THE REST OF THE SERIES CAN BE ACCESSED IN THE SERIES OF LINKS BELOW. PART ONE STARTS BELOW THESE LINKS

The Lowest Principle There Is Part 2 • The New Racists: Mainstreaming Hatred by the Justice League of Race and Gender

How Hate Speech Is Infiltrating Tech Culture and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Community • PyCon and The Adria Richards Affair • March 2013


The Lowest Principle There Is Part 3 • The New Racists: Mainstreaming Hatred by the Justice League of Race and Gender

How Hate Speech Is Infiltrating the Science Fiction and Fantasy Community • March 2013


The Lowest Principle There Is Part 4 • The New Racists: Mainstreaming Hatred by the Justice League of Race and Gender

How Hate Speech Is Infiltrating the Science Fiction and Fantasy Community • March 2013


The Lowest Principle There Is Part 5 • The New Racists: Mainstreaming Hatred by the Justice League of Race and Gender

How Hate Speech Is Infiltrating the Science Fiction and Fantasy Community • March 2013



 

John Scalzi: The Lowest Principle There is • Part 1

White privilege, identity, and how anti-racist liberal progressives promote and mainstream hate-speech and bigotry in the science fiction community.

BY JAMES MAY - Spring-Summer, 2013

 

"On legal definitions of hate speech 'It's usually defined first of all in terms of its intention, that it's speech which is intended to cause the stirring of hatred and hostility towards a particular group. That's not enough on most definitions; they also insist that it must be likely to generate such hatred and hostility. Thirdly, the speech must be offered in a threatening, abusive and insulting way. And fourthly, these statutes tend to define safe havens or places where such speech can be engaged in without incurring liability, for example a conversation in one's home. Many of these laws bend over backwards to try to narrow down a particular range of damaging speech to the most egregious cases.'"  - Jeremy Waldron talking about his book "The Harm In Hate Speech."

"No one should have to carry the burden of his color or gender or features. No one. And as long as we continue to accept racial prejudice or racial profiling in any manner there will probably be grotesque misunderstandings" - Larry Strauss, Huffington Post 

 

IDENTITY VERSUS PRINCIPLE

PREFACE: THE BLIND SPOT. Although this series of essays is about a specific subset of culture and specific individuals within that culture, in fact the true theme is one of what I call "the perceptual trap." The issue is one of principle vs. identity, and what happens when one's identity determines whether an action is right or wrong, rather than the action itself.

In its more innocent application, it can be a quite normal and innocuous thing, such as rooting for "the team." It's innocent in that case because we know our daughter's soccer team is not really No. 1 even as we chant it is, nor that team an expression of all that's right and decent in the universe.

In its more sinister application - the blind spot of the perceptual trap - identity vs. principle can be a monstrous delusion and failure of intellect that leads us into some very dark places, simply by virtue of the fact we might favor what we feel is a socially oppressed identity. The identity becomes paramount, and not what that identity does. My side right or wrong is one thing for a Green Bay Packers fan. In the larger social arena, that type of thinking - identity politics - can and has become simple bigotry and prejudice.

Political attacks on public figures or organizations are one thing, but there is something sick and troubling about attacking people because they are white or black, Jewish or Arab, man or woman, gay or straight. Distributing morality accordingly is idiocy.

 

THE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY

Although war is always a crime on some level, in WW II one can at least make an argument that America fought the "good fight," considering the immolation and enslavement of vast millions of people in Europe and Asia. One can at least make an argument that America, even a racially segregated one in 1945 only 9 years away from the positive landmark decisions of Brown vs. Board of Education, still defined itself as a country by what it did, rather than simply who it was. At least there was still a "good fight" being fought, and in the right direction, where we were arguably on the correct side of principle vs. identity.

Only two decades later, during the Vietnam War, America indulged itself in a war crime, because it had ceased to believe in principle and had come to the conclusion that if America was in Vietnam then it must be the "good fight" simply by virtue of the fact we were Americans. But at that point, we were no longer the same Americans of only 20 years before. A revolution was in order; a revolution of perception that would once again give us back balance and save us from the great evil of defining right and wrong by an identity; in this case our identity.

In my opinion, had the American government judged itself by the same standards of Post World War II war crime tribunals we quite rightly instituted against the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany, we would've judged ourselves war criminals for our actions in Vietnam, and some of us did. Identity and principle can become slippery things.

It is no coincidence that the cultural revolution of the 1960s was centered around appearance; it was meant to, and that was it's whole point. That's why people grew their hair long and called it a "freak flag." A thing is what it is by virtue of what it does, not because it tucks its shirt in, or has short hair or by virtue of a person's ethnicity. The centerpiece of this cultural and intellectual revolution revolved around the great failure of perception called the Vietnam War and the successful perception of the Civil Rights movement to abolish the evil of real, formal and legal institutional racism.

We were in danger of becoming the very Nazis and Empire of Japan we had once fought against, and clear eyes saw that. Clear eyes thought in terms of an intellectual and philosophical space, unfazed by particulars or identity, and felt the war is Asia must end and so too legal discrimination. Clear eyes saw through to the core of a thing. Who we saw as the bad guys were those fazed by skin, gender and long hair who refused to look at the interior of a thing, to judge people by the content of their character. In 2013, too many of us have come full circle and come to see long hair and skin, not as a metaphor of a cause, but as a thoughtless expression of right and wrong in and of themselves.

The two great battles of the '60s were won thanks to a new generation, but their principles have been betrayed, and in the same way America felt it could do no wrong in Vietnam; the inheritors of the '60s legacy have similarly come unglued. Today it is common to see institutionally bigoted hate speech now come from the very culture that fought a good fight a half century ago. In 2013, virtually all of the mainstream institutions formally organized around gender and race reside among the people once resolved to end such madness. This is the detritus of armies of an old fight. But instead of disbanding, these armies have been re-directed. Increasingly bizarre and circular theories have come about, using words like "privilege," appropriation," "intersectionality," and "cisgendered" together with unfounded assumptions of formalized expressions of bigotry where in fact none exist. Some of these theories are so sweeping, distorted and trivial, one can only see them as a form of near hysteria. It has become a con game and a racket, exploiting guilt and extorting concessions by McCarthy-era accusations and tactics.

When one is right because of one's race and gender, then of course one is literally never wrong, no matter what it is one actually does or says. By contrast, the imagined opposite identity is never right. This has given the new darlings of hyper-politicized race and gender a free-fire zone of rhetoric that has gotten out of hand. In reading much of the drivel associated with this "progressive" culture, I can't tell the difference between it and David Duke. Each shares the same intellectual and philosophical space, using identity to parcel out morality and negative traits, while strictly reserving for themselves all that is positive and noble; it is naked bigotry.

One could perhaps justify such a thing as formally organizing and defending against racial and gender discrimination as little as 25 or 20 years ago; today it is unconscionable. There is such a thing as diminishing returns and the proliferation of unprecedented numbers of such groups even while unequal rights fades further into the past shows there is some other mechanism at work and it is anything but noble or defensive in nature.

Now that the old institutions that once constrained people because of their race or gender are gone, am I to believe individual human traits of bigotry do not equally reside among all humans, including gay or black folks, or women? It was the institutional discrimination against such groups that was once the issue, not powerless individual expressions of such a thing. In 2013, the roles have plainly been reversed and once defensive groups which advocate by identity are left alone on the field and on the wrong side, with their own institutions the sole advocates of race and gender. Bereft of the old institutions, bigotry today is where you'll find it, not where you want to find it, and not in the old places. Today there is no problem finding new institutional expressions of racism and sexism, while the old institutional expressions of a vanquished foe have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Imagine if America had won WW II but pretended it went on forever and occupied Germany forever. At some point, at least some kind of victory must be acknowledged, or institutions once dedicated to noble goals become corrupt and create monsters to justify their continued existence; they never declare victory but just go on and on. If it's true America had lost its way by the '60s and declared its identity itself as a benchmark of right or wrong, regardless of what it actually did, then the same thing has happened to a new generation, and for largely the same reasons. If this new generation does a thing, then it is right by virtue of who they are, not because of what they do.

Today, as I write this in 2013, we are once again back in the doldrums and a new revolution is once again in order, as the generation and its children of the very cultural revolution that once set about to right the ship are themselves in need of clear eyes. That new generation is caught deep in the gravity well of a perceptual trap, dazzled by identity to the point where, once again, a thing is defined as righteous simple by virtue of the identity which is doing a thing. "I am doing it ergo it is right" is not an argument; an argument is an argument.

As was true in the '60s, we must expose ourselves to, make welcome, and employ simple tools of self-criticism to destroy the blind spots and perceptual traps we are all of us vulnerable to. "Challenge" used to be a word meant as an action. Today it is a cargo cult totem we worship even as we disdain it in reality as if it were a curse. "Truth to power" is meaningless if it is a one-way street. What a large segment of our culture in fact does worship is not challenge or debate, but double standards brought to the point of a form of insanity. We are once again the thing we once fought against and the fight must be fought all over again. The caveat this time is that there is the added layer of detritus of "justice" left over from the '60s that will make this new fight a very tough and stubborn one. The goal against racism was once colorblindness and simple equality and now colorblindness itself is absurdly argued as a sign of racism and white privilege is argued as vehemently real as once was Jim Crow. The difference is that Jim Crow was a both a real legal and regional issue and today's identity politics smears accusations across states and regions with indifference to each, or to facts and laws.

Far from old notions of identity being simply defined as a side one is on, identity has been formalized into race and gender and notions of morality have followed suit. To be on the "right" side of morality is therefore not even possible for gigantic swaths of Americans numbering in their tens of millions. All that is left for them is a confession. When one's very identity is stamped with a notion of gender or racial privilege, it is done so in such a way that there is no escape from immorality, and conversely, those on the other side of this notion can do no wrong. But this is not an expression of right and wrong, this is bigotry. Saying a given person's problems are in fact a total stranger's prejudice is foolish, and itself an expression of prejudice.

In the case of the science fiction and fantasy community, we have gone from seeing novels like "Fahrenheit 451" and "1984" as warnings against perceptual traps to seeing them as how-to manuals. The warning voice has been stilled, and in its place is a conformist and very dark intellectual space that shares unlovely features with other dark intellectual spaces. As in the case of the Vietnam War, people are blinded by "righteous" identity to the point they justify injustice.

I don't know if this is a pattern that endlessly repeats itself, requiring endless revolutions of thought simply to bring us back to the garden; I only know its true today. And I know that defamation of groups according to their race and gender is never right, regardless of their identity, or what someone did who looked like them 50 or a thousand years ago. It's just not right, and no one can make a case otherwise.

*

"...they pursued the logic of several incompatible opinions to absurd ends, without perceiving the incongruity." - T.E. Lawrence.

 

Defaming people by reason of their gender or race is never correct. Distributing morality according to the way people looked the day they are born is a form of depravity. One can always tell the presence of such things by rhetoric in which a race or gender is contrasted with a provisional opposite, and in that comparison, comes up short in terms of morality or intelligence 100% of the time. That's naked bigotry. When an individual no one knows indulges in bigotry, that's one thing. When an individual does such a thing who has a public platform or the credibility of an organization behind them, that's pouring bigotry into the public arena, mainstreaming, and even institutionalizing it. When one is publicly persistent in insisting that notions of right and wrong be sieved through first looking at one's race and gender, its negative impact is thus magnified. The factless painting of millions of people with no names or faces as occupying some default position of immorality based on skin or gender alone is a form of hate speech. Immorality aside, bizarre racial theories devoid of facts and which cannot be proven such as "white privilege" and Jewish conspiracies are a form of tautological idiocy.

Racialism, which I define as parsing the world through a lens of race and distributing morality and intellect accordingly, is a great evil. For a community of literary artists to indulge in such a staggering failure of intellect and perception is creative suicide. Thinking clearly and with equally applied principles opens your eyes to a lot of things, and one of those is the darkness of narrow provincialism when it is cynical and passed off as classic wisdom. The view from outside such an insulated community is far different than the view from the inside.

We have gone far past the time in this country where we need to agree on a definition of what comprises hate-speech that is free of caveats or mitigation. If people are against the defamation of people according to their race and gender, let them live up to their own standards. We need to agree on a principle, not a side, and let that principle take us where it will, regardless of race, creed or gender. That is the only way to have a healthy society.  If we can have anti-harassment policies at science fiction, fantasy and comic and tech conventions, surely we can get blogs, conventions, and commercial sites to similarly agree on what they will and will not tolerate that doesn't spare or attack one identity or set of politics in favor of another. My prediction is that those who rile against racism the most will have the least patience for such an idea, since it will leave them gutted and bereft...

...and short a Science Fiction Writers of America president and three SFWA Nebula nominees in early 2013, and Bozo the Clown.

*

On the PBS show "Faces of America," hosted by Henry Louis Gates and broadcast in the Spring of 2010, television actress Eva Longoria's DNA test showed her ancestry to be 70% European. On camera, Longoria's face noticeably fell as she learned the news. Gates later wrote:

"Watching her response to these findings, I was struck by something that had occurred to me many times over the course of this project: almost all the subjects hoped to see more 'ethnic' in their ethnic identities--more evidence of racial mixing in their personal pie chart, even the ones who were most mixed. European ancestry, in our world today, is not the source of pleasure and pride that it was even a few decades ago. The reasons for this are understandable and perhaps obvious."

Yes it is obvious. However I doubt Mr. Gates and I would use the term "understandable" in the same way since he is the editor-in-chief of The Root. The Root laughably refers to itself as a black culture website. I call The Root "Stormfront-lite" on my charitable days. I call it that because of its trending topics like "Blackest White Folks" and "100 Amazing Facts About the Negro," but most importantly, because The Root is one of those places white folks amazingly come up on the short end of the stick 100% of the time and are, predictably, a never ending topic of "black culture." In passing, one can only imagine the hilarity and hi jinks of the "Most Jewish Gentiles." The Root is what I imagine a Nazi magazine looked like in Germany in the 1930s where the never ending and sole target of disdain were Jews. The mitigating factor The Root has on its side is that it is produced in a country where there was once legal discrimination against black folks. The damning factor against The Root is that it's the 21st century and so Gates' rhetorical pogrom against white America comes up short by about a half-century, thus revealing The Root for what it really is - naked racial bigotry that refuses to reset the clock. In this sense, black baseball leagues and Jim Crow are not receding ever further into the past, but are ever more relevant; their dead bodies yanked into the present, animated and held up front and center.

To politicized racialists, who love to claim race doesn't matter, the more white you are, the worse it is. Longoria may as well have been a Nazi learning she had Jewish blood, or a clown learning they had no red nose. As you will see in this series of essays, in the Newspeak of the politicized and racialized, politically correct, progressive, Longoria in one fell swoop had her source of morality forever stripped from her by a DNA test. Not only that, she was saddled with the unshakeable plague of privilege and immorality. In the space of literally seconds, Longoria's morality shifted from one side of a spectrum to another and what's worse, she knew it. More importantly, in real terms, did Miss Longoria leave that room more "privileged" than when she walked in? Or was her street cred only diminished if you saw the show? Could she still claim oppression, if the light was just right?

On the progressive liberal side of America, the straight, white, male is the new Fagin, the spiritually empty and shunned Jew, tainted by generational sin and guilt. A black or a Jew used to be an easy target, and now there's a new one. Pointing out as defense the fact whites in America are a majority is academic pedantry where racism is then relegated to situational arithmetical hypothetical's. Here's a much simpler equation: hatred is always wrong, racial bigotry is always wrong; it is not situational or a math project.

 

*

"Racism is not innate but learnt through discourse and communication. The problem here is not only open and blatant racism as advocated by fringe groups, but mainstream racism that is conveyed by the symbolic elites in society (including writers, professors, journalists, editors, politicians, text book writers, teachers etc.) These symbolic elites contribute to fostering and perpetuating racism and racial discrimination in society and should therefore also be part of the solution when it comes to combating racist discourse." - Expert Seminar: Combating Racism While Respecting Freedom Of Expression - Organized By The EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCE (ECRI)

"Whiteness Studies works exactly the same way classical antisemitism works, and still does work. Jews are said to be controlling absolutely everything, including people’s consciousness. The Jew is responsible for everything bad, because everything bad is, to the antisemite, the definition of Jewishness. There is no way out of this logic, which is total and pitiless, once its initial premise has been granted. It is a conspiracy theory and thus immune to reason and argument. True white supremacists play this game too. They take everything wrong with society and say it’s the product of non-white values, forces, etc. In formulating her “theory” of “white supremacy,” then, Bogado, too, is operating according to white supremacist logic. Her theory–rather, its essential thought process–is not new. Today it’s called Whiteness Studies and gets people tenure and good salaries at universities. In 1933, in Leipzig or Frankfurt am Main, it would have been known as something else." - Robert Wargas, "No True Hispanic" 

 

*

IDENTITY AS MORALITY OR, WORLD OF WARCRAFT AND RACE

 In May of 2012, science fiction writer and blogger John Scalzi featured a short article on his "Whatever" web site called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" The article is about how easy white men have it in America due to white privilege. Scalzi doesn't present a stick of proof to back up his assertions. We are simply meant to assume America is as racialized as Scalzi himself is, and there is little doubt Scalzi is racialized, as witness this Tweet about his detractors over some TV show Scalzi appeared on years ago:

"I'm a well-off straight white man who points and laughs at them. They hate that 'one of their own' would do that."

No where in the context of those Tweets is there any evidence that anyone thinks of Scalzi as "one of their own." That is something Scalzi makes up out of whole cloth and then projects a negative characteristic onto nameless people, identifiable only by their skin and gender. In fact, Scalzi is the only one to bring race into it.  In short, Scalzi is the very man Scalzi seeks.

Just to make sure there was no doubt of his bizarre double standard regarding race, gender and defamation, Scalzi doubled down on his failed attempt at a principled stand with a post titled "Reader Request Week 2013 #9: Women and Geekdom," that scientifically proves males are less moral than females.

Then John "Colonialist" Scalzi triples down in May, 2013 by harping over his goofy premise about Aryan supremacy/privilege being featured on Cracked.com of all places. I recommend Scalzi's "third time's the Bell Curve charm" for it's simplemindedness-as-elegance paradigm that conclusively proves that as long as you have spilt-milk racialists whining about history's white misfits, you don't really need Cracked or the Onion. Irony has long since been banished from the science fiction and fantasy community by the simple measure of factually quoting progressive do-gooder's race and gender fantasies. Scalzi is careful to point out that Cracked's unfortunately ignorant "commenters do not represent all straight white men," just as a given black or Jewish guy doesn't represent all lazy and greedy black and Jewish guys Scalzi posits as factual beings according to his theory of racial stereotypes = gravity.

Scalzi has created a hierarchy of morality using race and gender, which is kinda nice in a way since it prevents you from having to have an actual fucking thought in your head.

WHITE PRIVILEGE IS LIKE A STICK OF CHEWING GUM

In an attempt to go for the coveted title of Moron of the Year In SFF, Scalzi goes for an inside the park home run with his June, 2013 little shitty ditty titled "Guilt, Mine, and Paying It Forward, Me" Very nice, very cute.

In this episode of "Why I'm A Dink," Scalzi claims white men benefit from all their hard work marginalizing women, gays and being racist to non-whites with what amounts to free rides at Disneyland.

Scalzi writes:

"I was at an amusement park with a friend of mine who is notable in his field, which is not my field. And because he is notable in his field, he has fans. At least one of those fans worked at this amusement park and said to my friend, hey, if you come to the park, let me know and I’ll make sure you get the VIP treatment. And who doesn’t like getting the VIP treatment? Very few, that’s who."

Supposedly this is an allegory of the white straight male privilege which lords it over women, gay folks and non-whites.

