ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2015 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

America's Ethnic Achilles Heel

By Yuji Aida
Volume 6, Number 2 (Winter 1995-1996)

[The editors of the San Francisco Examiner gave this brief preface to the article which we second This article is indicative of an influential minority viewpoint in Japan which some people may find offensive. We publish it to illustrate what is being said there.]

TOKYO - Americans are proud of their melting-pot heritage. But as blacks, Hispanics and Asians gradually come to outnumber whites, that ideal will fade. Like the Soviet Union today the United States will have to deal with contentious ethnic groups demanding greater autonomy and even political independence. That could prove to be industrial America's undoing.

Many Americans, however, feign ignorance of the problem, partly because of the official ideology. The United States sees itself as a pluralistic, multiethnic society with a single national identity based on the principles of freedom and democracy. In fact, discrimination is rampant, but the illusion of equality is vital to maintain a sense of unity.

Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in some form. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable.... Do blacks and Hispanics, for instance, have the skills and knowledge to run an advanced industrial economy? If the answer is yes, America will maintain its vitality through the next century and beyond. But I'm skeptical.
As am I, and I am part-Hispanic. It's because I know my Hispanic Catholic relatives that I am extremely dubious they are capable of serving as an adequate replacement for the Anglo-Saxon Protestants that they will eventually replace as the USA's dominant ethnic group. The ironic thing is that even though we are 20 years deeper into the experiment of ethnic America and Mr. Aida's case looks stronger than ever, his article would probably not be publishable today; it might even be deemed criminal in some places.

But no amount of pretense, thought policing, and determined belief in the magically transformative powers of geographic translocation are going to make any difference in the future. Either the replacement population will be capable of maintaining a First World European-style society or it will not be capable and that society will see its living standards degraded.

And then, of course, there is the entirely separate problem of those non-European groups rejecting the very European, indeed, very Anglo-Saxon concepts such as the Common Law and the Rights of Englishmen. Which happen to include a few minor things such as limited government and so forth. I think a very good case can be made for Continental immigrants never quite grasping these concepts in their entirety. It does not appear subsequent waves of immigrants are doing any better in this regard.

Now, I realize that millions of people very genuinely believe that the ethnic demographics of a society are totally irrelevant. I understand that millions of people genuinely believe that IQ does not measure intelligence and that every human sub-species is equally capable of all things. Of course, I also recognize that most people are idiots.

So here is the question I have for those people who firmly believe that the ethnic composition of a society is not a controlling factor in what that society will be like. Have you ever stopped to consider what is going to happen if you are wrong? Have you ever wondered how future generations are going to regard you and the fate you inflicted upon them with your fervent dedication to diversity, equality, and inclusivity? Aren't you not only betting the house, but Western civilization, on an untested and unproven idea?

What if you are wrong?

Labels:

GGinParis

Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, and I will be at GGinParis on Saturday, July 11 at 8 PM. If you're in Europe, or if you're going to be in Europe this summer, and intend to come, please shoot me an email with GGinParis in the subject.

Labels:

Hugo Awards 2015: Best Novella

This is how I am voting in the Best Novella category. Of course, I merely offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 367 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.
  1. "One Bright Star to Guide Them"
  2. "Big Boys Don't Cry"
  3. "The Plural of Helen of Troy"
  4. "Pale Realms of Shade"
  5. "Flow"
In the relatively near future, I will be debating the merits and demerits of John C. Wright's "One Bright Star to Guide Them" versus those of The Wasp Factory by Iain M. Banks with Phil Sandifier. It should be an interesting discussion, as the two works in some ways represent the two poles of the Blue SF/Pink SF divide, even if few would consider the Banks novel to be science fiction or fantasy.

Other categories:

Labels:

Good riddance

The death of the print media in America. It's pretty astonishing, but having grown up reading the Star Tribune, aka "the Red Star", it's good to see them collapsing in such a dramatic manner. At this rate, many of them should be gone altogether by 2023.

And it is a very healthy sign, I think, for a one-way monopolistic medium to be replaced by a two-way medium with literally thousands of options. I expect the conventional publishing world to follow suit in reasonably short order once Barnes & Noble goes out of business.

Labels: ,

Paul Gottfried reviews VICTORIA

I don't think anyone with any grasp of history doubts that the USA is in the process of going the way of the Byzantine Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union at this point. It is a now a centralized multi-ethnic empire held together by the threat of military force, after all, and such empires always fracture sooner or later. And for all the various unpleasantries it recounts, VICTORIA: A Novel of 4th Generation War represents one of the more rosy-hued outcomes possible. Paul Gottfried reviewed it on VDARE.
William Lind’s VICTORIA Heralds Coming America Breakup
By Paul Gottfried

William S. Lind is a man of many talents. He’s an institution of the American conservative movement, formerly the Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation (under the late Paul Weyrich), a regular contributor to The American Conservative, and a noted military theorist. And now, with the publication of Victoria he is a novelist, putting forward a highly readable vision of the breakup of the United States and a traditionalist restoration. It’s a sign of the times that we can no longer regard such a story as implausible.

Victoria is subtitled “A Novel of Fourth Generation Warfare,” and Lind’s writings on warfare bleed (perhaps too much) into his storytelling. His theory of Fourth Generation Warfare contends that warfare has ceased between states with standing armies and operative governments. Instead, it is decentralized, on at least one side, lacking a regular command structure and no longer identified with an established state or regular army. Countries like the U.S. find themselves in partisan struggles around the world that violate the “rules of war” built up under the old European state system.

Bill’s ideas about changing forms of warfare may have been influenced by the German political-legal theorist Carl Schmitt, who wrote on partisan warfare after the Second World War. His novel is written under the nom de plume “Thomas Hobbes,” so even in this he reveals his connection to Schmitt, as the German jurist profoundly admired the seventeenth-century Englishman who wrote about the rise of the state [The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes, by Carl Schmitt] (I wrote an intellectual biography of Schmitt and also deeply respect the philosopher who wished to protect us against “the war of all against all.”)

In Victoria, all Hell breaks loose in a way that Hobbes might have understood. Yet it is only the Time of Tribulations before the golden age of social restoration that ends the novel. Indeed, we are told the ending in advance in the opening scene when we learn “The triumph of the Recovery was marked most clearly by the burning of the Episcopal bishop of Maine.”
The revival of witch-burning in New England was certainly an eye-opener, but I'd have to say that my favorite scene was the rather egregious violation of academic freedom at Dartmouth. It's kind of funny to imagine what the reaction would have been if I'd recommended VICTORIA for a Hugo instead of THE CHAPLAIN'S WAR. But it's not science fiction, it's political fiction, so that wouldn't have been proper and neither Mr. Hobbes, nor his agent, Mr. Lind, would have approved.

