in on the attack before even knowing what my reasoning was.

What he and other would-be moderates fail to realize is that the anti-GamerGate, pro-Sarkeesian, SJW side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.

This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it.

The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history.

All appeasement does is signal to the SJW what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that “you don’t agree with everything X says” or “don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith”, what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the SJW exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective!

Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they’re not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.

Rhetorical discourse with an SJW

A dialogue on Twitter, prompted by my tweeting a paraphrase of a quote from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, specifically her explanation of how destroying men’s values is the first step in exerting control over them:

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Build up John Scalzi and you’ve destroyed SF. Hail Anita S. and you’ve destroyed game review. Glorify Lena Dunham and you’ve destroyed TV.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
How are any of these things destroyed by differing perspectives? Are they that fragile?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, that difficult and fragile. Kill Man’s sense of values and you kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
If a man’s sense of values of killed by a single differing opinion, either his values or weak or the man who holds them is.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You’re totally missing the point. It’s about the STANDARDS. Fuzz the definition of “inch” and no one knows how tall anything is.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
That sounds very rigid and a self-defeating philosophy if one is interested in expanding knowledge.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You don’t seek to expand knowledge. You’re just a deceiver who seeks to tear down and DISQUALIFY. You’re not fooling anyone.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
You clutch your brittle twig and I’ll ride the waves lifting us higher.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Look at how many lies you’ve tried already. 1) false dichotomy, 2) “single opinion”, 3) “self-defeating”, 4) “expanding knowledge”

Vox Day ‏@voxday
And wrapping it all up with a false accusation and an appeal to progress. You are classic SJW scum.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
Do you love life?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Don’t try to retreat to false dialectic after that racist rhetorical performance. It doesn’t suit you.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
racist?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, obviously.

Sam Fredericks ‏@Wyldawen
How?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
First you’ll have to explain how completely redefining standards and awarding mediocrity is “a single differing opinion”.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that Mr. Fredericks promptly disappeared after that. You can learn a lot from this dialogue, a lot that is useful for future engagements with SJWs and other rhetorically minded individuals.

First, notice how he begins with a question, and a dishonest, passive-aggressive question at that. That is how I immediately knew he was not an honest interlocutor, even though I answered his question in the same manner as if assuming he was. You always want to draw the SJW in deeper and force him to commit, even when you know, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, what he is.

Second, he tries another passive-aggressive dig, this time in falsely characterizing the subject and setting up a false dichotomy. Remember, SJWs always attack; they don’t know how to defend their own positions due to the contradictory and oft indefensible nature of them. They HAVE to stay on the attack if they are going to come out on top and they know it.

Third, after I point out how he has failed to understand the point, he doesn’t back off, but immediately switches to another attack, this time one that involves him claiming the philosophically superior position. What he wants is for me to defend myself, instead I point out, for the first time, that he is lying. Notice how he doesn’t even defend himself against his lack of interest in “expanding knowledge”, which is a non sequitur anyhow, but doubles-down, this time implicitly appealing to a nebulous, yet inevitable progress that is superior to the “brittle twig” of having traditional standards.

Observe that at no point has he made any attempt to actually make a coherent, rational case. It’s all pure rhetoric, all meant to put him on a higher plane that permits him to pronounce judgment on me.

After I openly call him out, he suddenly retreats, realizing that I am aware of his game. He tries another approach, this one prosecutorial, despite it being a non sequitur even more egregious than the first. Then, I drop the r-bomb on him. Notice that he can’t ignore this one. He doesn’t mind being called a liar, he doesn’t mind being called out as SJW scum, he doesn’t even mind it being pointed out that his argument is incoherent rhetoric, but he can’t ignore the r-word. It’s magic, you see. Magic rhetoric.

Suddenly, for the first time, he needs to ask questions and have things defined. And that’s when I kick him in the teeth, pointing out that he’ll have to start defining all of his many rhetorical claims before I define my single rhetorical claim. There was no need for me to define any of the other assertions I made, because they are all coherent and explicable. But the racist charge makes no sense, which tells him that I not only recognize the game he is playing, but understand it and can play it better than him.

