The war against coherency

This is vastly amusing. John Scalzi has lobbied for Hugos for years,
on behalf of himself and others. This is the second year of Sad Puppies.
Charles Stross has openly engaged in what he calls “Shameless Hugo
nomination touting” and the Toad of Tor has publicly declared that
science fiction awards are nothing but “a giant signal saying ‘this is
what we love, this is what we value'”. Dozens of pinkshirts have primly announced that they don’t intend to read anything by anyone of whom they disapprove.

And David Gerrold somehow
concludes that the politicization of science fiction is my fault?

Coming back to the starting point of the column — if we accept that
science fiction awards should not be politicized, then the columnist is
blaming the wrong people. He should start by blaming Vox Day the guy who politicized this year’s process in the first place.

Either Gerrold has lost it or I have powers far beyond my ken. For example, here is a Hugo-related post from 2010 that lists “Tor.com’s Hugo Award-eligible works” and pushes Tor novels, editors, and artists.

4. Irene Wednesday March 10, 2010 12:27pm EST
Hi Spera,

This post was meant to be specific to the works that Tor.com has published.

But that doesn’t mean would love for you to consider Tor novels, editors, and artists. You can check out the Tor corporate site here. 


A vile taste in her mouth

Oh my. Anyhow, I found the angst of a fellow Hugo nominee who professes to oppose “award campaigns” to be somewhat amusing:

Let me be clear: Vox Day is a despicable person whose repeated racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior towards specific members of the genre community as well as the community as a whole should make all decent human beings recoil from his presence.  That I received my first Hugo nomination on the same ballot that bears his name leaves a vile taste in my mouth.  That the rest of the fiction ballot feels, as several people have noted, as if it’s recapitulating the culture wars only makes this nomination worse, and confirms me in my feeling that the only people who benefit from award campaigns are those with large and devoted fanbases–whether those fanbases are motivated by love of a particular writer, or the desire to stick it to the lefties (or, as is most likely, both).
– Abigail Nussbaum, April 20

Or at least, she opposes them when she isn’t successfully running one of her own, or pimping out the “dozens” of others by various would-be nominees:

Even as the award eligibility phenomenon gains steam (and respectability), more and more people are also using the internet to create a more broadly informed voter base.  Dozens of people are posting their Hugo ballots and recommendations (to take a by no means exhaustive sample: Nina Allan, Thea and Ana at The Book Smugglers, Liz Bourke (1, 2, 3, 4), the bloggers of LadyBusiness, Justin Landon, Martin Lewis, Jonathan McCalmont (1, 2), Aidan Moher, Mari Ness, Ian Sales, Jared Shurin, Rachel Swirsky (1, 2, 3), Adam Whitehead).  Blogs like Hugo Award Eligible Art(ists) seek to inform people (like myself) who have little grounding in the category, and make them acquainted with worthwhile nominees.  Existing projects like Writertopia’s Campbell award eligibility page collate information that makes it easier to nominate for an award whose eligibility requirements can seem tricky even if you’re an old hand at this Hugo stuff.  If you’re someone who is interested in voting as more than a single author’s fan, it has never been easier to gain a broad appreciation of the field and its practitioners, even the ones who aren’t superstars.

I still don’t know whether award eligibility posts are part of the problem or simply a ineffective distraction.  I do think that the efforts I’ve been seeing in the last two months have a real chance of being part of the solution, and I mean to join in.  In the next few weeks, I’ll be posting my own Hugo ballot, a few categories at a time.  (I’ll also be posting links to works that I consider worthwhile on my twitter account.)
– Abigail Nussbaum, March 6

The ironic thing about the complaints that Larry and I somehow bought our nominations is that while my massive and energetic campaign consisted of a single and straightforward post, a blogger at Tor.com actively waged a successful cheerleading effort on behalf of the Tor-published Wheel of Time series:

Therefore, O my Peeps, I exhort you: if you can and will, please
consider nominating the Wheel of Time series as a whole for the Hugo
Award for Best Novel, and spread the word so that others might do the
same…. So go! Join! Nominate! Vote! Participate! And maybe help make Hugo
history, eh? I can think of worse things to do with your time!