In any event, VICTORIA is now available as a 592-page paperback. And speaking of Mr. Lind, I should also mention that Martin van Creveld's A HISTORY OF STRATEGY: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind is now available in hardcover.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Vox's First Law at work

Vox's First Law: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity. Or, in this case, autism:
State therapy specialists claimed Jacob Barnett would never tie his shoes, read or function normally in society. But the boy’s mother realized when Jacob was not in therapy, he was doing “spectacular things” completely on his own.

She decided to trust her instinct and disregard the advice of the professionals. Instead of following a standardized special needs educational protocol, she surrounded Jacob with all the things that inspired passion for him – and was astonished at the transformation that took place.

Following a diagnosis of autism at age two, Jacob was subjected to a cookie cutter special education system that focused on correcting what he couldn’t do compared to normal children. For years, teachers attempted to convince Kristine Barnett that her son would only be able to learn the most basic of life skills....

By the time Jacob reached the age of 11, he entered college and is currently studying condensed matter physics at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis. According to an email Professor Scott Tremaine wrote to Jacob’s family:
“The theory that he’s working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics … Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.”
Jacob also has an IQ of 170 — higher than that of Einstein.
This is an object lesson in what we discussed at the May Brainstorm. Never, ever, blindly trust the so-called experts. Respect, but verify.

Labels: ,

Tanith Lee, RIP

British writer Tanith Lee passed away on Sunday May 24th, aged 67.

Lee was the author of over 90 books and 300 short stories, as well as four BBC Radio plays, and two highly-regarded episodes of the BBC’s SF series Blake’s 7 (Sand and Sarcophagus). She was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the World Fantasy Convention in Brighton in 2013 and the Horror Writers Lifetime Achievement Award this year, which joined her British Fantasy Award from 1980 for Death’s Master, and her World Fantasy Award for her short story “The Gorgon”.


I was very sorry to hear this since Lee's The Secret Books of Paradys and The Secret Books of Venus are two of my favorite fantasy series. I've been re-reading them over the last month or so, and it's sad to know that she won't be writing any more.

Like many a British writer before her, she loved Italy and her love for the country shone through in her writing.  Based on her books, Venice must have struck her in much the same way it struck me, a dark, watery, and mysterious place of beautiful decay.

If you haven't read her, you really should. If you like Poe, you will enjoy her work.

Labels:

You don't like the medicine, doctor?

Glenn Hauman on said:
Dave Freer: No-one has called for a boycott or blacklist of David Gerrold, or Glenn Hauman, or to have their reputations tarnished and Amazon reviews deliberately lowered.

And yet they got bad reviews? What a coincidence! I also didn’t call for a boycott or blacklist, and yet somehow there’s a sudden rash of bad reviews of my books up on Amazon. See http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Engineers-Creative-Couplings-ebook/dp/B000WJSA3I/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
No, Glenn Hauman didn't call for a boycott or a blacklist, he called for fake negative reviews to be posted on Amazon, fake negative reviews which were immediately posted on Amazon in response to his calls for them.
Glenn Hauman on April 15, 2015
You can game Amazon ratings as well. Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review. Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

Glenn Hauman on May 20, 2015
Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well.
I see absolutely no evidence that the sudden rash of bad reviews of Mr. Hauman's books reflect anything but the opinions of people who have read it and are honestly expressing their disappointment with their inferior quality. After all, absolutely no one has called for anyone to review or otherwise pay attention to his work at all. It must be, as Mr. "Put Them Down" himself has said, a mere coincidence.

And because Public Enemy is always appropriate:

He book-reviewed, he S.J.W'd
Vile minions viewed his anti-Puppy feud

One-star the rating, listen to him double trouble
He signs in now he's pushing for the lower level
Like crashing cars he's out there stealing stars

From books he took without a single look.
Taking a toll 'cause his soul broke with the poll
From the revelation... of a Puppy Nation.

Now this is what I mean an anti-Puppy machine
If Hugo come out at all, he won't come out clean
But look around here go the sound of the wrecking clown
Boom and pound when he put 'em down

Labels:

The principles of Agile

I've never been much impressed with any of the "best practices" concepts, from Six Sigma to Agile. They strike me primarily as a way for midwitted bureaucrats and technical workers of modest talent to cover their asses and claim failure can't be their fault because they are Doing Everything The Right Way:
The Twelve Principles of Agile Software
  1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
  2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.
  3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
  4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
  5.  Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
  6.  The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
  7.  Working software is the primary measure of progress.
  8.  Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
  9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
  10. Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
  11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
  12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.
My thoughts on each point:
  1.  Sounds good in principle. In reality, the customer seldom knows what he really wants. The good designer has to anticipate his user and provide him what he doesn't know he wants yet. "Early and continuous delivery" sounds like more ass-covering stuff. "It's not our fault, he approved the deliverable" is what this sounds like to me.
  2. Bullshit. That's fine in the early stages. In the middle to late stages, this is what is known as "mission creep".
  3. Good for testing, but against, strikes me as more CYA, especially if it is going out to the customer.
  4. No. Hell no. While the biggest failure of which I've been a part was the fault of the chip engineer failing to listen to the marketing guy, I did talk to him on a bi-weekly basis. Talking to him daily wouldn't have helped. The key is that the technical people must LISTEN to the business people, not see their faces on a regular basis.
  5. Yes.
  6. No. I run into this problem frequently. Most companies would rather have an inferior employee they can talk to face-to-face than a better one who is external. This makes no sense, especially if they then leave the position vacant because they can't find anyone local who is good enough.
  7. Yes.
  8. Dubious. Sounds like snake oil to me.
  9. True, but obvious to the point of being tautological. "Program good code that works properly!" Okay....
  10. True. But I prefer "don't reinvent the wheel".
  11. No. A certain amount of flexibility is desirable, but there must be someone who is accountable for the vision and someone to make the hard decisions. Which is to say a designer and a producer. The best designs most certainly do NOT emerge from self-appointed committees.
  12. Yes, this is reasonable.
Overall, the entire concept stinks of being little more than client-marketing to me. "Hey, we're AGILE-CERTIFIED, obviously we are much better than those guys over there who don't have CREDENTIALS. All they have is a proven track record of delivering successful products, and we all know how little that means.

Labels:

Monday, May 25, 2015

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.

Labels: ,

A History of Strategy chapter 2

A History of Strategy chapter 2.

If you want to get caught up and take the first one, you can find it here. If you still haven't picked up a copy of the book, A History of Strategy is now available in hardcover for $14.99 as well as in Kindle format.

