Set Yourself Free

Or “Why Winston loves Big Brother.”

So the tempest in a teacup in my field right now is that someone very appropriately named has written an article telling people to spend a year reading a specific kind of author. Yes, you read that correctly, a specific kind of author, not book. She is, mind you, generous, and allows you to pick what kind of author you wish to read: racial minority, sexual minority, insanity minority or any other kind of minority you might prefer. What you’re not allowed to read, specifically, are males and white males at that.

For a full window into that controversy, if you feel you must, Larry fisked her very thoroughly and competently.

As usual that’s not quite where I’m going. For one, because though this poor woman has issues and her issues have come home carrying little issues in arms, what is causing the furor and the issues is not, of course, where the problem is, but the reflected image of the problem, the part that we can more easily talk about.

The author, who comes from an affluent background and who shall henceforth be referred to as “Princess Tempest in a Teacup” is the fulcrum of the issue, but not the issue.

But her precious little tantrum, published by the ever obliging Guardian, clicked in my head with something else. The person she’s specifically throwing a tantrum at is a progressive white male author. And people are doing the usual “I wonder if this will open his eyes.” To which my answer was “well, no, it won’t,” which usually is not believed.

However, while discussing the subject, Elizabeth Moon and the semi-organized tantrum that is Wiscon came up. For those not in the know, Moon dared, sometime back, to hint that perhaps feminists should be more concerned with the treatment of women under Islam. This was enough to bring on the full panoply of retaliation from the left: holding their breath, crying, calling her mean and saying they now feel unsafe near her. Oh, who am I kidding? Although that’s what it amounts to, their actual retaliation is far more vicious and involves blackening her character and calling her the equivalent of a Nazi.

Back then too the writers to the right of Stalin (which is what my side amounts to) thought “maybe this will open her eyes.” It didn’t. Not only did it not cause her to question any of their other positions and behaviors, as soon as they were done yelling at her, she crawled back into the safety of their embrace. She did this because she has too much invested in her identity as a woman of the left, and in her leftism as a positional good. Whether she’s also convinced herself that they were right to beat her is something I can’t answer since we’re not exactly buddies.

The person I was discussing this with – one of them – is an immigrant from the former Soviet Union. When explaining what had happened I said “you know the drill” and she answered with “I know it, I just thought I’d left it far behind.”

Which made it click for me that yes, this is the equivalent of when – in a communist state – a high functionary or bureaucrat would get rebuked for some minor act of deviationism, and immediately crawl back into the embrace of the party as soon as the beatings stopped.

This in turn made me think of this quote:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. — Theodore Dalrymple

Forget emasculated. It becomes a society of neurotic liars, because in communist societies, and in our own left, the “gospel” keeps changing. As new events emerge, they change the story to fit, or even they change it because they can.

As commenter Synova put it at Mad Genius Club sometime back, it’s the equivalent of crossing a floor composed of identical squares, and suddenly, out of nowhere, you get hit, and get told it’s because you stepped on that square. Yes, that one there. And you should have known better. And your only salvation, the only way to make the beating stop is to admit you did wrong and stepped on that wrong square, even though it’s indistinguishable from all others.

Reason will not avail you. There is no reason to look at Princess Tempest Teacup and feel guilty. She was raised in an affluent family and, like many poor little rich girls, has been trying to make up a different story for herself ever since. She also exaggerates her “minority racial characteristics” in photos, which is neither here nor there except in terms of neurosis. One has reasons to feel sorry for her – and enough. I watched her before she blocked me on Facebook for telling her she was fracking nuts, attacking a poster simply because he wore a hat in his picture. That was it. She built an entire identity for him based on wearing a hat – and also vaguely repulsed, because she’s trying to ride her non existent victimhood pony to glory. But one has no reason to feel guilty of her treatment as a “minority.” Unless the guilt is over the fact that we allow people to claim non-existent and counterfactual oppression and enable them with benes and appeasement.

However, if you’re on the left you can’t say that. You can’t say “Oh, for heaven’s sake, woman, put a sock on it. In the scale of people who have ‘suffered’ for circumstances not of their making you come way behind most white people in Appalachia and for that matter 90% of the colleagues in our field, regardless of color or orientation including but not limited to everyone who works for a living.”

You can’t say it even though it’s patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

Instead, you have to parrot the obvious and in your face falsehood that these people screaming victimhood — for the most part white, for the most part from affluent backgrounds; for the most part women; for the most part academics; for the most part rewarded all out of proportion because they espouse the correct “progressive” line – are suffering under the boot an oppression and being mistreated and held down.

The very thought is enough to make your eyes roll so hard they escape your head and are batted around by cats on the floor.

To anyone – and I had it relatively easy, since though I came from a poor place my family made do well enough and I never went without anything essential. (Okay, fine, clothes that fit during growth spurts but in a scale of victimhood that’s “hangnail” level pain.) And my greatest struggle was adapting to a new language/culture and breaking in without any contacts in the field – who actually has had to struggle to get where they want, the “victimhood” of “but he looked at me funny because I have a vagina” or “because I can sort of tan” fails to impress. (For instance, Princess Tempest quit a corporate job to attend Clarion. I was invited, and at one time offered a scholarship to attend Clarion, but even with the “tuition” paid for, I couldn’t afford the travel or the time because I had small children and responsibilities. And no, not repining. I think in many ways it was a good thing I did not attend. On the other hand, the fact she could do this without a second thought but thinks she’s “underprivileged” and “oppressed” is laugh-out-loud funny.)

But it is exactly because it is risible that this big lie has power. It empowers people who actually already have a lot of power since their kind controls the traditional gateways of publishing either by taking them over or by being able to scare those who do with screams of victimhood. It turns the world on its head by pretending that being leftist is a liability instead of the keys to the corridors of power in the arts and literature. And it requires you go along with it on pain of becoming an object of hate.

And most people go along with it, particularly if it’s the first time they’ve been outside the group and been accused of all-out-of proportion evil for their minor thought crime.

Once they’ve done that, once they’ve parroted the lie while being aware it’s a lie, they’re owned. Not only their credibility but their self respect is gone, and their only hope is to hide their shame by standing with the people who hold the positional good of the “politically correct” position.

This is why they crawl back and often become the loudest voices defending things like the idea that books have value because of who wrote them, not what is between the covers. Or the idea that separate is really better than equal, and “minorities” need “safe rooms” where they can avoid the horrible fear someone will look at them wrong or even questioningly. Both of these are on the face of it evil and stupid ideas. Both are required to be in good standing with the establishment that – surreally – gives out the accolade of “speaking truth to power” for speaking exactly what the power wants to hear.

Once you’ve been to room 101 and repeated back patent untruths, you have to tell yourself they’re the truth, or you can’t go on looking at yourself in the mirror.

And the only cure – the only cure – is to keep telling the truth and shaming the devil the progressives. Because that’s the only way back from being forced to tell lies for us as individuals, the only way back to self-respect for us as thinking creatures, and possibly the only way back from the abyss for our civilization.

You see, to navigate reality you must see it. If you’re collectively enveloped in a fog of lies, you end up doing things like fighting imaginary problems like inequality, while real problems like corruption and economic stagnation goes ignored.

And that ends up with everyone equally eating out of the same dumpster, while a boot holds them down forever.

Keep struggling to see the truth as it really is. And keep telling it, no matter how many attempts are made to silence you and shame you.

Believe your lying eyes over what they’re telling you.

And in reference to the idiotic tempest in a teacup – read whatever you want. I’m not the boss of you. And neither are the progressives who compose the establishment.

If you need to atone or be saved do so in the safe confines of religion. Politics is not an instrument of salvation, and you’re not required to wear sackcloth and ashes in front of anyone just because they shriek.