Which is why he throws in the towel and vanishes. After which, Aquila Aquilonis ‏comments in his stead: And that is how a Native American takes a scalp on Twitter. #DreadIlk

John C. Wright explains the gatekeepers

It probably didn’t surprise you to see that the SJWs at Amazon claimed the best books of 2014 included an incestuous child molester’s chronicle of a nonexistent rape and a biography of a celebrity that contained no reference to the biggest scandal of the celebrity’s life, or that their list was topped by a derivative, paint-by-numbers, race-based lamentation of life in America by a female minority. (The irony involved in calling a member of the most populous race and nationality on the planet a “minority” does not escape me, but this is the parlous state to which our language has been reduced in 2014.)

John C. Wright explains this bizarre inverting of literary quality, where excellent books are ignored and the literary equivalent of finger-painting with one’s urine, excrement, and menstrual blood is praised as being not only exceptional, but the very best on offer:

Democracy also has a drawback: our liberty allows for such license, that no accomplishment is needed ere one is called accomplished. Eve our elitism is democratic: Anyone can be a snob!

All you have to do to achieve the paramount of the modern Decalogue is dishonor your father and mother; to be the modern version Horatio, all you need do is betray the ashes of your fathers and the altars of your gods. Hegelian evolution says that whatever comes later is better, right? Well, you come after your forefathers, and you are younger than your teachers, so you must know more.

To be a snob in the Old World you had to be born to a high family, or in the New, to earn a high place. But all you have to do to be a snob in the world of no-fault modern snobbery is look down on the giants who founded and fought for this nation.

The only way to look down on a giant is to turn your soul upside down, can call evil a type of good (tolerance, diversity, choice) and good a type of evil (intolerance, divisiveness, bigotry). And all you need to do to switch the labels on things, change the definitions so that the north arrow of the moral compass reads south, is to be a damned liar.

Yes, I do mean damned. So picture the modern Progressive as a dwarfish figure, head firmly wedged into a chamber pot, who looks down (what we call up) sees the clouds and stars underfoot, and sun and moon, and proudly imagines he is trampling heaven. And when he seeks to soar to higher places, overhead is a blank and cold earth, merely a roof of matter, impenetrable to his wit; and when he dreams of spiritual things his thoughts ascend to hell. The harder he tries to live up to what he thinks are higher ideals, the lower toward the central fire he sinks.

The short answer is that the elite of our culture are not a high elite at all, but the low dregs.

They do not sneer at us as their inferiors despite their embarrassing retardation in experiential, intellectual, philosophical and theological matters, not to mention their bad manners and sexual perversions: they sneer at us as their inferiors BECAUSE of their retardation.

Instead of the books recommended by Amazon, let me recommend a very good and seasonal book you may wish to consider in their stead, indeed, one by the very critic cited. But don’t take my word for it, consider what some of the readers of Mr. Wright’s The Book of Feasts & Seasons have had to say about it.