Of course, the Dread Ilk know my actual position on liberals giving awards to each other:

Everyone has different goals. Rabbits need the group affirmation that
these sorts of political awards offer them. Not-rabbits don’t.
Psykosonik once beat out Prince for Best Dance Record at the Minnesota
Music Awards for a song I wrote; I didn’t know we’d won until months
later because not only did I not bother going to the ceremony, my bandmates who attended didn’t even see fit to mention that we won because they knew I didn’t care. I
didn’t even know I had been a three-time Billboard top 40 recording
artist for about 16 years until I looked it up a few months ago when I
was pointing out the dirty laundry of  the “New York Times bestselling”
authors.

When you are fortunate enough to experience success, you learn to value
certain aspects of it and to disvalue others.  My objective is to write a
great epic fantasy series that is capable of creating the same feeling
in its readers that Dune once created in me. That’s why I simply laugh
when people claim I’m jealous of McRapey, or I’m imitating George
Martin, or my feelings are wounded that A Throne of Bones wasn’t
nominated for any awards.*  Because in the game I’m playing, those things
don’t even enter into it. They’re not relevant to my metric for
success.

That being said, I have thoroughly enjoyed being nominated for the Hugo this year and I sincerely hope that this is merely the first of many such nominations for me and other fine writers upon whom the rabbits gaze upon in terror. I am very much looking forward to attending WorldCon this year and spending lots of quality time with my fellow Hugo nominees there, such as Mr. Charles Stross, who writes: “As a matter of policy I do not talk down/diss Hugo nominees when I myself am on the shortlist. But I shall be waiting for Vox Day in the Hugo Losers Party wearing a
kilt and a shit-eating grin, with a bottle of 90-proof distilled
schadenfreude that’s got his name on it.”

I don’t know. Sounds a little rape-culturey to me. For a nice roundup of the rabbits striking various poses and feeling the heat, check out Far Beyond Reality. And since it’s starting to get boring, I think that’s enough about the Hugo Awards for now until I’m able to read through the packet and decide for whom I’ll be voting.

*As it happens, the book was nominated for the 2013 Clive Staples Award.


The darkness comprehendeth it not

Damien Walter, the Guardian contributor who wrote the hit piece about Larry Correia’s blog post without linking to it, and who has never professionally published a novel, reviews “Opera Vita Aeterna” and it says considerably more about the reviewer than the work reviewed.

I have judged the work not the man, and found it to be an incoherent rant disguised as an unconvincing non-story.

Because I am cruel by nature, I found this amusing. Because I am human, I found it tragic as well. Consider the perspective from which he reads:

I was 30 and, by any measure, deeply unhappy. I’d been pushing down a
lot of horrible emotions from a damaging childhood, grief from many
losses, and had trapped myself in a life I didn’t fit in to from a
desperate need to fit somewhere, anywhere. I had no kind of spiritual
practice at all. I was a standard issue atheist, and any encounter I had
with religion was edged with inherited and unexamined scorn.
Consequentially, I really had no tools to process the pain I was
feeling. Today, my argument with the radical atheist rhetoric of people
like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – both of whom I had read
heavily at university – is that it leaves the bulk of its believers
utterly amputated from their own emotional reality. It certainly had me.
I was miserable, and in trying to escape from the causes of the misery
I’d driven myself, repeatedly, to the borders of emotional collapse
where I had, at long last, collapsed.

Unfortunately, his behavior makes it readily apparent that he has not yet found his way out of his emotional mire. As I pointed out in my tweet to him in response: “Given your deep unhappiness, Damien, it’s not surprising that you found a story about PHILIA incoherent and unconvincing.”

“Opera Vita Aeterna” is a story about love. The love of a friend, the love of knowledge, and the love of God. It should surprise absolutely no one that damaged and deeply unhappy people, who are by their own admission “utterly amputated from their own emotional reality”, cannot relate to it. They cannot even recognize it as a coherent story.

Of course they find it incoherent and unconvincing! Of course they find it a non-story! For they are lost in misery, their hearts are empty, and they cannot see by the light that comes from within. Regardless of what he may think of the literary quality of the story, I hope that one day Damien will at least be able to comprehend what the story is about.


Another hit piece

Lest you wonder about the tangible reality of the Blue SF/F- Pink SF/F divide, observe that Damien Walter has penned another hit piece in The Guardian aimed at a right-wing SF author, this time Larry Corriea, entitled “Science fiction needs to reflect that the future is queer“.