Set yourself free.



317 thoughts on “Set Yourself Free

  1. It is… difficult turning away from the supposed power being a victim can bring you, especially when there’s people willing to support your victimhood. Princess Tempest luvvvvs being the victim. She luvvvvvs the attention she’s been shown. She won’t stop being a victim, and loudly proclaiming her pretentious status.

    But it’s when you lose support for being a victim, and realize it, that anyone with five functioning brain cells will step back and go “Okay, that’s no longer a viable life strategy. Where can I go from here?”

    Sometimes they’ll try to find something else to be a victim about – but they’ll get less and less support for the victimhood idea as time passes. Then they’re faced with reality – that no one really cares about them being a victim.

    And it’s funny how victim-filled the SJW crowd seems to be. They seem to have a lot fewer problems like having to maintain a job, maintain health, maintain a roof over their heads than us poor slobs who deal with reality, and instead focus so much on their feelz that a glance from someone they don’t even known can give them the vapors, and finding something they don’t like in a book or article can make them RAGEQUIT and start screaming. (Looks like someone needs their meds adjusted…)

    Anyway, looking over her screed I was reminded of a discussion I got into on a book blog a while back. I was pointing out that I wasn’t selecting authors based on color, gender or sexual preferences – I was going with what was available in the bookstores that looked interesting. And they were going ‘Well, how do you KNOW it’s interesting unless you read it?’

    Facepalm. Because the cover and blurb didn’t catch my interest? Didn’t have anything to do with an authors’ characteristics – just the story. They didn’t get it, or refused to get it. They’re fetishizing the ‘other’ – and it’s not going to matter whether it’s good fiction or not as long as it’s sufficiently ‘diverse’ by the checklists.

    They’d find Princess T to be to their liking, I think. Shifting the focus from the story to the author isn’t going to do the SFF world any good – and may well damage it a lot more than they expect.

  2. Er, are you sure she’s a princess? She sounds more like a Czar. Maybe Fuhrer. Actually, the (un)holy-mandates seem particularly Bishopy. I humbly submit to the Evil(but beautiful) Space Princess, that henceforth and rightwith and for all time the troll Bradford be given the title of Bishop Bradford the Bigot!

    1. I’m kind of fond of this one. I think they should be allowed to see the disgust their bigotry engenders and be labeled for it with clarity.

      I called her a bigot and a scold over at MHI, might as well formalize the title.

    2. We’ll.. in Navy Nuke circles, “princess” (actually, in military circles, directed at a guy) is an insult.

      We had a guy nicknamed princess because he’d whine and quit over the most ridiculous things, and we generally considered the fairytale “the princess and the pea” not an example of refinement but hypersensitive childish entitlement and immaturity.

      1. Well that makes sense, although I am a little hesitant to follow Navy Nuke social norms. Aren’t they all a little, quarky?

      1. The basis here is the fairy tale of the princess and the pea: someone who sleeping on a feather bed mountain twenty-four mattresses high nevertheless tosses and turns because of a trivial object at the base.

        Someone who spends their days working hard usually doesn’t need much mattress at all.

    3. “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
      — Booker T Washington, Up From Slavery (1911)

      Substitute “victim” for “coloured people” and “Negro”, and you’ll have the right of it.

  3. One of the most risible aspects of the SJWs and LIRPs is that they firmly believe that they are obviously and completely different from the Moral Crusaders of eras past. They really believe that there is a difference between a Liberal buttinski from the 21st Century and a Evangelical Christian buttinski from the Victorian Era that can be detected without the use of a microscope.

    They just don’t get that they’re not writing Deathless Prose, but the 21st Century’s equivalent of ERIC, OR LITTLE BY LITTLE.

    The modern Health Food Nazis, anti-genmod people specifically included, are morally the same as John Harvey Kellogg. The purveyors of Liberal Uplift are no different from the purveyors of Victorian Uplift they find repulsive. And the authors of Politically Correct twaddle are exactly the same as the authors of Morally Improving tripe of the 19th Century.

    They aren’t New and Startling. They are Old Hat and Tiresome. Old Whine in new labels.

    1. Yes, but the obvious similarities between those extremist groups and SJW’s don’t apply because (insert self-righteous platitude).

    2. Now, that’s unfair. The Victorians had more principle than SJWs. They would sometimes even enforce it against their own.

    3. Exactly – the SJWs of this century are the new Victorian moralists, only not quite so well-dressed, and certainly with worse manners …
      Although come to think on it, Carry Nation wasn’t all that well-mannered when it came to smashing up saloons…
      (Note to self: think up a way to have Carry Nation do a walk-through in my next book but one. . .)

        1. Thanks! (Hmmm … her active career in saloon-destroying was a bit late for my purposes, but perhaps I can work her in during her residence in Richmond, Texas…

            1. Really?

              How shocking.

              Shame the saloon keeper in the first bar she went after didn’t “Fear for his life” and put a bullet in her damn head.

      1. I’ve seen the observation several places, both “The Diamond age” and in some books on victorian era explorers, that in some ways, the mores and the codes of the time made it EASIER to be an eccentric…. and accepted as such. And far more vices were accepted than is now believed thanks to feminist revisionist history, as long as you kept it somewhat private.

        1. Sigh – I love the Victorians – for one, I believe that Victorian-era men were a whole a lot more open emotionally. It was perfectly OK for a guy to be sentimental, even indulge in a good manly weep now and again, if the occasion called for it.

          1. It was perfectly OK for a guy to be sentimental, even indulge in a good manly weep now and again, if the occasion called for it.

            Which of course was not while something urgently needed doing, such as when under fire, or putting out a house fire.

            Could you imagine a large public gathering of regular people today with men and women weeping over the news that a fictional character had died?

            1. “Could you imagine a large public gathering of regular people today with men and women weeping over the news that a fictional character had died?”

              Little Nell.

              1. But could it happen today?

                In spite all the talk about how men are discovering their feelings?

                Shrieking, demonstrations of indignation or going on a rampage about a perceived injustice we get. Weeping, not so much.

                  1. She specified “fictional character.” Neither Nimoy nor Weber are fictional characters, a fact known to the vasr majority of their fans.

                    Perhaps when President Obama dies … not that I anticipate that happening in my lifetime.

                    1. Maybe we should start a kickstarter to fund a bus for the trip to piss on his grave. Bet we’re funded in one day.

                  2. Uh, guys? The news broke yesterday that Nimoy was taken to the hospital last week with severe chest pains. I assume no one knew, but . . .

                    1. Article I saw said he’s been fighting lung cancer for a while. And ditto what Shadowdancer said.

                1. Shrieking, demonstrations of indignation or going on a rampage about a perceived injustice we get. Weeping, not so much.

                  To cry is to be vulnerable.

                  Vulnerability– even if that vulnerability is self-imposed, such as honor or restraint– invites attack.

                  The “feelings” they talk about is lack-of-control, not actual healthy emotion.

        2. Private life was private, to a vast extent, and if you did odd things on your own time but otherwise met society’s standards, well, there’s one in every family. Hypocritical? Possibly. OTOH, it was probably healthier for society as a whole than the current fondness for “I did a baaad thing and so I’m a victim of my parents/society/the environment so you need to give me money and buy my book.” Or even worse, “You say it’s bad now but in 30 years it will be legal, accepted, and celebrated, so I’m ahead of the curve and won’t stop doing it.”

    4. Hmph. The Victorian Social Crusaders had real evils, like slavery, to crusade against. And while alcohol prohibition was foolish, alcohol *temperance* was a worthy crusade; too many men were spending money their children needed at the bar (and some were abusive when they got home.)

        1. It seems that, after years of fussing, it is no longer the fashion to campaign against the suppression of women due to the requirement of the chador.