  •  There is really no way to rate this book with Amazon stars; Amazon does
    not have a way to indicate books which point to eternal truths and
    transcendent beauty. Speaking solely in terms of composition, the book
    has its flaws; shifting from more or less pure sci-fi with wit and much
    satire at the beginning to a conclusion full of sacred and solemn joy – while leaving in the sci-fi elements – and successfully carrying off
    each step without occasionally having your normally divergent themes try
    to separate like oil and water might be impossible anyway. That Mr.
    Wright on the whole pulls off this balancing act is a testament to his
    skill as a writer. I am giving it 5 stars because most of the stories within deserve 5
    stars, because several of them are the closest thing I have ever read to
    a 21st century G.K.Chesterton, and also because that is the most
    emphatic way I can recommend this volume to your attention.
  •  I have read many of Mr. Wright’s other works and in many of them, he hides his Christianity in parable. A parable is a tale that tells of Truth, but is veiled in a way that only those who know the author’s intent can discern its deeper meaning. In THE BOOK OF FEASTS & SEASONS, Mr. Wright alternately dons and throws off the disguising cloak of parable and allegory, writing as plainly as an honest man is able and with an elegance that only a master of prose can manage.
  • This is a marvelous collection of John C. Wright’s seasonal short
    fiction. Especially notable stories are “Pale Realms of Shade,” a ghost
    story with a noir sensibility and a very satisfying twist (for Easter),
    “The Ideal Machine” for the Ascension, “Eve of All Saints’ Day”
    for–well, you know what holiday that one is for! Finally, the two
    Christmas-themed stories, “Nativity” and “Yes, Virginia, There Is a
    Santa Claus,” are also especially good. At their best, these stories
    remind me of G. K. Chesterton.
  • A brilliant collection of mind-bending short stories. I liked all of
    them, loved three of them, and one of the three I loved stands as one of
    the best short stories I think the esteemed Mr. Wright has written
    (That’s “Pale Realms of Shade”, by the way). “The Meaning of Life” was
    hysterical. “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” was an extremely clever
    parable story, something I very rarely see

I feel, on the other hand, that “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” is the best short story that Mr. Wright has yet written, although there is one story that will be published in a collection next year that may surpass it. For me, it is a remarkable tale that combines the very best of Tanith Lee with CS Lewis in his Narnia mode. 

SJWs at Amazon

This is the description of the Amazon editors’ choice for the best book of 2014:

Lydia is dead. From the first sentence of Celeste Ng’s stunning debut, we know that the oldest daughter of the Chinese-American Lee family has died. What follows is a novel that explores alienation, achievement, race, gender, family….

Do you even need to read Everything I Never Told You: A Novel to know how the book is likely to proceed? Notice how the battle we observe in Pink SF/F vs Blue SF/F is playing out in mainstream literature too. This is not merely the best novel of the year, it is supposedly the VERY BEST BOOK of 2014, yet at 4.2, it has a lower average rating than most of my books, let alone John C. Wright’s.

Why? One guess. Style and SJW politics over story, of course. Compare the two most helpful reviews, one complimentary from a guy who got the book free, and one critical from a woman who actually paid money for it. Exhibit A:

How is it possible that this is a first novel? It is so exquisite, so marvelously perfect, so regally quiet and elegant that surely, it must come from the hands of a old soul author. But no. This is Celeste Ng’s first novel, and in it, she has painted such a deeply felt, original story. This book shall remain with me for the rest of my days.

Everything I Never Told You is a story of secrets, of love, of longing, of lies, of race, of identity, and knowledge. The story begins with the death of Lydia, daughter of Marilyn and James, which is told in the first sentence and slowly revealed through the book. Why she did it drives the narrative, and yet, this story is bigger, grander than this central mystery. Marilyn wanted to defy society’s narrow vision of her life and become a doctor, while James is trying to overcome humble beginnings and a society judging him based on his race. Together, they conventions, marry and create a family. Nathan, oldest son on his way to Harvard, Lydia, the middle sister and favorite one, and Hannah, truly growing up invisible. Together, Ng has created a complex, complicated family that rings so true on every page. There isn’t a false note in the story.

Classic. Pretentious language. Overpraise for a debut – you know there is a non-zero chance we’ll never hear about this writer again – defying society, ringing true, overwrought claims about how the book will live on in his heart forever and ever after, and to top it all off, the literary SJWs favorite praise: “There isn’t a false note in the story.”

Translation: this book is utter SJW bullshit and is full of false notes from start to finish, without ceasing. Remember, SJWs always lie.

And now, exhibit B:

Celeste Ng seems like a talented writer. Her style of writing is fluid and lyrical. For that reason, I really wanted to like this book. Unfortunately, I just couldn’t, primarily because nearly all the characters are so overwhelmingly awful.