 Yes, I shit on the gays, my own girl friend, burn a cross or two and then go to the head of the line in America because the non-white non-males have learned to avert their eyes when me and my white male friends give off with the nods, winks, and secret whitey handshakes. Taxis pick me up and security guards don't follow me around department stores. Oddly enough, Scalzi uses the word "notable" as in privilege by achievement and not racism but then ignores what he just wrote and the umpire calls "strike three." Scalzi goes back to the dugout and writes "Note to self: privilege is always racism and never from a notable superior cultural value system. Whites do have a value system, but it's always wrong, except when it's a friend of mine or me John Scalzi, cuz I helps da blacks."

Scalzi hasn't figured out it's always wrong to defame people according to their race and gender. Nor will he admit that for his intellectually stunted analogy to work, the vast majority of white men must be racist and sexist, which is itself racial and sexist defamation by Scalzi. If white men are not racist and sexist, no white privilege. Next week, Scalzi will tell us why Jewish movie producers are like H.G. Wells' Martians, with "intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic," regarding "this Earth with envious eyes." Muah-hah-hah-haha.

Ironically, Scalzi is correct about his theory, at least as it concerns himself, as he actually does exert privilege from his own racial bigotry, by oozing street cred with ultra-leftist nuthatches who then buy his pitifully conformist expressions of literary art called science fiction novels. Scalzi then wins Nebula and Hugo Awards he in no way merits. That's privilege.

Scalzi finishes:

"I have no guilt about being a Straight White Male. Why should I? What I would have guilt about is if, as a Straight White Male, with all the advantages I have, earned and unearned, I wasn’t working to make my various communities better for those in them."  

By "make my various communities better" he means by himself lighting up straight white males as asshole racists, women-haters and homophobes, who go to the head of the line by sheer bigotry. No surprise Scalzi sees himself as a community organizing super hero. So as long as Scalzi works off the shame and guilt of his own racism and privilege, it's a wash, and he has achieved karmic balance in the universe, if not a prize for unvarnished fuckery. Scalzi throws a few shekels to some rape crisis counseling center and, his guilt washed clean, he goes back to posting stupid fucking pictures of his cats on his blog to great acclaim.

It humorous to me how Scalzi has no problem separating out human beings as "white" like this but only in a negative sense. For example, I then can't say those whites invented every fucking thing you see from horizon to horizon that isn't natural, cuz learning five fucking languages by tedious discipline makes you nothing compared to someone who doesn't. Conversely, when he singles out humans and women as non-whites, the generalizations are only permitted to be positive. If Scalzi has a fucking brain in his skull, we'll need a safe-cracker to make a final determination.

As per usual, the comments section of Scalzi's posts about white privilege is a party of piebald ribaldry where Eloi crawl all over themselves in their slave pit to see who can bare their throat, kowtow, cringe and generally compete with each other to see who can make the stupidest fucking remark and be the least racist, homophobic and sexist. This is just a wild guess on my part, but I have the feeling Scalzi got kicked in the nuts a lot when he was a kid. If I had a fucking nickel for every time one of his moron commenters announced someone owed them a new keyboard cuz they just spit coffee on theirs, I'd be living inside a high tech volcano covered in gold leaf with a fleet of submarines and a harem of TRIGGER WARNING Playboy bunnies. A rectory of 80 year old nuns looks like a bunch of world-weary China-sailors compared to the provincial world view of Scalzi's wrong-way KKK flock of race obsessed ding-dong daddies fresh out of a fucking play pen.

But, as Scalzi's Twitter buddy, professional food taster, abolitionist and daily whitey-commenter, K. Tempest Bradford says, "That white male privilege is a HELL of a drug." Yes it is Tiny Arrogant Bradford; it's like taking laughing gas and then squeezing your nuts as hard as you can. Try it some time.

Tiny Twit Tweets:

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 9h @horbinski It's so classic white privilege to think the block buttons means he can't see me but I still see his tweets. Mansplaining!" 

Can you imagine the outrage this mental giant would display if someone Tweeted "It's classic systemic negro thought. Oh, blaxsplaining. Wake up negroes."

Klan Tempest is an expert at regurgitating circular arguments that prove all white people are cursed by their whiteness, no matter what they do, did, or if they live on the moon. Klanny retweets this bullshit by A. Moron who now calls herself A. Moon, having apparently dropped the "R" when she wrote a novel about lesbian werewolves who do shit to the moon when the moon is full or empty or whatever the fuck.

"Allison Moon ‏@TheAllisonMoon 2h Daily white people #PSA: Your specific ancestors needn't have been slave-owners or native-killers for you to benefit from white supremacy. Retweeted by K Tempest Bradford"

Great, I'm sure some Russian dude just off the plane will be dying to hear your imbecilic pronouncements. A. Moron once again proves my thesis that a lack of privilege is self-explanatory vis-a-vis the mirror. Thanks for the racist PSA ass wipe. Since I clean my own mirror, I have no such bigoted PSAs for gay people.

However, the quacking dishrag known as "Tiny" (for her brain size) wants you to know what is always closest to her heart, which is intellectually sodomizing white people 7 days a week. Here is a brightly colored retweet from a drab fuck of a woman:

"HuffPost Politics ‏@HuffPostPol 14 Aug New study: White people are too dumb to know they're racist http://huff.to/1eIhiWM Retweeted by K Tempest Bradford"  

Next week from the HuffPo, Part 2, "Why black people are too dumb to succeed at life."

But before next week's racial fuckery, this week's racial fuckery is called "White People Support Academic Meritocracy When It Benefits Them, Study Suggests." The study is by a guy named Frank L. Samson at the U of Miami. After conducting my own study for 3 seconds, I concluded there is a suggestion Frank L. Samson can go fuck himself as well as that collection of random noxious gasses and amino acids blimped into human form, KKK Temper Tantrum.

Tiny Bigot loves to show how clueless she is about her own behaviors and therefore why she won't stop lighting up white people. Here we have the Twitter addict being mugged on her own feed for... racism.

"Nate ‏@bastunas77 2h @tinytempest I would have given you plenty of respect had you not acted like an idiot and tweeted me your ignorant intolerene (sic) for whites" 

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 2h @bastunas77 uh huh. If you want to believe that based on no evidence, it's okay. No one expects better of you. (but really, off to write!) 18 Aug 13"

I'm laughing my fucking ass off. "On no evidence?" Does Tiny Clod-Puller not read her own Twitter feeds and blog? If Bradford isn't anti-white, then there is no such concept. And she's off to write? Write what? Even more shit about evil white people she'll also forget she wrote? Hahahahah. What a fucking yahoo.

Even funnier is how Bradford tries to get back at Nate:

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 2h @bastunas77 @The_WPCA all this hate and ignorance from a supposed Christian! Well, my only consolation is that he is gonna Get Told by Jesus" 

Is Bradford completely unaware that's already happened to her? Obviously she's been consigned to some icky hell for some decades trapped unaware in the body of a cake-eating pull-yank without any brains, future or fun in her life. Why else would someone thumbtack Twitter obsessively about blame, complaint and self-pity and evil whitey? By my reckoning, that's not exactly an amusement park nor is crying 24/7 a language. Go send a Tweet to Scalzi about how whites fear you, like in the "About" section of the anti-white website you created called "Angry Black Woman." He'll hold your hand, wipe your tears, and tell you how unprivileged yet special you are, plus oppressed.

What I want to know is, how in the fuck do any of these members of the science fiction and fantasy community's justice league of race and gender know anything about anything? They're on Twitter or their fucking blogs all day and they don't seem to go any where or do anything. Even when they go to an SFF convention they're on Twitter non-stop. The only time they're not on Twitter is when they're taking a shit, which apparently is the only thing not fit for an announcement. Somehow they have all this wisdom and know all about history and other countries and blah, blah, blah. About 100% of their "experience" seems to come off the internet. Who the fuck do they think they're talking down to? There's no one underneath them. It don't come any more provincial than being entombed with a walkie-talkie to the outside world. I mean... do these morons just read about hiking the Inca Trail and then brag about hiking the Inca Trail and give everyone advice on how to hike the Inca Trail? These members of the SFF community are literally the idiots old school SF writers use to warn about in a dystopian future of fuckheads and Marching Morons.

Proponent of racial segregation and self-pity, Bradford proves her bona fides by exhibiting her disdain for white people exceeds her knowledge of history by quite a lot in this article at io9 about a fantasy film titled "Why Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is The Ultimate White Guilt Fantasy."

The article once more confirms that whites are stupid, immoral and liars.

Bradford, the Shelby Foote of racial stupidity and imaginings, writes, "In the annals of Lies My Teacher Told Me, one of the biggest and most pervasive has to be that old saw about how Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves... the Civil War being fought to end slavery is not a mere simplification — it's simply not true."

Got that? The centerpiece without which the Civil War would never have happened is an "old saw." Of course the key to Bradford's semantic gibberish is that Lincoln "fought the Civil War," as if that is the long and short of it. This is not the place to say why Bradford is a moron powered by a desire to racially strip humans of morality by positing "white guilt fantasies," but it is plain Bradford knows as much about the Civil War as a retarded fucking otter. To say the article is thoroughly racist is an understatement. As I'll point out again and again in this series of essays, if I made such blithe generalities, and always in the negative, about black folks, people like Bradford would be leading the charge for my head. Such a person as Bradford is simply too stupid to understand what a binding principle is, so clouded is her mind by racial disdain, while hilariously claiming the exact opposite ground; that of a staid, clear-eyed and neutral observer of true reality. The amusing part of all this is that what Bradford claims is also what racist supporters of the old Confederacy today claim: that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

"This Week In Blackness" also agrees with Bradford about big lies insofar as Bradford is a big liar when it writes that:

"On the contrary, 'states’ rights' is a justification, expertly wielded by bigots, for any purpose designed to preserve power for wealthy white men at everyone else’s expense. It is such a pernicious lie that many high school history classes across this country, including my own in Southern California, have been trained to teach that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights, not over slavery. Obviously, maintaining this lie requires a feat of mental gymnastics, since to do it you have to ignore that those rights that the states wanted to preserve would have allowed white men to enslave an entire category of people."

So, Bradford: "bigot," "pernicious" liar and mental gymnast. Different high schools I guess. As I said above, since I clean my own mirror, I have no dumb fuck racist shit to say about the guilt fantasies of 40 million black Americans. Multiply the "dumb" and the "fuck" by 6 times to get to 240 million white Americans or divide by one million to get Bradford's IQ and dress size.

To further show the great gulf between how historically ignorant Bradford is and how informed she thinks she is, let me point out these exchanges on Twitter that shows the utter delusion that accompanies interpreting history according to how much you like and dislike white people:

"MarieMackinnon ‏@MarieMackinnon 27 Sep @The_WPCA Then I'd teach u about how Islam is the biggest imperial force in history. 700 yrs in Spain, 400 yrs in the Balkans."

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 27 Sep @MarieMackinnon omg hahahahahahahahaaaaa! Are you serious? Child, where did you learn history, from the ignorant southern reader? @The_WPCA" 

"MarieMackinnon ‏@MarieMackinnon 27 Sep @tinytempest Are u saying that an Islamic empire didn't have colonial rule over the Iberian peninsula for 700 yrs? Ignorant of history I see" 

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 27 Sep @MarieMackinnon what I'm saying is that your citation of that fact is incorrect. You're ignoring a whole lot of empires, for one." 

Of course, K Tempest racist moron never does get around to citing "a whole lot of empires" for the simple reason they never existed, although she does have the balls to tell Mackinnon, "If you had any understanding of world history." Bradford has as much understanding of history as does any fuck who puffs up and diminishes culture and history according to how they think it makes white people look bad and non-white people good. In fact, in terms of both area and time, Islam is the most successful organized colonialist project in history. Egypt has been colonized for almost 1,400 years and even has the words "Arab Republic" in its official name to emphasize the point, though they are certainly not Arabs; almost none of the so-called "Arabic" middle east is, no more so than a cricket-playing Indian is a Scotsman.

*

There is no end to the network of mutually supporting bigotry and stupidity among the people I'm writing these essays about. And that's what it is, a network. In order to understand these essays, it's important to understand the people in these essays all know one another, support one another, Tweet at one another, and hob-nob when they get the chance, and they virtually never call each other out? Why would they? If you're so fucking dumb you believe a black or gay person can't be a bigot or that women have some special justice powers you sure as hell wouldn't see anything to call out in the first place. These are as politically correct as any people on the planet, and the funny thing there is, they don't even think PC exists. But their own racism certainly does:

K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 27 Sep Cracka ass cracka. 

*

Naturally Tiny Racist considers this monumentally racist blog post about the "cowardice of white women" in regard to the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder trial verdict worth your attention by retweeting it because white people are fuckers:

"Liz Henry ‏@lizhenry now Really good post. "the reason George Zimmerman walks free is directly related to the cowardice of white women." http://feministing.com/2013/07/16/white-womanhood-protectionism-and-complicity-in-injustice-for-trayvon/ … Retweeted by K Tempest Bradford"

The post is titled "White womanhood, protectionism, and complicity in injustice for Trayvon." I'll tell you right now, in principle, it don't come any more KKK than bullshit like this. I don't know who Katy Otto is but she has her head so far up her ass in so many ways I couldn't believe an adult could write a post like that.

*

If I were a "gay, minority, female" I'd tell with-friends-like-you-I-don't-need-enemies Scalzi to stop making a case for equality by making out gay females of color to be deer in the headlights, stunned into inaction on a societal level by invisible, informal, racial aristocracies who don't even know they exist without Scalzi to remind them.

It's nice to see into the mind of someone who continually thinks a reaction to an insult is confirmation an insult is deserved, true, and correct. Like Scalzi says "It’s always delightful to have the thesis of an article so immediately confirmed in the comments." This is an unfortunate Catch-22 for black folks attacked with racial slurs but irony-machine Scalzi's clever like that when it comes to backhandedly advancing the cause of all racism in the world. "Oh, he called me an n-word, and I didn't like it, therefore I am one." If you're beginning to get the idea that Scalzi saw a cartoon of Noah loading the ark backwards about 10,000 times when he was a child, I too am with you.

Scalzi's like a 12 yr. old who gets his bored friends to call the local black kids the n-word just to see the local black kids get angry and then say "Oh, look how angry stupid black kids get over nothing. Hahahahaha. It's just a word."

Anyways, fact-checkers are working on Scalzi's white privilege thesis and I'll announce the results when the sun coughs and dies. Scalzi has himself announced he's doing a follow-up piece which I hope isn't about 6 million Israeli Jews holding off 200 million Muslims using the weight of sheer racial privilege, cuz people might start honking at him over that one.

Isn't science fiction fun? It's all about race. Betcha you didn't know that. I mean... it's a natural match, isn't it? At least if you're an obsessed paranoid racial bigot. So, if you don't like race, don't read SF. The good part is that SF novels about living space ships and vomit zombies aren't as wildly improbable, speculative, and moronically implausible as so many of the modern racialist author's own political views tend to be - so it's a trade-off. Also there's a lot of crying and whining on the blogs of SF authors, like Pagliaccio the post-colonial clown. Get used to that word - "postcolonial" - if you start reading SF blogs. And of course there's the gender. That's why it's so SFfffy that the SF convention Readercon in 2013 had a panel called "Women’s Bodies, Women’s Power."

Scalzi's in trouble from the very beginning of his piece on white privilege. Out of America's population, he arbitrarily creates a de facto racial country club of 100 million white, straight, males he has never met and knows nothing about. Scalzi then has the gall to assert without a stick of proof that it is the 100 million themselves that have created this racist club and not Scalzi; a club that huddles around race and sees themselves and their identity as members of such a racial/gender culture; Scalzi claims the status of a disinterested scientific observer of this reality. On top of all that, Scalzi slaps this group he made up out of his own head with a default immorality and hostility ranging from casual to intransigent racism, misogyny and homophobia. That's 100 million, folks. Got that? The majority of 100 million straight, white, men in America are homophobic, racist, sexists. I'm not sure but I think you can go to hell for saying stuff like that.

For those of you unfamiliar with Whatever, Scalzi conspicuously advocates for gay rights, women's rights and speaks out against racism (and even more controversially: against rape). This is not the problem; far from it. The problem is in portraying and characterizing the actual reality of such things, and most importantly, where problems may lie. Normally, one would go after a specific anti-gay group or an entity such as the KKK, rather than simply throwing down an entire race and gender as innately immoral, a thing race-dink Scalzi claims to be ardently against.

Scalzi reminds me of the pedantic fool Dennis Moore in the old Monty Python sketch. 18th century highwayman Dennis Moore decides to take up for the underdog and steal from the rich and give to the poor. When the poor are so rich from Moore's robberies they begin to sneer at being given mere silver, Moore has an epiphany and says "this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." It certainly is if you're a moron. For those of you familiar with the song from the Dennis Moore sketch, Scalzi has only gotten to the "stupid bitch" part.

While chief fool of the SFWA distributes guilt about bigotry according to race onto white men without names who are doing exactly nothing to anyone, Mr. Scalzi ignores the zombie in the room that is the world's greatest mass genocide due to racial intolerance since WW II. If that doesn't tell you that reality means nothing to people like Scalzi then just stop reading here. It does tell you why so many black folks run away from non-racist Africa and run to racist America and why political correctness pretends the exact opposite.

Like Dennis Moore, Scalzi's ever urbane set of trendy flak-catchers think black folks win literary awards and even to the Presidency despite or even because of the endemic racism of white people, and even humorously argue President Obama is a sign that Jim Crow is still just around the corner. Though the flak-catchers like to pretend they would've gone against the grain and marched with Martin Luther King, their addiction to redneck conformity indicates they probably would've turned hoses on black folks in 1965. Keep in mind these science fiction crusaders are people so stupid they take brave stands against controversial subjects like whether rape is right, as if America has a faction of pro-rapists with "rapist-only" water fountains. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe the Jetson-set.

The hilarious idiocy of Scalzi's premise about privilege is that for it to work, it must be presumed that the vast majority of white people are racist bigots. And what proof does Scalzi offer for this bit of racism? Why, they're white, and they're a club. Ipso facto, bub, case closed, and the gavel falls and it's all as obvious as gravity. The only thing obvious about Scalzi's premise is that it is hideously racist. For an insulated guy who sits around writing all day, addicted to Plato's twin caves of Twitter and the internet, Scalzi's enthusiasm for making sweeping generalizations and passing them off as fact is only matched by his stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of the real world. Going outside once in a while to something other than some other insulated dweeb-fest might expand Scalzi's horizons beyond that of a child in an easy chair. To listen to Scalzi talk, you'd think he was Indiana Jones in a rocking chair giving you the benefit of his many adventures on all 12 continents.

I'm not surprised Scalzi used a video game as a metaphor for his arcane theory about privilege, considering the modern mentality and culture of science fiction and fantasy involved, but I am surprised he didn't write something along the lines of "Pretend America is Pokemon," or "White privilege is just like Baby Food." I'm looking forward to his comparing the Civil War to Dungeons and Dragons, and how much the Mughal Empire was like zombies vs. vampires or maybe the mud flaps on a fucking truck.

To realize the insanity of Scalzi's world view and that of a depraved community within SF&F that subscribe to it, just imagine white privilege applied to our court system. Then weep for what dolts so many Americans have become and save some tears for the damage these "anti-bigots" are doing to our country. Scalzi and the Science Fiction Writers of America, which he is president of through to the Summer of 2013, either by silence or by adherence, have all but scoured out the artistry in their sector SF in favor of a sick political view that in effect condones and promotes benighted and absurd "post-colonialist" bigotry based on the morality of one's appearance and ethnic heritage.