          I had initially attributed this turn to the fact that some could not stomach that the nationwide requirement in Afghanistan was lifted after Bush engaged in Afghanistan, but I see that this trend continues under the present regime.

          1. The chador is now a symbol of religious freedom and of how women from a different culture have a different understanding of freedom and we have to respect that understanding. Because they really like the chador and FGM and child marriage and all that.

            Or so some utterly PC twit informed me.

        2. But since they mostly right now seem to be enslaving their own, or outsiders who have foolishly gone there to work, not importing some more important victim group members forcibly from somewhere else (for example that part of Africa south of Sahara) it doesn’t matter that much and can be chalked up to cultural differences.

          Or something.

          Lots of quiet about that, but I suppose they must have some rationale for the quiet just in case it becomes a talking point.

          Or maybe they will just claim it’s mostly just vicious rumors and propaganda thought up by evil white folks. And these evil white folks have also either brainwashed or bribed any locals who get out and talk about it, or manage to send messages from those areas.

      1. They crusaded against a great many foolish targets as well. Just as there are people today who crusade against real evils.

        Christian Missionaries anyone?

        1. “Christian Missionaries anyone?”

          Some Christian Missionaries help the people they serve, and risk death and disease to provide needed services – such as medical care and drugs to people who are ignored by their own governments and societies. Other’s scam the well meaning Christians back home. I’d say it’s up to the givers to sort them out.

          There are a lot of scams out there now supposedly helping “Wounded Warriors” (which is not to say that they are all scams) – but the vast majority of the funds they collect never see a real veteran. Again – it’s up to the givers to sort them out by investigating them before you write those checks.

        2. Credit where due: the Victorian fad for phrenology entailed less public harm than contemporary passions against “Climate Change,” vaccinations and GMOs.

          In Spiritualism I think the Victorians and the SJWs probably fight to a draw.

    5. You have to admit, though, that JH Kellogg (actually, mostly with his brother Will) did pretty much boostrap the breakfast cereal industry. If nothing else, it was at least a convenience for parts of society.

        1. Umm, I think he’s saying a bowl of processed grain and milk beats heck out of no time for breakfast.

        2. Not if it’s the majority of your diet, no. As an occasional meal, sure. That noted, I don’t even eat the stuff on rare occasion, given what they do to my blood glucose levels. For someone without my dietary issues, why not in moderation?

          Considering the period’s accepted definition of a proper breakfast (assuming you could afford to eat that way), corn flakes or grape nuts or oatmeal or the like would be a lot less damaging. So would just cutting back on the amount of food for a single meal.

    6. And it’s converging on similar prejudices. Women are too sensitive to be exposed to offensive things … is that a Victorian speaking about how a good woman needs to be sheltered, or a SJW about the need for trigger warnings? Non-whites don’t have the same intellectual range as whites … Victorian doctrine of white supremacy, or SJW about how People of Color aren’t rational the same way whites are and feel things more intensely? White men are special and have a special respnsibility to everyone else … Victorians on the White Man’s Burden, or SJW on “white privilege?”

  4. I almost got myself in trouble at work the other day having a conversation somewhat similar to this. Unlike Her Sainted Holiness were not discussing books. No, our subject was government entities and how they do business. I was, you see, asked to complete an application before one of the schools I was attempting to sell to could buy from me. You guys know the one. It’s the one about “Is this a minority owned business? Is this a female owned business?” It’s the application where they make sure they aren’t doing business with undesirables: white males. I have not seen one that asks about sexual preference. I won’t swear they’re not out there.

    I wish I could’ve been surprised by little miss holier than thou. Princess T has shown me nothing I haven’t seen before. It’s not that I agree with her. Far from it. I don’t like being discriminated against. I am in fact offended. I’m just used to it. The fact that I’m used to it is what bothers me the most. It’s time for this crap to stop.

    1. I confess that I did dip a toe in that world early in my days of government service. Funny thing that, when a minority owned contract went tits up (sarcasm intended) and we dug into the details, often as not the minority owned corporation was essentially a figurehead raking 5 or 10 percent off the top while most of the work was subcontracted out to a more traditional major business. Thing was, not only did this practice give the partnership preferential treatment in winning the contract, it also often shielded the sub from many of the checks and balances imposed on the prime. More than once we saw a prime staying squeaky clean with their minor share of administrative tasks while the sub was guilty of gross violations that somehow never got reported up the chain until we pried the details out of them.

      1. Yeah, sounds about right. I’ve heard some stories about this too. I had a nice conversation with a guy who used to work for US Army TAACOM…

        But nevermind, don’t want to tell stories out of school.

    2. Read & Weep:
      HUD Inspector General: We’re Wasting at Least $37 Million Per Month
      The short version: To live in public housing, you have to meet a community-service or self-sufficiency requirement. A recent HUD Inspector General audit found that about 27 percent of the public-housing residents they checked weren’t meeting the requirement, amounting to $37 million per month going to residents who didn’t qualify for the subsidy.
      A new Inspector General audit found “HUD subsidized housing for 106,000 units occupied by non-compliant tenants, out of nearly 550,000 potentially CSSR-eligible units nationwide. Out of the nearly 740,000 adult tenants living in these units, HUD’s system contained incorrect CSSR status codes for 201,000 tenants.”


  5. Once you’ve been to room 101 and repeated back patent untruths, you have to tell yourself they’re the truth, or you can’t go on looking at yourself in the mirror.

    I don’t know if this entirely true. It doesn’t feel like it is for me. I work in a high-tech, “diverse” corporate environment. I absolutely have to spout all the platitudes and, at the very least, keep silent about what I really believe, because were I to be completely honest, I’d no doubt be out of a job in short order.

    I doubt I’m alone in this, but I have a little wall around myself. I feel like a spy in enemy territory. I go through my day, being what they expect as much as I can, but it’s not me. The things I say — and do not say — don’t touch my core. They can’t have that. I do what I have to to keep my family fed, but inside I’m still me.

    1. It’s not healthy psychologically. That little wall doesn’t go up and down at will; it can wall you in if you are behind it too long.

      1. This will probably offend you, but I find people who try to tell me what’s healthy for me psychologically insufferable. I’ll take care of my own mind, thank you.

        1. Okay, but listen to someone who used to be where you are. without it I literally would not have survived my adolescence or got a degree or even gotten published first time. BUT it eats you.

        2. Then why did you explicitly declare that you doubted you were alone? That’s trying to tell what’s healthy for other people.

          1. I don’t see any endorsement or advocacy there, just a guess that I’m not the only one in my position, but OK. I’m working from an anecdotal sample size of one, I admit.

            1. And that’s the problem – you could be alone, or there could be a preference cascade waiting to happen.

            2. In case it helps I can categorically state that you are not the only person in the corporate world in that position. I was there too, in the cloth-covered 8’x8′ cubicals of Silicon Valley, for my entire 25+ year career, keeping my libertarian/non-Progressive views below the radar (mostly). By keeping my ears open I was able to easily identify the Progressive True Believers, and also find a scattering of like minded “in the closet cube” coworkers – really more than I would have suspected of the latter.

              The one thing that has always been amazing is the weight that is lifted when I’ve been RIF’ed – It’s like what I imagine it felt like being recalled from a deep-cover op in Nazi Germany or the Soviet bloc, dropping the requirement to carefully maintain my cover and watch everything I say. Almost a positive tradeoff for the economic hit.

              My current gig is not in cubical-land – I work from home most days – so the deep-cover experience is much reduced, and I definitely notice the difference.