Does it now? That is an odd title, especially considering that a queer future is no future at all, given what we know about biology and human reproduction. But let us permit Mr. Walter speak his piece:

I spent most of my youth being told to get a haircut. As a boy of slight build who usually had hair down around my shoulders, I looked a bit too much like a girl for the comfort of the home counties. Society gets angry when gender roles are blurred, precisely because those roles are a fragile act put on with clothes, hairstyles and makeup. If they weren’t enforced, clearly defined gender roles would not exist.

I take comfort in the idea that most of the young men telling others to get a haircut today are rushing home to play at being buxom dark elf warrior maidens in World of Warcraft. Gamer culture has gained a bad reputation for misogyny, but it seems male gamers are more than a little curious about playing out female gender roles. It makes perfect sense. The real world enforces gender roles, but virtual worlds let gamers express the feminine parts of themselves that don’t fit in with their masculine identity.

Solipsism alert! Translation: Effeminate little boy is treated as if he’s a freak and a queer because he looks like a girl. Spends the rest of his life attempting to get back at society because he can’t figure out how to get a haircut and act like the other boys. And apparently he knows so little about online games that he doesn’t realize most male gamers play female characters because: a) if they’re going to spend hours looking at their character’s ass, they would prefer it to be an attractive female one, and, b) people give female characters lots of free stuff.

As proof of the fact that Walter simply doesn’t know what he is talking about, I note that while there are High Elves, Night Elves, and Blood Elves in World of Warcraft, there are no dark elves. Nor are any of the elves “buxom”.

The kind of virtual worlds that video games allow us to enter have been commonplace in science fiction for decades. But the way that the virtual inevitably blurs the representation of sex and gender is never explicitly dealt with. Science fiction is torn between its higher mission to explore the future, and its lower function as mass entertainment. Deep Space Nine may be the gayest Star Trek, but in common with most of sci-fi’s major franchises, it still keeps homosexuality and queerness of all kinds off screen.

Science fiction novels have gone much further in exploring queer futures. From the 1960s onwards New Wave authors like Joanna Russ, Samuel Delany, Ursula Le Guin and Thomas Disch began to push forward the representation of LGBT themes in science fiction. Russ’s 1975 novel The Female Man used the tool of alternative universes to explore how gender roles are socially constructed. As liberal democracies like Britain welcome their first gay marriages, queer visions of the future look prescient. But despite the success of these authors, SF still clings to an unrealistically straight vision of the future.

First, SF is rife with a broad variety of sexual freaks, fairies, and flamers. If one troubles to count up the number of sexually abnormal characters in SF, there are almost surely more than the two percent that they represent in the real world. Second, Walter’s article is parochial in the extreme. As countries from southern Africa to northern Eurasia criminalize homosexuality, it defies belief to claim that the sexual libertinism that has belatedly infested the demographically dying West is likely to represent the future, much less is certain to do so.

When author and historian Alex Dally Macfarlane made a call earlier this year for a vision of post-binary gender in SF,
her intelligent argument was met with predictably intractable ignorance
from conservative sci-fi fans. For writers and fans like Larry Correia,
whose virulent attack on MacFarlane was excellently dissected by Jim C Hines,
sex is a biological imperative and the idea of gender as a social
construct is a damn liberal lie! But Correia boils it down to a much
simpler argument. However accurate a queer future might be, SF authors
must continue to pander to the bigotry of conservative readers if they
want to be “commercial”.

It is readily apparent that Walter is not only a dishonest propagandist, but he is an inept SF author as well. He clearly violates the “Show, Don’t Tell” rule here, as he first claims that Macfarlane’s piece was intelligent – read it, it wasn’t – then claims that it was met with “ignorance” while refusing to provide any actual examples of said “ignorance”. Notice that while he describes Larry’s critique as a “virulent attack”, he fails to link to it, instead linking to what he inaccurately describes as McCreepy’s excellent dissection – read it, it wasn’t.