Appearance determines one's political status, wisdom, and morality in one nice ball of shit, and Scalzi's proposed opposite of the straight, white, male - the gay, minority, female - becomes his embodiment of justice itself. One may as well seek wisdom and morality from a gray scale chart of 10 tones ranging from deepest black to whitest white or determine right and wrong and art itself using the "pencil test." This is racial bigotry fine tuned and refined beyond anything the insane world of apartheid South African racial classification ever did. And the SFWA is up to its eyebrows in this racial muck.

Is the pencil test how this piece of shit website called "Con or Bust Helping Fans of Color Attend SFF Cons" determines who gets financial aid to attend a con? How do I get my cab fare and story published? What do they use, a blood test, a piece of skin from behind the ear, a cotton swab, do they measure your fucking skull, do I take a blood test to be eligible, do you fling me into Ancestry.com, what?

I'm starting a web site called FuckRacism.com that helps people of color cross busy intersections so they don't get run over by privileged racist America. First we give a racial test at our mobile DNA race-lab to ensure they qualify and then lovingly wash the feet of the PoC in question and have them wear special bright orange day-glow robes and then shout "Person of color approaching! Make way! Make way racists!"

The Carl Brandon Society is who sponsors "Con Or Bust." The web site says "The mission of the Carl Brandon Society is to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the production of and audience for speculative fiction." In other words, they racially segregate science fiction and put non-whites on the back of a bus. In other arenas they call for diversity cuz the word "irony" is some kind of incomprehensible symbol to them. Will they expand their efforts to include whites-only CDs of rap music? One can only hope.

Great mission Carl Brandon Society. Why? And what about China? Do they need more eskimos in their kung fu movies or should we just let them be fuckers? What is this stupid fucking idea that the more white a group is the more immoral or less real it is? Who's at the bottom of the racial homogeneity immorality list - Japan? I knew it; I always suspected those fuckers. And don't forget professional hockey. That's a hotbed of fuck. Get those black kids and Asians some skates and maybe eventually a black baseball league too.

But that's not the real problem here. The problem lies in the fact that organizations like this patronizing sludge-pat on the head never declare a goal, mission accomplished and shut down. They will go on as long as they can, regardless of what happens in society. In other words, they will institutionalize the idea of race before art. "There, there, little man, you've had a busy day. Write me a novel. And here's some fucking cab fare, you helpless little dear you."

If I was black, and some fuck came up to me talking this bullshit, I'd tell 'em to fuck the fuck off and go measure their own fucking head. Why not change the name of the charity to "Angels for Blacks?" I mean, I'm sure every black kid in America dreams of having their own diaspora mentor, a guardian angel who'll take them lovingly by the hand, give them $27.84 and directions to the nearest science fiction convention and/or literary anthology. Then, said Guardians of the Universe can go back to their Morlock neighborhood and watch the black-less Discovery Channel guilt-free. Tomorrow, they can find some way to shoehorn some black kid into 4-H and cow milking competitions. Sign up now, you little darlings. An all PoC cow milking competition, in Whitesdump, Nebraska, just for you. Here's $59.74. Now get the fuck out of here. I'm sure they also bus white kids into black playgrounds so they can develop skills otherwise unavailable to them. White kids playing against each other does not equal NBA career. But I'm not sure white kids like having their skulls measured any more than anyone else. Aw, fuck 'em; they're white. They got 55 gallon drums full of privilege and they're immortal. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH?

Monkey in the wrench: this world works on an idea of precedent, especially in law, and what's good for the goose. So, what if someone puts out a call for an all-white SF&F anthology of fiction? What are you going to say? "You can't do that?" Really? Why not? I wanna start the Jed Clampett Society and give white kids a careful head measuring to make sure they are indeed white and then give them car fare to black neighborhoods for a look-see.

Nomination for dumb-fuckery of the year 2013 goes to Ragazine's "Best speculative fiction story by person of color." Hoo fucking boy. How about best novel by a white person? Satire comes pre-packaged and pre-parodied in the cult of raging yahoos I call the justice league of race and gender. These are the fucks who'll then turn around and ask, "what does a person's color have to do with anything?" That's because, when you're addicted to identity over principle, you literally have no mechanism for determining right from wrong. What's right one minute is wrong the next. It's all pre-determined by race and gender.

And, again, how do you determine who is a PoC? Can there be a disqualification for not being colored enough? hahahaha. What a bunch of racialist flakes. Ragazine writes that "Biographical information will be requested from the winners." Would that be in the nature of a fucking blood sample, or can I just send a plaster cast of my dick? The more you think about this process, the more odious it becomes. And keep in mind, these people are ANTI-racists. With anti-racists like these, the KKK's found a new chapter.

Art is an accidental expression of culture. No one is keeping PoC out of SF any more than someone is keeping whites out of the NBA or blacks out of hockey, and there sure as hell is no need to social engineer any of that, nor cricket in fucking India or soccer in Brazil, or tractor pulling competitions in Iowa, or hip-hop culture. Establishing and institutionalizing precedents like this is a dangerous, dangerous and bewilderingly stupid thing for an anti-racist to do, especially given the legacy of SF. These assholes are as much as saying that, like SFF, middle-weight boxing and the NBA are some form of racial conspiracies and so some whiteness needs to be introduced. Maybe there should be an acknowledgement of most points scored by a white or have a middle-weight belt for whites.

Why not put out a call for PoC to build an airplane? Don't bitch when it crashes cuz race came before competence. Don't bitch when you put out shitty SF anthologies.

And what is disturbing about John Scalzi's article is that he not only comes from a legacy of science fiction literature, but is the president of the Science Fiction Writers of America. Considering that legacy, Mr. Scalzi should know better. Instead of being warned off by works like Orwell's "1984" (1948) and the anti-Twitter "The Machine Stops," (1909) by E.M Forster, Scalzi evidently considers them how-to society-building and personal life-enrichment manuals. Because of Mr. Scalzi's position, when casual racism comes from him, it is being institutionalized and mainstreamed to a dangerous extent. Such influence could be put to better use, to put it lightly.

Here is what British author and Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing writes:

"It troubles me that political correctness does not seem to know what its exemplars and predecessors are; it troubles me more that it may know and does not care.

"Does political correctness have a good side? Yes, it does, for it makes us re-examine attitudes, and that is always useful. The trouble is that, with all popular movements, the lunatic fringe so quickly ceases to be a fringe; the tail begins to wag the dog. For every woman or man who is quietly and sensibly using the idea to examine our assumptions, there are 20 rabble-rousers whose real motive is desire for power over others, no less rabble-rousers because they see themselves as anti-racists or feminists or whatever. "

Scalzi's ass is wagging his body so fast his nose has windburn.

When someone like Scalzi writes a racist fuck of a ditty and considers it anti-racist, that screams a person who is incapable of making simple comparisons. Here's what Orwell wrote in "1984:"

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." 

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

When it comes to mainstreaming hate speech, there's nothing like teaching students to talk about straight, white, men the way neo-Nazis talk about Jews. Scalzi, the anti-racist race-naut Tim Wise (Wise has a daughter happily named "Rachel") of the SF world, proudly displays the fact a teacher has taken up his crusade to ghettoize and demonize a group simply by their identity. Without a hint of awareness, Scalzi writes "This is worth sharing around, I think." I think that was a quote from a beer garden somewhere in Germany in 1928. The teacher herself humorously writes "As I tried to think about how I would incorporate Scalzi’s article into a lesson on feminist theories of intersectionality, however, I realized that it couldn’t do as much work as I would need it to. Scalzi’s article is a fantastic thought experiment revolving around a brilliant metaphor." I'll add in a falsetto "tee-hee-hee-hee."

My first thought was, what is a metaphor of nothing? My second thought was, I wonder if John Scalzi ever forgets how to breathe? My third thought is why young people in that class don't have the brains to tell that woman to fuck off.

In another comment thread at the identity-principle whirly-gig that is Whatever, a commenter innocently states without a hint of irony or awareness of the website she's actually on "I’ve often thought, too, that hate speech/hate crimes are a different class of behavior because they aren’t just an attack on that individual; they’re an attack on the entire group."

CUE ALARUM BELLS!!!!!!

A spark of intelligence accidentally went up there. Good thing it didn't set the place on fire. At Whatever, that unconscious epiphany about hate-speech can change from Monday to Tuesday since there is a special amendment when it comes to attacking straight, white, males. Predictably, that entire comments section is the usual stupe-fest and cartwheel of unending pedantry and bigotry about how men not so secretly don't like women common at Whatever. I'm not certain if that includes all of the 3.5 billion men on the planet or only over-18.

Scalzi apparently can't even read the SFWA's own policy on sexual harassment:

"Sexual harassment is unlawful and impedes the realization of SFWA’s mission to inform, support, promote, defend and advocate for our members. SFWA will respond promptly and effectively to reports of harassment and discrimination of any kind and will take appropriate action to prevent, to correct, and if necessary, to discipline behavior that violates this policy. This policy applies to any events or spaces sponsored by SFWA, including but not limited to the SFWA discussion Forums, the SFWA website, the Nebula Awards Weekend, and the SFWA suite." 

They forget to add, "except if you're a white, straight, male." Then you're a sexist, fucking, racist from Kalikbukbuk scared of gays and Muslims. I guess if you harass 20 gazillion people at once it doesn't count. Plus no white has feelings anyway.

Scalzi has a history of dumbfuckery when it comes to promoting racist ideals and passing them off with handfuls of flowers and incense. Read this ode to love from March 2009 called "Mary Anne Mohanraj Gets You Up to Speed, Part I." What li'l Mary Anne actually does is not so much getting us up to speed as calling a KKK hood a "Freedom Beret" and expecting you to not notice it's still a KKK hood. The guest-post is about as funny an insight into how the mind of a race-obsessed racist moron works as you're ever likely to see. There's a part 2 about how returning to the Age of Copper will get us colonies on Mars. What Ms. Mohanraj actually gives us is the typical circular bullshit that lays out the way whites are racists and can't ever be right on the issue no matter what they do or how they think about it and so they should just shut up and never talk and always listen.

Ms. Mohanraj gives us dissected nuggets of wisdom like "1. We’re all racist."

Hahahaha. Speak for yourself, racist. The fact she quotes Nalo Hopkinson, who never shuts the fuck up about race and the evil whites, should be a warning bell to abort the launch right there. May as well ask David Duke what his neutral and strictly academic stance on the matter is.

In Part Stupid, self-described racist Mohanraj writes about her reaction to the characters in an Ursula Leguin novel: "I was so pleased to realized that these people were brown."

What? Not Aryan? Mohanraj is no true Scotsman/Indian.

That's the "Freedom Beret." If I say "I was giddy when I realized the characters were white," "Freedom Beret" magically transforms itself back into cock-eyed KKK hood because I'm never right. That's because, when I watch "Orfeu Negro," when I see the stray white woman in the background of the Carnival crowd, I get all gooey and loose-limbed and a warm glow envelopes my heart like E.T.'s heart-thing and I feel like I'm at happy home where white women run through tall corn fields into the arms of white men in redcoats and monocles and they say to each other "I am so pleased to realize we're white and not at all gay."

Anyway, I recommend reading Ms. Mohanraj's topsy-turvy imitation of apartheid South African race-theory and also reading "Venomous Snakes of Central America." Miss Mohanraj's posts would be more accurately described as "white people are bad, and people of color are good, but I mysteriously always end up living in white neighborhoods and countries. But I love to see the PoC in the books and on the TV. Just not, like... fer real."

Miss Dipshit confirms what I wrote earlier about white Americans needing to be racists for Scalzi's bitch slap called white privilege to actually work; something a 6 yr. old would know anyway.

Miss Mohanraj writes, "White privilege is a way of saying that in a racist society being white gets you privilege." Since Scalzi wholeheartedly endorses the racist post by Miss Mohanraj, an admitted racist, he also then endorses himself as saying whites are racist, as if I actually needed a donkey to interpret Scalzi's racist theory. I love it when people write "anti-racist" posts and then I use their own quotes to show they are racists. It helps when people like Speaker-to-Puppeteers SFWA member Mary Robinette Kowal actually say "I am a racist," or Prof. Cleverdink, SFWA member Jim Hines writes "I am also racist." At the risk of piling on, let me throw my hat in the ring and say I agree you are all racists and you don't speak for me or anyone else in this world, so fuck off.

All I can say to Scalzi, Mohanraj, Hines and Kowal, is, thanks for the support and your ringing endorsement of these essays which stipulate the SFWA and SF&F fandom in general is mainstreaming racial and gender bigotry and hate speech. In time, we can together wipe out all racism in the Milky Way galaxy and any aliens we happen to run across.

And please Miss Dip, go the fuck and look up the word "institutionalized" somewhere before you start laying out your arcane theories of how only whites are fucking racists. An example might be articles like yours that INSTITUTIONALIZE racism because you fail to list a mountain of work, like yours, that props up your dumbfuck theory. By that I mean a mountain of dumbfuck racist articles hosted by the president of the SFWA, for example, or racial segregation within decades old institutions like WisCon touted by a moron who calls themselves the race-neutral name of "Angry Black Woman." The moronic truth is that every time I run across the white privilege bumbershoot it's a sad sack full of hot air and assumptions and as short on facts as the morons who write about such nonsense are short of brain cells and scholarship to support their racism.

*

I'M FIGHTING RACISM YOU FUCKING HONKIES, EXAMINE YOUR PRIVILEGE

I could provide such examples of endemic bigotry merely turned on its head in the SFWA til the sun coughs and dies. Here's another from another SFWA member well-trained in the political correct mind-trick of using racial profiling to show how wrong it is to racially profile people. His name is Jason Sanford and his blog is called "The Way It Is," which locates it at the intersection of stupid and shitty streets right from the start since the banal musings found on it are mostly about the way it isn't. In the case of white male privilege, Sanford arduously assembled this bit of cracked pottery titled "Why Super Angry White Man is a pretty shitty superhero." Changing only a couple of words around shows Sanford to in fact be his own worst enemy, but too stupid to know it. The fact is that if I wrote such an article about how 15 million black men are always at check cashing places cuz they can't be trusted and are too stupid to get I.D.s I'd be keel-hauled on the good ship "Unexamined Privilege."

White man Sanford's stunning scholarship of "the power of a white man" is provided in a boring anecdote where he "cashed a third-party check at a grocery store without showing any identification," and his black wife assumed "'I'd never get away with that.'" Reminds me of the scientific method of the husband and wife scientists the Curies where they assumed up was down. Sanford adds "We still laugh at the memory, which has become light-hearted shorthand for all the things in life I get a pass on due to me being a white man." A rather modest take on such an incredible epiphany and insight into the nature of reality. I can't wait to see this light-hearted romp of unintentional racial profiling published in a scientific journal. Perhaps an appropriate title would be "My Anecdotal Anomalous Provincialism vs. Only 100 Million White Men."

Sanford has other psychological racial profiling in this little shit pot of a post but the only psychological insights I ever detect from white boys like Scalzi and Sanford is their almost pathological need to show how aware and moral they are and how unaware and immoral others are not. Doing it by skin in addition is too stupid to even keep laughing at. Anyone who remembers the old Silver Age DC Comics remembers the Bizarro Supermen, who did everything the opposite of what we did. That's what people like Scalzi and Sanford are: a Bizarro KKK of wannabe super heroes, the gang that couldn't shoot straight. As I said, using racial and gender profiling to call out racial and gender profiling is something a monkey does, not a man.

You'll also enjoy Sanford's compelling dickery called "I don't debate racists," which, without intending to, demonstrates how difficult it is to debate a racist when you use their same thought processes yourself. Of course I already knew Sanford doesn't debate himself cuz if he did he might not write such stupid fucking bullshit about race.

*

Some other dumbfuck named Shaun Duke who doesn't understand what group defamation is wrote a post called "Shocking Revelations: Pointing Out Racism Doesn't Mean You Hate White People." Duke tried to take apart my open letter asking for Scalzi to be removed as president of the SFWA and Saladin Ahmed and N.K. Jemisin to be removed from the Nebula short list for incessant racial hate speech. I've since taken down the letter because it was time sensitive; once Scalzi left as president it was no longer relevant. Duke also goes after me for the part of this page about Scalzi's views on privilege of the white, straight, male.

Predictably, Duke starts with the straw man, by portraying me thusly: "this must be what the white nationalists mean when they huff and puff about the genocide against the white race." Since I've said no such thing, I have no idea what the fuck he's talking about, but I do know he's running for cover from right out of the gate. If Duke knew where I've been living the last 3 years, and indeed where I've spent much of my adult life and had some of my greatest times, he'd have to find a lot of sugar to put on his own shit he'd be eating about me being a white nationalist.

The very title of Duke's post is another straw man since I don't maintain that either or anything like it. Duke's merely revealing that he decides right and wrong by identity and that is also how he defends. Since one cannot possibly do so without being a bigot, Duke makes up bullshit I've never said and says I'm wrong. Well, I would be if I'd said them. I didn't.

Next Duke gives bird cries from the bushes by resorting to a pedantic legal definition of defamation, as if I give a fuck or maintained that either. What's the difference between defaming someone because they're gay and insulting them or making fun of them you stupid fucking asshole? And you want to hide that behind semantics like there's some giant distinction, run away and say "case closed?" It's Newspeak: censorship that isn't censorship, racism that isn't racism, defamation that's not defamation.

Keep in mind the race-nauts like Duke consistently do the same thing about deleting comments on blogs, maintaining a similarly pedantic definition that "censorship" is only in relation to gov't. These are also people who strictly define racism as only systemic, the better to defend their own stupidity, and stay as far away from principle as possible. Hate is hate, and strictly by-the-book forms of usage don't excuse racism. Hide behind definitions all you want; it is what it is.

Duke then goes off about the "second session of the 109th Congress on July 24th, 2006, in which the speakers point out that race-based discrimination in a great deal of the voting districts originally covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act is still happening."

Even if that were true, what does it have to do with me? I and millions of other Americans don't live in "historically 'racist' voting districts in a number of States." And even if I did, what the fuck would that have to do with me being a man or heterosexual or with some guy from Russia just off the boat? And this is all contingent on all this stuff about voting districts being true, which Duke doesn't and can't prove. Maybe Duke should look into the DOJ under Eric Holder and see what's really going on. Basically Duke's argument is that it's still 1965 in some parts of America so I should have my pants lit on fire by reason of skin, sex and who I fuck. Duke says my letter to the SFWA asking Scalzi, Saladin Ahmed and N.K. Jemisin to be sanctioned by the SFWA is "mind-numbingly stupid." Well, there's stupid and there's stupid, and everything I've pointed out about the rhetoric of Scalzi, Jemisin and Ahmed would be actionable as hate speech in a wide variety of countries. Nothing I've written would be. So go tell India, France, the U.K. and Brazil how mind-numbingly stupid they all are, and don't forget to say how the 3 stooges should be let off on a technicality because they were only calling white people moronic "xenophobic" and immoral racists in a legal sense.

I love this bit of reasoning:

"I benefit from my skin color not because there is something wrong with me, but because racism isn't dead yet (or at least not dead enough that Scalzi's point becomes a thing of the past). Scalzi's post is about making us all aware of that default setting so we can actually do something about it." 

"...not because there is something wrong with me." No, there is never anything wrong with Scalzi and Duke and all the rest, and their friends. It's always simply people with white faces. As for doing "something about it," what in fact are you doing? The easy answer ranges from exactly nothing to making the whole situation worse.

The funniest part is that Duke dehumanizes Ahmed and Jemisin by somehow making them immune from acting out of the same imperatives as Duke's unnamed "angry white folks" and "because of deep-seeded racial hatred." How does Duke know they're not doing that? Skin? Is Duke a mind-reader? I'd say mountains of quotes where white folks look like shit 100% of the time makes its own case. Again, Duke apparently posits skin, not facts, as a defense. I'm not the one lighting up groups; my targets have names, and they're not names like "districts," or the "South," or "white," or "men," or "straight." What's the difference between that shit and "black," "gay," "Jew," or "female?" Dumb fuck.

