Why we need to replace Wikipedia

This technological innovator’s experience is far from the only one of its type, and demonstrates that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders Wikipedia unfit for purpose:

My primary reasons for writing this article are to record a bit of personal history, describe programming before the personal computer, and reminisce a bit. But I have another reason — some of my regular readers know there’s an article about me on Wikipedia, but that article is likely to be deleted (update: it’s gone — see below). The stated reason for deleting it is because it doesn’t have enough references for its claims — for example, that I wrote a solar system model that was used by JPL during the Viking lander mission. Wikipedia rightly requires documentation for any claims made in its articles, and until this article, the article you’re reading, that claim wasn’t documented. It is now, by this article and by its attached correspondence. Nevertheless, once I saw that the article was being considered for removal, I added my own vote in favor of deletion. Why? Because it had become a cheap sounding board for people annoyed at my positions on controversial topics, particularly psychology and stockbrokers.

That’s the real reason the self-appointed editors over at Wikipedia moved to delete the article (remember that anyone can sign up and edit Wikipedia articles). I’ve been tracking the article since it first appeared in 2006, and there have been any number of efforts to delete or destroy the article by people of varying levels of skill. One of the cleverer tactics has been to delete the list of references, wait 24 hours, then argue for the article’s deletion on the ground that the article’s claims have no references — that’s been tried several times.

What’s behind this? Why does anyone care so much about a short article that describes my activities? Well, I’ve noticed a correlation between my publishing something about psychology (I’m a critic of psychology’s theoretical basis and practice, example: The Trouble with Psychology) and a subsequent effort to delete the Wikipedia article. Apparently some psychologists or fans of psychology think it’s an appropriate response to criticism of their field — not to debate the issues honestly in public forums — but to try to remove any references to the critic.

The single best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. That’s also the single worst thing. It was my hope that a Wikipedia editor, one who doesn’t care that I’m a psychology critic, would add a footnote reference to this article’s documentation in the Wikipedia article, thereby removing an excuse to delete the article. That wouldn’t have solved the problem, because I plan to continue criticizing psychology, but it woiuld have made it harder to justify future attacks.

Update: Through a combination of my efforts and that of others, and since I couldn’t protect it from vandalism, the Wikipedia article has been deleted. During my research on this topic, I encountered this almost identical incident:

    Seth Finkelstein reported in an article in The Guardian on his efforts to remove his own biography page from Wikipedia, simply because it was subjected to defamation:

        “Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia’s content, the article’s existence seemed to me overall to be harmful rather than helpful. For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an “attractive nuisance”. It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: “Here’s an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won’t be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.”

    In the same article Finkelstein recounts how he voted his own biography as “not notable enough” in order to have it removed from Wikipedia.

As explained above, once I saw how often opponents of my views on psychology tried to rewrite or delete my Wikipedia article, I took the same action for the same reason. Those who want to read a short biographical note, one not subject to controversy or vandalism, may click here.

What does this mean about Wikipedia? It means that controversial issues and people won’t be described fairly, or sometimes at all. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it’s a people’s encyclopedia, not an ivory tower production. The problem with this egalitarian ideal is that special interests can, and do, struggle to see their particular outlook become the only outlook in the pages of Wikipedia. And, since my view of psychology is quickly becoming the majority view, psychologists found themselves unable to argue against that position using reason and fair tactics. So, just as when they chose to study psychology in college, they took the low road, the easy path — they resorted to gangster tactics.

We’re going to do this, the only questions are a) when, b) how much will it cost, and c) who is with me? I’ve had much the same experience. The three most notable and significant things I have done are completely absent from Wikipedia despite my being deemed notable by the editors and those three things being documented by reliable sources. And I’m far from alone in that.

There is no escape

It’s not possible to escape SJWs anymore. They are everywhere, in corporate America, in the universities, and on social media. Or perhaps I should say zhee are everywhere.

Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as “illegal alien,” “male,” and “female,” or if they fail to “defer” to non-white students.

According to the syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss’ “Women & Popular Culture” class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that Breikss considers “oppressive and hateful language.”

“Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”  

The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, Breikss warns, includes “but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.”

