Tag: trainwreck

All ur SSN are belong to us

It would be amusing if they start thieving government identities now that they have all the data they need to produce them:

Hackers stole personnel data and Social Security numbers for every federal employee, a government worker union said Thursday, saying that the cyber theft of U.S. employee information was more damaging than the Obama administration has acknowledged.

Perhaps the federal government should have abided by the wisdom of the Founders, and respected the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No citizen should ever be required to give any information to the government, barring a Warrant. They might as reasonably be required to post it on the front door of their house for anyone passing by.

Sad Puppies stop rape!

I just can’t how what wow just wow:

Sad/Rabid Puppies are ultimately self-defeating. They want long stories about traditional white men raping and killing things in traditional fantasy settings — but every time they do something else to disrupt the Hugos, George RR Martin, the current king of long stories about traditional white men raping and killing things in a traditional fantasy setting, stops writing Winds of Winter and writes a novel-length essay on his LiveJournal about why the Puppies are ruining his favorite awards.

We haven’t been on the field. That’s the only possible answer for how we’ve been losing to these utter lunatics for the last three decades. That’s a comment from the Gawker piece on Tor’s failure to ask Irene Gallo for her resignation… yet.

Meanwhile, John Scalzi is showing his childhood scars on Twitter again.

I know of someone whose biggest life achievement is being a bigoted shithole of a human being. He’s going to be very sad on his deathbed

Actually, I expect I’ll be rather looking forward to seeing what comprises Level 2. One can only laugh at the degree of Gamma required to not only formulate, but make public that sort of lame passive-aggression. You’ll show them once you grow up, Johnny! Your time is coming. You’ll show them one day!

Johnny, I’m not one of those boys who made fun of you when you couldn’t go out and play at recess with everyone else. And I wouldn’t have done so had I been there. So grow the fuck up already and get over it.

Peter Grant issues a second warning

Does Tor really want war to the knife? Peter Grant counsels action:

I’ve been . . . not astonished, really, because I’ve seen it all before, but . . . taken aback, at least, by the depth of ignorance, prejudice and blind, religious-fervor-style ‘group-think’ displayed by many of those arguing in favor of Ms. Irene Gallo’s comments that precipitated the crisis concerning Tor….

Those tactics are not going to work in this case.  I’ve had enough.  So have many other people. Ms. Gallo’s words were the last straw for us, as I explained in my earlier posts.  They’re merely the latest example of a long-standing pattern of behavior by senior employees at Tor.  I’m not joking about my response, either.  I’m willing to give Tor a few days – a week at most – to rectify the situation and deal with all those involved, not just Ms. Gallo.  If the company fails to do so, I will call for a boycott of its products and publications . . . and I won’t do so alone.  I’ve consulted with a large number of fellow authors and other individuals about this over the past few days.  There are some influential figures involved, as Tor may soon find out to its cost.

If that happens, some readers may be surprised to learn how widespread is the anger and bitterness that has built up during the past few months and years concerning the individuals I’ve identified at Tor.  Their conduct and attitudes have become inseparably intertwined in the minds of many – including myself – with the conduct and attitudes of their employer.  We don’t believe they can be separated.  It’s for Tor to prove us wrong . . . but I suspect that’s not about to happen, because to my mind – our minds – Tor really is standing behind them, despite Mr. Doherty’s attempts to distinguish between the company and its senior staff.

I truly hope it doesn’t come to a boycott . . . but if it does, so be it.  We no longer have anything to lose by acting.  Tor, on the other hand, risks losing everything by not acting.  I say that as a former director of companies, with post-graduate business education and a good understanding of the financial pressures on Tor and companies like it.  (Yes, individuals at ‘some companies’ do talk about such things to outsiders, particularly when they’re also angry over what’s happening internally.  The numbers are . . . interesting.)

Your move, Tor . . . for a short time.  I truly hope you make the right one before it’s too late.

The Evil Legion of Evil has not yet called for a boycott by the many Tor customers attacked by Ms Gallo. It has, after all, only been two days since the management at Tor Books learned about her attack on them. But the one thing they must understand is that an apology is not enough. We expect a resignation.