Discuss the quiz and the chapter in the comments below; don't check out the comments before you take the quiz.

Labels:

A lesson in con artistry

I thought John Scalzi's new book deal to lock in his retirement was an interesting indication of his intrinsic insecurity as well as the practicality that distinguishes him from most of his SF colleagues.
John Scalzi, a best-selling author of science fiction, has signed a $3.4 million, 10-year deal with the publisher Tor Books that will cover his next 13 books.

Mr. Scalzi’s works include a series known as the “Old Man’s War” and the more recent “Redshirts,” a Hugo-award-winning sendup of the luckless lives of nonfeatured characters on shows like the original “Star Trek.” Three of his works are being developed for television, including “Redshirts” and “Lock In,” a science-inflected medical thriller that evokes Michael Crichton. Mr. Scalzi’s hyper-caffeinated Internet presence through his blog, Whatever, has made him an online celebrity as well.

Mr. Scalzi approached Tor Books, his longtime publisher, with proposals for 10 adult novels and three young adult novels over 10 years. Some of the books will extend the popular “Old Man’s War” series, building on an existing audience, and one will be a sequel to “Lock In.” Mr. Scalzi said he hoped books like “Lock In” could draw more readers toward science fiction, since many, he said, are still “gun-shy” about the genre.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, the executive editor for Tor, said the decision was an easy one.
I imagine it was a very easy one. Scalzi is, nominally, Tor's big dog. He's not a proper big dog, as he isn't one of their ten annual biggest sellers or even a bestselling author, but he's their most important SF figurehead author. Who else do they have? Of their better-selling authors, Frank Herbert is dead, Robert Jordan is dead, Orson Scott Card is hated by their core audience, and they can't control Microsoft or the game companies whose tie-in novels are their biggest sellers. They have Scalzi and Brandon Sanderson, both of whom appear to have more or less peaked in terms of their careers. It's not as if the award-winning Jo Walton or the award-winning Catharine Asaro or any of their other award-winning authors sell enough books to support all the SJW non-SF they keep trying to push on an unwilling public.

So to be gifted the opportunity to lock in one of their top authors for a decade at little more than 250k per book at an initial cost of $1 million up front is an absolute no-brainer. Scalzi is a hack in the positive sense of the term; unless he's dead there is no chance he's not going to be able to churn out the sort of mediocre material he produces. To break even on the initial advance, (the payments are usually divided into signing, delivery, and acceptance these days), Tor only has to sell an average of about 15k books each. Assuming all 13 books are delivered and paid for, they have to sell around 40k copies apiece, which should be doable considering that Redshirts sold nearly that many ebooks alone in the first eight months of its release. It's a great deal for them, especially since they likely have the ability to get out of it down the road without paying two-thirds of it if they wish.

NB: The mainstream publishers now pay book advances in thirds. One-third on signature, one-third on delivery, and one third on either acceptance or publication. So, the contract is most likely $1 million up front, with two payments of $75k for each book upon a) delivery, and b) acceptance or publication.

This isn't a bad deal for Scalzi, it is merely a very conservative deal. What Johnny Con is attempting to do is to secure his retirement and look for any upside to come out of the various media deals he's got going. It's a perfectly reasonable strategy, particularly in these uncertain economic times. The bolder strategy would have been for him to go into self-publishing, where as I've demonstrated, there is considerably more upside to be had. But Scalzi is neither a self-confident man nor an entrepreneur, so it is entirely in character that he'd prefer to give up the equivalent of about five birds in the bush in favor of the one in Tor's hand.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And since he has a reasonable shot at other upsides, I think it's an entirely sensible deal on his part. Lock in the base, then see what you can leverage elsewhere. It's a conservative move, but not one that I would criticize him for making. Everyone has different appetites for risk. Indeed, as I have often said, McRapey has an unusual talent for self-promotion. The fact that a mediocre and derivative hack without any discernible talent beyond self-promotion and petty snark could turn 300k monthly pageviews and a color-by-numbers Heinlein ripoff into a near-guaranteed $250k per year is borderline astonishing. If he'd somehow managed to do it without repeatedly lying his ample ass off and consistently misrepresenting himself, I'd consider him to be downright brilliant.

What is much more important is what the deal indicates for science fiction publishing, and that is where I see problems on the horizon. If one of the best-known authors in science fiction can only command $260k per book from the biggest science fiction publisher, then conventional publishing does not appear to be long for this world. Which is, in fact, exactly what I believe to be the case.

Of course, I was genuinely amused to see McRapey omit making any traffic claims for the blog that made him "an online celebrity". I wonder why he doesn't brag about those two million monthly pageviews or 50 THOUSAND DAILY VISITS to reporters anymore?

Labels: ,

Racists vs Child Rapists

The Campbell-Delany divide pretty well sums up the two sides in the science fiction culture war. To translate how the New Republic describes it, it is scientagic realists against child-molesting pedophiles and their defenders in the science fiction community:
To outsiders, the struggle over the Hugos can be confusing. It involves the arcane details of a complex nomination procedure and factions named Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies. But the ruckus makes a lot more sense in the context of science fiction's historical lack of diversity, and there's perhaps no better illustration of that problem than the career of Samuel R. Delany.... John W. Campbell, Analog's editor, claimed that he enjoyed shaking up his audience with outrageous ideas, but [Delany's] "Nova" proved too much for him. According to Delany, Campbell called the author's agent and said that while he liked the novel, "he didn't feel his readership would be able to relate to a black main character." Campbell's contention that fans weren't ready for a book like "Nova" was belied by the fact that it was shortlisted for a Hugo in 1969.

Campbell used his audience as a cover for his own racism. He had published editorials arguing that slavery was a perfectly sensible system for pre-industrial societies, championing the racial theory that whites have a fundamentally higher level of intelligence than blacks and asserting, "One of the major reasons the Negro people are having so much trouble gaining acceptance is, simply, that the Negroes are not doing an adequate job of disciplining their own people, themselves." Campbell was no fringe kook. He was the most influential science-fiction editor of the last century, whose vision of rule-based, scientifically informed fiction shaped the careers of such canonical writers as Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon and Frank Herbert.

Amid the strife of the 1960s, which polarized science fiction no less than the rest of culture, it was easy to cast Campbell and Delany as diametric opposites: Campbell as the old reactionary apostle of heroic, manly tales of space cowboys, and Delany as the young subversive practitioner of cutting-edge speculative fiction that challenged certitudes about identity.
We have called for a Cambellian revolution in science fiction; to a certain extent, that's what Blue SF is. And "subversive speculative fiction that challenges certitudes about identity, morality, religion, sexual orientation, and tradition" is about as good a way as any to describe the Pink SF we oppose. Campbellian SF vs Delanyite SF. Science vs Subversion. White Male Racists vs Gay Child Rapists.