I know characters don’t need to be good or even likeable to be compelling, but there has to be something to draw you in and make you care about them. That wasn’t the case here for me at all. In fact, the adult protagonists are so awful I almost wanted to stop reading at times. The main couple comprises the most self-absorbed, selfish, emotionally abusive parents I’ve ever encountered. Before the death of beloved Lydia, they turn her into a proxy of themselves and basically ignore their other children. Post-mortem, they become even more entrenched in themselves and their needs and issues and continue their neglect of their children or even take their anger out on them. Toward the end, which hints at happier times for the parents, I didn’t even care anymore. They didn’t deserve anything better.

My other issue with this novel was its treatment of race. I understand that Ng wanted this to be a treatise on racial differences and the impact prejudice can have on people, but the way she chose to do this was not effective. She was both heavy-handed and uninspiring. She made it seem as if every single person this family encountered had never seen a Chinese person and was prejudiced against them. I find this hard to believe even back in the 1970’s.

As I said, lies from start to finish. Not merely lies, but blatant and unconvincing lies. SJWs not only swim in shit, they want you to swim in it too, which is why they incessantly try to convince you that it’s the purest, cleanest water you’ll ever taste.

To conclude my case against buying into the ludicrous propaganda of Amazon’s SJWs, note that two of the other 100 best books of the year are: Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She’s “Learned” by the Dunham Horror and Cosby: His Life and Times by Mark Whitaker, who somehow managed to avoid discovering anything about Mr. Cosby’s reported pasttime of drugging and raping women in the process of writing his biography.

AC explains why misery loves company

This is an interesting, even ingenious explanation for what strikes so many of us who are sane as inexplicable: why are the rabbits always so hell-bent on attacking those who have nothing to do with them and are not harming them in any way?

As things get worse, the stimulus required to irritate them to action
will grow ever less. Since the rabbit is too cowardly to attack their
enemy themselves, their go-to strategy will be to try and make everyone they see unhappy, and turn any threat they can find in our populace upon the successful.

This strategy is an outgrowth of something innate to the undeveloped amygdalae – a fundamental, penetrating sense of helplessness. If your amygdala is developed, it has been developed through experience. When it encounters adversity, it scans your brain for a solution, finds it stored in memories of prior experiences, and it will then drive behaviors to address your adversity. As a self-sufficient non-rabbit, your amygdala will drive you to fix your own problems.

If, however your amygdala is not acclimated to adversity, then you will not be able to find a solution stored in your amygdala, and you will feel helpless. Once you are helpless, and your amygdala is applying aversive stimulus to drive you to take action, your focus will direct itself to making others solve your problems for you. Then, rather than fixing your problems yourself, you will focus on making everyone else miserable, in the hopes that to alleviate their misery they will solve your problem for you. Suddenly you are laying down in the middle of a freeway, basically telling other people that unless they fight your enemies for you and fix your problems on your behalf, you will stop traffic, and prevent them from getting home.

One can observe signs of this even in their customary language. “This is a problem.” “Don’t you see how that is a problem?” “I find it troublesome.” “That is problematic.” “I have a real problem with that.” What they are really saying is “I have a problem: I am scared and unhappy. I want you to fix it for me.”

But because they are entirely irrational and less than entirely sane by any reasonable measure, the very last thing they are going to do is listen to you or permit you to address their actual problem. Instead, they’re going to try to control you, so that you will obey their inept direction in fixing what they perceive, wrongly, to be the problem. And even if the problem doesn’t get fixed – and it won’t – at least they get the satisfying relief of feeling that they are no longer helpless, because they are ordering you around.

In which Mr. Wright addresses a Gossip

And proceeds to flay him, slowly, in his inimitable style, before rolling him gently in finely ground sea salt.

A yahoo who does not give his name but calls himself Vunderguy is asking a Houyhnhnm named John C Wright what is my emotional reaction to a man who calls himself Vox Day but whose real name is Theodore Beale.