Sooner or later, Ms Gallo will resign. It’s only a question of how much damage Tor Books, and perhaps more importantly, Macmillan, are willing to take first.

Meanwhile, John C. Wright clarifies a previous statement:

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

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

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

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

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

Two schools of customer care

Now, I have no standing to tell Tor Books how it should run its business or interact with its customers. But I do find the difference between the two rival schools of thought on the matter to be pretty astonishing when you compare and contrast them. One of our customers recently sent us this note

An unsolicited endorsement….

Recently I took advantage of a “buy vol 1 and get vol 2 free” offer from Castalia House on a Friday. Saturday I opened my email to see two links to the books.

I clicked vol 1 and it downloaded, I clicked vol 2 and got the message “you have reached your download limit”..

I sent an email asking for the link to be reset, I expected to hear a reply on Monday.

But instead (on a Saturday), I received an email apologizing and asking me about the format I needed. I replied and within a few minutes received an email with vol 2 attached. (on a Saturday!)

That is the definition of good customer service.

I fear, however, that we completely failed to call him a neo-nazi or an unrepentant racist homophobe at any point in the process. Now, every company has different ideas about how to best interact with their customers, and I expect there is probably something to be said for hurling vituperative insults at people you would like to buy things from you. Precisely what that might be, I have no idea, but then, we’re relatively new to the publishing game. I know we have a lot to learn.

I guess I’m just a techno-caveman. I don’t understand these newfangled means of “marketing”, all this flashy “social media”, all these “tweets” and “follows” and “likes”.

Is it a sort of Soup Nazi spin? You know, “no books for you!” Does anyone know of any market research indicating precisely what insults tend to be most effective in improving brand loyalty?

And would “buy our bad-to-reprehensible books, racist neo-nazi homophobes!” be a good place to start?

An unapology, unaccepted

Tom Doherty, Publisher of Tor Books, disavows Irene Gallo’s views, but does absolutely nothing to resolve the situation.

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

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

D. Jason Fleming points out that Irene Gallo, Associate Publisher of Tor.com and Creative Director of Tor Books, didn’t actually apologize and is clearly of the same mind still.

She does
not apologize for impugning the characters of a very large number of
people. She does not apologize for impugning authors who work for her
employer, in particular. She does not apologize for her immaturity in
prancing about demonstrating that she’s not part of a tribe she hates.
She does not apologize for her bigotry in any way, shape, or form.

She only apologizes for the feelings of people who might have been hurt by what she said.

What she said, then, must still stand.

 So what did she actually say?

I don’t know about the rest of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies she called right-wing extremists and neo-nazis, or the authors she described as writing “bad-to-reprehensible works”, or everyone she called “unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic”, but as for me, I’m not hurt. So why is she apologizing for nonexistent events she hypothesizes rather than her rank unprofessionalism, her shameless bigotry, and her unprovoked attack on the right two-thirds of SF/Fdom? Especially when she still hasn’t informed us whose works are bad and whose are reprehensible.

I don’t want an apology. I don’t expect an apology.

I expect a resignation.

This is no way to cure a gay man

You have to admire Milo’s dedication to investigative journalism. Talk about suffering for your job! He reviews Mattress Girl’s latest attempt to extend her 15 minutes of fame so we don’t have to see what cannot be unseen:

In preparing for this review, my researcher had to watch Emma Sulkowicz, a.k.a. “Mattress Girl,” perform fellatio on an overweight man eleven times. He tells me that he is now seriously considering homosexuality….  Naturally, Sulkowicz has become a feminist icon. But the activists and bloggers who supported her will be feeling a little uneasier this week, after she peeled back a few more layers on her own deep psychological dysfunction and apparently limitless ego by resorting to that age-old remedy for waning stardom: the sex tape. . . .

It’s telling, I think, that in Sulkowicz’s purported college dorm room there are no books. She has the same lack of interest in aesthetics as she does in intellectual enrichment: both in her choice of sexual partner (apparently satisfactory member notwithstanding) and the grim, bare walls with which she surrounds herself. Though I expect the austerity of her room reflects her barren emotional interior really rather well. You can tell “dad bods” are in fashion because both of the people in this video have one. But you do at least have to give an actress credit for doing nude scenes with a man who has larger breasts than she does. Sulkowicz’s size queendom apparently extends to love handles and leave the viewer sympathetic to the travails of her infamous mattress.