Breikss is not the only WSU faculty member implementing such policies.

Much like in Selena Breikss’s classroom, students taking Professor Rebecca Fowler’s “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course will see their grades suffer if they use the term “illegal alien” in their assigned writing.

According to her syllabus, students will lose one point every time they use the words “illegal alien” or “illegals” rather than the preferred terms of “‘undocumented’ migrants/immigrants/persons.” Throughout the course, Fowler says, students will “come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”

In the immortal words of USMC legend Chesty Puller, “All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us. They can’t get away this time.”

So lock and load, ladies and gentlemen. Lock and fucking load.

“one of the most important books you will read”

Chris Nuttall, an Amazon Top 100 author and contributor to Riding the Red Horse, reviews SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:

In the current climate this book may have a fair claim to being one of the most important books you will read. It is no surprise, therefore, that most of the one-star reviews on Amazon are insults directed at Vox Day personally, rather than the book itself. The unspoken intention is to mock the messenger, thus discrediting the message.

Read this book. You may hate it, but at least you will have the pleasure of knowing you made up your own mind.

One of the most heartbreaking stories to come out of the Soviet Union came from a man who’d been sentenced to the gulag (prison camp for dissidents); he asked himself, afterwards, why he hadn’t fought or run when the police came for him. He just sat in his house and awaited his fate. The answer, of course, is quite simple. The USSR was a prison camp above ground (and a mass grave below); the inmates – sorry, the population – were conditioned not to resist authority, even when authority was brutal, capricious, untrustworthy and quite thoroughly hypocritical.

Many people will say ‘it can’t happen here.’ But it can and it does.

Our society is under attack by Social Justice Warriors (or, as I prefer to think of them, Social Justice Bullies). They have, as Day points out, become the new thought police. Tell an off-colour joke? Lose your job, reputation and perhaps even your life. Disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy? Get harried into silence and then buried below a wave of focused scorn and contempt. Question the claims to victimhood of the aristocracy of victimhood? Get called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

I think Chris is correct to point out that the choice of the SJW used as the example demonstrating the Three Laws of SJW can be seen as a weakness, but the fact is that there is no other SJW whose lies I know as well, that I can refute in such documented detail, as those told by that particular SJW. It is precisely because I have been in direct conflict with the man for the 10 years since he started attacking me that I have so much information on hand about his lying, his doubling down, and his psychological projecting.

As for the other weakness Chris mentioned, which is to say that he wanted to go deeper into the belly of the beast, that is easily rectified. As I mentioned to Spacebunny this morning, I now know what will be my next book project after I complete A Sea of Skulls.

Professor Nick Flor of the University of New Mexico called it The Art of War for the Digital Media Generation and even provided a brief review in a series of tweets:

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Okay, so you can probably tell from my Kindle Tweets that I thought @VoxDay’s book “SJWs ALWAYS Lie” was superb. 5/5 stars

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFSJWinguts are EVERYWHERE—  @voxday’s book teaches you how to recognize & effectively neutralize them. Must read.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorF
Man it’s tough to do a 140-character review. The book is like the Art of War, except for the Digital Media Generation.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFI really enjoyed the GG chapter and I finally understand Literally Who, Literally Who 2, and Literally Wu.

Prof. Nick Flor ‏@ProfessorFHe does a great job of putting everything in context, and it really makes you feel good about everything #GamerGate has accomplished.

The sour grapes of Mensa

The Aesopean analogy doesn’t quite work, though, given that foxes are a symbol of intelligence. And it’s just so hard to maintain the pretense that you’re the smartest guy in the room when you didn’t even qualify for the high-IQ society with the lowest bar to membership. It doesn’t take a, well, a Mensa member, to figure out why Mensa is such a sore spot for McRapey.

    Pro tip: Bragging about your Mensa card as an actual adult signals that while you may be “smart,” you almost certainly are not wise.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) August 31, 2015

In the various recent kerfuffles surrounding science fiction and its awards, there have been a couple of people (and their spouses, declaiming about their beloved) who have been slapping down Mensa cards as proof that they (or their spouse) are smart. Let me just say this about that:

Oh, my sweet summer children. Just don’t.