Which is of course nonsense. The science fiction novels of Iain M
Banks were bestsellers many times over, in part because the future they
explored was openly queer. Citizens of Banks’ future society the Culture
have the ability to change their sex at will, and frequently shift
between sexes and gender roles. Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2312 became both a
bestseller and multiple award winner with a vision of the future that
included fluid non-binary gender. And Nicola Griffith’s historical epic
Hild, nominated for this year’s Nebula awards by members of the SFWA, is
built around a bisexual protagonist.

The best science
fiction literature explores a future of fluid gender identity that is
much closer than many imagine. Genetic researchers have already
discovered the two genes that battle to determine the sex of every human,
opening the possibility of biological sex change in adult humans at the
genetic level. Combine these scientific advances with the changing
structure of our society and the gender shifts of virtual worlds and,
far from being the lifestyle of a minority, queerness looks very much
like the mainstream culture of the future. If science fiction has a role
at all, it’s to reflect that reality, not deny it.

First, the novels of Iain M Banks were not bestsellers because the futures they explored were infested with homosexuality. Indeed, sexuality in the Culture was largely irrelevant in light of the irrelevancy of biology, the human body, and indeed, the human mind. Banks’s future was primarily “queer” in that the AI-controlled Culture was sterile and, like Star Trek, required interactions with societies outside the Culture to provide any drama.

Nicola Griffith’s Hild tends to prove what Larry was saying: despite the benefit of its Nebula nomination and the Guardian coverage, it is presently ranked 42,234 on Amazon. Hardly evidence that “queerness looks very much
like the mainstream culture of the future”.

But his various moral and intellectual failings notwithstanding, the most offensive thing that Walter does in this article is question if science fiction has a role at all. It does have a role, an important role, but Walter, being one of the morally vacuous Autumn People described so vividly by Ray Bradbury, will never understand what it is. And the idea that science fiction’s only possible role is to reflect reality is downright laughable; if that were the case, so much for these common SF tropes: faster-than-light travel, alien life, secular societies, peaceful race relations, benign world government, and, of course, legal homosexuality.

So you see, we’re not the ones drawing the battle line. Though I am, as it happens, quite content to see Pink SF/F go headlong in this direction. Because if it does, it won’t be in the mainstream for long. And we’ll be more than happy to pick up the shattered pieces of what was once their market.


The Israeli melting pot

I don’t see how the Israelis can expect anything but world condemnation for their insistence on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in light of how an entire generation has been indoctrinated to believe that diversity is Israel’s strength:

In
Washington this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
sounded two different notes about peace negotiations with the
Palestinians, which are nearing a critical juncture. In a speech to the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, he
enthusiastically advocated a peace agreement as a means to improve
Israel’s ties with its Arab neighbors and “catapult the region forward”
on issues like health, energy and education.

But at
other moments, a more familiar skepticism was apparent. He demanded that
Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state with “no excuses, no
delays.” In response, a senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath,
accused Mr. Netanyahu of putting an end to peace talks because
Palestinians have already rejected that designation. (Palestinians
recognize Israel as a state, but not as a Jewish state because they
believe that that would undercut the rights of Palestinian refugees.)

Insistence
on a Jewish state is clearly the very worst form of geopolitical
raciss. How could a Jewish state be any less raciss than insisting
America be recognized as a White Anglo-Saxon state? Or that England be
recognized as an English state? Or Nigeria be recognized as an Igbo
state?

Israel’s choice is pretty simple. No White
European state, no Jewish state. If diversity is America’s strength,
then it is Israel’s strength too.


Darkened hearts, poisoned minds

Kate Paulk is amused by the spectacle afforded by the SFWA devouring itself:

It’s funny as hell, but it’s also sad to watch. The organization founded to help authors and act as their advocate has become a grotesque carnival freak show devouring its own newborn children, as often as not with the publishers who are busily devouring the slightly older authors watching on and approving. Not a word is said about the contracts that try to stop authors writing anything except what the publisher approves (even when it’s a totally different genre and a totally different name), or the contracts that claim the rights to your first born and your dog for all of eternity and beyond (yes, I’ve seen these. I didn’t sign). Oh well. Time to break out the popcorn and enjoy the show.