It’s revealing of her vanity that she insists on being filmed from four angles. Every crevasse of her unappealing naked body must be considered. Her congressional interlocutor is a gruesome sight in three dimensions, chosen, probably, to make young Emma look thinner. Which doesn’t work, I’m sorry to say.

All in all, it’s a tawdry, miserable encounter that tells us nothing about sexual assault or sex itself but quite a bit about the quasi-demonic inner workings of one Emma Sulkowicz.

My chief takeaway from all this? DO NOT ACCEPT AN INTERNSHIP AT BREITBART. You might end up working for Milo and who knows what depths of degradation and horror that may involve plumbing.

Also, Mattress Girl may singlehandedly have accomplished what legions of church leaders, upstanding citizens, priests, and moral scolds could not do, and killed Internet pornography. I hear Mercedes Carrera was so scarred by watching the tape that she has retreated to a nunnery and is seriously considering vows.

Eric Flint, SJW

I hadn’t bothered reading whatever Flint had been going on about, because knowing that he was still a socialist was sufficient for me, the student of several noted Marxian economists (since recanted), to know that the man is neither very intelligent nor very educated.

But I finally got around to reading the article and was mildly surprised to learn that it was even dumber than I assumed it would be.

I am a social justice warrior. Not an “SJW,” not a figment of the fevered imaginations of right-wingers, but the real deal. 

Wow, the real deal! And what do SJWs always do? That’s right. All together now! SJWS ALWAYS LIE. Case in point: Eric Flint.

Then there’s Theodore Beale, aka “Vox Day.” Now we come to a far more suitable candidate, Great-Dictator-Reborn-wise. He shares Hitler’s general attitudes on race, certainly, although I don’t know where he stands on the subject of Jews. And he’s even to the right of Hitler on the subject of women. Far to the right, in fact. Hitler thought women should stick to their proper roles in child-rearing, managing households and church activity—“Kinder, Kūche, Kirche”—but he wasn’t actually opposed to women learning how to read and write and he didn’t support honor killings.

But there are two great differences between Beale and Hitler that make it impossible for Beale to play that role either.

To start with, whatever his other depravities, Hitler wasn’t a petty chiseler. Whereas Beale is nothing but a petty chiseler. He chisels when it comes to his opinions, always trying to play peekaboo and slime around defending what he obviously believes. And he’s trying to win Hugo awards by petty chiseling.

But it’s his other characteristic that really disqualifies him for the role of Great Villain in this morality play.

In a nutshell—and completely unlike Adolf Hitler—Theodore Beale is a fucking clown with delusions of grandeur. This is a man—say better, pipsqueak—who rails to the heavens about the decline—nay, the imminent doom!—of western civilization due to the savageries of sub-human races and (most of all) the pernicious—nay, Satan-inspired!—willfulness of uppity women, and likes to portray himself as the reincarnation of the feared Crusaders of yore, all the way down to wielding a flaming sword.

And… the best thing he can figure out to do with his time, money and energy is to hijack a few Hugo awards. That’ll show the sub-human-loving treacherous bitches!

The world trembles and shakes, just like it does in the imagination of a mouse whenever that mouse imagines itself to be an elephant. Except no mouse who ever lived was this stupid.

You know, we’ve wondered who was going to be the new Hitler ever since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proved to be such a washout in that regard. My money was on Putin, so I had absolutely no idea it would turn out to be me. Someone get Hugo Boss on the line, we’re going to need some snappy new outfits for the VFM, stat!

Let’s address the issues as Mr. Flint, real deal SJW, puts them forth.