              1. The nice thing about drawing a trendline through a single data point is that you can make it go wherever you’d like.

          2. Then why did you explicitly declare that you doubted you were alone?

            Because separating yourself from a distasteful thing is a standard mechanism for dealing with it– I do it all the time when I’m cleaning up some gross mess the kids made, or something worse.
            Because on honest evaluation, the thing which would bring punishment is not the bad they insist– that indicates that the psychological wall is functioning as it’s supposed to, preventing damage.

    2. Trust me, after a while it eats you — or it did me when I was in the political closet.
      The other thing is it’s worse for writers. They also read your stuff for “signs” and you’re supposed to be public (publicize) and keep the mask on.

      1. I think you’re correct that it’s worse for writers. Your private mind and opinions are deemed proper fodder for scrutiny in a way mine are not, so I don’t have it eating at me as much.

        But as for how long to endure it, well, I think I’m older than you — 51 — so I’ve been doing it a long time.

        There *are* things about working in the corporate world that drive me absolutely crazy, but I’m a very private person by nature, so keeping quiet about my political, religious and social positions isn’t extremely hard for me. I’m not the sort that often feels the need to share (and when I do, I do it here, on the internet, in relative anonymity, where no one knows that I’m actually a five-year-old cocker spaniel.)

        1. Oh, another difference, in writing, by the time I came along they expected your work and your public appearances to publicly support the party line, not just not comment on it.

        2. on the internet, in relative anonymity, where no one knows that I’m actually a five-year-old cocker spaniel.

          That’s funny, on the internet I’m a seven-year-old mini Aussie…

                    1. So — there’s something interesting in the kegs?

                      Hm. Two possibilities: Nuclear waste or the really good beer stash.

                      Hm. What’re the chances Jeff would risk somebody sticking more beer down here next to nuclear waste…


                    2. Err, no. Those are the dreaded matryoshka kegs, a transdimensional convergent series of kegs form a recursive loop as each keg is bigger inside than out and can trap a person for all time (or, at least, until closing time when all patrons are wrung out.)

                      Believe me on this: You. Don’t. Want. To. Go. There.

                    3. Let me explain why I don’t homebrew: If I were to homebrew I would wind up building a fancy pumpdown/bottling rig. Me being me, I would slap radiological warning stickers all over it (see my gravitar). The neighbors would call Homeland Security. Me being me, I would smart off to Homeland Security. Homeland Security would throw me in GITMO. I don’t want to go to GITMO, so I don’t homebrew.

                      I have no problem keeping the good beer next to the radioactive waste. In fact, it serves to discourage gerfingerpoken und mittengraben.

      2. I have to add an addendum. For part of my career, I worked at a company that started doing stuff that was actually evil. Not little evil, either. I’m not talking about cooking the books. I’m talking about providing material aid to brutal, repressive governments that allowed them to better persecute their citizens. That was hard. It was a good day when I left that place, but while I was there, I actually actively undermined them at every opportunity (and I had a lot of opportunities).

            1. Maybe.
              Is it for Boers in South Africa, Japanese in America, or undesirables in Germany?
              If the first, equivalent. If the second, direct mail is definitely more evil–which wouldn’t be difficult. If the third, definitely less evil–which wouldn’t be difficult.

    3. One thing that tends to happen in ideologically conformist circles is a lot of humor- platitudes said ironically, boundaries pushed to the limit, all the rest. Over time, when Ideology is valued over truth, you find that it rots from within, while all the leaders can do is slap new plaster and paint over the obvious spots. Had the Nazis survived WW2 over the Communist, we still would have seen a similar rot and eventual collapse.

    4. I find that putting most of it in the category of “manners” works best– same way that “good morning” has no relation to reality.

      This does remove the meaning from it, though– just like I wouldn’t argue that someone couldn’t possibly be having a bad day, because they’d said “good morning” to me.

      This may be a weakness to the nasties theory; they don’t get agreement, they just get the appearance of it, and that means disagreement blindsides them. Explains some of the nasty over-reactions.

  6. What would she do if someone said “Okay: I’ll read Sarah Hoyt.,” People like this can be so much fun.

    1. Yeah, but Sarah’s just a token Republican woman and a WASP based on her surname. /heavy sarc

    2. Eh, we could recommend a whole pile of Huns of the feminine variety. Plus any Hun with some other sanctioning distinction.

      1. come to think of that: I’m a POC!

        No, not because of my Mi’kmaq ancestors; I’m not Fauxcahontas. Nor because I can trace my ancestry to one Juan of Aragon. (One of the first settlers of Quebec was descended from him.)

        No, because I am more than half Irish! Irish have been denied naturalization in this country because it required a “free white person.”

        Or because I’m one-eight Italian and that makes me a octaroon; it’s an official ruling of court that being Italian doesn’t mean you’re white.

  7. This is tangent to my observation that the Left has essentially abandoned ideology in the sense of ideas. Instead, its become a contest to collect the “correct” list of people to hate.

      1. Well, duh, the Revolution always ends by eating its children like Saturn. Now, if we could only get them to get the order straight. . . .

  8. You know what’s really hilarious: one of the few authors who fits all of Princess Tempest’s criteria is . . . Requires Hate.

    1. Eh, who else? Not surprising that someone who gets many Victimhood halos will fit Victimhood criteria.

  9. I watched her before she blocked me on Facebook for telling her she was fracking nuts, attacking a poster simply because he wore a hat in his picture.


    Did she join in with that Saint Travon junk where it was a horrible sin to consider “that guy is wearing an outfit in an identity concealing way” in conjunction with other behavior to draw a conclusion?

    That comes to my mind because it cracked me up; I wear my hoodie all the time– it’s got a giant, highly reflective Navy emblem on it, because it’s PT gear, and I like to take walks where I don’t want to be hit by cars. Never been given trouble… but I was also taught by a couple of relatives how to not give a false positive on the “shoplifter” scale, without having to change my preferred method of “walk six miles inside of the store, thinking.”

    1. no, she was attacking a Baen Barfly for wearing a hat. Wearing a hat meant he’s a “game” proponent. My son has worn a Fedora in Winter (and sometimes in summer) since 13. He’s not a “game” proponent. But these people ALWAYS tell us what our attire and positions mean. If they odn’t fight strawmen they have no case.

      1. I told my 68 year-old dad his choice of head-wear marked him as either an MR follower or a “player.”

        He was not affected.

        I would giggle uncontrollably if we convinced everyone at a con (say — Dragoncon for the compounding factor) to wear fedoras.

        “Take Back the HAT!”

        And, yes, I’m in an odd mood today.

        1. I’ve had this argumentum ad petasum used on me every now and then. Usually followed up with the malefactor goysplaining to me that she has nothing against hareidi Jews and is not antisemitic at all. 😈

        2. Or GenCon, or LibertyCon… I’m more of a floppy round brim with one side pinned up guy myself (also known to philistines as a “boonie”). But I *do* have a fedora willed to me by my grandfather that I’d wear with pride, extra points if it made some stuffy know-it-all turn all red-faced and apocalyptic. Or apoplectic, if ye prefer. *chuckle*

              1. Different strokes for different folks. Personally, I’m dreading spring, because I’ll have to mow my beard.

            1. Nowhere near what I once had. Started out with hair enough for three people, so now it’s just about normal.

          1. Or you wear glasses and it’s raining but not quite so much you want to bother with an umbrella… or you are in desert during the day and don’t want to get a sunstroke or burn your ears… or etc?

        1. Wow, me too. I’ve worn a fedora almost every day since I was a young man. I have some very nice ones. It never occured to me that that automatically enrolled me into some club or secret organization.

          Gee, I sure hope I wasn’t supposed to be paying dues all this time.

        2. I can one up (or down?) all y’all. Not only do I wear Akubra hats most of the year, but yesterday and today I wore *gasp* fur hats! That look like fur! Beaver yesterday AM and rabbit-fur lined today. Because it was flippin’ cold and I’ve frost-nipped my ears once. Not doin’ it again. Oh, and I carried a vintage/antique fur muff (probably fox) and fur collar/tippet (raccoon? coyote?) to a concert Friday night because ditto. Mwah hah hah!