Read the post for yourself. Duke sees himself as an anti-racist, and me as racist, yet it is Duke who uses the language of group identity to determine guilt and innocence, not I. There is not a single thing in these essays that lights up entire groups of people according to their race, gender or gender preference. Yet that is exactly how Duke pats people on the head like little darling incapable of anything but blithe innocence or demonizes people. Unfortunately, I have quotes, and Duke's own pathetic attempts to catch me out using my own quotes is just that: pathetic.

Duke thinks shit like this is worth Tweeting. I don't:

"shaunduke ‏@shaunduke 16h I favorited a @YouTube video from @stevehofstetter http://youtu.be/cPzFLW7DCs8?a Asking White People in AZ if They're Immigrants 17 Aug 13" 

Why not ask black folks if they're gang members? Read Duke's Twitter feeds. In the end, he's just another conformist politically correct clod-puller who thinks his "independent" thinking doesn't come straight out of some stereotype factory addicted to racial and gender identities like they're the 10 Commandments and the idea of principle some fucking leman scratching at your door at midnight. I guess that's why he tells the entire country of Russia minus the proper identities to go fuck itself. What about the entirety of the Middle East asshole; should they go fuck themselves too? Maybe every cis-asshat in the world who doesn't share your trendy views taken straight off of MTV should go fuck themselves.

Like all his colleagues, Duke places no faith in the human spirit, but in the opposite of Scalzi's straight, white, male - the minority, gay, female - the highest form of human in Duke's befuddled world. Well, that sure saves one a lot of thinking; all he really needs are flash cards. But here's the true deal-breaker: you'll never see Duke attack the very identities he defends with the same facility he lit up whites in his post - never. And when I say never, I mean never. Duke's identities are sacred cows, magic leprechauns and bronze statues in the squares of Duke's mind, and before which he automatically kowtows to without the slightest clue he does so. How numb is a mind like that? Turns out the view from Twitter isn't all that expansive.

And I'll say this again: Neither Scalzi, Jemisin or Ahmed are "pointing" out racism; they are attacking people according to their skin color, and in their millions. That is defamation, no matter how many pink ribbons and dictionaries you tie to it and throw it into the sea.

*

Newspeak and semantics is important to the justice league of race and gender. Moronic rhetoric powers their circular arguments so they make sure the business end of a gun is never pointed back at them. Race expert SFF writer and SFWA race expert N.K. Jemisin makes sure they all keep their fucks in a row and white people in the firing line where they belong:

"N. K. Jemisin ‏@nkjemisin 1h 'That's Racist Against White People!' A Discussion on Power and Privilege http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/ … Good treatment of a basic discussion point 22 Aug 13"

The post recommended by Jemisin is titled "'That’s Racist Against White People!' A Discussion on Power and Privilege." The post is written by someone who apparently never wakes up but dreams a lot named Jamie Utt at everydayfeminsim.com, where everyday white, straight, males are lit up like neo-Nazis light up Jews. Under a section called "Precision of language," which actually doesn't have any idea what that might be, Utt tells us why racial defamation is in fact okay as long as it's never done against gays, people of color or women, and targets only privileged straight white men. Ergo a white guy can be called a "cracker" and must smile, whereas a black person must never have the fearful n-word uttered at them.

Utt maintains "not all hurtful words or deeds are equal when certain ones are backed by a history and current system of domination, violence, oppression, repression, dehumanization, and degradation." The fact I have never dominated, enacted racial or gender violence, oppressed anyone according to their race or gender, or repressed, dehumanized or degraded anyone means nothing. Just as Utt rationalizes that all blacks are lazy criminals, Jews are all greedy, and all Muslims are terrorists, he also rationalizes and profiles me as a dominating, violent, oppressor, repressor, dehumanizing and degrading piece of shit that doesn't deserve equal treatment because all whites benefit from white assholery going back to the beginning of DNA or something.

Utt describes himself as "a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator" but he is really an expert at dragging out profiling straw men stereotypes about whites and Christians complaining about shit and expanding those anecdotal complaints to the size of a blimp while Utt also laughingly uses the phrase "a little thing called context" and actually meaning context is a little thing. Utt may as well have based a political piece about blacks on fried chicken.

At the end of Utt's stupid day, no non-white ever has the force of institutions behind their bias, prejudice and racial bigotry, even as gays, women and non-whites lead the nation in formalized organizations based solely on their respective identities of race, gender and gender preference. What Utt really is doing is protecting the racial and gender assaults his cult engages in daily to make sure everyone understands the correct identity can never be a bigot, even when they burn down Christian churches all over Egypt in the space of only a few days after the July, 2013 ouster of President Morsi. Those asshole Christians need to read Utt's article and stop bitching from the burnt out ruins of their churches.

In my opinion, Utt could write for Stormfront without a problem, as he has the racial rhetoric of blame, complaint and self-pity he neatly shifts away from himself down to a pseudo-science, even as Utt operates from within a culture that is the main source of "the whine." And Utt's double standards are by no means his own. Utt's rhetoric is standard operating procedure, perfected over years, if not decades, by racialist morons obsessed with the endemic immorality of certain people the day those certain people were born. You have to admit, it's a neat trick to forever reserve the right to claim discrimination to one's self and deny it to others based, not on logic, but on what you were the day you were born. That's a fucking trademark folks, and one where law and principle become completely irrelevant, subservient to circular arguments that wouldn't fool a child.

Rape expert, SFWA member and occasional young adult fantasy author Jim Hines gets on board during the same week as Utt's post by attributing a single act of discrimination by a publisher to "the straight agenda," whatever the fuck that is, since no proof of a larger conspiracy beyond Hines' single accusation is given. This may be due to the fact that America's xenophobia, racism, women-hatred, homophobia, and Islamophobia are simple taken for granted and "every one knows" is in effect a permanent footnote. Why bother listing things or making a case? Profiling's easier and swifter. Needless to say, Hines' faith in the human spirit is as directional as a signpost that says "This way to Assholeville."

It's the same bull shit over and over again. Black people are never bigots, there is such a thing as woman-hatred but no man hatred. Gays have no ill-will towards straights. If I didn't know better I'd think these coddled identities weren't quite human. By their own standards, they sure as fuck ain't equal. If they are, why the points-shaving system?

Wonderfully, with Hines' usual lack of awareness or understanding the meaning of irony, he writes about how "I loved GenCon, but I can’t help noticing how many all-male and/or all-white panels I was on this past weekend." I wonder if this idiot's ever been to an NBA game or a boxing match and got all perturbed cuz there were too many black men? Since neither Hines or Scalzi will ever live in a black neighborhood, presumably there is some cut-off point where there will be too many black men at SFF conventions, at which point they'll start writing novels about hockey. When you think of considerations like that, even jokingly, it reveals this sad rhetoric for the fucking insanity it is.

Hines' doubles down on his self satire by wondering about people who "have the wrong color skin, love the wrong people, or identify as the wrong gender?"

Hahahaha. Hines had a near-death brush with principle there, since that is a question he should ask himself.

*

Anti-neckbeard, neckbeard Scalzi is published by Tor Books. The promotional face of Tor is Tor.com, a web site dedicated to juvenile science fiction and fantasy, film, and TV which is a sometimes politically correct entity little different in its politicized agenda from the Daily Kos or a 17th century daycare center for Caribbean pirates. Whether the occasional shots directed at identity are done from sheer politics on the part of the upper management at Macmillan, the owners of Tor, or done from a marketing standpoint to appeal to what may be felt is the reality of their audience is unknown to me. What is known to me is that some bloggers and editors at Tor.com seem to be fully on board with racialist politics and not simply pandering, and are given free rein. I cite Tor.com as a fairly typical example of the mainstream SFF community whenever politics is brought to the fore and therefore the extent to which those politics are being given the backing of mainstream credibility, and from there taught to children via Dr. Who and space adventures about "vomit zombies" from the asteroid belt.

Persistent disagreement in the comments section with the identity politics presented at Tor will get you banned, though people who persistently agree or respond to that disagreement with personal insults will not be. That trend is reflected in every single politically correct blog in SFF; racist and sexist remarks are in fact tolerated, but only if it's the correct race and gender. In that case, the sky's the limit. The hypocrisy, ignorance and even just plain stupidity is breathtaking.

Again, consider that Tor publishes science fiction, yet, like Scalzi, ignores its own legacy, namely the warnings of George Orwell in "1984," and Ray Bradbury in his seminal science fiction novel, "Fahrenheit 451." In my opinion, Tor.com has blithely indulged in not only political censorship, but in bigotry - racial advocacy, racialism, and morality distributed and defined by one's appearance. I confess that a company that publishes science fiction casually indulging in intellectual book burning or racial politics and even allowing racial bigots to be put forth as if they are a font of wisdom to be quoted is something I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around. If hate speech is only a matter of a point of view or an opinion, why not take on the eternally moronic David Duke as an author?

Liz Bourke at Tor.com wrote an article titled "Sleeps With Monsters: Epic Fantasy Is Crushingly Conservative?" Here is a quote by her on a day she apparently had a stroke while taking a stab at a sentence about what constitutes "conservative," in which she says: "addresses the present default cultural narratives of who gets to hold and use power, how, and why. For our genre, for our culture(s) in the US, UK, and Europe, that’s white (heterosexual) cisgendered men. Often persons who don’t fit these criteria who hold and use power anyway are portrayed as wrong, anomalous, wicked. (There are plenty of cultural narratives floating about concerning the moral and occasionally physical degeneracy of non-straight-white-men. Plenty.)" I hope Liz is feeling better. Maybe a potato will settle her down. Oh well, like Fawlty said, "She's from Ireland." I'm looking forward to her thesis on the cultural appropriation by American film of bogs and little people.

Liz said, "plenty." There are plenty of narratives about the "moral... degeneracy" of white men too, and I have just cited one. The moral difference is between my criticizing the purposefully racial, which is what my citing this Tor article with actual names attached is, and Bourke's accusation of a racial conspiracy by men with no names, only skin, and an assumption such unknown millions of men have an intent to racially huddle intellectually. How much is "plenty?" Asserting there is some tacit conspiracy by heterosexual white men - who are lumped together here as endemic, immoral and witless bigots - is some pretty strong stuff for a web site aimed at young adults.

Let me adjust those quotes so I can tell show you the problem here and point up the difference between sharing an intellectual space and claiming not to by virtue of the specifics of the identity. My point is that bigotry is bigotry, and it doesn't matter who's targeted, just the manner of it.

"For our culture, that's Jewish men. Often persons who don't fit these criteria who hold and use power any way (gentiles) are portrayed as wrong, anomalous, wicked. (There are plenty of Jewish narratives floating about concerning the moral and occasional physical degeneracy of gentiles."

See the problem there? And that's EUROPE! Bourke invokes history and ignores it in one single stroke.

Bourke doubles down and quotes a Twitter remark by SFWA member and Orbit author N.K. Jemisin. "Because the 'fantasy' most EF (epic fantasy) delivers is of white male power & centrality, as much as dragons. That *is* conservatism, now." 

Let me fix that too: "Because the 'fantasy' most EF delivers is of Jewish power and centrality."

Jemisin's rhetoric doesn't sound at all like a Jew-hating Nazi when she maintains whites have:

"...constructed an ingenious system allowing it to dominate most of the planet. (Diabolical… but ingenious.)"

Jemisin's contention is as moronic as proclaiming Aztec literature was an attempt to maintain some type of racial centrality. She's too dumb to sort out countries with a lot of Aztecs and Europeans from actual racial supremacists and bigots. Jemisin may not have figured this out but when about 4 black people even write epic fantasy it doesn't exactly take a racial conspiracy to maintain "centrality." Pretty much all you have to do is wake up.

Bourke Tweets this about the Holocaust:

"Liz Bourke ‏@hawkwing_lb 8h @KateElliottSFF (Then I had a wee Holocaust tour of Poland, and couldn't read another book about it for years without wanting to vomit.)" 

Really? You mean vomiting hate speech about racial conspiracies? How the fuck do you think that shit all got kickstarted you fucking moron? You might want to take about 5 min. and rethink the idea it's okay to defame certain identities and where people get ideas about blowing up shit, kicking their ass or putting them on trains. Before that happens, hate speech is institutionalized and made to seem normal.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Bourke or Jemisin to light up Chinese, Arab or Hindu literature for trying to maintain racial centrality or power, no, not even when Jemisin consciously fills her stories with ethnicities on the thin claim of defense while forbidding that same act to all others with a far more natural demographic claim to do so. Their disdain is strictly reserved for white, straight, men and it is that fact that makes Bourke's and Jemisin's maudlin remarks racial bigotry.

There is no balanced principle being exerted here but only a very conscious "portrayal" of straight, white, men as "wrong" and "wicked," including the luckless, unfortunately white, and predictably nameless authors Jemisin and Bourke target who they can't prove engaged in racial self-promotion or even had an interest in such things. Those who in fact have an interest in such things are the very racialist hypocrites who write such trash. At the same time, you can bet your bottom dollar Jemisin and Bourke lament the lack of recognition of Chinese, Arab and Hindu writings about Western culture. The difference is they will never attack Chinese, Arabs or Hindus in such a fashion over some stupid assertion of a Chinese, Arab or Hindu conspiracy to maintain their own racial centrality. You see, that would be racist. In fact, when other culture's write literature steeped in their own culture, then it's just wonderful and vibrant. If these people have two marbles inside their heads to rub together and call a brain it would surprise me to no end. There is no principle being invoked here, just a stupid and racial double standard.

The sheer arrogance of people who are essentially nobodies to take out men of great accomplishment on the premise it was all a magician's act born of privilege is too stupid to countenance. I'm sure Bourke and Jemisin will let us all know when they've become a national pistol champion, invented a new form of chess, single-handedly invented literary genres, wrote plays performed a hundred years later, are honored by the Royal Humane Society with a medal for heroism, died in battle, took some of the earliest photos at sea of storms, befuddled Houdini, wrote the best horror stories that take place at sea, influenced millions across generations including famous writers, studied Greek and Latin, punched cattle, designed textiles, founded preservation societies, translated classic and medieval texts, wrote 500 novels, founded publishing houses, designed books, illustrated, painted, created tapestries and calligraphy, worked in embroidery, were scholars, and a hundred other things I can't list here.

Do Bourke and Jemisin even know what the word "arrogance" means? They certainly have the scantiest of footholds on what a "racist" is, since they have narrowed it's definition down to toothpick size for themselves and expanded it out to the edge of the solar system for those whose racial and gender identity they disdain. I'll have far more to say about Jemisin later in this series of essays. Suffice it to say, despite Jemisin's lack of any real accomplishments compared to her literary betters from the past, she has the gall to Tweet this:

"There are people in this genre who don't like that I exist, after all, and that I'm publishing, and that my books are acclaimed." 

Sure lady, I'm sure Lord Dunsany and William Morris and Tolkien are all gnashing their teeth in racist heaven in jealousy. And "acclaimed" by who?

Scalzi and the absurd racialist "postcolonialist" community he swims in stink of E.M. Forster's "Vashti," Twitter, video games, the internet, tiny apartments, tinier accomplishment, and even tinier razor thin corridors of provincialism they shush away with hubris, sheer intellect and a keyboard, dropping gavels on people far superior to themselves in accomplishment and experience and dropping bushels loaded with disdain, jealousy and even hatred, combined with a lack of judgment so insulated one might normally expect to find such views from somebody locked in a cupboard with a TV set.

These are not people who climb volcanoes, motorcycle completely around the island of Bali, violate curfew during revolutions, hike through roadless jungles or hitch rides on cement barges in the heart of South America. These are people who see-all and know-all from their one bedroom apartments or the den of their modest home thanks to their great intellect, correctthink and an internet connection. Their arrogance and willingness to lend their expertise to almost any subject is only surpassed by their ignorance and lack of experience.

Liz Bourke publicly pan-handling for money speaks to this. "Help me non-white, non-cisgendered wimmens, you're my only hope." Call Carl Brandon, Liz. They'll measure your fucking head and maybe give you cab fare. Although you might end up at a doxy black Irish-only cow milking competition.

Perhaps the next time Bourke and Jemisin meet on the Bed-Stuy Riviera to go fox hunting they can sort it all out. Add to that the fact they present not one stick of proof, only blithe assumptions they pass off as obvious; too obvious to even argue with facts. Identity itself is all the proof they need because identity itself defines right and wrong. These are people who don't know any more about the workings of the world around them than they do the feel of the sun on their face.

Add your own group to such bigoted remarks - black folks, Muslims; it's problematic - at least to me. If you think it's kosher to paint folks like that, knock yourself out. I spit on people who make such remarks. And the fact is, if quotes like Tor's did mention Muslims or black folks, the same people in the Tor piece blithely making these remarks would be squealing like pigs about racism. That's what choosing identity over principle buys you - nothing.

And nothing is unwittingly sharing an intellectual space with bigots and the self-contradiction of identity politics which guarantees you will never realize you are sharing such a space. And why don't you share that space? Because you don't look like the people who have done it in the past and so you can't be a bigot - a cogent argument - if you're a child.

I can sum up this racially paranoid and empty "argument" in one phrase: "cherchez l'homme blanc." In fact all of world history is summed up in this manner by these ignorant people and it is that "history" upon which they base their parochial world view. You will realize to what extent this is true once you take even a cursory glance at the SF&F community, which I do at length is this first of a series of essays.

Reading such all too common remarks as those of Scalzi and at Tor, one would think white men comprise an informal and secret KKK in the way idiots believe in Jewish conspiracies, and that white fantasy writers in particular have colluded and conspired to maintain white centrality in their fiction for 100 years and more. Is that the same conspiracy black players in the NBA use to maintain their own centrality and Chinese authors in China? Naughty if so. Or is the idea white men are simply such dumb clucks they are unaware of their own racism, presumably by virtue of being white? In my opinion Liz Bourke should be given the choice of apologizing for those quotes, being fired, or writing a steam punk novel about werewolves.

The truth of the matter is that these people have no innate interest in justice or sense of it. Their writings are one-sided and almost pathologically bigoted expressions of racial rabble-rousing, jealously and disdain. Were such people interested in notions of justice and a principled regard for the greater good, they'd be writing or defending essays like this one, not lighting up white, straight, men based on a version of history and factless recitations of current events that are so bowdlerized only a child not yet weaned off of Santa Claus could accept them.

In regard to a solution to such racial jargon and public punishments, pay close attention to this article called "Reebok Drops Rick Ross Over 'Date Rape' Lyrics" at the aforementioned happy place called The Root. Without principle and with only identity to use as how to decide right and wrong, politicized racialists unwittingly expose their own hypocrisy by choosing arbitrary standards to decide when speech does and doesn't affect a culture at large. There is indeed such a thing as "a dangerous message to send," and that doesn't change from Friday to Tuesday or according to race, gender or creed. Without principle, intellect and concepts of fair play are empty notions. This Reebok issue is not a clash of principles, it is a clash of identities. What we're talking about here is a perceptual trap.

One can only wonder about the intersection of hate speech and banning comments at Tor.com that call it out, and how the European Union's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in Strasbourg, Germany would feel about it, given the fact that Tor is owned by the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, who have expressed a desire to distance themselves from their uncertain provenance to the Nazi Party which has never been satisfactorily settled. Oops! Did I just say Nazis? Since the Holtzbrinck family has conspicuously opened up their archives to cooperate with shedding light on this issue, I can only wonder what they'd think of all this if they knew of it.

"Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of 'insulting' or 'defaming segments of the population.' The Netherlands bans anything that 'verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap.' It’s illegal to 'insult' such a group in France, to 'defame' them in Portugal, to 'degrade' them in Denmark, or to 'expresses contempt' for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it’s illegal to 'demean' them even with a 'gesture.' Canada punishes anyone who 'willfully promotes hatred.' The United Kingdom outlaws 'insulting words or behavior' that arouse 'racial hatred.' Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic 'symbols.' - "Hate-Speech Hypocrites" - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine, Sept. 28, 2012

"... the court is always very careful to separate the principle from any political debate. What’s involved is not a political debate, what’s involved is an attack on people based on the fact that they are members of a group. It’s not just stereotyping, but it’s demonization.”  - Mark Freiman, former deputy Attorney-General of Ontario, commenting on hate-speech. (the bold emphasis is mine)

"To raise awareness about the risks of online hate speech for a culture of human rights and democracy and to invite students to take action against hate speech and to join, where appropriate, national campaigns against hate speech." - Council of Europe's Development of Online School Campaign Tool Against Online Hate Speech 

Unless Tor.com thinks they can ban Canada, the U.K. and E.U. they might want to think about ixnaying Liz Bourke, and stop quoting David Duke as Solomon the Wise.

A former U.S. Dept. of Justice attorney named John Adams once wrote:

"Americans are growing weary of the obsession of explaining moral choices through a racial context. Most of us have been raised to understand human behavior as a series of individual choices — good and bad. Consequences follow those choices. The incessant agenda to ascribe racial explanations to human behavior — whether pulling a trigger, or lying on the stand isn’t American-style justice. It’s immoral. It’s justice, race-hustler style; and it has overstayed its welcome."

 

*

 

I do not define myself as conservative, or belong to the Republican Party, nor have I ever voted for a Republican candidate, nor am I a Libertarian. If I did have to define myself, I guess it would be something on the order of a liberal of the late '40s through to the early '60s. That was when there were wars to be fought, not monsters to create and then sleep with. When the politics of Scalzi, Tor and a large swath of the SF&F community places someone like me on the Conservative Right by default, a man who despised Richard Nixon and also Ken Starr and the GOP for what they did to Bill Clinton, something is seriously and deeply wrong. This isn't even a case of politics, but of a group of hateful fringe lunatics who heavily identify with and hide behind a label of liberal "progressives," in this instance, a laughable Orwellian junk-heap of a term if there ever was one.

What is wrong here is that racism and bigotry is being mainstreamed, institutionalized and made acceptable, not only by John Scalzi, but the most influential publisher of science fiction and fantasy in the United States and the United Kingdom. One wonders how much Tor's and Orbit's owners are aware of the extent of racist comments made by their authors such as Scalzi and N.K. Jemisin on their personal blogs, as well as the bloggers and commenters at Tor.com. That is in addition to Tor.com censoring comments that are in no way inflammatory but amount to simple disagreement. When disagreement is considered inflammatory, that is yet another problem in a free society. For a commercial concern, such actions actually costs Tor's owners money. Fun is fun and politics is politics and business is business. Cutting out half your readership for essentially no reason other than to indulge the politics of a few bloggers and writers of science fiction and fantasy aimed at kids is nonsensical.

At Tor.com they call censoring comments "editing," and that is how the commenters also refer to it, and the commenters openly admit to approving of it. Needless to say, that is not a form of tolerance or dialogue, though these same people make grand gestures about those very things. What is the point of Bourke's article if not to suggest a dialogue is needed? The problem is that they refuse to actually indulge in that dialogue. That's because Bourke's section about gender and race is not an invitation to dialogue but an accusation in need only of a signed confession.

Can anyone parse for me the stupidity, hypocrisy and doublethink in this remark in the comments section for the Bourke article: "I am glad to hear that Mr. May's comments are being edited, and was pleased to see that folks have been challenging his remarks above." Last I checked, the word "challenge" is a politically neutral expression and the concept either pleases one or it does not. How can one be both pleased at the notion of challenge and reject the concept in the same sentence? This is not a question of discussing race, that is perfectly fine. It is a question of one race always being wrong, defined by race or suggesting racial conspiracies - that is naked bigotry. The problem is in indulging in the first and not realizing it has crossed into the last.

The unintentional hilarity of using semantics that smack of Orwell's Newspeak to refer to censorship is apparently lost on the editors at Tor.com, as is the fact they are anti-Winston Smith and anti-Guy Montag. Such people don't need to write about dystopian horrors of the future but merely observe their own rhetoric in the here and now. Tor should call "censoring" and banning people in their comments section by some word randomly generated in some fashion, perhaps by a monkey with some Scrabble tiles. Although I am presenting this as a single anecdote, people familiar with the Tor blogs know this is typical political behavior. For those not familiar with Tor, it is online for you to visit. You will not fare well in disagreeing.

It should be noted that Scalzi also not only conspicuously censors his own blog but makes frequent references to the act in a way he makes clear he is only too happy to indulge in, since his main goal in life is to as accurately imitate a nun as possible. Again, how one goes from "Fahrenheit 451" to that is jaw-dropping. Considering the political police-state mentality of the science fiction community in America and the United Kingdom, one can only come to the conclusion that, at least for now, science fiction, when it comes to being a warning and satirical eye, is largely dead. Science fiction literature used to be a genre that was conspicuous for that warning and satirical voice; that is completely gone and in its place is hate speech and propaganda worthy of a Goebbels.

And what is perhaps also lost to Scalzi about "privilege," again in regard to part of his own literary legacy, is that Ray Bradbury spent several days a week at the public library to improve and educate himself from the age of 17 to 27. Bradbury wrote "Fahrenheit 451" at the library, paying 10 cents every 30 minutes to use a typewriter. Why would a man with racial privilege need to resort to such measures? That's not an expression of privilege but of resolve, character, discipline and hard work. I'm pretty sure Bradbury didn't achieve fame with knowing winks, nods and secret white man handshakes. To suggest Scalzi's imaginary "Gay Minority Female" would not benefit from such discipline due to 21st century white male racism in America from coast to coast is absurd bigotry, especially when Scalzi posits some mechanism he asserts is measurable but which he cannot in the least way measure. The funniest thing about doofs like Scalzi is that he treats a bizarre theory as if it's a fact and treats actual statistics that reflect failed cultural values as myth, unless they're white, then they're facts again and a failed cultural value system is all too probable. The problem there is that one must first prove white folks even think of themselves as a culture and secondly that it is racist. A tall task considering there are no mainstream white organizations that exist in America. One cannot claim that being a mere majority is the same thing as purposefully huddling around race. By that standard, most of the world's countries would be racial bigots by default.

The problem with Scalzi's type of intellectual space is that, being based on myths and stereotypes and not facts, it can be turned around in a heartbeat and put onto gays, black folks, native-Americans or Jews; it certainly has been in the past. Please tell me no idiots have ever talked about Jewish "privilege."

Christopher Hitchens once wrote "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I'm can't address the points Scalzi's article makes because there are no facts in it to address; there are however moronic and racially bigoted stereotypes and assumptions passed off as reality.

*

Scalzi's article basically starts off with the idea of childishly concocting a racial slur and defamation and then pre-gauging the resentment as proof his article is correct. Substitute the n-word for "privilege" and you can see how Scalzi's mind works. In fact, Scalzi is declaring white, straight, men to be homophobic, racist, and women-haters. The basis of the article is as empty as the idea of the "greedy Jew," or the "lazy negro." For me the real issue is if, first, the article violates John Scalzi's own standards and evident interests in defaming and discriminating against people because of their race and gender; such hypocrisy invites attention and criticism. The second issue is if the article rises to the level of hate speech. Again, given Scalzi's own comments in other articles, one can argue he certainly believes so. Changing the race and gender of the target is no escape clause in my book. If the article does rise to the level of hate speech, then Scalzi is certainly guilty of mainstreaming such speech given his position as president of the SFWA.

People can read Scalzi's article and judge its ideas for themselves, but it's obvious to me Scalzi cannot use his article to predict a single act by any individual in this world based on their race - to claim to do so is the basis for all racism. Simply abandoning principle and changing the racial target doesn't make such "arguments" any more persuasive just because it's now the "privileged honky." And keep in mind the clever rhetorical argument is historically always a sidecar to bigotry. It is an academic attempt to rationalize hate - that's why they call it hate speech. The very nature of such portrayals and language is offensive.

It's amusing that Scalzi - a racist, sexist, heterophobic dipshit - can deride his opponents as a "racist, sexist, homophobic, dipshit," and do it without a trace of irony or self-awareness. If anything, they would be called birds of a feather. Scalzi has taken a principle, shredded it to bits, shit on it, and then compartmentalized it by race and gender in a way that is completely opposite to what he claims to champion. Reading one's own writings, failing to realize men are portrayed in the negative about 100% of the time and at the same time claiming to be anti-sexist requires a level of stupidity that is unimaginable. It shouldn't come as any surprise that Scalzi is to SF what Moby is to music: Scalzi can do everything but actually write SF. Scalzi's a pitchman with nothing to pitch, but in today's world of bleeding conformity, that's an awful lot. Scalzi's only hope of success is to lift pale imitations of Robert Heinlein and H. Beam Piper and overtly appeal to a politically correct mob of people who crave someone to say "there, there," much like Lady Gaga does.

When someone says they hate a certain ethnic group and you actually know of it and who did it, then attack them. Otherwise, attacking someone on the other side of a continent with the right skin tone whose life and success in life you only theorize exists by race doesn't rise to that level. It does rise to the level of bigotry. People who do such things as Scalzi and attempt to address this issue in some kind of historic or social terms cannot for the life of them figure out the difference between the words "institution," "anomaly," and "anecdote," nor do they have the slightest interest in adding context to expand a picture. It's much simpler to decontextualize what they wish to and hope you won't notice. Well, we do.

People who identify themselves as progressive commonly indulge in racializing life, assuming everyone else does too, and stripping away context to make their points "clearer." When George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death in Florida on the night of Feb.26, 2012, the story made national headlines and was controversial fodder for blogs for weeks. Zimmerman was commonly described as a "white Hispanic," though Zimmerman looks about as white as an Incan Pizarro might have encountered in 1540. A racialized political community simply ignored FBI cross-racial murder statistics that blacks kill twice as many whites as vice-versa and so promoted the idea that Zimmerman was only the tip of a dirty iceberg where "whites" were profiling, hunting and killing black children and getting away with it.

Had Zimmerman written a science fiction novel, that same racialized community, Tor.com and other SF blogs and webzines would've loaded Zimmerman up as an Afro-Peruvian-American, given him cab fare to an SF convention, a Nebula award nomination and bleated about Zimmerman as an example of diversity, with extra points for having a black great-grand father and both La Raza and the NAACP behind him, invoking their "one-percent" rule. Make no mistake about where these people are coming from or the delusions they suffer under.

In the context of literature, this entire discussion is a good way to kill art. The science fiction convention called Diversicon announces its intentions in its title and the feminist WisCon convention also has a clear agenda, and they have little to do with art or literature. In each case, the enemy is presumed, and to no one's surprise, in each instance, it is Scalzi's straight, white, male. The hero therefore is Scalzi's self-declared gay, minority, female. Bigotry and racism are thus mainstreamed and formally institutionalized.

Art is not a racial-gender pie-chart; it has nothing to do with such things. Those are topics the genre gathers into itself, not the genre itself. To believe otherwise is the definition of provincialism. Provincialism is the result of an insulated culture, and SF fandom is insulated to the hilt. To believe all of history and the world itself can be effectively parsed through a tiny political splinter of this world is ignorant. It shouldn't come as a surprise that massive bigotry is the result. The idea that the world can be figured out by a combination of hubris, sheer intellect, Google and a keyboard is the definition of arrogance.

So, SF fandom believes their vision of the world actually is the world. The world itself looks back and sees SF fandom as a dark, intellectually empty, provincial and inbred place that doesn't provide tools or encouragement to challenge its own precepts, though such things are clearly the legacy of SF literature itself. SF has turned its back on itself, fallen in on itself. Intolerance is tolerance, racism is anti-racism, skin and gender convey both morality and wisdom. In principle, we are talking about the exact failure of perception George Orwell warned against in "1984." And that failure is to cultivate the ability to hold mutually exclusive concepts in one's mind at the same time by abandoning principle and worshiping identity - Orwell's "doublethink." To worship identity literally means an individual will logically contradict themselves as fast as they can speak. In this insulated world, what's good for the goose is in fact not good for the gander. Morality becomes a double standard by default.

To presume vast unseen forces are arrayed against women and minorities but which have no actual names or institutions verges on paranoia and can also be an indicator of people with mental health issues. Expanding out the definition of the word "institution" in order to march the past's monsters into the present is a transparent intellectual ploy. To believe racism is actually anti-racism is plain stupidity.

SF fandom is increasingly a community that seems to have little faith in the human spirit, and one that worships its own piousness, self-righteousness and moral high ground, not to mention a presumed intellectual superiority they can't actually demonstrate. These people don't confront arguments head on, they attack your grammar, or your identity; only certain identities are allowed a true voice with true credibility.

Here's boring SF author Kate Elliott on Twitter in one day:

"Reminds me of the time I did a panel on "Fantasy Lit" w/ an old white guy academic, prof of religion, who had written +"

And again:

"They only give that title to white male writers"

At the same time the Daily Kos had headlines like this:

"Old white man decides to leave military sexual assault decisions in the hands of old white men." 

That's like me writing "young black man decides to leave criminal law in the hands of young black men. Tee hee." The implications of immorality determined by race are clear in each, but to the justice league of race and gender, only one is publicly allowed and only one true. Ditzy racial stereotypes made by ditzy fucking politically correct racists is what's true here.

Elliott is the author of the abhorrently stupid Jaran science fiction love/porn series which could be titled, "Dr. Zhivago and the Gay Threesome Tribes of the Steppes of Mars," proof that the new wave of identity-obsessed SF&F writers are incapable of making art. How could art ever be made by someone dumb enough to be dazzled by skin?

These exchanges within the SF&F community are common on Twitter and blogs with, ironically, the very justice league of race and gender who would go nuts at the idea of replacing that word with "black," or how it would sound if they said "old, black, lesbian." It is assumed a lesbian has innate powers that precludes stupidity. These people say this stuff so casually and with such an assurance that skin equals morality it never even occurs to them how much they violate their own rules or how impossible simple comparisons are for them when they are cut off from principle in favor of identity. The stunning hypocrisy needed to indulge in this sort of blather is only matched by an equally stunning failure of intellect. This is a culture which never shuts up about the unwitting racism of others but without being able to show such a thing while they themselves spout hate speech so casually they may as well be talking about the laundry. And let me make it clear I don't personally care what these idiots say. I'm judging them by the skin-thin standards by which anyone who does 1/10 of what they do gets lit up like a Christmas bonfire. However their clownish use of brain cells does explain why the SFWA has nominated a racial bigot for "Best Novel" 4 of the last 6 years.

Earlier that same day this same hopeless moron Tweets:

"But there's no gender/race bias involved in literary circles" Did you see how she used the phrase "gender/race bias" there like she actually understood it?

Elliott Tweets a few days later:

"Supposed to be writing a guest post on gender & epic fantasy. Just sludge today. Maybe I have written about this once too often."

Guess what? Maybe you have. I second the fuck out of that emotion. Leave it the fuck lie. I'm tired of being attacked by you idiots and by the way fuck that "male gaze" bullshit too.

Dumbfuck Elliott promotes this on Twitter:

"Kate Elliottt ‏@KateElliotttSFF 25m Untitled: Join the POC Writing Group! Calling all Writers of Color! "

And here it is:

http://poc-creators.tumblr.com/post/55349171831/join-the-poc-writing-group-calling-all-writers-of 

My reply: how can you be this fucking dumb? Why not just call it "Tnorfmrots" or "We Are All One-Drop."

Calling-All-Racists has nifty questions like this:

"Who am I?: Whatever you want to add in here about yourself. (Korean American. I love writing. I can’t wait to take over the world and bring forth all the diversity!)" 

Only Jews and whites want to take over the world and you don't want them so WTF? Yeah! Hahahah. "All the diversity" and no whites. Try fucking blowing me. Naturally these idiots will mind-read me and say I'm threatened by my no longer having suzerainty over all non-whites and wish America was like Andy of Mayberry. Just as naturally these fucks have no idea what a Constitution is; they sure as hell show no signs of being capable of maintaining one let alone creating it. Good luck squeezing art out of your fucking skin.

Now that Kate's done her good deed she can go onto her next project of Calling-All-People-Of-Color-To-Come-Live-In-My-Neighborhood which will start about the same time Hell itself freezes over. Probably be easier for Kate to express her PoC solidarity by going to live in a non-white neighborhood but I mean "easier" in the sense of "no fucking way" and being dragged kicking and screaming "oh, wait... I didn't mean I would personally get so involved cuz books can't rob me..."

Naturally, on July 14, 2013, the day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, Elliott Tweeted:

"Kate Elliottt ‏@KateElliotttSFF now @gavreads @cstross That doesn't need to stated. It is understood that the law is for the benefit of white people" 

Since there were no white people involved in the crime itself, Elliott is referring mostly to the racial fuckery inside her own dumb head. Unless the powerful mind of Elliott believes Pizarro thought he was in Europe when he first saw an Incan. "Oh, oh, my Gotz, the world is round. We've come back to Europe!! Hurray!! The spice will flow!!"

Elliott naturally has to Tweet this shit about Trayvon Martin:

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 8h This is a powerful piece @matthewddsg: An open letter to whites about the black community and the Trayvon Martin case http://wp.me/p1rxkF-is" 

Thanks for the letter kid. There's nothing like some dumbfuck in Canada fighting racial profiling by profiling all whites in a country he doesn't even live in and then further justifying his stupid logic by telling me that Zimmerman is actually a "white-passing man with a white name" when in fact Zimmerman couldn't pass for white anywhere on the fucking globe, Canada excepted.

This asshole writes: "On the night he was killed, Trayvon Martin was dressed in a way that does not please you." Yeah, well done Canadian Sherlock. You have very sharp eyes to figure out all of us 230 million whites in America were displeased and sent out our white-passing agent to finish off Martin. Dear one black guy in Canada. You don't know me and writing this shit is the same thing as you being followed around by security "in a nice clothing store." Fuck off and grow up. I'm sick of listening to your shit.

Score another dunk for criminal defense lawyer Kate Elliott, the SFWA and the SFF community.

Then Kate goes to see "Pacific Rim." Oops! Too many white men and da privilege and da whitewashing 'n' stuff.

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF@aliettedb del Toro is Mexican & I think better than some but altho the 3 leads are diverse, all the secondary roles are (white) men" 

Oopy doopy, that is a sad state of affairs. Imagine: all those whites, together like that, and men. Fuck. That's kind of a horror movie right there. Or it could be just the inside of Elliott's politically correct cabbage she uses for a brain. It should be noted that Elliott belongs to a culture within SFF that finds something racist about virtually any SF film that comes out. They even shit on previews.

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 3h Watching the previews was kind of scary though: mainstream Hollywood's obsession w/ white casts like they can't even see they're doing it" 

Yeah, that's cuz they're all blind idiots without your immense powers of perception or your insensate and creepy obsession with race. Jesus Christ lady, put a fucking sock in it already. Go produce a fucking movie and put whoever the fuck you want in it if you're so fucking bright. You'll find having a couple of hundred million on the line has its own imperatives and it ain't a politically correct insulated cult of bigots in SFF fandom with whiteyphobia on the brain.

Oh, deary me, oh deary me. All those white people. And they used to be in all those magazine ads in the '50s drinking Pepsi 'n' shit at dreary too white boring parties and...

Or course, none of these PC fuck's idiotic SFF novels are racist - they are too cool and with it and moral for that. Read this stream of Twitter horseshit from Elliott to find out how with it.