  1. I don’t share Hitler’s views on race, as I have a basic grasp of human genetics and I am neither a eugenicist nor an Aryan supremacist.
  2. On the subject of Jews, I am a Zionist who edits and publishes the eminent Israeli military historian Dr. Martin van Creveld.
  3. I’m not opposed to women learning to read and write. I am opposed to women being encouraged to obtain advanced degrees in the place of husbands and children. Unlike Mr. Flint, I can do the demographic math.
  4. I don’t support honor killings. I never have.
  5. I don’t hide what I really believe. Mr. Flint claims to know what I really believe without me ever putting it into words because, and I quote, “peekaboo”. If anyone is “a fucking clown” here, it is observably Mr. Flint.
  6. I’m not trying to win Hugo Awards. I don’t care about winning awards.
  7. I have no delusions of grandeur. I’m not the one who keeps running to The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, The New Zealand Herald, NPR, Popular Science, or the Wall Street Journal to talk about me. I haven’t issued a single press release or called a single member of the media about the Hugo Awards or anything else, for that matter.
  8. Western civilization is in peril. In large part thanks to idiots like Mr. Flint.
  9. I don’t like to portray myself with a flaming sword. That was the brainchild of the Star Tribune photographer who was taking pictures of me for a story the paper was doing. Apparently he was onto something, as it’s an image many people have remembered.
  10. Hijacking the Hugo Awards is not the best thing I can figure out to do with my time, money and energy. First, the Hugos weren’t hijacked. We claimed the nominations fair and square, and entirely in accordance with the rules. Second, it took very little time, money, or energy as it required nothing more than a single blog post and 367 Vile Faceless Minions who despise SJWs like Eric Flint, John Scalzi, Jim Hines, and George Rape Rape Martin more than Eric Flint hates capitalist running dogs.

Anyhow, it’s always good to see one’s initial instincts confirmed. Now I can go back to completely ignoring the moronic intellectual dinosaur. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to still subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? I would have thought that robotics would have been sufficient to lay that to rest for anyone capable of turning on a computer.

It’s kind of funny that these people take umbrage at the idea that I am considerably more intelligent than they are. Do they even read what they write? Hitler! Honor! Hate! Hijack! Hugo! It’s as if they’ve got conceptual Tourette’s Syndrome. My favorite was Flint’s claim to a) know I share Hitler’s ideas on race but b) not know my views about Jews. We’re clearly dealing with a real master of logic here.

Neocons attack Paul, the sequel

Now the people who brought you failure in Afghanistan, failure in Iraq, a puppet government in Ukraine and the Islamic State are gunning for Rand Paul because he is willing to tell the truth about them and the foreign policy failures of the last Republican president. Roger Simon is running around claiming that Paul has “shown his true colors” and “destroyed himself”:

Alas Rand (I had higher hopes for him), like father Ron, has a mega-chauvanistic view of the world.  The USA is so big and strong it causes everything, including, at one point, 9-11, and now ISIS, if you can believe that. Never mind that the Islamic State is just another avatar of Islamic imperialism’s desire for a world caliphate that has been going on for centuries, long before our country was in existence — the Battle of Tours (732), the Siege of Vienna (1683) and on and on. The violence has been there forever, too.  As any literate person knows, it’s in the Koran and the Hadith.  Beheadings were part of Mohammed’s game plan. It’s what he did and what he called for. This was not invented by a cabal of neocons in Chevy Chase, Maryland, in 2003.

And of course ISIS is part of a straight line that goes from the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928, long before the current crop of Republicans were even alive) to Al Qaeda via Zawahiri and on into the modern age with ISIS, all working from the same ideological playbook, as are Boko Haram, Hamas, al Shabab, al Nusra, etc., etc.

Rand, again like father Ron, is essentially racist in blaming this on America and not recognizing other cultures have belief systems to which they truly adhere and that those belief systems may be dangerous, even evil.  America did not evolve Islamist ideology anymore than it did Nazism, but the Islamists have the potential to wreak just as much havoc if they are not stopped.

And what did Paul actually say?

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.” . . .  “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued: “They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.”

That’s absolutely true. Simon and the other neocons can sing and dance all they like, but the fact is that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq created ISIS. Military experts like William S. Lind even predicted it back in 2003:

The current phase of the war in Iraq is driven by three different
elements: chaos, a war of national liberation (which is inflicting most
of the casualties) and 4th Generation War. In time, the 4th Generation
elements will come to predominate, as they fill the vacuum created by
the destruction of the Iraqi state.