If you want to be in Mensa, that’s fine. Everyone needs hobbies and associations, and if this is the direction you want to go with yours, then you do you. Not my flavor, but then, lots of hobbies and associations aren’t my flavor.

That said:

1. Literally no one outside of Mensa gives a shit about your Mensa card. No one is impressed that you belong to an organization that has among its membership people who believe that because they can ace a test, they are therefore broadly intellectually superior to everyone else.

2. Your Mensa membership does not imply or suggest that you are the smartest person in the room. Leaving aside the point that the intelligence that Mensa values is a narrow and specialized sort, a large number of people who can join Mensa, don’t, for various reasons, including the idea that belonging to a group that glories in its supposed intellectual superiority is more than vaguely obnoxious.

3. Your need to bring up the fact you have a Mensa card suggests nothing other than it’s really really really important to you for people to know you’re smart, and that you believe external accreditation of this supposed top-tier intelligence is more persuasive than, say, the establishment of your intelligence through your actions, demeanor, or personality. Which is to say: It shows you’re insecure.

4. Your Mensa card does not mean you know how to argue. Your Mensa card does not mean you do not make errors or lapses in judgment. Your Mensa card is not a “get out of jail free” card when someone pokes holes in your thesis. Your Mensa card does not mean that you can’t be racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted. You may not say “I have a Mensa card, therefore my logic is irrefutable.” Your Mensa card will not save you from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and if you think it will, then you are exactly who the Dunning-Kruger syndrome was meant to describe. You Mensa card will not keep you from being called out for acting stupidly, or doing stupid things.

See, you’re not supposed to brag about your Mensa-qualifying IQ and having one doesn’t mean you know how to argue. What you’re supposed to do is brag about your BACHELOR’S DEGREE in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago, which institution we are reliably informed does not hand them out like gumballs, and appeal to the authority of that degree whenever someone happens to observe your incompetence at constructing syllogisms and formulating sound arguments. Which, as it happens, is practically every single time McRapey attempts to construct an actual argument rather than simply posturing about his assertions.

As I noted back in 2013, McRapey hasn’t changed what passes for his debating technique since at least 2005.

  1. Make an obviously questionable assertion.
  2. When the assertion is questioned, appeal to bachelor’s degree.

  3. When the appeal to the bachelor’s degree is questioned, question the questioner’s intellect and/or good will.
  4. Avoid further questions.
  5. Posture as if one has thoroughly proved one’s point.

He even went so far as to claim that I had never bested him in any argument. “As for besting me in argument, well, no, not at any point I can remember.”

SJWs always lie.

Sure you don’t remember, Johnny. Read SJWs Always Lie, Amazon’s #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. It will serve to refresh your memory in brutal and well-documented detail, and it even contains a chapter devoted to rhetoric that you will find educational.

Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, McRapey is a walking, talking example of the syndrome in action, particularly when it comes to rhetoric. For all that he majored in something that could be considered akin to it if you squint hard enough, he clearly doesn’t know the first thing about it. The rhetorical device to which he habitually resorts is a sophistical and dialectically illegitimate one called “ambiguity”, not that he could correctly identify or name it despite his famous bachelor’s degree. But then, as we know, we shouldn’t be too harsh on him considering that he’s not even smart enough for Mensa. Aristotle had Scalzi’s kind pegged more than 2,000 years ago.

“Now for some people it is better worth while to seem to be wise,
than to be wise without seeming to be (for the art of the sophist is the
semblance of wisdom without the reality, and the sophist is one who
makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom); for them, then, it is
clearly essential also to seem to accomplish the task of a wise man
rather than to accomplish it without seeming to do so.”

As for me, I don’t brag about my Mensa membership. Why on Earth would I? The requirements for joining aren’t even within a standard deviation of my IQ or the three other residents of the Digital Ghetto back in the day. I joined Mensa after starting my WND column as an efficient and effective way to defang the inevitable “right-wing writer is stupid” disqualifications from the left. And that is precisely why some people on the right brandish it like a shield, because that is exactly what it is: a rhetorical shield that successfully blunts the left’s most frequently used rhetorical disqualification: “dey stupid, DISQUALIFY!”