          1. If your fur hat has the Soviet red star emblem pinned on, it’s OK even in Berkeley.

            Though lately it’s been in the 80s here, so even UC Berkeley hasn’t seen any Red Army issue fur hats.

            1. No, alas the Russian mystery fur (don’t ask, don’t tell) hat suffered a fatal fur failure and was retired with full honors (i.e. took off the insignia and sailed it into the dumpster, in a brown paper bag so no one would call the SPCA about a pet being dumped. Yes, nosey neighbors.)

              1. A LOT of Russian mystery fur comes from trappers in the US and Canada. I have a friend who is a trapper and he attends the auctions in Canada every year. He told me most furs are bought by Russian and now Chinese buyers.

                1. Given the age and provenance of this hat, I suspect it may have been dog. But it was warm, and it led to some great conversations with guys who had been on embassy duty behind the Iron Curtain. 🙂

      2. Get more coffee. 😀 I figured it was a “game” thing, but playing the odds, she’s been outraged about “that poor boy who was shot for wearing a hoodie and having skittles.”

          1. “Zimmerman” doesn’t sound German here, it sounds Jewish… which suggests a rather ugly reaction to those folks when armed….. (A lot of German folks changed their names, or they were changed by the recorders.)

            I still am darkly amused by how that developed….

            Starts out with him being a “racist” guy who stalked the cute little kid of several years prior for walking to his dad’s house… then you find out he was a neighborhood watch, and the cute little kid in the picture was actually a 17 year old punk.
            So they switched to him being a trigger-happy wanna be cop who outweighed the “skinny” kid by 35 pounds.
            And then folks looked at obviously-plays-sports Martin, and looked at short-soft-and-round Zimmerman.

            And then people BESIDES the ones picked by the Martin family lawyer started talking, for those who would bother to listen, and it became obvious that the gun was just an equalizer when a young thug figured out that the guy who’d noticed his suspicious behavior was a really easy target…..

            Poor SOB’s life is ruined for daring to try to do the right thing, and then defending himself.

            1. Oh no, he isn’t Jewish or German. He is White-Hispanic, all the news networks say so. I don’t know what the hell White-Hispanic is but, apparently it is all kinds of evil.

              1. True, I forgot that step in the “evolution.”

                There’s three ways to take it… “Hispanic” is inferior to “black” as a racial credit, racial credits from fathers count for more than mothers, or Obama is supposed to be a white-black. (Black-white, maybe, by parents?)

                Well, and the obvious one, that it’s all justification for their own biases…..

                1. One of the defining characteristics of close air support is that you’re around afterwards to say “Man, that was close!”

  10. Here’s what you need to know about Tempest Bradford. She was on the Online Writer’s Workshop (formerly the Delrey Workshop) the same time as me and Jim Butcher and Elizabeth Bear. A search on her name just now at Amazon reveals a short in an anthology. No point in paying any attention to her.

    1. As someone pointed out at Larry’s, you don’t need to boycott her, because she’s barely written anything. She’s well-known not for her work, but beacause she promotes the right ideology.

      1. If’ she’s gonna claim critical credibility as a writer, it would behoove her to have actually — you know — WRITTEN something. She was a shit-flinger who alienated people back in the day. Good to see she hasn’t grown any in the interval.


        1. I read that Ms. Bradford supports herself, in part by, couch surfing off her well off friends? I can see doing that for a short time in response to an acute need. You got fired and have no savings, so until you can get a new job, or until you can get welfare, you rely on your friends. As a long term strategy it’s unsavory. I know how hard it is to find a job. But to leech off friends for the long term isn’t right.

            1. I’d think that they do it voluntarily. They know that she’s about as much of a victim as they are.

          1. I thought it was traditional for the nobility to go on “progress” and make their lessers put them up? She might be of a higher rank in the victim aristocracy than the people she had support her.

          2. I see. You are of the mindset that one should be responsible for one’s self – responsible for your own actions, responsible for your own bills, responsible for paying your own taxes, responsible for clothing, feeding, and sheltering yourself? Well, Daaahling, you obviously know nothing of what it is to be a person of suubstaahnce. Those are all concerns for little people. Now be a dear and fetch me another glass of the buubbly…

  11. The Communists invented The Party Line, that line which varies dramatically in length, direction, curvature, but mainly in gaps of logic (for its apparent lack). This is why they love it: its unpredictability. Followers WILL go wrong.

    I loved this comment to Tempest’s screed: ” lozette softcastlemccormick • a day ago
    I can’t feel good about reading Neil Gaiman because of who he’s married to. If that’s harsh then I guess I’m harsh. Ditto Professor Brian Cox, I can’t feel good about watching his programmes knowing who he’s married to. Is it bad to judge someone by the intimate company they keep? Probably. But hey ho.”

    Cloudbuster wrote, “I don’t know if this entirely true. It doesn’t feel like it is for me. I work in a high-tech, “diverse” corporate environment. I absolutely have to spout all the platitudes and, at the very least, keep silent about what I really believe, because were I to be completely honest, I’d no doubt be out of a job in short order.” That’s what they want us to think, or rather, to keep us quiet so we don’t know how many agree with us.

    1. “I can’t feel good about reading Neil Gaiman because of who he’s married to. If that’s harsh then I guess I’m harsh.”

      Doesn’t that equate to judging the poor man because of who he happens to love? I thought that was BAD BAD WRONG AND BAD.

      So confused, or I would be if I expected coherence from these people… 🙂

  12. Huh. *Limiting* your reading seems like a bad idea.

    I have a little teeny book blog, and the reason I started it in the first place was because there are all these fun reading challenges out there that book bloggers make up. It has been super-fun for me to pick out yummy challenges and expand my reading and discuss things with other book bloggers. I’ve hosted a couple myself even. They can be about anything, but I usually go for historical movements or geographical stuff. I’ll happily join a “reading in translation” challenge or whatever; I have a ton of fun with that.

    But they’re all focused on expanding reading, not limiting it. I may plan to read 10 books of Russian literature and 10 dealing with the Arthurian legends and 6 from the Harlem Renaissance in a year, but that menu leaves plenty of space to read whatever else I want or that catches my fancy. It’s always about finding more to read, not less.

    (By the way, Diana Wynne Jones March starts next week, if anyone wants to join…it’s my favorite month! It’s not my event though–I’m just a supporter. Look for DWJ March.)

      1. First encountered DWJ in a collection of short stories by various authors that The Daughter took out of the public library. It wa set in the Chrestomanci world, a story about someone’s 100th dream. The Daughter shared it. As a result we started actively seeking out her books.

        Archer’s Goon is a particular family favorite.

      2. Oddly Diana Wynne Jones Door into Fire was my introduction to gay characters. She did a nice job and didn’t put me off of the concept with her book.

            1. She originally came out with these two fantasy books (Door into Fire, and Door into Shadow) during the late 1970’s/early 1980’s, basically appealing to Star Trek slash fans. (Except she was already Diane Duane, so a lot of sense of wonder and real humans, not just silly slash.) Also features a well-executed fantasy religion, even if the actual theological concept is “Your god will sleep with you at least once in your life.” Also “Lots of people in this fantasy world are gay, so everybody has to do their duty and reproduce at least once or twice.”

              So yeah, parts are readable and fun if you don’t think about it too hard, parts are ludicrous, and parts are some of the best work she’s done.

              The series has progressed a bit further since the 1980’s. (Door into Sunset, 1992) No news on when it will be finished.