He then pointed out how it would proceed in  2004:

An article in the Friday, March 29 Washington Post pointed to the long-expected opening of Phase III of America’s war with Iraq. Phase I was the jousting contest, the formal “war” between America’s and Iraq’s armies that ended with the fall of Baghdad. Phase II was the War of National Liberation waged by the Baath Party and fought guerilla-style. Phase III, which is likely to prove the decisive phase, is true Fourth Generation war, war waged by a wide variety of non-state Iraqi and other Islamic forces for objectives and motives that reach far beyond politics.

    The Post article, “Iraq Attacks Blamed on Islamic Extremists,” contains the following revealing paragraph:

    In the intelligence operations room at the 1st Armored Division’s headquarters (in Baghdad), wall-mounted charts identifying and linking insurgents depict the changing battlefield. Last fall the organizational chart of Baathist fighters and leaders stretched for 10 feet, while charts listing known Islamic radicals took up a few pieces of paper. Now, the chart of Iraqi religious extremists dominates the room, while the poster depicting Baathist activity has shrunk to half of its previous size.

The article goes on to quote a U.S. intelligence officer as adding, “There is no single organization that’s behind all this. It’s far more decentralized than that.”

Welcome to Phase III. The remaining Ba’athists will of course continue their War of National Liberation, and Fourth Generation elements have been active from the outset. But the situation map in the 1st Armored Division’s headquarters reveals the “tipping point”: Fourth Generation war is now the dominant form of war against the Americans in Iraq.

The neocons are desperate to avoid responsibility for their failures because they want to keep doing the same stupid shit that caused the current problems. Far from destroying himself, Paul is telling Americans what is necessary just to begin saving what is left of their nation. Ron Paul was right back in 2001. Rand Paul is right now.

We’re going to need a bigger facepalm

More brilliance from the genius-commenters at File 770. Seriously, what you have to remind yourself whenever you read them is to keep in mind that they quite genuinely believe that they are our intellectual betters. It makes everything much, much funnier.

Glenn Hauman on May 25, 2015 at 9:51 am said:
Stevie: The deal with Tor means that Scalzi gets to write, and all the other stuff is done by Tor who are better at it than Scalzi is; VD is too egotistical to accept that he isn’t the best at everything he does. Scalzi certainly has a healthy ego but he’s got the brains to know that it doesn’t make any sense to spend his time doing something which other people do better

More, that implies that Beale has never heard of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states that you should be doing what you’re best at even if you do other things better than other people, as it’s a waste of your efforts otherwise. Surprising for Beale to claim to be so well versed in economics and yet be ignorant of a basic tenet of the field.

I wonder what Mr. Hauman believes I was addressing when I wrote the column entitled The Religion of Free Trade, which begins in the following manner:

Let us suppose I told you of a certain doctrine in which millions of people believe without ever having read the book in which it is contained, which is predicated upon a situation that has never existed, and promises positive consequences that not only have never been delivered, but we are told cannot even be measured and cannot be realized without achieving something that has never been done before in the history of Man. Furthermore, the doctrine was developed by a gambler and politician with absolutely no credentials or qualifications on the subject, which subject he had never encountered before the age of 27, in tandem with a related theory that is so obviously insane that barely anyone has ever even heard of it.

So long as we are careful to set aside any reliance upon the genetic fallacy, does this sound like a doctrine that is not only infallible, but one that it would be crazy to even consider questioning? And yet, the fervor with which the advocates of the free-trade doctrine defend David Ricardo’s outdated, disproven theory of comparative advantage and decry those who question it is so ferocious as to indicate the nature of a belief that can only be described as religious.

David Ricardo was without question a brilliant and successful man, but what is much less often noted is how intellectually dishonest he was. In a previous WND column, titled Free Trade Harms America, I showed how Joseph Schumpeter labeled his peculiar and tautological method of argument the “Ricardian Vice.” Furthermore, he was not even the original author of the theory of Comparative Advantage, it having been first introduced by Robert Torrens in “An Essay on the External Corn Trade” two years before Ricardo transformed a specific argument for a specific situation into something passing for a general principle, which he published in “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.”

Truly, my ignorance on the subject, which I also addressed in 2010 and in 2014, astounds. The theory of Comparative Advantage also came up in my interview with Ian Fletcher, who has devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to utterly demolishing Ricardo.