"Kate Elliott@KateElliottSFF so yes I am a racist because I grew up in a racist society which means I have to work every day to be alert & to become better"

And let me add blah, blah, blah and fuck off. Add another racist to the list I'm not on. Like every member of the justice league of race and gender, Elliott's main talents are complaint and blame with self-pity frosting. A sure-fire winning combination.

Here's what admitted racist white-worrier Elliott wrote once upon a midnight dreary of crocodile tears blubbery wherein she knows about the "pervasive racism (including hers) that afflicts the USA" cuz she would never profile 230 million whites cuz that would be racist... what... wait.

"... white guys in Hollywood films ARE interchangeable." 

What about your brain cells Miss Kate? Are those interchangeable? With say, a monkey, or a sea sponge? I'm guessing I'd have to wait til the Crab Nebula blows away to hear you say something like that about black folks. Why is that simple comparison so utterly beyond you to make? I guess that's why you find David Duke-like rhetoric emotionally moving as long as Duke dresses up like a woman and in black face and takes out all those interchangeable white honkies down in the down under.

Elliott thinks you ought to know about the wisdom and justice of anti-white racist websites:

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 20m Gradient Lair: "Colourblind" Friendships Don't Exist. Line In The Sand Moments On Race Remind Me of This http://tmblr.co/ZM82TxrLjNaQ" 

Here's a self-contradictory as well as false bon mot of that wisdom for you to choke on:

"I wonder if now upon reflection do they realize that no, Black people have not got a damn thing that we didn’t work for and um, oh yeah, we literally built this country. Capitalism as it is now would not exist without slavery. Further, this myth of 'free stuff' became popular a la President Reagan and totally ignores structural racism. Bootstrap theory fails and respectability politics fail. They eschew the ramifications of racism." 

Great. I wonder what it's like to go to sleep every night, wake up yesterday, and then write down dreams concocted of purest bullshit. And "bootstrap theory" fails if you never tug on them.

Here's one of the funnier Tweets from Elliott, and a sure sign of how smug moralizing preachers are clueless about what it is they are addicted to:

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 29m My theory of social media is that it is about interaction not about lecturing and a platform for me to talk down to 'you' #sffwrtcht"

Since Elliot never stops talking down to America from a great height about how they're all a bunch of racist sexist imperialist pigs who secretly A-bombed the innocent Japanese and then tried to cover it up, stole the country and generally hate everything, the amount of unawareness from this typical member of the justice league of race and gender is stunning to anyone not caught up in this informal preaching circuit of overweening arrogance and ego.

Here's what happens when two monstrous politically correct racialist bigots collide on Twitter. Pretend their minds are a Tokyo flattened by the weight of their own stupidity.

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 1h I need people to sit down and think about how carping about world building in fantasy has sexist, colonialist, and racist implications Retweeted by K Tempest Bradford"  

Tiny Godzilla replies:

"K Tempest Bradford ‏@tinytempest 1h @KateElliottSFF is that because default settings are usually McEurope populated by Whitey McWhiterson?" 

 Either that or MackAfrica populated by Blacky BlackAtcha. What a couple of fucks.

Kate Kong stomps foot:

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF now @damiengwalter @tinytempest @saladinahmed White male privilege doesn't need to describe the world that caters to it"

Thankfully, some pedantic moron storified Kate delusions that everyone in the world is an unconscious sexist, colonialist, racist but her and whatever coven she belongs to. I'd like to see a movie where they make an escape from their own heavily insulated heads. Maybe starring Janet Jackson and Will Smith. I confess our wrong-way PC superheroes are a source of endless fun for me, although I do agree that white men are evil demons from some 18th sub-level of Hell itself. They were probably put on Earth by the Devil to torment everyone else, and they do a pretty good job. I mean, look at Dagwood Bumstead. Slap that fucker in a pentagram.

Man, that white male privilege. Quite a fucking bitch slap to humanity right there. Assholes even put rovers on Mars, just to belittle everyone else. They're laughing at everyone. Go build a PoC nega-colonialist gay woman rover and go to Mars and crash it into the male rover, Kate.

Here is another of Kate's phobia manifestations:

"Proteas & Magnolias ‏@ArriannaMarie 6h I can't bring myself to see another film that shows a white hero 'saving' brown people." 

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 8h @ArriannaMarie This is why I have no desire to see Elysium."

Oh, doh. Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. Missy Elliott must've been scared by an albino when she was knee-high to a Klansman. Result: post traumatic whitey syndrome. Can't ya just make Matt Damon Latino like you morons changed Zimmerman into a white guy? After all, Zimmerman looked like Atahualpa and Damon doesn't so it's a cinch. But wait Kate, whites are the evils in Elysium so go see it. All the whites live in a gated community in high-Earth orbit where they think they're safe from illegal aliens, but noooooooo they're not.

More fun: Asshole racist BlackGirlInMaine writes:

"Blackgirlinmaine ‏@blackgirlinmain 10h @ArriannaMarie In America, we like our poor to be not only be lacking in material objects but in spirit and dignity. It makes us feel good." 

Anti-racist Kate Elliott replies:

"Kate Elliott ‏@KateElliottSFF 10h @blackgirlinmain @ArriannaMarie True words." 

Somebody give Kate Elliott a Nebula Award. By the SFWA's modern standards, she's more than deserving. Kate Elliott's Twitter feed is the gift that keeps on giving and a never-ending source of amusement to me. Especially since I could probably gather enough evidence for hate speech in a jurisdiction like France or India in any single day of Elliott Tweets. The fact she considers herself to be a staunch anti-racist makes her eligible for a statue somewhere that symbolizes the concept of "clueless." The fact she has an entire community dedicated to the same sad fantasies is disheartening, to say the least.

Privilege, privilege, privilege, white, white, white, men, men, men, race, race, race. Yeah, that's not unflinching prejudice and bigotry; no, really - not at all. I really believe that. C'mon, I do. No, really.

The idea a conformist redneck like Elliott thinks of writing SF literature is yet another source of amusement. That's like selling a two-by-four as incense.

Here's how you know muffins like Elliott are full of shit: first, she's making a case gay, black and female folks are just that - folks. Therefore they must suffer equally from prejudice, bias, racism, etc. The case she's making to break that tie is that straight white men are a majority who've institutionalized and organized their hatred for women, gays, and PoC. But the evidence she presents is in virtually every single instance something that is an accidental expression and demography of culture, not a planned racial conspiracy. The NHL, pro boxing and NBA are racially lopsided - so the fuck what? So's SFF. Deal with that reality. It's not a fucking conspiracy. People like Elliott drag out who's getting reviews and best-sellers on the NY Times list and other bullshit. It's the same thing. It's culture. It's just the way it is. Saying it's racism is fucking nuts. If it is, then so's boxing, the NHL and the NBA, besides a zillion other things. Imagining there are hoardes of black folks in America being locked out of reading and writing SFF is plain crazy. If there are no readers and writers, why is that anyone's fault? Go count fucking tug boat captains.

Second, as I've just mentioned, people like Elliott have no interest in addressing the mechanism that controls other things like boxing, the NHL and the NBA. That's because the basis of their bullshit, which is their claim of justice and equality, is just that - bullshit. If they had an academic and neutral interest in the subject they'd be all over other stuff, and they ain't. They only target groups of men, whites and straights. That's because the justice league of race and gender's social justice bullshit is a smokescreen to hide their own naked animus and bigotry while making false and unprovable claims of animus and bigotry by their provisional opposites.

But the absolute stupidest thing is morons like Elliott's consistently self-contradictory whining about how some people want to see more people like themselves while whining straight white men who want that are bigots. Fuck, fuck and fuck are these people dumb. The justice league of race and gender profiles the fuck out of white straight men at the same time they weep about profiling. If white men have white privilege then black men are criminals and Muslims terrorists - it's the same doxy logic ya fucking morons.

This why SFF's justice league of race and gender resort to self-sealing and circular, yet contradictory arguments wherein their opponents can never be right. Black folks are incapable of bigotry for such and such a reason and presumably gay folks and women. Convenient stuff when you don't have an actual argument or facts. For assholes so worried about the "other," you'd think straight white men were fucking snakes.

*

Why are we surprised Elliott would get on Twitter and recommend an article by yet another racial bigot, Ta Nehesi Coates at The Atlantic? Like 3 times-running SFWA Nebula nominee N.K. Jemisin, Coates' fascination with whites, which neither can stop writing about, is only surpassed by his disdain of them. Coates doesn't even pretend white Americans are nothing more than a bunch of racial supremacists. He's got the stats to prove it. As usual, racial resentment and a failed value system is strictly a whites only one way street.

In the SF&F community, PoC are slobbered over like they're magic leprechauns of the bogs. What PoC within or without this community actually do is irrelevant; it's skin that matters. Anything male and white on the other hand, is treated like a radioactive baboon that may do almost anything at any savage moment. Researching these essays meant reading tens of thousands of words by race-nauts on matters of race within the SF&F community. I saw this same racist attitude over and over again to a degree and consistency that is remarkable, considering this community thinks of itself as educated, fair-minded, and anti-racist. In fact there is a considerable segment of the SFF community that is about as anti-racist as the KKK.

Scalzi's piece is simply part and parcel of increasingly widely held views within the SF&F community, mostly led by a consortium of mental case ultra feminists and racists who like to pretend they are not permanently offended or politically correct or never stop whining. In fact, when viewed from the normal world outside the insulated nut farm racialists abide in, we're talking about some truly crazy people who blithely assume all of America is a white, male, supremacist institution. Read this nonsense about women and war Elliott is kind enough to recommend on Twitter to understand how goofy these people are when rebuilding reality to suit themselves. We're talking about people who literally live in a fantasy world. A visit to a Vet's Hospital would cure them in about 2 minutes. Too bad they can't actually write interesting fantasy. But that's going to happen when your "art" is race-first and people like Elliott are reTweeting junk like this

"Ann Aguirre ‏@MsAnnAguirre 3h I need 50 people to kick in $10 bucks each, so we can read this novel. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/young-blood--2?c=pledges … Mexican vampires? Diversity? Go, go, go!" 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay diversity. Except for boring, old, empire-building, colonialist, straight, white, men. Cuz they can't hack it on their own without a good dose of morality and justice shot straight in the arm from da race and da gender. This isn't about "diversity;" if it was, these very creepy people would be picketing the NBA, kung-fu movies and romance novel conventions. "Justice" this pointed and this bigoted and this one-sided is something to spit on. Considering the nature of people who usually use the word "diversity," I've come to view it as a racist insult.

*

SF author Ann Aguirre has had her own cross to bear from the old, the white, and the mens. In this touching portrait that scarred her for life, she tells the story of how a man once uttered the word "girlie" at her and asked her to make the sammich. PSTD resulted. Needless to say, Aguirre's piece is almost a pitch-perfect example of the negative gender profiling of millions based on what three fucking people did. And these are the morons who remind us 19 million fucking times a day that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all black folks are on welfare and anyone who thinks like that is blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, guess the fuck who actually does think like that. Prolly the 550 commenters who took the occasion to say fuck men or "I swear we're not all like that." There are many stories about fake rape accusations by women. Do I spend my time on a blog saying that's a trend and even refusing to list the actual people, as does Aguirre? She states in her own comments section that "It’s not really about what one author or fan did or said to me. It’s about the systemic, endemic problem in SFF as a whole."

How in the fuck is a few guys being a problem over a period of years an "endemic" problem? She a writer who doesn't know what"endemic" means? By Aguirre's reasoning, I should take my fake rape stories, list them, but without sources and names, and use that as a platform to show women are endemic assholes. Aguirre's whole fucking post is nothing more than a thinly disguised justification for attacking men, who she fucks and profiles with a very broad brush and absolutely no scholarship which gives her the right to do so. I have no explanation for why people do shit like that. I chalk it up to idiocy plus resentments. It sure as hell isn't the justice Aguirre and her witch hunting crowd of morons cheer it on as being. If I wrote a piece like that about women with the same "evidence," this very SFF community would fry me. That's because the distribution of morality by gender is a long ago foregone conclusion in the minds of these clowns.

What gives me the most chuckles is Aguirre's hysterical overreaction to exactly nothing while at the same time claiming equality with men. Do you ever see men crying and scarred for life cuz some woman said go wash the dishes? Feminist Ann Aguirre wept when she saw the statue of Alexander the Great cuz she knew in 12 billion lifetimes she would never do as much. Then she kicked it in the nuts and ate a box of comfort chocolate.

Aguirre's horror film has the following '50s movie poster retro feel:

• SEE the "respected male SF author get sloppy drunk and make women uncomfortable."
• SEE the "SF writer break an elderly female fan’s heart by refusing to spend a minute talking with her."
• SEE " a respected SF writer call me 'girlie' and demand that I get him a coffee, before the panel we were on TOGETHER."
• SEE a woman called "the token female" right in front of other people.
• SEE a man be "brusque, self-important, and rude."
• SEE a man "demand" a woman "get him a coffee."
• SEE a man not respond to a female moderator.
• SEE "a broken mic during the panel and nobody bothered to replace or fix."

DINOSAURS • THRILLS • REVOLTING DEVELOPMENTS • DINOSAURS You've never seen anything like it!!!!!!

Because of these bizarre, race and gender-based, and eternally resentful postcolonialist, revenge fantasies disguised as justice, there is in fact no real debate in mainstream SF fandom; there is only a series of institutions acting as crying towels that studiously avoid providing platforms for debate. How could such obvious and deluded bigotry allow debate? Debate is discouraged, and in the place of a dialogue, confessions based on a bias that precedes facts are instead required, and you have one-sided pronouncements made by people heavily invested in censorship and narratives about postcolonial this and postcolonialist that. The last thing you will ever hear talked about is an investigation into tools of self-criticism, a thing SF literature used to delve into in a non-political way on a regular basis - no more. There are no more human failings in SF - there is only the failure of race and gender. That is not a principle, that is the face of ugliness. Anyone in the comments section who disagreed with Aguirre's bigoted shit stain was descended on like a group of piranhas.

Someone please tell me what all this bullshit has to do with science fiction and fantasy? What does this have to do with Lord Dunsany and Clark Ashton Smith, with Walter M. Miller, Jr. and C.M. Kornbluth, with "The Mote In God's Eye" and "Infinity Beach?" Yes I know they were all examples of sexist racist pigs. Funny how they so rarely expressed such notions within their art, an ignorant oversight on their part perhaps. The new breed comprising the justice league of race, gender, blame, complaint and self-pity is making up for that oversight by turning SFF into a clearing house for warnings about gulag America, land of white male supremacy, a resurgent KKK and militia, the Taliban in the form of a political party, killer cops, predatory men, hater of Arabs and Muslims, homophobes and haters. With the exception of a tiny cadre of righteous people who have either examined their privilege or have none, America is a sad and dirty place where the concepts of "stupid" and "ignorant" are reserved for and doled out to the correct identities in pseudo-scientific cargo cult John Scalzi fashion.

*

When it comes to Scalzi's deplorable limerick - or as Jeremy Waldron might call it, a "ratty little racist leaflet" - science fiction is an obvious source as a legacy that provides us with tools of self-criticism which allow us to escape from perceptual traps of bias centered around and made murky by cultural conceits and notions of identity. That's why Scalzi had to censor about 8 million comments in his dumb fuck white privilege pieces. That's because Scalzi puts himself out there as someone who is ardently against gender and racial defamation but then indulges in that very act.

Science fiction can easily use tools of self-criticism because it can tear away identity by taking today's issues to a different place so that, rather than identity, we are left only with principle, and a thing can be more easily seen for what it is. Once bias is torn aside, and we have no dog in the hunt so to speak, eyes can see better. A science fiction writer can easily make us more readily identify with a bug-eyed alien with tentacles than with a human being. In such situations as these an SF writer can produce, right, wrong, and principle are more starkly illuminated than in the muddle of our own trends, fads and cultural conceits.

George Orwell, in his novel "1984," lectured and warned us on the danger of how the opposite of this process could be done, in culture and government; the danger of using semantics and identity to purposefully circumvent and subvert principle. The sadness here is that "1984" may be the single most famous example of modern literature in the West that conspicuously gifts us with tools of self-criticism on how to NOT do exactly what John Scalzi did.

*

To show you how perfectly aligned Scalzi and his insulated culture are to my idea that they distribute morality and opinions according to race, this is how Scalzi reacted on Twitter to my open letter to the SFWA asking for his resignation and for authors N.K. Jemisin and Saladin Ahmed (more on Ahmed and Jemisin later in these essays) to be removed from consideration for the SFWA Nebula Awards for best novel of 2012 they had been nominated for because of their incessant race-baiting:

"James May is just standard-issue terrified white dude."

And here is a response from, presumably, a friend of his:

"@scalzi @saladinahmed @StevenGould @nkjemisin So that's what paranoid white dipshittery looks like? I'd wondered."

From Saladin Ahmed, a predictable reaction to me:

"STOP THESE COLORED PEOPLE & THEIR WHITE ACCOMPLICE!"  

Scalzi again:

"If you followed who I blocked, you'd see a lot of spam and ranting from scared white men."

I find the idea that I am either somehow scared or even white on no proof whatsoever laughable. And we know how Scalzi identifies "whites" on Twitter: by their behavior - a dead giveaway. Not to mention the fact these geniuses have relegated the basis for all law in America, our Constitution, to the status of a crazy racist.

I'm surprised they think I have any interest in ethnic groups per se or that I am somehow attacking any groups. What this essay and others in the series are in fact doing are calling out specific individuals using their own words. One was black, one was white, one was Arab, and a third I forgot to include, Aliette de Bodard, is mixed white/Vietnamese. Their ethnicity or gender has nothing to do with it from my point of view and their use of hate speech everything to do with it. In truth, the people these essays focus on represent a diverse bunch - an irony.

The other irony is that if I did what Scalzi and company do, I would indeed be singling out only gender and race. In reality, the plain proof of who does that is in their Twitter responses, one by the sitting president of the SFWA and one by the incoming president for Summer 2013, who are apparently each 12 yr. old nyah-nyah bullies. I'd hate to have a disagreement with them in a dark schoolyard. Those assholes as much as ignored my assertions in favor of the fact the my real failing was somehow attached to my skin, that I was white and had failed to examine my own racism and privilege like they had or some fucking thing - that's the argument, and one these fucks make every single day on Twitter, their blogs, interviews and articles.

What's really telling about Scalzi in that Tweet is that he will bend over backwards to accommodate, protect and even promote the most mental case fears, gender, and racial profiling, and sensitivities of ultra-feminists, including starting a crusade over what may be an imaginary case of harassment without even a hint of challenge. But my opinions are relegated to the realm of the racism of a murderous and possibly insane terrorist, although the case I present here is far more compelling and documented than a charge of harassment these knuckleheads refuse to even describe. They prefer to make their case entirely with innuendos, which, by the way, culminated in a witchhunt and lynching that got a man fired. In this sad world, gender equates to right and wrong, and not one goddam thing more; facts mean nothing.

These are people who know what the word "Constitution" is, and "racism," but can't for the life of them figure out what they actually are. The fact is I parse right and wrong by principle, not by what people look like.

Scalzi is actually given a quite sophisticated chance to understand where he goes wrong with his addiction to identity over principle on one of his own comment threads:

"August 21, 2012 at 2:02 pm [quoting Scalzi from earlier in the thread] 'I have various reasons to be not especially concerned with the plight of the Alpha Male, with respect to Ms. Resnick’s comment, but I of course accept your criticism.' You are apparently completely unaware of your bigotry, John, as is typical of most bigots. The fish rarely knows the water in which it swims. The problem is, many people have justified the dehumanization of Jews and intellectuals on a similar basis. The envy engendered by their disproportionate success and prominence in society made a lot of people not especially concerned with their plight. History came to judge these unconcerned people very harshly. May you avoid a similar fate." 