And since we’re on the subject of SJWs lying, where, exactly, is the “bragging about your Mensa card” in Sarah’s post, to which, of course, McRapey does not link? Go ahead, see just how much importance she and her readers place on it and note the context in which it was mentioned.

But do tell us more about how it is actually membership in Mensa that is stupid and totally doesn’t matter and doesn’t mean that one is intelligent at all, Johnny. Let it all out. You’ll feel better after a good cry.

UPDATE: It turns out that Mr. “Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago” graduated with a 2.8 GPA. See, obviously he was one of the cool party guys… at the University of Chicago.

I was not hugely grade-intensive. I didn’t stress out: I had a 2.8 GPA…. I did well in the classes that I liked, and I did very poorly in the classes that I did not care about.

Apparently he didn’t care about his IQ test either, or he totally would have done well enough to qualify for Mensa.

Europe starts getting serious

As I expected, Europe will be addressing its Third World invasion before the USA dares to do anything about its own:

Austria has just made a new law: Muslim imams will no longer be able to conduct their sermons in Arabic, but in German; all Korans will now have to be written completely in German, and Muslim groups will no longer be able to accept foreign money.

The updated “Law on Islam,” which was prepared by the coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party, aims to regulate how Islam is managed inside the country, and includes provisions requiring imams to be able to speak German, standardizing the Quran in the German language, and banning Islamic organizations from receiving foreign funding.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan strongly criticized Austria on Feb. 28 for approving a controversial bill that revises the status of Muslims in the European country.

There is the fair warning. Unlike Americans, Europeans have never, ever, bought into the “melting pot” bullshit. And they are not going to permit their countries to be overrun, because also unlike Americans, the nation is the country.

No one ever cared

Unwitting testimonial evidence concerning Chapter Seven: What to do when SJWs attack at Sarah Hoyt’s place.

I can’t walk away anymore. I can’t stay on the sidelines anymore and pretend it doesn’t affect me.

Two reasons. First, thanks largely to you, Larry, Mad Mike, and Brad Torgersen, I’ve rediscovered great science fiction (mostly Baen authors, admittedly), and despite my best efforts, I seem to be turning into a science fiction author as well. I don’t want the Kickers to destroy the genre that I’m once again growing to love and am slowly becoming a part of

Second, and the main reason, is that I saw what the SJWs and CHORFs ad TruFans did to you and the rest of the Puppies. I was horrified and disgusted by their actions, but not in the least surprised. Because I’ve been there. It’s too long a story to post here, but back in college I found myself caught in the crosshairs of those so-called Right Thinking Moral Crusaders. I had my academic career, and very possibly my entire future put in jeopardy becausea small screaming minority of foaming at the mouth CHORFs took offense at something that was published in the student-run newspaper, of which I was one of the copy editors.

Nobody came to our defense. A few brave souls tried, only to abandon us when the Administration made clear that they would suffer the same extreme academic penalties that we were facing(read: loss of credits, possible suspension or expulsion) for doing so. The only reason they didn’t follow through with their threatened punishments was because the school’s lawyers pointed out that such actions would leave them wide open to a slew of bad publicity and – worse – a myriad of lawsuits.

I can’t do that. I can’t stand by and do nothing while the SJWs and CHORFs try to do the same thing to you.

What I’m trying to say is that I am with you. Through Sad Puppies 4
until the end, no matter how long that may be, I am with you. Come hell,
come high water, come an avalanche of sh*t flung by the Social Justice
Monkeys, I am with you, and I will do whatever I can to help the
puppies, though admittedly given my present situation that probably
won’t be much more than moral support and acting as a repeater on social
media. But win or lose, I’m with The Sad Puppies until the bitter end.

From Chapter 7: 1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

This indifference on the part of bystanders is one reason why the SJWs have methodically proceeded from one victory to the next despite their relatively small numbers. They take out one Narrative skeptic and silence 100 others who henceforth fear to express doubt, let alone denial, of the most shameless falsehoods. The reason that Roosh, Mike, Milo and me, to name four, enrage them so greatly is that they have been unable to discredit us despite their best efforts, and as a result, ever so slowly, dozens, scores, hundreds, now THOUSANDS of people are beginning to understand what has been taking place and why our society is where it is.