Remember, SJWs always lie. And perhaps more importantly, we again see an example of the midwit having so little ability to grasp what his intellectual superior is saying that he erroneously assumes stupidity and ignorance on said superior’s part. As it happens, I am probably one of the 100 people on the planet most equipped to discuss David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage in critical detail, so it is vastly amusing to see Mr. Hauman assert that I am “ignorant of a basic tenet of the field.”

Perhaps Mr. Hauman, being such a noted expert in Ricardian theory, would do us all the favor of calculating the real value of Mr. Scalzi’s new contract based on the only true determinant of profit.

And just to be clear, if you are not one of the five people reading this who understand the reference, that is a joke.

What part of “cruelty artist” don’t you understand?

Roosh@rooshv
Surprise: one of my committed haters @Popehat is mentally ill, served time in an institution. I wish him the best

 Popehat ‏@Popehat
@rooshv “committed haters” is actually pretty clever.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
.@rooshv Ken isn’t the Popehat blogger who hates you. Patrick is the one who hates you, you scrofulous little Ben-wa ball.

Vox Day @voxday
.@Popehat @rooshv Is this “Patrick” an actual person or one of the 16 Personalities of Popehat?

I find it rather astonishing that anyone would be so naive as to imagine, in this day and Information Age, to think that it is a good idea to simultaneously a) be mentally ill and b) play attack dog on the Internet. If being medicated or otherwise under treatment for mental illness meant that one was to be regarded as off limits, it would be impossible to respond to an estimated one-in-five people and four-in-five SJWs. So that’s a complete non-starter.

Now, I don’t wish disease of any kind on anyone. I never have and never will. I would very much like for everyone, even those who most hate me, to be healthy, happy, and well. But if you have a mental illness and you are foolish enough to attack me, then you can be certain that I will exploit your weakness to whatever extent I happen to find useful or amusing. Why? Because you gave up any claim to my sympathy or civility of your own free will when you decided to attack me or mine without provocation.

My advice to Ken White is threefold:

  1. Get off the Internet for your own good. Seriously. It’s no place for the depressed, the bipolar, or the schizophrenic. There is no way the form of conflict-laden communication it fosters will do anything but undermine your mental health.
  2. If you won’t do that, then try to stay out of the hot zones. Based on my observations of the behavior of other mentally unstable individuals active on the Internet, at some point your illness is likely to lead you to write checks that your mental stability can’t cash.
  3. If you insist on mixing it up on the Internet, then at the very least do not seek out and attack notoriously ruthless individuals like Roosh and me. We won’t hesitate to strike at your vulnerabilities and we don’t care about the opinion of the delicate souls who will dramatically take to their fainting couches at the horror of it all. Just leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone.

My code of behavior is very simple and straightforward. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Start something and I will do my level best to finish it to my satisfaction, no matter how long it takes. So, once you’ve made it personal, don’t whine about how cruelly I take advantage of your feelings of worthlessness or complain about how viciously I exploit your sense of being a failure. All you had to do was leave me alone. And if you can’t manage something as simple as that, well, then perhaps you really are a stupid and worthless individual doomed to inevitable failure in life.

If you are weak, then for the love of God and anything else in which you happen to believe, do not attack the strong!

One thing I think might be useful to keep in mind that the genuinely stable and self-confident individual has as much trouble understanding the perspective of the unstable and insecure person as the latter does the former. When I read Ken’s post about his breakdown and his struggles, my overwhelming impression was sheer bewilderment. He might as well have written it in Chinese for all that I related to it. And what’s more, in writing this post, I begin to understand just how evil and pernicious the behavior of the SJWs who constantly try to spin the false narrative of my incessant failure really is: I now understand that being mentally unstable themselves, they are intentionally attempting to provoke me into a psychological tailspin.

That is foolish for two reasons. First, I’m not susceptible to it. It will never, ever work on me because the effect is precisely the opposite of the one intended. In fact, it’s exactly what my track coach at university used to do in order to motivate my sprinters group on speed day. (NB: in the track world, sprinters are well known for being the most self-confident of athletes. As it is said, sprinters are born, not made, and you either have it or you don’t.) Second, and more important, their use of the tactic tells me precisely who is going to be most vulnerable to it.

And the Dark Lord laughed….