    “Speaking of flights and fancy, what’s your take on your publisher, Vox Day?”
Despite the bouncing gaiety of the question, I answered it soberly, saying this: I think he has too high an opinion of me and my work, frankly. This is based on private communications with him, where he grants me more praise than I think just. While it is right and proper, as a matter of professional courtesy, for an editor to flatter a writer he publishes, I am afraid in this case he overestimates my talent, albeit I am grateful for the flattery, because I am quite vain.

Vunderguy answers with this indirect comment:

    “While that insight is a bit humanizing of him, I meant in regards to his more… ‘fringe’ views.“

I was not aware that Mr. Beale needed ‘humanizing’ whatever that word means. As a Houyhnhnm, the process sounds painful and dangerous and much to be avoided.

Growing mildly impatient, in my unemotional way, I remarked: “Fringe views? Is this a guessing game where you act like a coy schoolgirl and do not say what you mean, while I act like a man and speak in complete sentences?” And I mentioned some of Mr Beale’s unusual views, for example on drug legalization and other libertarian issues, which are not mainstream.

After that, Mr. Guy (as I shall hereafter call the anonymous accuser) finally agreed to speak plainly and ask his question, or, rather, his accusation disguised as a question.

I say ‘his’ because in English, when the sex of the antecedent is unknown or undetermined, this is the proper pronoun. The delicate indirectness with which Mr. Guy asks his questions, however, is more typically seen in women, or was, back in the day when women practiced feminine delicacy.

Since it is an accusation and not a question, in a properly lawyerly fashion, let me answer point by point:

Mr. Wright also asked the Gossip why he was so strangely incurious about his other editors, including Messrs. George R.R. Martin, Gordon van Gelder, David Brin, Gardner Dozois, and Glenn Yeffeth. My question to those who would attack Castalia’s authors on the basis of their editor is this: Tor editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden is, unlike me, a self-admitted racist. Do you similarly inquire all of his authors their “take” on his hurtful and offensive statement: “I’m a racist. Or some kind of bad guy, at any rate. I’ll live. Worse things happen to the victims of actual racism.”

Like having their land stolen and being put on reservations, just to name one, for no particular reason at all.


I find it rather amusing that people think they know my “fringe views”. I mean, the stuff they think is fringe is merely what I’m willing to openly state and defend in public. That is hardly the outer limit of my thinking.

Isolati!

Several people asked me to address what superficially looks like yet another SJW isolation attempt, as Vunderguy asked John C. Wright for his “take” on me:

I’ll just up and say it then. He seems to me to be something of a white supremacist, even though he’s about as white as I am, or at least, draw those kinds of people towards him.

Now, I like Vox in a lot of ways. He’s even more non-PC than Matt Stone, Trey Parker’s, Larry Correra’s, and Andrew Klavan’s gay managa-whatever-the-frenchy-word-for-four-is’ love child and the ways he can get under the enemy’s skin is admirable… but he seems to have trouble separating the culture a people group has from the people group themselves and seems to equate the genetics of that people group too closely with the behaviors of that people group… even though, as an admitted minority, he’s one pretty smart cookie. I mean, you’d have to be to be able to be such an isolationist that you give up on America and move to Italy with a family to support… even though that’s even closer to where the first bangs of destruction will begin, but whatever.

To top it all off, like I said, a lot of the people that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours, and by that I mean that a lot of the commenters on his site seem to be what Alfonzo Rachel would call, ‘Noe-Confederate Libertarians’ and/or the kind of people who believe we had no good reasons to intervene in Vietnam, Iraq, and probably WW II (I.E., the kind of absolutist pacifists that find no use for Just War Theory).

Furthermore, Vox supported Ted Cruz’s plan to get a bill passed that would enable congress to strip the citizenship of people who went to go join ISIS… even though anyone with any knowledge of history, like he’s SUPPOSED TO BE, would know that such a bill would just erode our republic faster like the laws put in place by ‘that RINO Neo-Con George W’ that every self-professed Libertarian likes to bash, and enhanced by Obama.