And they are not happy.

I’m not saying you should care about the SJW war on truth and Western civilization because then you will be a good person. I’m not saying you should stand up the SJWs because it is a moral imperative. I’m saying you should care and you should stand up to the SJWs in your own naked self-interest and in the interest of salvaging and maintaining as much of Western civilization as possible.

Do you think either the Bolsheviks or the Russian people they conquered had any idea that the Impossibility of Socialist Calculation was going to leave them condemned to poverty and economic stagnation? If not, then it should be possible for you to understand that neither the SJWs nor the average individual who sees no harm in them realizes that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders the SJWs a serious threat to the survival of Western civilization.

All of this stuff, from the universities to the churches to science fiction to games are the same evil, dyscivic, and dyscivilizational campaign. No aspect of it, however seemingly trivial, should be ignored.

The media wanted a race war

It looks like they’ve got a budding one on their hands:

Authorities have charged a 30-year-old man with capital murder, after they say he ambushed a Texas county sheriff’s deputy at a suburban Houston gas station in an attack motivated by “absolute madness.”

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman identified the man in a news conference Saturday afternoon as Shannon J. Miles, who is in police custody.

Miles — who has a criminal history that includes convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm — was arrested less than 24 hours after authorities said he ambushed Darren Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, at a suburban Houston Chevron station.

“I am proud of the men and women that have worked swiftly to apprehend the responsible person who posed a significant threat to both law enforcement and the community at large,” Hickman told reporters Saturday. “Our deputies return to the streets tonight to hold a delicate peace that was shattered last evening.”

Hickman said the motive for the killing had not been determined but investigators would look at whether Miles, who is black, was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the “Black Lives Matter” protest movement. Goforth was white.

Somehow, the news media doesn’t seem quite as enamored of how this race war is going as one would have expected considering all that they’ve done to bring it about. I guess they were expecting for white Republican suburbanites to be the targets rather than white reporters, white cameramen, and white cops.

Adventures in rhetoric

It’s intriguing to see how a simple mention of an easily verified observation brings, shall we say, the medicated, out of the woodwork:

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It’s impossible to balance constant SJW claims of “laughing” and “hilarity” with how many of them are on anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
well, the world’s a meritocracy, innit? We can’t all be as sane as you and the other WorldNetDaily writers.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
And here I thought you believed in equality, Popey. Are you “laughing so hard” all the time too?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Nah. Definitely sometimes though. Thanks!

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Are you trying to claim that people who need to take drugs to be mentally stable are more sane than those who don’t?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I would never throw shade at your mental stability Vox. How can a crazy person like me question someone so sane?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn’t answer the question. Are those who require drugs to be mentally stable more or less sane than those who don’t?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
Less, by most definitions. And that’s important. How can we aspire to your clarity of thought without getting sane first?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
By correctly applying sound logic to observed facts. Don’t you understand yet that your rhetorical antics accomplish nothing?

Popehat ‏@Popehat
How could they against an intellect like yours? I’m crazy, your sane. Let people value sanity accordingly.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
They would accomplish nothing against a stone  as well. You might as reasonably attempt to achieve your goals here by juggling.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
never! Juggling is part of the gutter culture of carnies and non-Europeans

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You’re doing a fine job of demonstrating the pointlessness of speaking dialectic to a rhetoric speaker. Please continue.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I’ll agree you’re operating on an entirely different plane than I am.

Vox Day ‏@voxday 
I’m delighted to hear we can reach an accord on something.

As predicted in SJWs Always Lie, speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric speaker is totally pointless. The information content is irrelevant. Popehat will continue in this vein, seeking to provoke an emotional response, or at least one that will permit him to play the victim, as long as he thinks there is a chance he can provoke something.

Another example. Notice how every comment is an attempt to provoke some kind of emotional reaction, combined with an amount of posturing.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It’s impossible to balance constant SJW
claims of “laughing” and “hilarity” with how many of them are on
anti-depressants and psychotropics.