One thing you'll note that the mainstream media never does is to dig up and expose the evil that lies at the heart of Pink SF. They love to point-and-shriek at the late Campbell's racism, never mind that he was, and is, absolutely correct, as whites have been reliably observed to possess a higher average intelligence than blacks. One would expect a top science fiction editor to be up on the relevant science, after all. Here is a quote from William Saletan, a writer of whom Delany himself cites respectfully:

Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70.

So, are we all East Asian supremacists now? Is science intrinsically racist and therefore anathema? In the meantime, both the media and the science fiction community resolutely avoid looking into the likelihood that good old "Chip" Delany is a criminal pedophile, like Walter Breen, like Marion Zimmer Bradley, like Ed Kramer, like David Asimov, and like other members of the science fiction community whose sex crimes the science fiction community has either ignored or defended for decades.

The New Republic article quoted Delany talking about Campell; what a pity they didn't quote Delany talking about himself.

"I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found.  I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about."
- Samuel R. Delany, June 25, 1994.

"Since I spent eighteen years of my life as a child, and nine years of that life as a pretty sexually active gay child, my complaint against the current attitudes is that they work mightily to silence the voices of children first and secondarily ignore what adults have to say who have been through these situations. One size fits all is never the way to handle any situation with a human dimension. Many, many children—and I was one of them—are desperate to establish some sort of sexual relation with an older and even adult figure."
- Samuel R. Delany, Wednesday, July 9, 2014

"Adults hurting children is my notion of a bad thing, whether it is through corporal punishment or in any other way. Children hurting children is equally bad. Pain is not a good teaching tool. So that’s where I tend to stop."
- Samuel R. Delany, Wednesday, July 9, 2014

That last quote is particularly problematic, as contra his self-appointed public defenders' claims, Delany is clearly referring to physical pain, not sexual contact, when he says "hurting children" is his "notion of a bad thing". Most people assume that sexual contact is intrinsically harmful to children. Delany actively denies this.

Delany has admitted to being in sexual contact with adult men since the age of 6 and considers himself to have been sexually active since the age of 9. He has attacked the idea that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults and only opposes children being hurt in the sense of physical pain, and has even quoted a Carlin joke in claiming that it is less harmful to a boy to receive oral sex than be spanked. He has written, repeatedly and at great length, about his fantasies of pre-adolescent boys and girls being raped and otherwise sexually molested by men in a number of his novels, most particularly Hogg: A Novel, which was published in 2004 and is described as follows by Publishers Weekly:
Hugo-and Nebula Award-winner Delany - whose early books were fascinating but whose recent efforts have grown increasingly obtuse - has been trying to get this pornographic novel published since 1973. The main narrator here is an 11-year-old boy who joins up with a raping, murdering pederast named Hogg. Coprophiliac Hogg violates women for pay. He enlists the help of other pedophiliac murdering rapists - Nigg, Dago and Denny - and the group sets off to perform acts of hideous violence. After the attacks, a biker friend of Hogg's sells the boy into sexual slavery to dockyard slum resident Big Sambo, who keeps his 12-year-old daughter for prostitution and his own perversions. The traumatized little girl is gang-raped by Hogg's crew as well. Meanwhile, teenaged Denny goes on an insane mutilating and mass-murder spree, eludes the police and finally returns to Hogg and the hopelessly confused narrator, who has been "rescued" after Hogg murders Big Sambo. Gang-rape attacks and criminal sex orgies are detailed at excruciating length, with photographic realism. This potent emetic is all the more disturbing for want of modulators of honest outrage. 
If one can reasonably declare John W. Campbell a racist on the basis of his essays and reported words, then one can absolutely, and with utter certainty, declare Samuel R. Delany to be a child-raping pedophile on the basis of his own stated beliefs and published fantasies. This is true despite our limited information about his actual historical actions. Whether or not Delany is a literal child rapist, he certainly has child rapist views. And as for his past actions, we certainly know a hell of a lot more about the SFWA Grand Master pedophilic inclinations than we did about Marion Zimmer Bradley's only eleven months ago. Is anyone going to even pretend to be surprised should evidence be uncovered that good old "Chip" acted on his criminal fantasies at some point in the past?

Here are two questions for Samuel R. Delany. If the media or SFWA continue to avoid asking them, you'll know they're simply afraid to receive the answer; even Will Shetterly, who otherwise addressed the issue in a forthright manner, failed to ask the obvious and important question. I will say one thing for Mr. Delany, he is alarmingly forthcoming, he hasn't been afraid to answer difficult questions posed to him in the past, and one can't blame him for not answering questions that were never asked. So here they are:
  1. Have you ever had any form of sexual contact with an individual under the age of 17?
  2. What is the oldest age at which you had some form of sexual contact with an individual under the age of 17?
Until those two questions are answered honestly by Mr. Delany, anyone who denies that good old "Chip" Delany, SFWA Grand Master has ever behaved inappropriately is doing so dishonestly on the basis of no information at all and in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. What a pity that Delany didn't throw a few spaceships into Hogg or it might have made the Hugo shortlist too.

On a lighter note, this quote from George R.R. Martin cracked me up:
"We're SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY FANS, we love to read about aliens and vampires and elves. Are we really going to freak about Asians and Native Americans?"
Well, George, judging by the continuing series of articles about Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards, to say nothing of your own copious posting on the subject, you certainly appear to be freaking out about this Native American.

Labels: ,

Sunday, May 24, 2015

The SJWs are losing

So are their allies in the media:
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then these people went out of their way to prove that social justice is the last refuge of bullies and cowards.

But real life is not high school, and now the worm has turned. Like clockwork, nearly every alleged “victim” put forward with oozing crocodile tears by these journalistic reptiles has been discredited. Their narrative that sexism dominates Silicon Valley has been crushed under a judge’s gavel. Their claim that depraved captains of tech exploit rape culture to ravish the vulnerable appear to have been exposed as rank opportunism at best. Their allegations that rape has swept America’s college campuses now look like the fabrications of pathological liars and jealous exes. The allegedly “sexist” and “violent” #Gamergate has braved a bomb threat without incident, while its media critics have either been fired, lost millions of dollars for alienating their core audience, or have simply revealed their extremism too publicly to be taken seriously. An army of science fiction fans determined to see merit returned to the criteria used for awarding the prestigious Hugo Awards have stormed the leftist bastille that is Worldcon and reduced their opponents to (ironically) suddenly discovering that an uncritically “inclusive” space might not be all it’s cracked up to be.