    1. Ha! I got TWO new books just Saturday! “Economic Science and the Austrian Method” (Hoppe) and “Austrian Economics – a Primer” (Butler)
      After seeing the bill (translated from Pounds Sterling to Dollars worthless) I don’t understand how people in GB can afford to read! And I heard that there’s a new author out there who writes some pretty good stuff… someone named “Hoyt”? Hummm… hope she’s not a Brit! ;-D

    2. focusing it can be wise for a writer. Read novels that require techniques you are weak in. Read non-fiction you need for research.

      Also, of course, to block out writing time.

  13. This looks to be fun… I’m going to have to go read the screed and Correia’s response.

    Who knows? I might even start a thread over at Amazon asking if they should pull books written by white men.

    1. Please don’t. One of the put downs for Amazon by SJWs is that they don’t keep “racists” like Vox and Larry from selling there.

      1. We should encourage the SJWs to boycott Amazon until it includes Author Identification Badges for all writers. They could use a red star for Communists, a blue star for white cismales, a gold star for writers who sorta sound Jewish, a pink triangle for gay fiction, a grey triangle for depressing fiction, a green triangle for environmentally sustainable fiction and some as yet unidetified symbol for LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM* fiction.


  14. There are insufficient face palms for such people… I also wonder how she knew or if she made assumptions based on names, which in the US mean next to nothing when it comes to ethnicity. Black guy named John Smith? Probably a noticeable percent of the John Smith society. White guy named Chen? sure. Is Robbie Robert or Roberta? Spanish name name? Could be just about anything. Middle eastern name? Obviously a non-christian author… what about the Coptic church in Egypt? I don’t know of any readily available place to cross check every, single author. Especially not in something like a magazine where you may or may not have a complete list of stories from the word go.

    On a side note, does she have any idea the kinds of puns she has invited writing under that name? It may be a randomly tickled side thought, but perhaps she chose it specifically because she intended ‘temper tantrum marketing’?

    1. Middle eastern name? Obviously a non-christian author… what about the Coptic church in Egypt?

      Decent number of Christian refugees, too, or girls who get over here and when they can’t be killed for leaving Islam, convert to something else.

      Dang it, now I’m tempted to collect a list of the number of saints that were named for pagan gods…. part of why I’m not is because I have no idea if the dozen or so variations of “Apollo” should count as just one or individually…..

      1. If you’re counting saints, it counts for each saint. If you’re counting saint names it only counts once. Or at least that seems the most reasonable.

        1. It would be, if there wasn’t an additional problem of having to read the entire bio to make sure that variations on the name weren’t translation based— like how “John” has a gazillion variations. (Ivan, Giovanni, Ioannes, Juan…..)
          And that’s before the “helpful” translations between mythologies, like “Thor” to “Zeus.” (Both use thunderbolts.)

    2. In college I had a classmate named “Deliah Marchosky”. I have no idea how the school classified her, but she was from Panama and looked the part.

  15. Politics is not an instrument of salvation, and you’re not required to wear sackcloth and ashes in front of anyone just because they shriek.

    I just wanted to repeat that.

    May need to talk to Wayne about a bumper-sticker…

  16. I had not set out to deliberately do so. It just happened, without a reading plan. There was a year in which, looking back, I realized that I, in my free reading, had chosen only books by female authors. I believe that may have been the year I discovered Ellis Peters’ Brother Cadfael mysteries…

    I would never commit to doing something like that on purpose. Now a year of Human Wave stories and histories of the American founding era I might consider. 😉

    1. I think I read several of Ellis Peter’s books before I realized that she was female. (Cue concern troll about her writing under a male name.) I didn’t even think about it one way or another until I found I enjoyed the Cadfael books enough to go looking for more.

      1. When I read I am interested in the content of the book. I don’t care about the plumbing of the author.

        1. Frequently I don’t care about the plumbing of the characters until it matters to the story…

          1. Oh, now you’ve done it. Plumbing mysteries, sexual innuendo without the sex, gender indeterminate names… *cackle* Awful enough to be SJW fodder, wicked enough to weaponize the puns. Horrible.

            Plot bunnies! Free to good head! Satisfy that itch for wicked punnage!

            1. I eschew authors who piss away my time and money, so plumbing mysteries seem unpromising to me. Besides: butt crack.

        2. … or the tint of their wrapping

          …or where they or their ancestor may or may not have lived

          … or what plumbing they like to… Oh really, never mind!

          To quote another poster from a previous ATH blog:
          I wistfully wait for the day when people’s private like once again are just that — private.

          1. BADTHINK! BADTHINK! Heathen! Report to the re-education camp immediately! What is wrong with you people? Won’t you think of the childrenz?

          2. “I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.”

            1. “I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.”

              Bu would the chickens share your dreams? Or would they not mind the questions as long as the ground is covered with succulent insects and greens? Careful that your aspirations not be unharmonious with the desires of the intended beneficiaries, lest you end up replacing their current repression with yours. (My chickens do love themselves some good bugs!)

              1. But it’s for their own good.

                In a totally different way than the “for their own good” of the ones asking why they’re crossing the road, and they should want it, or they’re shirking responsibility. And when they’re giving what they’re supposed to want, the only agreements they won’t be allowed to make are the ones they shouldn’t want to make……

      2. Loved the PBS version of her stuff, found it at my first duty station, was halfway through the series before one of the books was new enough to have a picture of the author inside of the cover. 😀

      1. Pish-tosh. Writing under a woman’s name is an old trick. Everybody knows that Jane Austen was a man, “a huge Yorkshireman with a beard like a rhododendron bush”

  17. Maybe you guys should prevail on Baen to put out a new edition of Poul Anderson’s “Orion Shall Rise.” I and re-reading it again after over 15 years and I think it would make every SJW head explode permanently. He shows no mercy to leftists and enviro watermelons……..

    1. And that’s the continuity in which a Maori-Polynesian culture rises to dominate the Earth after an atomic war; later on, it gets overthrown and survives as a culture of sublight interstellar traders. Poul Anderson, of course, had lots and lots and lots of cultures in his science fiction way back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but he’s a Dead White Male, so who cares? Remember, it’s the color of your skin, not the content of your character. According to Princess Tempest, anyway.

      1. Hotel doorman wandering through the lobby: “Call for Cthulhu – Phone Call for Cthulhu…”

        1. My first exposure to the Mythos was the Real Ghostbuster’s episode “The Collect Call of Cthulhu”. Mind you, I only realized it years later.

  18. I will admit I only got about 1/3 through Larry’s fisking when I realized he was trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed Princess Tempest.

    On to the practical problems; If a book has two authors and only one is a straight white male is it OK to read? How about gay white males? How do I tell they are gay?
    What about white transgendered that were born women and have now switched sexes to the dread white male? Is Bruce Jenner OK now that he has decided to be a woman? Asians… Most of the time, progressives consider them the same as white. Are Asian male authors also banned? Can Amazon start having little check boxes on the ‘refine search by’ for different races and genders? If I accidentally buy a straight white male’s book, do I have to burn it? Is the Bible OK? Can I buy anthologies as long as I only read the stories by the approved sex/race?

    Frankly, as a reader, I have enough trouble finding something to read that is good, without having to also determine if the author fits the approved category. Perhaps all books can be given a color code so we can know which are ‘proper’? It would save a lot of my time by being able to eliminate any ‘approved’ writing immediately.

    And yes, any woman in a Muslim country is probably a far greater ‘victim’ than a well off white chick (and I use that noun as in bird-brained), even the RAGEQUIT ones. By the way, what happened to the need for civility? Isn’t rage a lot like hate? Isn’t this bad?

      1. Sad part is, the SJWs would support that.

        Also, the spellchecker here recognizes “SJW”.