And, since one of her commenters saw fit to complain about the fact that she made a factual observation about “the current SFWA president (you know, the one whose first major action as SFWA president was to expel the losing candidate)”, I should point out that Steven Gould’s hypocrisy was actually worse than that. As I pointed out in my response to the SFWA’s “investigative report”, Steven Gould was guilty of the exact same act for which I was purged from the SFWA, and he was guilty of it before I was. He used an official SFWA communications channel, in this case, the SFWA Forum, to link to an attack on an SFWA member.

The only difference? I used the SFWAauthors Twitter account to post the link to my blog, Gould posted the link to NK Jemisin’s blog in the SFWA Forum on the SFWA web site.

Sarah Hoyt, meanwhile correctly points out that the SFWA is perfectly content to point-and-shriek at the small fry while ignoring the abuses of the very publishers the organization was formed to fight:

Nota bene that all the fields taken over by “progressives” end up with unpaid work where the exploited ones – interns, adjuncts, beginning writers – are told that to complain would be unprofessional and where the weak people are held to much higher standards of behaviors than their masters.)

This flaw in the design of SFWA has always been apparent, and therefore the people inside chose the other route.  “Act like we’re a big bad union, but co-opt the employers, make nice to them.  We can at least secure good deals for ourselves and our friends.” Note that everyone they go after, and everyone they pound on are small presses or things their pet authors disapprove of: write for hire, Amazon.

This is something most people don’t realize about the SFWA. It’s not merely that they are ideologically and politically corrupt, but they have totally given up on their primary purpose. As proof of Sarah’s accusations, consider this exchange between one member and a former SFWA president, Michael Capobianco:

Capobianco: “I’m informed that some DAW anthologies pay less than 5 cents a word.”

SFWA member: “How are they therefore able to keep their pro status?”

Capobianco: “The lapses are overlooked because declaring DAW to not be a professional market would be counterproductive.”

Counterproductive…. The SFWA defends authors from big publishers about as effectively as they defend free speech.


That’s no statue, that’s Mark Shea!

In which Mark Shea gets trolled so hard, it’s a wonder he didn’t turn to stone. You absolutely MUST read A Reader Writes of his Experience Among the Dark Enlightenment Types:

The thing about nascent movements like this is that it’s hard to know
when to pay attention and when to ignore them. If you ignore them they
can grow in the dark, like mushrooms on dung.  If you make too much
fuss, you can attract idiots–particularly extremist idiots–who
automatically assume that anything normal people find objectionable must
be awesome, radical, and “not PC” and therefore good.  But of course,
cannibalism is not PC either and embracing something simply and solely
on the basis that it is a “reaction” is one of the stupidest things
humans can do. You can’t build a life on protest and reaction.  You have
to be for something, not merely against something.  And at the end of
the day, the only real core of DE “thought” is to be for racialism.

Much of the stuff written above describes a sect that brings out
belly laughs. Eldar? Men of Numenor?  Seriously? Tolkien would have
these overgrown D and D players’ guts for garters if he heard they were
exploiting his work for their deplorable cultus. Particularly since
(which is my main concern about them) they are using his work as a grab
bag of code words for their deep-rooted racialist heresy.

I first heard about the Dark Enlightenment (aka “Neo-Reaction” or
just “Reaction”) last year, the year after I graduated from college and
was interning at a conservative think tank. I briefly become involved
with the Dark Enlightenment and then left the movement in disgust. Here
is what I learned:


– The Dark Enlightenment is controlled by what the media call “Sith
Lords”. You have more public Lords like Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land,
but there are even some Lords up higher whose names are not revealed.
They say the Master Lord says ‘Et Ego in Arcadia’ which is an anagram
for ‘Tego Arcana Dei’ (“I hide the secrets of God”).


– But only the media call them ‘Sith Lords’. In Inner Speak, they will often use phrases like the Men of Númenor or the Eldars.

– I never met any of the higher Eldars, but I did once meet an Eldar
in Training. I don’t know his real name but people called him Legolas.
He had long blond hair, was dressed like a 19th century count, and wore a
pendant that had both a Christian Cross and Thor’s Hammer on it.


– The movement is a weird mixture of ethno-nationalists, futurists,
monarchists, PUAs (“pick-up artists” like Chateau Heartiste), Trad
Catholics, Trad Protestants, etc. They all believe in HBD (what they
call “human biodiversity” i.e. racism) but disagree on some other minor
points.


– The religious people in the movement (both Christians and pagans)
practice what is called “identitarian religion” (religion that doesn’t
deny ethnic identity).