And if that wasn’t enough, this week, the Society of Professional Journalists has agreed to hear the case made by #Gamergate supporters that the entire field of gaming journalism has been turned into a hotbed of cronyism and ideologically motivated deceit. This mark of legitimacy was sensibly conferred after a particularly conscientious member of the SPJ quite reasonably pointed out that an accusation of unethical behavior deserves a hearing, no matter how unfashionable its exponents.
This didn't start overnight. It won't end overnight. But we're winning our Lexington and Concord.

Labels: ,

Caricatures

It's rather funny reading the midwits at Popehat attempting to describe me for the benefit of each other. Even Clark himself doesn't grasp what all of the Ilk have with ease:
Clark, I appreciate your description of Vox as a performance artist; it gives me a bit better perspective on his schtick. Given the "anti" in many of his expressed views, I can see what attraction he has for you. Yes, he's brilliant; he has constructed an immense Vox-world, with its own social rules, heirarchy and mythos. He's positioned himself in a pseudo-intellectual gaping hole and become the god of the whiny, sniveling mysogynistic mouth-breathers that inhabit its nether-regions. He is so over-the-top that it must take an enormous, expansive intellect to keep all that crazy consistent in some sort of weird Vox-world logical way. He's also one of the nastiest narcissitic psychopaths to inhabit the planet Earth. The evil demons seem to dance at his command, as he draws the most vile thoughts out of his subjects to pour forth onto the internet – and he does it all with flair, making it seem effortless. Reading his posts and the comments is like looking beneath a rock and being blinded by the awful blackness of the anti-Christ. Some people say he's insecure, but I think he's doing pretty well at holding on to his Vox-world god-throne. I suspect much planning and deliberation go into his performance, because being Vox must be exhausting. I don't know how he sleeps at night.
Count the obvious flaws:
  1. I'm not a performance artist. What you see is pretty much who and what I am. It's an incomplete picture, of necessity, but what is visible is accurate enough. There is a reason you never see any contradicting exposes by people who know me; I don't contradict myself.
  2. The readers here are not "whiny, sniveling mysogynistic mouth-breathers" and I am no one's god.
  3. Occam's Razor suggests that I am able to maintain consistency because I hew closely to truth and logic. Vox's 1st Law: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.
  4. I'm neither nasty nor psychopathic. I am, admittedly, narcissistic and Machiavellian. I'm also highly empathetic. The psychologist commented that my profile was unusual in that I'm equally comfortable with direct or indirect conflict.
  5. It's not exhausting being me at all. For better or for worse, I know who I am. When I sleep, I sleep soundly.
She certainly does better than Gunnar:
My attack on Vox Day's anti-scientific nonsense is from the perspective of a biologist btw. I've seen a lot of anti-scientific nonsense over the years and I'm somewhat familiar with Vox Day's creationist arguments, and I have dismissed them as completely nonsensical and generally awful. Now this Clark dude is telling me that I'm either being dishonest or illogical because I think Vox Day is peddling anti-scientific nonsense and I dismiss the idea of him as a serious thinker. Clark probably doesn't even realize that by his argument he's dismissing most of the biologists (and probably most scientists) on this planet as either being dishonest or illogical, but that is what he's doing by claiming those are the two options if you think Vox Day is bad at logic.
This is amusing. What Gunnar doesn't understand is that I am considerably more intelligent than most of the biologists and most of the scientists on the planet. One of the things we discussed in the May Brainstorm was directly related to this: the importance of NOT blithely trusting the experts for the highly intelligent. TL;DR: if you have a 135+ IQ and an expert is pinging your sense of wrongness, trust your instincts, put on the brakes, and dig into what he's advising before proceeding no matter what the subject. Most of the time that happens, the expert is either unaware of better options, has got something wrong, or is misapplying a standard protocol. My philosophy with experts is this: respect, but verify.

And I always enjoy this idiotic midwit heuristic:
Christ what an insecure little shit. One of the things I've learned in life is that those who pound their chest and boast about what a badass they are and the havoc they'll dispense if you cross them, aren't and effectively can't. They're laughable. I have no idea what personal demon haunts him, but he's definitely overcompensating for some perceived inadequacy. What a silly little shit.
Meanwhile, half the media organizations from the UK to New Zealand are writing furious stories about the ongoing havoc in the science fiction field. And all that havoc was triggered by a single blog post. Imagine what could happen if I actually put any thought or effort into it.

And all these Popehat dramatics stem from one tweet and one post that revealed nothing new about anyone. It's nothing more than rabbits hopping about in alarm and attempting to DISQUALIFY for fear that members of their warren will defect and join the big bad wolf pack.

Labels:

No reason to react

There are more reports of ISIS atrocities in Syria:
Islamic State militants have executed at least 400 mostly women and children in Syria's ancient city of Palmyra. Eye-witnesses have reported the streets are strewn with bodies – the latest victims of the Islamic State's unrelenting savagery - on the same day photographs of captured Syrian soldiers have emerged.

It follows the killing of nearly 300 pro-government troops two days after they captured the city, now symbolised by a black ISIS flag flying above an ancient citadel.
However, keep in mind that false reports of atrocities have been used to whip up support for war for centuries. That doesn't mean the reports are inaccurate, particularly in the electronic age when it's easier to document events, but it's important not to rush to judgment.

In my opinion, there is no reason to even contemplate military intervention in the Islamic world as long as Muslims reside in the West. This is the third great wave of Islamic expansion of a form that long predates the Westphalian system of nation-states and any policy that is based on Westphalian or post-Westphalian principles is bound to fail. Remember, a significant percentage of Muslims in the West openly sympathize with ISIS, and perhaps more importantly, it was Western governments that made the Caliphate possible:
A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”
Yet another strike against the principle of foreign intervention. The devil you don't know is often considerably worse than the one you are trying to cast out.

Labels: ,

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Brainstorm schedule

This is the current Brainstorm schedule. Bold indicates a closed event available only to Brainstorm members:

Brainstorm June, 24 June, 7:30 PM EDT
Roosh V, 10 June, 6 PM EDT
Martin van Creveld, 31 May, 2 PM EDT
Brainstorm May (Crohn's, Dark Energy, Hugos)

Members should mention what topics they are interested in discussing this month either here or on the chat channel, I'll pick three and then select two panelists after the topics are settled. Save the astrophysics for July, as that will be the main topic, Stickwick will be one of the panelists again and she wants some time to prepare for it.

Also, most of you are probably unaware that I taught a 12-week course on game development and the history of games in Zurich last year at a Swiss technical institute. Although it was well received and I was asked to repeat it, the regular travel was a bit too brutal and with the promised fast train from Milano still more than a year away, I declined.