    1. Now you’re trying to put cover artists out of business…

      Think of it. The color code has to be *complete* – so you can find the author that is (hormonally only) transitioning from male to female, but is seeking their real “gender identity”; is the child of a White Atheist and a Black Baptist, but was raised by a lesbian couple of which one was a Thai Muslim and the other one a Vietnamese Hindu, who were formerly in a “reversion Mormon” polygamous marriage, etc., etc., etc.

      OTOH, maybe it’s not such a bad idea – think of the money I could make patenting the “app for that” to interpret book covers…

    2. Oh, it’s really simple.

      If the author’s commercially popular, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the publishing house does print runs of 50k or more on the volume, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the book is in a second (or subsequent) printing, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the author’s name is one you don’t feel uncomfortable looking at, you aren’t supposed to read the book.

      If the author’s name is recognizably of European, American or Canadian extraction (or doesn’t have characters not normally used in a US keyboard) you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the book isn’t translated from another language, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the book is in a genre you like, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If you do a search on the author’s name and find they’ve been in the Western Hemisphere at any time in the last 20 years, you’re not supposed to read the book.

      If the author is female and at any point in their lives, married or cohabitated or slept with or dated or even so much as talked in a civil fashion with someone of the opposite gender, they’re a supporter of the patriarchy and you’re not supposed to read the book.

      Hope this helps!

  19. “If a book has two authors and only one is a straight white male is it OK to read? ”

    You need to restrict youself to every other word.

    I recently reread all the books in the Belgariad world by David and Leigh Eddings. I have a much greater understanding of the Mrin Codex after using this method.

    1. <snort>

      That used to be my favorite series. Now I’m not so sure. Only Garion ever changes. It makes sense – everyone else is basically a prop provided by prophecy to help him – but it gets annoying after 10 books and a re-read or two.

      Pam Uphoff does a much better job with her archetype gods.

  20. I waded into the fray over there, kept it clean, in their defense they didn’t delete me for being all RAAAAACIST like.

    I keep hitting this: “You can’t be racist against the group that has all the institutional power. Racism against white people is not a thing, because racism is based on institutionalized and societal power.”

    In fairness that wasn’t Princess Teacup, that was some white spinner chick named “Curvily NYC”. A few people have said that though.

    I think the point is these CHILDREN can’t make the distinction that arbitrarily dumping individual humans into convenient groups and then mistreating one set of them because “reasonz” is inherently evil in and of itself. The makeup of the group to be discriminated against is irrelevant. That there even is a group is the issue.

    Some of them seem more determined to cling to their stupid than others. This “Curvily NYC” bimbo is hanging on to the bitter end. Probably got a Masters in Stupid Studies from NYU.

      1. Yeah, but that’s the wrong approach. Power is fluid. Racism is bigotry based upon racial or perceived racial characteristics and generally used to blame a group of people as the reason why the racist’s life sucks. You don’t have to have power to be racist, and if someone’s racist, powerless and suddenly gain power, the group they’ve been blaming for why their life sucks are going to be at risk.

    1. The makeup of the group to be discriminated against is irrelevant. That there even is a group is the issue.

      Can anyone recommend a good Social chiropractor? As an old phart, I’m getting mental whiplash from all this SJ stuff. When I was a kid, I watched the Selma riots (complete with dogs and fire hoses and army troops) on the toob news. Back then the blacks wanted to be treated as equal to whites. So society began to change as many people recognised the inherent justice in the principle of equality of all races. Now all of a sudden equality is NOT the goal, but supremacy.

      Getting old has one big advantage… us old pharts know that whatever happens, it won’t be too long until we’re outta here and the rest of you will have to live with the mess.

    2. I think the proper response to that is to say “If a person or group of people can hear that someone did something that the group dislikes, call for that person’s firing, and have that person fired and blacklisted for doing something that the group dislikes, it means that they are the ones in power. And by your own rules, if they are in power, then they are oppressors, not oppressed.”

      … only phrased more pithily.

      1. So like:

        “Dude said something you didn’t like and got canned for it. Stop pretending you’re not the ones in charge?”

    3. I keep hitting this: “You can’t be racist against the group that has all the institutional power. Racism against white people is not a thing, because racism is based on institutionalized and societal power.”

      It’s a standard lie used to justify racism against one group or another, and, I suspect, to make it easier for members of an “oppressed” group to express bigotry and become racist. It sounds a bit corrupting: Being told that ones racially-bigoted words aren’t really racist so it’s okay…

      1. By that argument the anti-Zionism movement is merely a way to express their hatred of Jooooos while imagining they are standing up for oppressed peeples.

        Leave us ignore that the oppressors of the “Palestinians” are their corrupt “leadership,” their fellow Arab states who prefer keeping them in concentration camps over providing succor, and the UN which enables their oppression. All the Israelis do to oppress that rabble is refuse to permit the mass execution of every Jew in the Middle East. The rat bastards — it is proof of their selfishness.

  21. All this just reminds me of how much I need to get a whole bunch of recoil therapy in come the weather for it.

    1. Dude, you’re killing me! Its freakin’ -2F outside right now, and I’m aching for some recoil therapy. I want to make little bitty holes in papers that are really far away, and I want to do it NOW. But its -so- freakin’ cold.

      1. If you have some old jeans, free hanging denim makes a nice pellet trap. No recoil, but better than nothing.

      2. Err… I know it probably won’t be as far away… but you have heard of INDOOR ranges right?

        1. No wind indoors, and besides, this is Canada. I probably have to drive an hour and a half to shoot a pellet gun indoors around here, and the range fee will be apocalyptic. Because its hard to get genuine unicorn hide for the backstop these days, know what I mean? Plain old normal backstops don’t meet the regulations.

          Indeed, I may be forced to go to Arizona. Hmmmm….

          1. Well, if you want to keep the weather, just slide across the border to ND or MT. We don’t have as many of those pesky regulations, and the cold will remind you of home.

            1. When I first read M. K. Wren’s Phoenix trilogy, I had no idea about the author’s sex at all. I DID sort of suspect the author might be a female from the slightly-more-than-cursory description given to the various character’s dress, when the machinations of the plot required it … but the plot was so otherwise wrapped in tech, psychology, and grand dynastic themes, that the writer might just as well have been male.

      3. NO KIDDING! I built a new one 2 weeks ago and still haven’t been able get out to the range. And I wouldn’t be able to fire it at the indoor range even if the owner wasn’t a complete a**hat.

  22. Incidentally Sarah, your quote from Theodore Dalrymple is extremely well taken and has the clear, bell-like ring of Platonic Truth about it. Not the shadow on the wall, but the very Thing Itself.

    Because clearly Princess Teacup carefully arranged this farcical blog post of hers for maximum piss-off-itude. The twits defending her don’t even understand the basic issues at play, and Princess herself appears only to throw more and more gasoline on the fire. As propaganda goes, this was a successful gambit.

    But if I have to live in a world where slavish adherence to crap like this is the price of survival, I’m gonna die. They won’t have time to grind me down. My Tourette’s-like compulsion to blurt things out will for sure get me killed the first week.

    1. Alas, I’ll be dead right beside ya. Some folks I know have forbidden me to listen to the news at work. I’m allergic, apparently. And the sneezes come at predictable times, like when I hear “Bullsh!t!”

  23. I don’t know, I think the Princess Tantrum makes a good point. So here is my schedule for the next decade.

    2015: Only read books by natural redheads.
    2016: Only read books by authors born on February 29th.
    2017: Only read books by authors who are left-handed. I can read short stories written by the ambidextrous.
    2018: Only read books by authors with AB negative blood type.
    2019: Only read books by authors who are Capricorns, born in the year of the Rat.
    2020: Only read books by authors who have seen a performance of Love’s Labour’s Won.
    2021: Only read books written in Sindarin.
    2022: Only read books written by authors who have walked on the moon.
    2023: Only read books written by authors who can answer my questions three.
    2024: Only read books written by non human authors. And they have to prove they aren’t human. No “I identify as a Klingon” nonsense.