Scalzi slides away by falsely invoking time considerations and the history of someone else as apparently making the defamation of other groups okay.

"August 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm MaggieHoulihan: It’s an interesting world you live in, where a group of men who are supposedly by definition the leaders, may be reasonably compared to a nation of people who spent millennia being dispossessed of land, rights and freedoms. And by interesting, I mean 'stupid.' Thanks for your input, Maggie. You can go now." 

Scalzi slides further away by again confusing an identity with a principle while denying the systemic and institutionalized racial and gender bigotry of a large part of SFF fandom and writers Scalzi himself endorses as orthodoxy. Or do such things as the SFWA, its presidency, conventions, and webzines not count as either systemic or institutions? Bigotry is an act; it is not erased by what happened to someone else 75 years ago on another continent. I said it earlier: in Scalzi's tribe, the straight, white, male is the new Jew, but that needn't include concentration camps before it is wrong, as indeed even the slightest racial or gender slur against the provisional gay, minority, female is held up like a piece of the true cross by the justice league of race and gender. The league need only look in the mirror and at their own standards of behavior, not make false comparisons.

"August 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm Josh: Nope. I don’t see the alleged problems of 'alpha males' in today’s world as similar to systematic antisemitism, however." 

*

"One of the most important things that Rawls says about a wellordered society is that 'everyone accepts, and knows that everyone else accepts, the very same principles of justice.'" - Jeremy Waldron - 2009 OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES LECTURES, DIGNITY AND DEFAMATION: THE VISIBILITY OF HATE 

*

Throw the word "Jew," "black," or "Hispanic" in those Tweets and you can see these sad racial assholes for what they truly are and see what it is that truly interests them. Surprise, it's race, and that's their barometer for right and wrong. Naturally, that's gonna produce some wrong-way racist hunters. And oh, by the way, what the fuck happened to science fiction and fantasy?

Keep in mind these people are defending SFWA member and fantasy author N.K. Jemisin who once wrote "Heinlein was racist as fuck, and... most of science fiction fandom was too…” Jemisin's astute opinion is based on one letter and one novel out of all the stuff Heinlein ever wrote. In other words, the people who are defending Jemisin are, in Jemisin's eyes, racists. AND WORSE, because Jemisin in that same piece writes "And in fact, SFF’s manifest unwillingness to examine (there's that fucking word again) itself is one of the things that makes it worse than the mainstream." According to Jemisin this is because within SFF "There is a belief in egalitarianism. But it has mostly been used to support the usual suspects — the straight white men at the core of SFF — while marginalizing the usual targets — women, people of color, anyone the straight white men don’t like or want to objectify or want to own." Hey Jemisin, go examine your own back yard and stop racially profiling people negatively by nothing more than their skin you so obviously abhor and attached immorality to at the drop of a bucket.

When I was a kid we had a name for people who looked starry-eyed at people like Jemisin: "chumps."

Starting to see a pattern here folks? One as regular as night following day? Imagine me writing that negative bit of profiling by Jemisin about gay, minority, females being at the core of a culture's problems. Then imagine the reaction. Then imagine what utter bigots and hypocrites these people truly are. Forget identity; think philosophical space - it's David Duke-land.

And those Tweets are also defending Saladin Ahmed, who once wrote an article where he asks if a TV show was too white and that America is "a culture rich in racist stereotypes and xenophobic fear-mongering." Who the hell writes an article like that in the first place let alone one that ends up concluding: no problem folks, it's because George R.R. Martin is white and American and America's whites are racists. Stand up and take a bow Perry Mason. If I said that bit about xenophobia referring to Islam, I'd be tarred as an Islamophobe. Yet it is America that has a Bill of Rights, not Islamic countries, where discrimination is legally institutionalized in a wide variety of ways.

And keep in mind Scalzi prides himself that he "can handle criticism just fine" and cautions not to react to negative criticism such as this essay and open letter to the SFWA by having me "harassed by vengeful mental infants for the dubious crime of expressing an opinion, please grow the fuck up and stop embarrassing the rest of us. Thank you. I trust this makes my position on this matter sufficiently clear."

Actually Mr. Scalzi, given your own response to this essay, that is the exact unclear, roaming doublethink, double standard and hypocrisy that fueled this essay. Adopt a principle Mr. Scalzi; I don't even care which one - any one - and stick to it. Because if you go by identity only - a side - you will literally never be wrong. Scalzi referred to this essay as "overthinking." I prefer to think of it as a dismantling - taking something apart 17 ways from Sunday. Is the essay too long? Tough shit. A stupid thing to maintain from a writer anyway. But what can you say about a moron who attaches Unabomber morality and competence to word count, as he does this essay? I mean, why not just compare me to Jack the fucking Ripper? Isn't that why people fear Jack's memory- cuz he wrote shit?

And let me give you an example of how this "two principles at once" is used in actual argument and how having a principle constrains endemic liars who prefer to talk about identity. An argument is commonly used that more whites are on welfare than blacks. Fine, there's your principle - using raw numbers rather than percentages of a population. Now, when it comes to poverty, those same people will flip-flop and use percentages to show 3 times as many black folks are poor than white, rather than raw numbers. Use raw numbers, and more whites are poor. I really don't personally care about such arguments. One can throw in both views. The problem is that people often don't, and the people who don't, use identity in such a way that they are never wrong. It's a form of lying.

So yeah, adopt a principle, any principle - and stick to it.

In this regard, and violating their own mirage of principles, and on no evidence whatsoever other than my disagreeing with them, Scalzi and his Tweeting SFWA compatriots assumed I was white as well as racially paranoid. That's because, as this essay points out quite accurately, they literally apply their notions of morality using some oddball racial one-drop rule, except for an instance like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, the latter who they simply transform into a white guy, the better to attach immorality. To politicized racialists, morality is directly intertwined with skin, though they'll say the complete opposite when it suits them. The notion I was anything other than white simply never occurred to Scalzi and his doofs, and they reacted without even really thinking, as if they were Ancestor.com and they use politics to establish one's DNA and one's DNA to establish one's morality, intelligence and honesty. In a long life and one well-traveled around the globe and to many cultures, I have never seen the combination of stupidity, ignorance, bigotry and sheer arrogance as I have seen in those few Tweets.

I thank those SFWA Tweeters for confirming the entirety of this essay is such a fashion. It's like a seal of approval. It's quite a bizarre reaction since these are people who never really stop crying about and expressing fears of people according to their race and gender, as if they're a bug they found on their arm. Change the race, make the same remarks, and Scalzi and the SFWA are the first people first in line with tearful remarks about racism. That's because they are simple-minded hillbillies, without principles and blinded by appearances, incapable of making simple comparisons a child could make. It is not I who make daily to weekly public statements about racial privilege and the endemic moral failings of human beings described only by their race and gender. I do not believe in indulging in such rhetoric since I consider it depraved.

This is also a community which supports a thing like K. Tempest Bradford, an anti-racist who takes credit for creating the Angry Black Woman blog, where it says "This blog is anti-racism and anti-sexism... white people fear us."

Hahaha. How fucking retarded do you have to be to engage in that bit of Orwellian fuckness?

Bradford portrayed this very essay you're reading now as "a giant manifesto about how John Scalzi is the soul of racism against whites," which proves that, besides being an anti-racist who doesn't know what racism is, she can't fucking read, although her whining, crying and self-pity skills are remarkably refined.

Bradford is the moron who created the racially segregated "safer-space" for doe-eyed innocent people of color at the feminist SF&F convention called WisCon and proudly mentions she is "joined in organizing and fabulousness" by Jaymee (whites are "sour dough-faced") Goh. Hmmm. If that's an "anti-racist," I'd hate to ever see an actual racist. Naturally these assholes huffed and puffed about the first integrated prom in a small town in Georgia. I imagine these people gurgling like babies and blowing bubbles between every other sentence.

The fact is, that when it comes to the SF&F community and matters of racial fear-mongering and trivial and baseless accusations, there is an unfortunate amount of rhetoric out there to present. If I had not encountered a mountain of material in the first place, including the most prominent and public expressions of the SFWA itself, I would've felt no need for such an essay or the series of essays that accompany it. As far as I know, these essays are the first time this information has been gathered in one place in even an informal way. To me, it is troubling because of the sheer amount of hate-speech involved and mainstreamed right into the heart of SF&F's institutions and from there into mainstream culture. Does it really need to be said that you can't nominate racial bigots for literary awards and explain why? Well, guess what, it does.

Although John Scalzi maintains this "screed" says far less about Scalzi than it does about myself, Scalzi's moronic mental diagnosis of my "Unabomber" mentality and his reaction and those of his colleagues shows my essay to be right on the money, since those reactions portray the failings of this essay as attributable to my race and race alone, including madness. But why would I need anyone to confirm that attacking people by their race and gender is never right or doubt Scalzi does such things or that the SFWA condones naked bigotry? There is no doubt Scalzi has repeatedly done so on his site nor that it is wrong to do so.

I actually don't fault Scalzi for falling into such a perceptual trap. We are all human and prone to failures of perception and intellect, and that can be especially so when you tend to travel in a community that's an insulated echo chamber. What I do fault Scalzi for is not being honest enough to admit he's wrong, that he in fact does the very things he says is wrong to do, and apologize.

*

For those of you interested in avoiding such perceptual traps, as well as how useful it is to adopt an attitude that good things are where you find them, rather than where you wish them to be, I would, perhaps surprisingly, point out that at their fundamental heart, "1984" and "Pride and Prejudice" are about the same thing - perception. Each is a guide to manage perception, and the two novels even share an interest in semantics. I recommend Tony Tanner's 1986 essay "Knowledge and Opinion: Pride and Prejudice," as well as Tanner's original introduction to the Penguin Classics Paperback edition of "Pride and Prejudice" from 1972. If you can read all that, and still be on board with Scalzi's article, you may be beyond hope, though a last ditch attempt on my part may be to adopt the same attitude towards perception as does a baseball umpire.

On a more simplistic pop culture level the childish agoraphobic Twitter addicts of the SFWA can understand, Mr. Spock on the old Star Trek might touch on such perceptual traps by professing ignorance as to why Earth people actually think wine is more sophisticated than soda pop, since, from Mr. Spock's perspective, the difference is mainly in their chemical composition. A simple lesson to blow away the smoke, and one often invoked in science fiction. Or you can just be an asshole and continue to believe everything you say is correct and that your detractors are insane murderous terrorists and take pictures of the outside world through a fucking window, post them on your blog and then send out a Twitter alert just like Davy fucking Crockett.

Science fiction comics have also long since gotten in on this act. In 1953 E.C. Comics published an eight page story called Judgment Day. In this story, a man in a helmeted space suit comes from a type of future United Nations of outer space to determine whether a certain planet is worthy of joining this organization. We cannot see this man's face. The planet is populated by orange and blue robots. The orange robots run things and discriminate against the blue robots. On a tour of a factory the orange robots give him, the man from Earth sees the insides of the robots are exactly the same. The application for membership of the robotic planet is rejected until they learn better. In the story's final comic panel the man takes off his helmet and we see he is black. A powerful perceptual trap in 1953 had been played on us. Shorn of identity, we ourselves had been forced to set aside prejudice and see the right and wrong of a thing. Morality is therefore parsed through a lens of higher principle, rather than identity; a thing entirely lost on man like John Scalzi. As Trent Walters puts it "science fiction writers try to get the reader to look outside the self - the major attribute setting science fiction apart from other literatures - ...torn between what looks human and what acts human."

If we can't even do as well in 2013 as a 1953 comic book, then how far have we fallen, how far has SF fallen as a warning voice. Perception is a powerful tool for both good and ill; without tools to know the difference, dangerous ideas can be mainstreamed. Transferring identity from the past and saying it is today's headlines while ignoring the truth that principle is a thing devoid of identity is dangerous.

Making racist comments about white people in the 21st century is like slapping a German or Japanese tourist for World War II. It is the stupid irony of at once saying that guilt is not only spread racially from the few to the many but is passed across generations by DNA, while at the same time invoking the idea of content of one's character and so also saying guilt and character are not exchanged in such a manner; that is mutually exclusive doublethink. If all whites suffer from some guilt from decades ago for the regional actions of a few, then what guilt do black folks suffer from the crimes of a few today in the here and now? Yet these are the people who claim Americans think Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of a few. A dangerous argument because it makes no case other than to present skin as exhibit A. It is dangerous because modern bigots often hide their hateful rhetoric behind imagining systems that conduct Jim Crow into the present moment, and that moment mysteriously never passes nor is there mystery about who the enemy is - he is white and he is a man and he is heterosexual. How that is different from a past that has variously maintained the identical thing about a black person or a Jew escapes me.

In a very real sense, science fiction literature today and the Science Fiction Writers of America are not as far advanced in their principles when it comes to identity politics as Jean Cocteau’s 1946 film, "Beauty and the Beast," another obvious expression of principle over appearance. In other words, the SFWA hasn't even got to the Mother Goose or Aesop's Fables stage of morality.

Clearly what modern SF needs are more stories that act as principled perceptual traps and fewer expressions of disdain for an old SF community that was supposedly awash in racial privilege, racism and lack of diversity. Where's Mr. Spock when you need him and when did he essentially go from being the voice of reason to becoming the enemy? Make no mistake, Mr. Spock wouldn't last a single day in the comments section at either Mr. Scalzi's blog, Tor.com or most SF blogs I know of. In those places, saying "Hey, wait a minute, aren't you just doing the same thing?" is considered, trolling, inflammatory and disturbing the peace. In the political world of SF, the Devil's Advocate is an actual devil.

The current SF community, itself bathing in casual racism, a lack of diversity when it comes to principles, if not a wholesale abandonment of them, and with its own deluge of nearly mindless stories about Dr. Who, zombies and monster hunters, should perhaps withhold its disdain and blithely assumed superiority over their elder generation of writers and take a second look; they may learn a thing or two. I'm trying to imagine "Dune" with "vomit-zombies" and somehow I can't.

Scalzi's essay also ignores the fact that his principle, in this case a distorted morality, is transferred onto other people Scalzi divides up into minority identities and then implicitly posits are immune to human failings. In doing so, Scalzi unwittingly makes of them an "other," but a good "other." That is how Orwellian anti-racism-racism comes about, and the reason that it is dangerous language is that such an argument can turn on a dime, a double-edged sword. In Scalzi's world, he has marked those considered innocent so the Passover Angels of Death will know right from wrong, but in truth, such language as Scalzi uses has no moral compass or sign posts; it is unthinking.

Even the eternally moronic Nebula-nominated SFWA member N.K. Jemisin almost had an insight into the good other. In a post at her blog titled "There’s no such thing as a good stereotype," Jemisin almost figures out what's going on when she writes "this is why even 'good' stereotypes are dangerous." Unfortunately Jemisin is incapable of crossing the intellectual moat and taking that one all the way in for a touchdown, as anyone who's read her racial anti-white maunderings knows. "Knows" is a slippery word in the community Scalzi swims in, as they spit on hate speech on Monday and cheer it on Tuesday. It all depends on how dark the skin is of the person doing the speaking. In this community, principle is a court jester and identity reigns. Racial comments absolutely identical in principle get "bravos" or hisses depending solely on the ethnicity or even gender of the person making the comment. The idea of a shared intellectual and philosophical space is completely beyond Scalzi and his henchpersons, and yet that idea is the very basis of law in America, because there's a rumor that it doesn't matter what a burglar looks like and even baseball umpires have been known for the bizarre idea of calling them like they see them.

And that's the short science fiction story I have for these people. It's a story where laws about hate speech in jurisdictions from Brasilia to New Delhi and London to the Hague don't really care what color your skin is, or your gender. Just imagine if that fantasy scenario were true. Brrrrrrrrrrr. "Inconceivable," said the Sicilian... oh, wait.

I have presented the reasons a science fiction writer like John Scalzi should know better. His short article about white privilege, shorn of identity and smoke, shows itself as nothing more than crude racism and bigotry, no different from similar "clever" arguments in the past about Jews and black folks. On its surface, the theory of white privilege resembles logic and reason. A closer look reveals that it accuses by skin color, and in no way is capable of showing how such a mechanism actually works in real life, which is why no actual and real names, faces or facts are used as examples. Only skin and gender is used, the skin and gender of 100 million white Americans, casually cast in the role of clueless and witless benefactors of their own endemic racism. The argument is like a möbius strip, a black hole one cannot escape from once you are in its influence. Actual logic and reason become paralyzed by illusion. White privilege is a moron's logic, like putting your right thumb in your left fist so it sticks up and then trying to grab it with the right hand. It seems like it should work - we see what is being tried. It doesn't work.

And Scalzi is by no means alone in sharing these views about identity. In the early 21st century, the politicized community of SF writers, ignoring the fruits of their own traditions and lessons, are full of such racist rhetoric, and identity and one's politics has come to trump art. Just as happened in the fine arts in America in the 1960s, SF's writers have come to resemble a group of super heroes fighting the good fight for social justice rather than for honest and principled and truly challenging art. Art where disagreement is discouraged and censored is not honest or art but stifling conformity masked as edgy iconoclasm on the "right side of history." In such an atmosphere, balance and fair play become extinguished, as does art itself.

Attaching and detaching morality from ethnic groups using clever arguments is certainly nothing new. But from the perspective of America in the 21st century, the target is new - white folks. Principle is thrown out the door and the ability to distinguish right from wrong goes with it. This is why the Huffington Post can have articles by Geoffrey Dunn that refer to Carmel, CA as "frighteningly white," while saying the exact opposite about Detroit being frighteningly black gets one a KKK hood and Nazi slippers. Nebula Award nominee and SFWA member N.K. Jemisin can give a speech where she says Australia "is not a safe country for people of color" and not only escape censure but be applauded for her wisdom. It is simply accepted as fact that Australia is a bad neighborhood, an ethnic ghetto impoverished by a lack of morality and the spirituality to be truly civilized; Australia's very ethnicity is the source of its ills. While Jemisin claims to have been lucky to have flown away with her life, non-whites risk theirs every day on overcrowded boats to come to Australia. There is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality there somewhere, but when was hate speech ever concerned with a fact, or reality itself?

This is not simply hypocrisy but Orwellian delusion powered by identity to the near exclusion of all else. Dunn also added that the Republican National Convention is "better known as the Gathering of Pasty White People." Can you imagine the response if an NAACP convention was called such a thing, but with "ashy black" thrown in instead? Geoffrey Dunne lives in an almost entirely white city. John Scalzi lives in an enclave nearly 100% white. Feminist anti-racist SF&F WisCon panelist Jaymee Goh publicly refers to whites as "sour dough-faced" on Twitter. Something is missing twixt the lip and the cup. The lesson is that when you want to know the truth about a person, watch their feet, not their lips, and you'll see that where they live doesn't quite match up.

When a person like Scalzi writes that the most difficult societal setting is for a “Gay Minority Female,” there is no explanation for why, it is simply assumed to be correct. There is no explanation as to what would prevent such a person from making a breakthrough in fractal geometry or what impact spending several days a week at the library over the course of a decade would make. These are presumed to be irrelevant in a nation of racist white men where life and success, in Scalzi's mind, is apparently a simple identity equation of race and gender, and is also how morality is distributed. One is apparently stuck forever in either privilege or lack of it, morality or lack of it, unless the percentage of gay minority females in America soars and that of white males drops. Scalzi's implicit argument is that the currently under privileged would never promote themselves or network by identity to the discomfiture of others who don't share that identity, although in America today these are the precise people institutionalizing identity-based laws and organizations. To imagine they would abandon that and declare "mission accomplished" is at once naive and again posits such people as being some kind of "other," immune to racism and immorality because of their skin and gender - an Orwellian anti-racist, racist argument.