However, I plan to revive the course in September with the sponsorship of the institute, albeit online via the webinar software we're using for Brainstorm. It's going to be a 10-lesson course for $150, and Annual members will be allowed to attend free if it's of interest to them. In addition to the core material, the course will feature 30-minute interview/Q&As with various industry figures, including veteran designers, programmers, artists, magazine editors, and even a studio head.

Hugo Awards 2015: Best Novel

This is how I am voting in the Best Novel category. Of course, I merely offer this information regarding my individual ballot for no particular reason at all, and the fact that I have done so should not be confused in any way, shape, or form with a slate or a bloc vote, much less a direct order by the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil to his 367 Vile Faceless Minions or anyone else.
  1. The Three-Body Problem
  2. Skin Game
  3. The Goblin Emperor
  4. The Dark Between the Stars
  5. No Award
As for Ancillary Sword, the fact that Ancillary Justice won last year was an indictment of the Hugos, the Nebulas and every other science fiction award it won. The fact that Ancillary Justice is the most-awarded novel in science fiction history will be seen as a complete joke within a decade, and within 15 years it will be as little read as the now-forgotten Nebula-winner The Quantum Rose (Amazon Rank: #2,563,748 in Books) is now. And the first book was better than the sequel. Therefore I am leaving it off the ballot.

Other categories will follow over the next few weeks, in the off-chance that anyone happens to be interested in my opinion.

Labels:

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....

Labels:

SJWs always lie

It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing"
Glenn Hauman on said:
At least Mr. Beale isn’t claiming I’m calling for false reviews anymore, though he still hasn’t retracted that statement.
I am absolutely claiming that Glenn Hauman has called and is still calling for false reviews of certain works to be posted on Amazon. He has publicly, and disingenuously, called for them twice now.  Ten negative reviews, at least five of them confirmed by the reviewer to be false, have now been posted, some by his known associates. Mr. Hauman is either lying or woefully mistaken when he says I am not claiming that he's calling for false reviews anymore.

This is standard SJW behavior. They say something in a passive-aggressive, plausibly deniable manner that they expect others to interpret in a certain way and act accordingly. This is why they are always talking about "dog whistles"; that is how they communicate amongst themselves.

Then, when criticized for the very consequences they intended, they deny having done what they did, reject all responsibility for the consequences of their words, and insist that everyone accept the false narrative of the disconnect between their call to action and the subsequent actions.

Hauman points out that he said people should read the various Puppy works before the reviewers "put them down", but some of the reviewers didn't, by their own admission, read them, nor did Hauman give a damn whether they did or not. His objective was for the Puppy works to receive negative reviews, which they subsequently received. Mission accomplished. The pretense the SJW attempts to maintain is usually a childishly transparent one, and it both confuses and alarms them when one simply ignores the verbal fog of nominal "plausibility" with which they try to preemptively defend themselves and focuses on the intention and the effect.

As, one notes, the justice system likewise does. No drug dealer has ever escaped conviction because he said "melons and cantaloupes" in the place of marijuana and cocaine when wire-tapped. What he said may be true, but it is irrelevant. His intentions are best judged by the response to the words, and not the words themselves.

The reason we know it is disingenuousness and dishonesty and not an inability to connect cause-and-effect is that SJWs are not similarly inclined to respect genuine deniability whenever they are accusing someone of one of the many isms they wield as weapons to DISQUALIFY. In fact, SJWs regularly claim the ability to read minds and discern intentions even when there are no actual consequences to observe.

Don't ever take an SJW's spun narrative at face value. That's exactly what they expect you to do; that's exactly what they need you to do. Punch through it and expose them. You can be sure that the narrative will be false because SJWs always lie.

Speaking of which, these two false narratives are excellent examples:
Stevie on May 22, 2015 at 7:24 pm said:
One thing you will discover is that the canine conspirators are now in total disarray, because the Sads didn’t realise that they would be Shanghaid by the Rabids. Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him. In other words, all they’ve got left is to be as destructive as possible, and do their best to make everyone else miserable.

Chris Hensley on May 22, 2015 at 7:37 pm said:
“Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him.”

All the while Vox Day is screaming “Why are you running? We have them right where we want them!”
Are you in total disarray, Rabid Puppies? As for the idea that I was "completely blindsided" by Michael Rappoport's article in the Wall Street Journal, this is exactly what I wrote to the Evil Legion of Evil about it two weeks before it ran: "Wall Street Journal piece coming soon, possibly tomorrow. Strangely enough, they didn't even ask me if I hate black lesbians or kick kittens. It will probably be moderately against us, in my opinion. He wasn't hostile, but he played "devil's advocate", in his own words, several times."

I was, of course, under absolutely no illusions that the piece would have anything to do with entrepreneurship or my being a mastermind of any kind for the obvious reason that I actually talked to the reporter for about ten minutes. Not only were his questions mildly accusatory in nature, but the fact that he was also talking with two people who had nothing to do with the story, George Martin and John Scalzi, was sufficient to tell me which way he was going to spin it. As in fact, turned out to be the case. But the tone of the article was considerably less poisonous than the Entertainment Weekly, Guardian, and Popular Science stories that were planted by the Torlings. Which was nice, and I also noticed that the comments on the WSJ web site ran about 10-1 in our favor.

As for the clueless wonders at File 770 who don't understand how the Torlings plant stories in the mainstream media, they should look at who publishes the authors of some of those "journo things". 

Labels:

Friday, May 22, 2015

Immigration = unemployment

It's always fascinating how economists who like nothing better than to cite the Law of Supply and Demand turn around and claim that increasing the labor supply by nearly 20 percent neither reduces average wages nor native employment:
The number of foreign-born workers kept rising. Last year, there were 25.7 million in the U.S., up from 25.3 million in 2013. They accounted for 16.5% of the labor force in 2014, up from 16.3% the year before and 15.5% in 2009, the year the recovery began.

The foreign-born worker labor-force participation rate—the share aged 16 and older working or looking for work–was 66.0% in 2014, higher than the native-born rate of 62.3%. Foreign-born workers are more likely than native-born workers to be male and more likely to be between the ages of 25 to 54, ages when the participation rate is highest, according to the BLS.

About 48.3% of the foreign-born workers in 2014 were Hispanic and 24.1% of them were Asian last year, according to BLS. The composition of foreign workers has shifted since 2009, with Hispanics’ share decreasing and Asians’ rising.