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
That is not how depression works, T. Pratt.

Vox Day @voxday
Are you the expert, then, Feckless? How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
Oh, I do love when Ted “Theodore” Beale tweets me. How’s your dad doing?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You didn’t answer the question, Jeff. How many anti-depressants and psychotropics have you been on?

Jeff Fecke ‏@jkfecke
I am currently on fluoxetine. I have also used Lexapro.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject. In answer to your question, my father is very well. Got an email 2 days ago.

SJWs and parody

What is it with SJW parodies and long titles anyhow?

The Angel Vox Day and the War for the Heavenly Gamergate Puppies (Give Me a Hugo!): Chapter 1: The Wicked Victory of Shoeless John! (The Chronicles of … Angel Vox Day and His Flaming Sword!!!!!!)
by Tim Lieder

John Scalzi Is Not A Very Popular Author And I Myself Am Quite Popular: How SJWs Always Lie About Our Comparative Popularity Levels by Theophilus Pratt aka Rainbow Brite Boy

My favorite aspect of this is the way in which they’ve now roped in John Scalzi to read a parody that draws attention to the fact that he lies about his traffic and jokes about being a rapist. Nearly 30 pages of audio of Rapey McRaperson talking about himself? The Pink Rabbit Posse is practically beside itself with anticipation.

It’s also amusing how some SJWs are frantically insisting that they are totally LAUGHING and they find the whole thing HILARIOUS even as others talk about how depressed and upset and hurt they are. Remember, McRapey went with the whole “ha ha ha, this is SO ADORABLE” line for 26 months until he cracked and began angrily denouncing the “obvious lies” I was supposedly spreading about him.

SJWs always lie.

UPDATE: Apparently Peddy Phil didn’t read Chapter 10.

23m23 minutes ago

Vox’s claim that SJWs aren’t really laughing at him is shrill and desperate even by his standards:

The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it’s just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation.

Is it not fascinating how they repeatedly prove the truth of my words as they seek to undermine them?

Allan Davis reviews SJWAL

His article Counter-Attacking in the Cultural War is featured on Lew Rockwell today:

Last weekend, the SJWs who rule science fiction fandom were forced to retreat with a “scorched earth” tantrum, as they refused to award five of the sixteen Hugo categories–rather than see them presented to a winner not approved by the ruling faction.

Gamergate is a line in the sand, “this far, no farther.”  The Puppies demonstrate that SJWs can be beaten.  What the world needs now is a combat guide–a field manual exposing the SJWs and their tactics, and describing the most effective ways of fighting them, and beating them.

Vox Day has written that manual.

“SJWs Always Lie:  Taking Down the Thought Police” is a no-holds-barred depiction of the SJW “in the wild.”  It contains detailed information on the motivations and behavior of the SJW and, most importantly, how to fight back against them.

Vox, who was active in both the Gamergate and Puppies campaigns against the SJWs, lays out the full story of both fronts in the war against Political Correctness.  He details how his long-running feud with John Scalzi and his “purging” from the Science Fiction Writer’s Association helped him to formulate the Three Laws of the SJW:

    1. SJWs Always Lie
    2. SJWs Always Double Down
    3. SJWs Always Project

One of the things I’ve noticed in the Amazon reviews is that those readers who have themselves either been the object of an SJW attack, or who have witnessed one, recognize the patterns I am describing in the book. I am pleased to see this, as it testifies to the veracity and utility of SJWs Always Lie.

Also, by sheer happenstance, Castalia House makes a second appearance on Lew Rockwell today. David the Good, Extreme Composter, explains why you should start planning your spring garden now that fall is approaching:

As the main growing season winds down and fall gardens are being planted across much of the country, you might think it would be time for me to post on fall gardening.

Fall gardens are well-worth doing, but instead of jumping on that train I’m going to focus on what you can do right now that will make your spring gardens better than they’ve ever been.

Gardeners, like most people, tend to think of their gardening in terms of one season. When you step back, however, and see how building up your plots and planning ahead will benefit your gardening for years to come, a whole new window opens.

In related news, Castalia will have a new gardening book out from David the Good before the end of the year.