– Some of the rising stars of the Dark Enlightenment on the internet
seem to be Radish Magazine, Occam’s Razor Mag, and Theden TV.


– The Dark Enlightenment allegedly has millions of dollars of money
to play with. They have a couple big donors. One is rumored to be a
major tech tycoon in Silicon Valley. They actually had a private 3-day
meeting on an island which was furnished with a French chef, etc.
Different forms of formal attire were required for each day (tuxedos,
3-piece suits, etc), and some weird costumes were required too (capes,
hoods, etc) — which sound like a pagan cult. (I wasn’t at this function
but heard about it.)


– I was initiated into the first stages of the Dark Enlightenment,
which involved me stripping down naked so people could “inspect my
phenotype”. I was then given a series of very personal questions, often
relating to sexual matters. I was then told to put on a black cape. (I
really regret doing this but at the time I was younger, more
impressionable and eager to please.)


– For the initial oath taking, everyone must swear on a copy of
Darwin’s Origin of Species, just to show their fidelity to HBD. After
that, for the later oaths, seculars will swear again on Darwin, while
Christians will swear on the Bible, and pagans on the Prose Edda or
Iliad.


– At one of the meetings I heard someone continuously chanting “gens
alba conservanda est” (Latin for “the white race must be preserved”) and
then others were chanting things in Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse and Old
German, but I don’t know those languages so I can’t remember exactly
what they were saying.

Now that was some epic artistic cruelty, so much so that one almost suspects the dark hand of Roissy. Thank the Divine Rainbow for Mark Shea, saving the world from nonexistent movements since 2014! Then again, as a media-identified Sith Lord, perhaps that’s merely what I want him to think….


A naked atrocity

There is delusion. There is self-delusion. And then there is Lena Dunham. Now, I have never seen Girls. I have no intention of ever seeing Girls. The idea of spending even a nanosecond watching Sex In The City with ugly New York City girls who are apparently even MORE retarded than Sarah Jessica Parker and company isn’t exactly on my list of Things To Do.

“I remember looking in the mirror as a kid and it would be like for an
hour at a time, and I’d be like: ‘I’m just so beautiful. Everybody is so
lucky that they get to look at me.’ And of course that changes as you
get older, but I may have held on to that little-kid feeling that was me
alone in my bathroom.”

Yes, lucky. So lucky. That’s the first thing that springs to mind. It doesn’t even look human. It looks like something out of Lovecraft. It looks like something that should be harpooned and processed for ivory and oil. It looks like the Pillsbury Doughboy was raped by a dugong. It looks like something that most certainly should not be displayed without clothes anywhere, least of all on television. If there is a rational argument for Sharia in the United States of America, this is it. Say what you will about Wahhabism, but at least in Saudi Arabia, they’d put a misshapen creature like this in a burqah.

Some say that beauty is on the inside. But when there is beauty on the inside, some hint of it always shines through. This abomination is pure self-centered ugliness seeping out from within.


What happened to “never again”?

The Learned Elders of Wye had better speed up their exit plans if they’re going to continue to perpetrate materially traitorous idiocies such as this:

President Obama plans to nominate three people to the Federal Reserve’s
Board of Governors, including Stanley Fischer, former head of the Bank
of Israel, as the Fed’s next vice chairman, the White House said on
Friday…. Mr. Fischer, 70, would succeed Ms. Yellen in her current role. The
Senate confirmed Ms. Yellen as the Fed’s new chairwoman this week. She
will take over from the current chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, in February.

More importantly for Israel, Stanley Fischer won an appointment to the
Reagan administration’s U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group that
dealt with Israel’s 1984-1985 economic crisis. … The U.S.-Israel
Joint Economic Discussion Group fundamentally transformed U.S. aid to
Israel forever.  Before the Reagan administration, most U.S. aid to
Israel took the form of loans that had to be repaid with interest.
 After the input of Fischer’s team, subsequent U.S. aid was delivered in
the form of outright grants paid directly from the U.S. Treasury—never
to be repaid or conditioned when Israel took actions the U.S. opposed.