Foreign-born workers saw their median usual weekly earnings rise to $664 in 2014, up from $643 in 2013. The difference between the weekly earnings of foreign-born workers and their native-born counterparts narrowed slightly as well from $162 in 2013 to $156 in 2014. The earnings gap peaked at $173 in 2010 and has been trending down since.
Since 20 percent of the US labor force is non-American, it should be no surprise that the number of Americans now outside the labor force has increased dramatically in line with the increase in immigration.

This shouldn't be rocket science. Let's use a reductio ad absurdum to explain. If 100 percent of the labor force is foreign-born, what percent of native-born Americans have jobs?

a) 100
b) zero
c) mu

The immigrants aren't even that much cheaper, as their median usual weekly earnings are 81 percent of the native-born workers. If we assume that employers are unable to spend any more money on employment than they already are, that means that immigrants are responsible for putting 20.8 million Americans out of work.

Labels:

Just a reminder

Kicking Puppies is not nice. Glenn Hauman issued a second call for anti-Puppy Amazon reviews, this time on File 770:
Glenn Hauman on April 15, 2015
You can game Amazon ratings as well. Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review. Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

Glenn Hauman on May 20, 2015 at 10:51 pm said:
Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well.
And once again, SJWs have obediently responded to his call. Mr. Hauman's actions strike me as a very good way to encourage publishers to stop participating in future Hugo Packets. I mean, why should we do so if it's only going to provide the SJWs in science fiction with another means of attack? Mr. Hauman has demonstrated how the Hugo Packet can be destroyed in a single year; what publisher is going to even be willing to include excerpts when inclusion in the Packet means several hundred one-star reviews on Amazon within weeks?
BIG BOYS DON'T CRY

Not recommended

This is not a very good story. To be honest, it is not my kind of SF and the only reason I read it was because of the Hugo nomination.
Published 3 hours ago by Hampus Eckerman

Lame Whiny Book.
(Disclaimer: I didn't buy the book here; got it as part of the Hugo ballot packet.) David Weber can write cartoon villains and cowardly REMFs and it's fun to read, even...
Published 10 hours ago by Bill Stewart

What a Waste of Time
This must have been a rough year for novellas if this is one of the front-runners for a major award. Did he pay his friends to nominate him?
Published 11 hours ago by Janelle Wilbanks

Dated and amateurish MilSF
Another 2015 Hugo nominee from the Puppies.
Magnolia, a.k.a. Maggie, is a Ratha, an armored war machine in the military forces of a starfaring and aggressive Earth... Read more
Published 21 hours ago by Elisabeth Carey
These reviews averaged 1.5 stars, whereas the 142 other reviews averaged 4.3 stars. Elisabeth Carey is also attacking John C. Wright, giving ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM its only two-star rating in 80 reviews which otherwise average 4.5 stars. No doubt this is merely a matter of differing tastes combined with some coincidental timing. Again.

Of course, BIG BOYS DON'T CRY and ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM are not the only Hugo nominees included in the Hugo Packet. ANCILLARY SWORD presently has 204 reviews and a 4.1 rating. THE GOBLIN EMPEROR has 232 reviews and a 4.4 rating. To quote Mr. Hauman: "Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well."

Feel free, the man says. Feel free. On a tangential note, while Chuck D brought us the concept of the one-man riot, Lori Coulson has invented the one-woman blacklist. She's going to continue to not read books by authors she had never read before:
Lori Coulson on May 21, 2015 at 8:38 pm said:
The one thing the Hugo packet has demonstrated to me? That there are a bunch of authors out there I never want to read again, and not only will I not read anything more by them, I definitely won’t be reading anything the “Evil League of Evil” writes, edits or publishes. After being wowed by “The Crucible” in High School and taking the lesson within to heart, I find I’m starting my own personal blacklist. And it makes me very unhappy that it’s necessary to do so.
And here we were told blacklists were bad. Anyhow, this sounds rather like MSNBC's audience threatening to never watch Fox News again.

Labels: ,

The media litmus tests

A New York Times reporter fact-checks ethnic identity:
A Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, David McCleary, wrote to me this week with a complaint about being subjected to what he called “a Jewish litmus test” during a Times interview.

The interview (conducted by a Times stringer, or regular freelancer, who is not on the full-time staff) was done for an article that eventually appeared on the front page, “Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities.” It took up efforts on college campuses to pressure Israel over its policies toward Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank.

Mr. McCleary, who is Jewish, said that the reporter, Ronnie Cohen, asked him “insulting and demeaning questions,” including whether he “looked Jewish,” after telling him that his name didn’t sound Jewish and asking if he had been bar mitzvahed. He also said that after talking with the reporter for more than an hour, he was displeased to find that none of that interview made its way into the article, and that no other Jewish student who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was quoted or represented in the story....

After speaking to Ms. Cohen, who confirmed, in general terms, the nature of the questions to Mr. McCleary, Ms. Mitchell told me, “If she indeed pursued that line of questioning, it was inappropriate.”
These litmus tests are the way SJWs in the media and elsewhere attempt to shoehorn people into their anti-white narrative. You've probably noticed that they absolutely hate to admit that I am a Native American, because that blows their "white supremacist" angle to Hell. You can tell they don't really care about Hispanics because they have no similar problem admitting that I am Mexican... except for the few who were trying to raciss-DISQUALIFY on the basis of my statements against open immigration.

In the case of the intrepid Ms Cohen, it's obvious that she didn't like the fact that a Jewish man was taking what she believed to be the wrong position, ergo she tried to DISQUALIFY him as a Jew. This is one of the many inevitable consequences of identity-based ideology. As one professor objected:
I am distressed about the lack of evidence in the piece to support the authors’ assertions about this deeply sensitive and volatile issue. Divestment is supported by a large group of individuals — some of them members of minority groups, and some Jews. (I, incidentally, do not support the movement). To make this into a “Minority vs. Jewish” question, without supplying evidence, is to distort the issue.
Of course, distorting the issue is the main objective. But this story of ethics in ethnic journalism also points to something more important. When talking to the media, ALWAYS record them. It's clear that the national editor doesn't want to fire Ms Cohen, hence the statement "If she indeed pursued that line of questioning". Since Mr. McCleary probably didn't record his conversation with the reporter, he probably can't prove it and she'll get away with it.

So, I repeat: when speaking with the media, ALWAYS record your conversation. This prevents them from playing their usual game of attempting to spin what you said even as they deny what they did and said.