Furthermore, Vox supports #NotYourShield for the whole gamergate thing, and that hashtag is pretty darned racist, and I mean LEGITIMATELY racist, and not in the faux-racism that Vox’s ‘Magic Negro’ statements about Obama and Ben Carson were.

He also thinks that the west started the current crises in the Middle-East, even though he admits that it was Muslim aggression that started started the crises on a more macrocosmic scale in the middle-ages, which strikes me as double-think despite any empty rhetoric of, ‘War is Peace,’ that might be hurled at me.

First, let me point out that my opinion of Mr. Wright as a science fiction writer may be high, but it is an informed and soundly grounded one. Second, I am not a “white supremacist”, I am a civilizationist. Many people seem to forget that in addition to my BS in economics I also picked up a BA in East Asian Studies, studied in Japan, and in fact still speak some Japanese. I am a fan of higher civilization in its various forms, but the fact is that European civilization was, and is, the height of Man’s accomplishment. The main reason I live in Europe and not Japan is the timing of the post-Heisei boom bust.

The reason I “have trouble separating the culture a people group has from the people group themselves” is because the two cannot be separated. They are not the same, but they are intertwined. Americans often find this difficult to understand because their culture is very young and shallow, and because they ceased to be a people, to the extent they ever were, over a century ago. Genetics affects culture, which in turn affects genetics, in an ongoing process that no one is even close to being able to successfully divide and analyze. One of the benefits of being multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and familiar with multiple cultures is the ability to see what aspects are easily transmitted and which are not. There are still aspects of Japanese culture, hell, there are still aspects of Italian culture which I do not grasp despite my intimate familiarity with them.

As for anyone still trying to defend the failed military interventions in Vietnam and Iraq, well, that speaks for itself. Whether one looks at them from a moral or a military perspective, they were catastrophes.

I do support Ted Cruz’s plan to strip citizenship of ISIS members, just as I will support the eventual plans to strip citizenship from those who hold other citizenships. Such acts will not “destroy the Republic”, to the contrary, they will make the possibility of an undivided nation possible. The Republic was destroyed when it became an occupying Empire established by force under Lincoln; the South was, and is, a conquered nation which is no more a voluntary part of the Union than the West Bank is a voluntary part of Israel.

#NotYourShield is not the least bit “racist”, but is rather the refusal of Native Americans like me or other ethnic minorities, to permit SJW white people to speak for us using our name. We will speak for ourselves, they do not speak for us. The only thing that is racist is the SJW’s attempts to silence us and turn us into ventriloquist puppets. I am astonished at Vunderguy’s implicit assertion that white SJWs have any right to tell Native Americans what their permitted opinions are and at what they are to take offense or not.

There is no question that Western interference in the Middle East sparked this third great wave of Islamic expansion. Vunderguy earlier tried to question my knowledge of history, and yet here shows his own. There is absolutely no double-think here, merely observable cause and effect. Just as Islamic aggression sparked the Crusades, Western interference sparked the current global jihad. The expansionary jihadist spirit was always there, but it was quiescent until it was disturbed by the West.

People are often trying to get Larry and John to disown me in much the same way they have tried to get me to disown Roosh and Roissy. One might ask oneself the important question: why? It is, I think, a testimony to our collective effectiveness and impact we have on how people are thinking that so many attempts are repeatedly made to isolate and DISQUALIFY us.

But why do I so often, as another commenter observed, “get singled out”? I suspect that is because unlike Larry and to a lesser extent John, I annoy and embarrass the conventional Right almost as much as I infuriate the Left. I simply have no loyalty to any ideology except the truth as I perceive it to be and I don’t respect the Right’s pieties on race and other controversies any more than I respect the Left’s. But you don’t have to like the truth in order to accept it is legitimate when presented with correct logic and relevant science.