    1. 2024: Only read books written by non human authors. And they have to prove they aren’t human. No “I identify as a Klingon” nonsense.

      Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ladies and gentleman, she has just exercised her cis-human privilege. We must all now stand against her!!

    2. 2024: Only read books written by non human authors. And they have to prove they aren’t human. No “I identify as a Klingon” nonsense.

      Is the testimony of one’s enemies considered sufficient?

    3. I’m left handed and have AB negative blood type. Maybe I should start writing a bit faster so that you’ll have enough books for two years when we get there. 😀

  24. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. — Theodore Dalrymple

    This goes a long way towards explaining why the global warming scam still trundles along, despite all physical evidence to the contrary.

  25. Without researching the author how do you decide who’s who? Authors use pseudonyms all the time. Race can be rather hard to determine, even from a photo. I’ve got an aunt that is as dark complected as Princess Tempest (without tanning) and she’s straight up German-Russian. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to spend that much energy looking for an author of the appropriate checkboxes.

    1. I know somebody who could be her sister when she is tanned (rather pale otherwise). Princess doesn’t seem all that dark, and the facial features aren’t any different than plenty enough pure Europeans have. Hell, with a fake tan I wouldn’t look all that different (very pale and don’t tan so it would have to be fake). And as I have told, my mother looked as if she was about half Mongol or something (wasn’t).

    2. Husband’s Italian, and not even the strain that maybe had some trading relatives to the south, from the look of him.

      I’ve got some Indian blood, but otherwise a mix of the UK.

      My babies have all been born darker than I am, even after I spent a summer trying to get sun without burning…..

      Yeah, their idea of “white” is not much related to reality.

  26. …she’s trying to ride her non existent victimhood pony to glory.

    Thing is, people with actual talent (and not all that much talent is required — simply showing up and finishing what you start can suffice) can reach glory often enough.

    It is the literary equivalent of those dweebs who invest far more effort in stealing property than would be required to earn it honestly.

  27. BTW — here’s my challenge for y’all: spend the next year reading only books that were written (or will be written — let’s not be chronothoritarian) by elephants. Act now to end speciesism by challenging the hegemony of human authors.

    On the plus side of that, elephant authors are predominantly female, thus covering two bingo squares with one choice!

      1. That would be the aggressive ‘Roo conspiracy to steal the elephantness of elephantine authoresses. As we all know, the “one drop of blood” rule has returned (except if your last name is Zimmerman) and is now the overriding determinant of correctness. This obviously applies to these cross-species works as well, so these phantiroo (kangaphant? elekang?) works are to be shunned, especially if they are any good.

        1. Now, now, now. Once it has been decided that you qualify as a suppressor or tool thereof it matters not who or how close the non-privileged progenitor may be. That can only count in your favor once you have repented of your evil ways and joined in the denouncing of the evils dujour.

  28. I realize he was a white male, but has anybody (else) here Koestler’s Darkness at Noon? Expands upon Sarah’s thesis admirably.

      1. No, it was about the Moscow Show Trials.

        Do not read just before bed or when you are feeling depressed.

  29. I found this in _Washington’s Crossing_, 1994 (Pulitzer prize in history) in the chapter “Historiography”, pp 453-454. David Hackett Fischer is talking about historians, but I think you’ll see how it applies:

    “A conservative revival followed, in which Republicans moved to the right, liberal Democrats shifted toward the center, and many on the left sought sanctuary in American universities as internal exiles from a society that turned away from them.

    “In the 1980s some of these internal exiles rejected all politics. Others increasingly called themselves American Marxists and predicted the coming collapse of capitalism. Then came the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union instead, and the failure of Marxism throughout the world. It was a double disaster for the American left. The result was an angry generation of academic iconoclasts, disillusioned by the failure of radical movements, alienated from American institutions, and filled with cultural despair. When the light of their revolution failed, some of them could see nothing but darkness.

    “More than a few became historians. Some ex-Marxists became historical relativists who beat their dialectical swords into epistemological ploughshares, and rejected ideals of objective and empirical inquiry. They judged other works mainly by ideological standards of political incorrectness such as racism, sexism, and elitism. Any work with a positive tone about the United States was condemned as “triumphalism.” Their writings expressed intense hostility to American institutions and alienation from the main lines of American history.”

    I think that’s a pretty solid summary of SJWs.

  30. The sad thing is that Tempest is a good old-fashioned English Catholic recusant name, and the family was full of prisoners and martyrs and people who suffered for their belief.

    Given her age, it could be a maiden name, a family given name, or a mother who watched soap operas name.

  31. Somehow, I’m reminded of Don D’Ammassa’s “Orwell’s Other Nightmare”, from Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May, 1996:

    It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Marlboro Smith surveyed his desk with satisfaction. The monthly reports were done and he’d responded to all recent requests under the Public Accountability Act. His workload was current once more.

    Smith enjoyed being a public employee, even though he knew he should be ashamed of that fact.

    He carefully assumed a pained expression and turned towards the omnipresent Public Oversight camera. It was mounted to look over his shoulder so that it could record exactly what Marlboro wrote, read, or filed away. The placard beneath the lens warned:


    Smith sensed someone standing just outside his office. There was no door; no government official had worked behind a closed door since the Government Scrutiny Amendment’s ratification.


    “I reviewed your present and prior performance. You were demoted after several warnings about a high intrusiveness rating, and one violation of the Limited Implementation law.”

    “I was just trying to help!” Smith responded emotionally. “There were conflicting rules and the state agencies kept contradicting each other. The disaster victims needed assistance and invoking federal jurisdiction was the only solution.”

    “So you concluded that a government official had the right to determine the future of American citizens?”

    “Not exactly. I was trying to fulfill their requirements of the government.”


    “You feel justified then?”

    “Yes.” Smith froze, realizing that he’d just indicted himself.

    O’Brien smiled. “Bureaucrat Smith, you have just admitted believing that official action can have positive results rather than being a necessary evil. I will therefore recommend your immediate suspension pending mandatory attitude adjustment therapy.”

  32. As Sarah mentions, a lot of the SJWs are in the academic or grant-supported wing of SF and fantasy. In those worlds, sales and popularity don’t matter. What does matter is having the correct ideas, getting good reviews from important reviewers (who have the correct ideas), and enforcing the correct ideas.

    Quality and success in your fiction is actually a handicap. No university will give tenure to a best-selling author. Even a minor author in a popular field is suspect.

    So for the academic SF/fantasy writers, the goal is to destroy SF and fantasy as successful genres. Do to them what the academy has already done to poetry, jazz and classical music, and the writing of plays. All those fields are now of interest only to other academics.

    In short, the SJWs are deliberately trying to make SF and fantasy unreadable in order to benefit themselves. They are selfish, destructive, hypocritical and dishonest.

  33. Reblogged this on Tech-Horizon and commented:
    For some reason people continue to think they can trade freedom for security. Never seems to work out for them. Must seem so relaxing at first, no need to think for yourself. All you need to do is parrot back what you are told to say. And if it gets a little rough on you, well that was your fault and beating was for your own good. Thank you for illuminating this fallacy. It should have a spotlight on it 24/7. Now if only people would quit closing their eyes to reality.

  34. Golly. It has probably never crossed the ‘mind’ of this scrunt that almost everything she uses every day was invented by a, GASP, white male. And probably straight as well. Telephone? Check. Auto? Check. Dishwasher? Check. Computer? Oh VERY Check. And on and on we go.

Comments are closed.