Labels:

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Three options

This is one of the first rational things I've seen the SJWs at File 770 produce in weeks:
Nick Mamatas on May 21, 2015 at 9:21 am said:

There are three options as far I can tell:

The Hugos being a product a fandom, much of the discussion around “fixing” the issue boils down either angry blog posts about white people (ie, admissions of pathetic whining defeat) or statistical wonkery (ie foolishness). These are all wrongheaded—slating is essentially a political issue, and political issues need political responses. There are three possible ones:

1. Suck It Up.
Probably a pretty good idea. This bed was made some years ago when blogging culture sparked a shift from significant social sanction when people tried to get votes by asking publicly for consideration to “obligatory” posts promoting their own work, and later, the work of their friends. Loud Blogs win; Loud Blogs Plus Online Workshop-Clubhouses win more; and Loud Blogs plus political discipline win even more. Why should only the Loud Bloggers people have decided that they personally like and are “friends”* with win? Eventually, it’ll all even out, especially as what is most likely to happen is that the SPs get nominated and then lose decisively year after year.

2. Castigate all campaigning, not just the campaigning you don’t like
Pandora’s Box isn’t necessarily open forever. However, you can’t close half a lid. It would take significant effort to change widespread attitudes, but it is not as though those attitudes have not changed before. If campaigning was always met with eye-rolling or even outright disgust, it would stop being so effective. Some people would betray and try to promote, but if the audience was inured to such appeals, it just wouldn’t work and hopefuls would eventually stop.

3. Counter-slates
We’ll almost certainly see attempts at counter-slates. I’m against the idea, but the current cry to vote “No Award” in all SP-dominated categories is itself a counter-slate after a fashion. Someone will come up with Happy Kittens and stump for non-binary PoCs or stories with lots of scene breaks or or or…well, that’s the problem. One counter-slate would likely thwart the SPs, more than one would not. And we’re sure to see more than one. Disciplined slate voting works best when only one side does it and the other side isn’t even a side. Two slates split demographically. Three or more, uh… At any rate, it all comes around to political discipline again. If some party were to launch a counter-slate next year, would others who found that slate imperfect let it by without critique and another alternative slate. (There are actually two Puppy slates, but they are largely similar.) There can be slates that are so attractive that many more people sign up to vote for the Hugos, but I strongly suspect that people overestimate the amount of outside “pull” these slates have; general Hugo chatter across blogs and Twitter in general is driving increased education about supporting Worldcon memberships, and then there are all the free books voters might receive, which is also a new thing. One counter-slate would be effective, though of course the cure could be worse than the disease, and more than one would likely not.

So aggrieved Hugo Award followers, which shall it be?

Two is still the best bet.
This is at least dealing with observable reality, unlike those who fantasize that tinkering with the rules is going to slow down any group that contains at least one individual with a brain, or worse, those who think that MOAR DISQUALIFY is magically going to accomplish anything. So, let's consider their options from our perspective.

1. Suck it up

This is what they should have done. It would have taken a fair amount of the wind out of our sails. However, most of the potential benefits are now lost since they've already motivated our side through their histrionics and media-planted stories.

2. Castigate all campaigning

Won't happen. Far too many people on their side are guilty of it, and far too many people are already invested in the idea that what is very, very bad for us is just fine for the Tor set and everyone who bought memberships for their children and extended families.

3. Counter-slates

This is the only real option for them now. It's also the one that is most frightening for them, because it puts an end to their gentleman's agreement to stick to logrolling and whisper campaigns as long as no one gets too greedy, and forces them to come out and compete in the open. They hate open competition on principle and the idea that they might come out for a fair fight next year and lose will strike them as so terrifying as to be beyond imagining. Furthermore, because they really, really care about winning awards, it's going to be much harder for them to put together a slate, much less find the numbers to support it in the disciplined manner required now that a bloc of 40 votes is no longer sufficient to put something on the shortlist.

I'm not saying that Sad Puppies will automatically win a battle of slates, but that sort of honest and open competition suits us much better than it suits them. But I expect that next year there will be at least two rival slates, one of which will be centered around the Torlings.

Labels:

Brainstorming

I felt last night's event went fairly smoothly, all things considered. Even though we went about 15 minutes longer than scheduled, I wasn't able to address all of the questions in detail, but the chat server worked, as did both of the recordings. Transcripts will be sent out to everyone who signed up as soon as they are completed.

If you're interested in signing up on an annual basis for a 20 percent discount, you can do so now, otherwise you can just sign up on a monthly basis as your schedule and interests permit for $25 per event.

The next event is a free one and will feature an interview with Martin van Creveld, the Israeli military historian, on Sunday 31 May at 3 PM Eastern time. Members will have priority seating; I don't know yet if there will be 100 or 500 seats available.

If you attended and want to share your opinion about how it went, for good or ill, feel free to do so. Three panelists seemed to work pretty well, but in the future I we'll definitely want to nail down the three primary subjects, one per panelist, ahead of time.

Labels:

Ye cats, they're stupid

I checked – somebody on File 770 thinks that Wright forgot the name of one of his characters, and changed it from Sarah to Sally randomly. Not so – she is referred to as both names, but there’s no explanation as to why in the story. It would have been better to be consistent.) ….
- SJW Chris Gerrib

One wonders if Mr. Gerrib would also require an explanation if the same character was referred to as Joey at 10 and as Joseph at 35. The SJW inability to figure this out has been a small, but telling demonstration of the intellectually inferior looking at the work of their superiors, and because they lack the wits to make sense of it, pronouncing it stupid.

The diversity camp crumbles

Anyone who has studied the history of racially and culturally diverse societies knew this was inevitable:
A complaint Friday alleged that Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants by setting a higher bar for admissions than that faced by other groups.

The complaint, filed by a coalition of 64 organizations, says the university has set quotas to keep the numbers of Asian-American students significantly lower than the quality of their applications merits. It cites third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

“Many studies have indicated that Harvard University has been engaged in systemic and continuous discrimination against Asian-Americans during its very subjective ‘Holistic’ college admissions process,” the complaint alleges. The coalition is seeking a federal investigation and is requesting Harvard “immediately cease and desist from using stereotypes, racial biases and other discriminatory means in evaluating Asian-American applicants.”
This action is particularly significant for its symbolism; Harvard is the throne of American left-liberalism. But the nominally ideological alliance of minorities against the white majority was only going to last as long as the minorities felt they benefited more from that alliance than from flexing their muscle in their own direct interests. Based on what we're seeing from the Asians in the political world, they are all but done with their "liberal" alliance with blacks, Jews, and Hispanics.

It won't surprise me if Asians magically become more "conservative" in the next decade as they switch to a Yellow-White (Blue) alliance against the White (Red)-Black-Brown alliance. Politics in the USA and in the UK are becoming less about ideology and more about the straightforward racial power struggles that have historically characterized most diverse societies.

And yes, I use the Red-Blue colors in their original form; Red being the appropriate color for those of the more socialist inclinations.

Labels: ,

Older Posts