Can you even imagine the widespread outrage if Haruhiko Kuroda of the Bank of Japan was appointed to the Fed and he promptly began sending billions of dollars to Japan? Or if Zhou Xiaochuan of the People’s Bank of China was named vice chairman and he subsequently began repaying US debt to China in gold and advanced weapons technology? Now keep in mind that Stanley Fischer is already guilty of literally giving billions to Israel!

It’s long past time for the USA to take two immediate measures. First, shut down all financial aid to Israel. The USA is bankrupt. So is the Federal Reserve, if its newly expanded balance sheet was marked properly to market. If Israeli citizens are convinced that inflation is good for the economy and they want to print money, well and good, but let them print shekels, not U.S. dollars.

Second, ban all dual citizenships. There is no such thing as a “dual loyalty”. It’s very clear that Stanley Fischer has no loyalty to the USA. His loyalty is to Israel. That’s perfectly clear. It’s even admirable. Would that his American counterparts felt so strongly about serving their own country. But it also means that he has no more place in a decision-making capacity for the US monetary system than Christine Lagard or Mario Draghi.

Now, let’s preemptively deal with the usual reaction. Are you tempted to call my position antisemitic? That’s not merely incorrect, that’s totally insane. Do you truly not see where this is leading? For the love of the God of Old Testament and New, the reason I’m speaking out against this is precisely because I don’t wish to see an American holocaust. I don’t want the children of my Jewish friends being made the scapegoat in reaction to the dreadful behavior of an insatiable, unconscionable elite. What is sickening, what is ominous, what is materially antisemitic is what the federal government has done by permitting Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, and Fischer to financially rape the American people.

This is all astonishingly short-sighted on the part of the Elders of Wye. Setting aside whether they can reasonably hope to successfully transfer their traveling game of three-card monte to China or India, even a bankrupt, post-collapse America will be filled with hundreds of millions of the same people who conquered the world in the 20th century, more or less without trying. And they are going to be very, very angry. They are going to be even more full of hate than the 20th century Germans were, because they are going to feel deeply betrayed. If an unfair post-war peace settlement created a sense of national fury, how much more anger will the bankruptcy and collapse of the union provoke?

In fact, having grown up in an End Times-conscious church, I can recall the eschatological enthusiasts discussing whether the King of the North was the Soviet Union or a united Europe. They often cited this passage from Jeremiah:

Behold, a people shall come from the north,
And a great nation and many kings
Shall be raised up from the ends of the earth.
They shall hold the bow and the lance;
They are cruel and shall not show mercy.
Their voice shall roar like the sea;
They shall ride on horses,
Set in array, like a man for the battle,
Against you, O daughter of Babylon.
The king of Babylon has heard the report about them,
And his hands grow feeble;
Anguish has taken hold of him,
Pangs as of a woman in childbirth…”(Jeremiah 50:41-43)

And yet, when I look at the events of recent years, it increasingly looks as if the most powerful nation that is the most likely to bear a tremendous populist grudge against Israel in the 21st century will be the United States of America.


Suboptimal rhetoric

In which America is less than entirely astonished to learn that Pajama Boy is a self-described gay-loving “liberal f—“ with no morals, a predilection for attacking others, and a superiority complex:

Ethan Krupp, the little man who played “Pajama Boy” in a widely mocked Obamacare ad, once characterized himself as a “liberal f—.”

Krupp, an Organizing for Action (OFA) content writer who became the face of progressive America while wearing a onesie pajama suit, also remarked that gays “are all liberal f—-” and criticized a “conservative gay prick” on his now-deleted WordPress blog, entitled “Not Being Creative.”

“I am a Liberal F—,” Krupp wrote in one post. “A Liberal F— is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.”

Sure you did, Pajama Boy. Sure you did. Notice that his approach is entirely rhetorical. The reference to sarcasm and feelings make it clear that he’s not even remotely interested in proper dialectic per se. One hallmark of this sort of individual is that he always thinks he wins an argument because his combination of self-delusion and total lack of regard for objective truth means that he can easily self-define the result of ANY argument as a win.

I seem to recall someone else describing a similarly “successful” rhetorical approach to debate:

“The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

“Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.


“I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.


“Gradually I began to hate them.”

If the consequences of your self-declared victorious approach to intellectual disputation is to make formerly indifferent people hate and despise you, then perhaps it is time to consider an entirely different rhetorical approach.