In looking over that list of names, and adding the president of the SFWA John Scalzi, Tor Books, N.K. Jemisin and thousands more, it's easy to see how an addiction to identity over principle has mainstreamed and institutionalized racism in America in the 21st century to a degree I would have judged was impossible only ten years ago. I can excuse racial demagogues, whose careers and therefore house payments are based on accusation and fraud, but for a science fiction writer like John Scalzi, an artist, to indulge in that same point of view makes no sense, given the tools he has available to him in his literary pedigree. That pedigree is a noble one and includes a long list of stories both in print and on TV purposefully written to circumvent and subvert bigotry, hatred and racism - to no avail it seems, since the mechanics of the trick are lost on John Scalzi.

This is how Orwell's fears come to life. Ironically and predictably, self-described liberals, even with the blueprint of Orwell's "1984" to guide them, can't make the simple intellectual leap to the fundamental heart of Orwell's argument because, when one is blinded by identity, making even simple comparisons becomes nearly impossible. A person intellectually addicted to identity is simply incapable of transferring Orwell's template onto a new entity. With only identity to make an argument, a person will only fear racism from the same old places and be blinded to it from a new place; they quite literally cannot see racism transferred to someone with a politically correct identity that presumably makes them immune to being a bigot. In this sense, it is no coincidence that Adria Richards of the infamous PyCon affair Tweeted "black people CANNOT be racist against white people" and also linked to Scalzi's white privilege article on Twitter.

This is why and how 100% of mainstream institutions - laws, web sites, awards shows, organizations - centered around race reside on the political Left. It is how the political Right can be seen as endemically racist even while they have no such mainstream artifacts; a stunning oversight for racists. This is how the political Left can indulge in wholesale racism and be Mr. Clean-Hands at the same time. It's a perceptual trap of stunning proportions and intellectual vacuity. And the excuse given is, predictably, they are made to huddle according to their identity by, you guessed it, racists. Point out it's the 21st century and they'll explain about the "new" in the "New Jim Crow."

An obsession with identity over principle is how GLAAD can go after Kobe Bryant for uttering a gay slur during the heat of a basketball game yet two weeks later ignore the 30th annual Hunky Jesus Contest. This is an event where the exact equivalent of Kobe Bryant's slur is annually multiplied, formalized, purposefully celebrated, R-Rated and institutionalized in a public outdoor venue. But since these slurs are against Christians, the wrong identity and a soft target, the principle involved, defamation, and a far more egregious violation of that principle than Kobe Bryant did, is ignored - Mr. Clean-Hands again. I bring this up only because GLAAD sets a standard and then ignores it, not because I care about vulgar slurs by either Bryant or people who want to make fun of Jesus. In fact I have been a fan of more vicious and vulgar satires about Christianity for years in underground comix, if anyone knows who S. Clay Wilson is. This isn't about that; this is about principle vs. identity and fair play, and who gets to satirize who.

Does GLAAD care about the greater good, justice or only justice for a particular group? Either slurs harm a group and encourage disdain against that group or they don't. Needless to say, this courageous group of religious satirists would never do such a thing to Mohamed, out of fear, and that is a revelation about how off-target they are by reason of an addiction to identity. An irony, since Muslims, a proper identity under the Left's Rainbow Coalition, are far more opposed to gays and politically violent than are Christians. The mere fact gays would never dare hold a Hunky Mohamed Contest is proof of the monumental hypocrisy of identity politics. The idea of having a gay pride parade in Dearborn, Michigan, a Muslim enclave, is similarly absurd. Christians preaching in Dearborn have been stoned with a hail of rocks and debris in public and on video at the annual Islamic Festival there. This is the point of this essay - I am not making up a standard and holding Scalzi to it, but measuring him by his own standards he uses to defend groups.

On a side note, the 2013 Islamic Festival has been canceled. If tolerance had been present, it would not be. Predictably, SFWA member and fantasy writer Saladin Ahmed blames the whole thing on white bigots. The problem there is that not one rock or bottle was thrown by the bigots. And take note how that Detroit Free Press article fudges facts. Why wouldn't it since rock throwing and words are different? Not in the world of identity politics. What you do doesn't matter; what you are does.

Holding identity up over principle will naturally produce hypocrisy and double standards. This type of identity politics is how women and gays get a special dispensation that enables them to invoke being a "wise Latina" even while calling another identity who does the exact same thing a racist, male-centric supremacist; it is identity itself that holds or withholds racism and not an act of racism itself. Can you imagine me saying I bring being a "wise caucasian" to the table? Devoid of tools of self-criticism and principle that would allow them to see new instances of racism, the Left can only trot out what they can see from the past - neo-Nazis and the KKK, even though they've been completely marginalized in America. And oh yes, white people, with no names or faces, more specifically men, and in their millions, past and present, dead or alive, just arrived to America, or present through generations of family. The problem for Scalzi is that wrong is wrong and it doesn't wear pants.

I say to John Scalzi: instead of scouring out people you've never met as racists, heal thyself and the racist community you float in, because the intellectual thought processes of progressive liberals in America in the 21st century are the lowest setting there is when it comes to actual thinking. In fact, the biggest group of institutional racists in America are centered around racialist progressives, and in case you haven't noticed it, valuing skin, gender and gender preference on the thin excuse they are under assault is the complete antithesis of our Bill of Rights. But then racists always say they are under assault, even Federally funded ones who call themselves the National Council of the Race, or 100 Black Men of America. In this context, the word "obvious" has taken a deep, dark trip to the bottom of the sea and the clock has struck thirteen. N.K. Jemisin claims the SF community is racist even while they nominate her for multiple literary awards; is her talent so undeniable it sways even racists and misogynists? To me what is undeniable are misplaced and specifically addressed concepts of guilt, shame and tokenism that have nothing to do with literary excellence. If the GOP can be laughed at for fronting black folks, so too can the SFWA and the SF&F community, and by its own standards of criticism; in principle, how is Diversicon different from Michael Steele?

SF&F's progressives and their race-based political correctness despise success, are embarrassed by it - success by white men that is, since all other success is ignored. Scalzi's community basically takes an episode of "Glee" and smushes it comfortably onto The Night of the Sicilian Vespers or the Crusades and names it nuance. Slave-based Caliphates and Ottoman Empires, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Spheres and Manchu Dynasties, Mughal Empires, Aztec Empires and Zulu Kingdoms are simply edited out of the liberal version of history. In the great national competitions every polity and culture in the world engaged in during the Victorian era and hundreds of years before, America and the West came out the winners, and that rankles many. There are no race and gender innocents in that story - it is a myth that people around the world didn't engage in slavery and war throughout the history of civilization and it is supremacist defamation to suggest otherwise.

Cortes and the minority East India Company in no way benefited from privilege, quite the opposite; the whole argument is a sad joke involving denial of history and reality itself in the face of that monstrous form of racial politeness known as political correctness. The liberal Left throws up a rhetorical smokescreen of woulda, coulda, shoulda, blame and excuses to account failure and success. The Left parses the world, its history and events today, through race and gender, while accusing their imaginary enemies of doing that very thing and forcing the Left to speak a language they'd rather not. Cortes didn't oppress the Aztecs; one empire devoid of notions of human rights clashed with another. One lost, all were human, all had five fingers. Don't look for "all men are created equal" when it comes to that - suddenly they are not. Some are implicitly more moral and spiritual, and this is decided by appearance. The laughable bigotry of this is nowhere expressed on the political Left in finer fashion than Elizabeth Warren associating high cheekbones with some innate, unnamed, but evidently desirable quality conferred by DNA, much like the fallen-faced Eva Longoria, whose wish of being less white was sadly crushed while a camera rolled.

Writer N.K. Jemisin, member of the SFWA and, predictably, an admirer of John Scalzi, asserts a perfect example of Orwellian doublethink. We're to believe that Jemisin's conspicuously doting admiration for an average SF writer like black SF author Octavia Butler has nothing to do with race, merely an amazing coincidence from a person who never shuts up about race and whose disdain for white people is marked. Jemisin, in a article titled, "Don’t Put My Book in the African American Section," quite literally states she is being forced to speak a language she'd rather not at the same time her ardor for doing so seems untiring.

Jemisin writes, "I hate the 'African American Fiction' section. HATE. IT. I hate that it exists. I hate that it was ever deemed necessary. I hate why it was deemed necessary, and I don’t agree that it is." Jemisin follows that up with her usual and quite predictable racial attack on whites where she lays out how people she doesn't know except by their white shadow are racists "perpetuating the same racist assumptions" and how much she is not a racist.

You got that? The whole thing is pushed on Jemisin. In fact, Jemisin's own actions and career, if not her entire life, constitute a de facto agreement that such distinctions are necessary, and it is absurd for a conspicuous black advocate and black activist who is single-handedly responsible in her own art and rhetoric for creating such racial divisions, if not outright racial animosity, to assert otherwise. Hiding behind ostensibly noble but in fact Orwellian doublethink such as "diversity" is nonsense. In truth, Jemisin's thinly veiled attacks on white men are completely in line with Scalzi's own racism-as-justice delusion.

I recommend both Scalzi and Jemisin re-read Scalzi's own quote about confusing principle and bigotry: "it’s becoming rather more difficult to parse the practical difference between that principled stance, and simple, garden-variety bigotry." A smart stance to take indeed if you believe hate speech can produce actual hate. White bigots hide behind Confederate flags, pretending to a "historic" interest, anti-Semites hide behind "anti-Zionism." So too do racial bigots hide behind proclamations of justice, while ignoring the very real fact their notions of "justice" always have a single skin color or gender as winners in their conspicuous and bizarre notions of what the greater good is.

In regard to the inadvisable cretins at the SFWA, I'd say "useful idiots" is a phrase that is entirely apt. And that's not including the sad fate of art when it is subverted to the Nebula nominees for best novel being trotted out as nothing more than an expression of gender and racial diversity. Where's good writing in that scenario? How is an Orwellian-titled science fiction convention called "Diversicon" about science fiction? In fact, Diversicon is an act of social engineering based on an imagined enemy. When did art become the United Nations or the Justice League of America, out to right all wrongs? Meanwhile we have to endure prizes being given out for novels no more innovative and considerably more poorly written than a sword and sorcery piece from 1938. Exactly what is the SFWA promoting here? When the SFWA essentially claims "Flame winds" by Norvell Page deserves a retro Nebula, something is seriously wrong. The funny thing is, "Flamewinds" is looking better by the day.

Pretending the 21st century is actually the 19th just doesn't cut it, no matter how much you argue everyone born before you had the same interest in politicizing and racializing the most innocuous things, or even white people today, who show not the least interest by way of law, institution or mainstream culture in the very racial interests they are falsely accused of having. If you wish to group together people as whites, a thing I detest, then it is whites who have created the very laws that protect minorities in America today. In the absence of law, institutions and mainstream cultural expressions of racial disdain, one must then of course come up with theories which assert the unseen, the underground and the unwitting, showing the "truth" of a thing by its shadow, showing a dearth of cultural morality while at the same time denying such a thing is possible by non-white cultures.

And let's be very clear here: there is no scholarship which can support whites even think of themselves as a culture racially in the 21st century while the exact opposite in regard to Jemisin and advocates like her provides mountains of black symposiums, black organizations and black culture artifacts. There's even a black scuba divers association if you can believe in that bit of idiocy. And don't hold your breath waiting for either Scalzi or Jemisin to wring their hands over black basketball players in the NBA over represented by 5 times their demography in America needing diversity. "Meritocracy" is a slippery word in the hands of racial bigots. Am I to assume that lack of diversity in the NBA is a tacit plot by black players to keep out the white ones, or an example of black privilege?

You can't have this argument two ways - either skin brings nothing to the table or it does. If pedagogic racialists believe diversity in and of itself brings something to the table then it is taking up the opposite argument of what it claims, because those people are still an "other," just a better one, with innate qualities other races apparently don't have. But that argument can be turned around in a flash and in the end, it's just as stupid to ask a man to stand on a pedestal because of his skin as it is to ask him to stand in a ditch. In this light, the obsession the SFWA has with shallow diversity on the one hand while arguing race and gender mean nothing on the other seems sad and rather dark. Content of character, remember that? Gives a stupid and whole new meaning to the term "uplift wars."

The idea that Scalzi has what it takes to get inside the head of 100 million men based on their skin is an absurd idea and a racist one at that. It's no surprise to me that it basically amounts, in principle, to the exact opposite of what he says he champions, because, at its heart, political racialism is Orwellian doublethink.

Scalzi reacts to the flak he taken over his white privilege bullshit by writing "these people are dudes who think I am a traitor to straight white males everywhere." That's a straw man without a brain and yet another tell-tale sign Scalzi actually has no real defense for his stupid views on race since it's always easy to be your own critic, make up shit, and then wave away the criticism. I don't know of anyone who thinks Scalzi is a race traitor and I sure as fuck don't think about such stupid bullshit. Scalzi apparently does, which by this point shouldn't be at all surprising to understand. This crowd thinks anyone not fully on board with their insipid views on race is a white supremacist. By that standard, law and the Constitution is white supremacy.

Mostly, Scalzi's just a fucking idiot who feels compelled to write a lot more than he is actually capable of thinking. Scalzi's not the only one of these stalwarts whose desire to write is only outweighed by their lack of knowledge of what they're actually writing about. Not good arithmetic. If Scalzi is a traitor to any one it's to his own supposes values and humanity at large, since hate speech never has a happy ending. Scalzi thinks anyone who doesn't share his own insipid views on race is a white supremacist which is the same thing as saying the Constitution and law itself is white supremacy. So why am I not surprised dumbfuck SFWA author Kate Elliott Tweets "It is understood that the law is for the benefit of white people." How does one get that fucking stupid?

Scalzi should be sure to write a follow up where he tells us what 3 million Jewish and 20 million black men think. He mustn't forget to explain how he effortlessly rises above the fray while indulging in the most despicable racial stereotypes, a neat trick. So generic whites are a safe political target. Try the same thought process on Jews. I'm dying to read that one. What about gays? How are they all doing? Does he approve?

And Scalzi suggesting he doesn't really need to rebut his article because it's as obvious as gravity makes it all the more dumb. One can measure gravity and predict its influence. Scalzi cannot in the least instance make a prediction based on his inane assumptions about white male privilege. Scalzi cannot point to a single example and lay out a case it was white male privilege, let alone demonstrate a consistent pattern. One would think white males have unconscious secret handshakes and knowing winks they exchange as they grease the important wheels of upward mobility for each other in an informal white men's only club. Or is Scalzi in fact referring to completely outnumbered outsiders such as Cortes and the East India Company as privileged?

In the end, Scalzi has advanced the principles if not the particulars of neo-Nazis and the KKK by years, amounting to a stamp of approval as unwitting as the very 100 million white men he comes off the sidelines and tackles at the goal line. Beware of Nazis in pig-tails allergic to scented products bearing flowers and wheel chair access I always say.

John Scalzi attacks and defends identity. I attack and defend principle. Detractors of this essay will say I am ignoring simple truths self-evident within American culture. I would say there is nothing simple about truth to those who will not and cannot see the interior of a thing or admit there is no institutional racism in America, purposeful or otherwise, arrayed against non-whites. Such a thing cannot be shown. People are confusing natural expressions of culture, such as the NBA, with a racial and gender conspiracy. The only diversity America needs is a climate to let people express their cultural interests as they please without a one-sided system of thought in place where groups are labeled racists if some stupid expression of racial and gender demography is out of whack by 6.9%. Who in the hell decides such things? When is the goal achieved and "Diversicon" changed to "Humancon?" I'll tell you when: never. Because at its heart, this whole sad stupidity has nothing to do with such considerations; it's about a pathetic and pathological need to seize moral high ground, the new status, the new two-car garage. The fact this Orwellian argument about race and gender insists on colorblindness at the same time it criticizes colorblindness should tell you that; one is simply always wrong and so groups and individuals scramble all over each other to get to the top of the "unwrong" heap. At least, that's what it looks like from the outside of these grotesque discussions looking in. It's a provincial madhouse of contradiction.

Close your eyes and forget what people look like and what the people they talk about look like and listen to the words. You will detect unpleasant echoes you may rather not hear, yet they are there, and they are purposeful and they are institutionalized. There is no mirror image in America of the despicable annual bigot fair called the White Privilege Conference, which is supported by a score of institutional sponsors ranging from the Seattle Housing Authority to the YWCA to the Sierra Club. The dancers have merely exchanged places. So let there be none of the usual claims in response to an essay such as this as to whether I'm "feeling oppressed" or defending white people - I am doing neither. It is a principle that is being oppressed and it is that which I am defending. Open your eyes the least bit and you'll see it's the Constitution in 2013 I'm also defending, as well as the ghosts of past ethnic groups who were mysteriously always wrong as well.

Scalzi himself makes a simple argument for his own demise in this quote by him: "The fact is, almost no one likes to be seen as a bigot, and those who don’t mind being seen as bigots, no one else likes to be seen with."

I have highlighted an article and modes of thought within the SF community where people are defamed by their race and gender by "anti-racists" without the presentation of a single fact to back up such bizarre theories. The basis for such thought is the laughable notion that unproven assumptions are as obvious as gravity. This sector of the SF community is so deeply caught in a perceptual trap they are simply incapable of climbing out, since their ending of the story is the basis and evidence for the story itself. The cart is preceding the horse.

On a higher level, I don't see John Scalzi as the problem but only a sign of a larger problem, and that is the provincialist and racialist view of history, which is where the idea of white privilege comes from. We all of us seem to know what the world "provincial" means and we all of us equally seem to believe we don't suffer from it. So, what's the tie-breaker? For starters, one can simply live up to one's own standards rather than employ semantic gibberish with which to argue a point. But that's really not enough; it's not always so easy to see our own failures in this regard. Let's be honest here: when it comes to people who specifically single out straight white men as a target, the Las Vegas odds that straight white men will come out on the short end morally 100% of the time are the exact same odds Jews experience from Nazis and blacks from the KKK.

For me, one of the great failures here is a larger failure in America to employ tools of self-criticism in terms of how we educate ourselves about the world around us. Like parochialism, we acknowledge our bias to exist but never in ourselves; we don't really exert ourselves to keep tabs on ourselves, to keep ourselves in check.

More specifically, the failure in regards to the liberal movement in America Scalzi typifies is that they have taken Brown vs. Board of Education and used that as a trendy and faddist template for the history of all mankind. Like politically correct liberalism today, facts and principle have been abandoned and right and wrong have been relegated to one race, one culture and one gender. That is the very meaning of the world provincialism. When it comes to the typical progressive liberal, their enthusiasm to discuss and invoke history is only matched by their ignorance of its depth and nuance.

A liberal will tell you about the evil colonialist and imperialist Crusaders, though they were less successful than the Muslim colonial and imperial enclaves on mainland Italy in the 9th and 10th C. Those Islamic footholds on the Italian boot are considered so insignificant in historical terms you rarely read about them. And for a liberal, they are the wrong race. In fact those Italian adventures are the least expression of Islamic dominance of the Mediterranean littoral, and yet it is the Crusades, a counter-movement responding to 350 years of attacks that are considered the source of all troubles and grumbling's in the Middle East because liberal versions of history are stripped of context for political reasons. Within this same liberal paradigm of thought that distributes morality by race rather than facts, there were no slaved-based Mughal, Aztec, Islamic or Incan Empires. They don't exist because liberals have racialized history. Liberals don't understand that the fall of Constantinople to the Turks doomed Tenochtitlan or why, or why that same reason meant an Albanian Ottoman viceroy attacked Wahhabi Saudis in the early 19th C. rather than a Mamluk. This is the historic well that people like John Scalzi drink from, and it is not a human well but a racialized one, and morality is assigned a race and a culture; all others are not only innocents, but forever innocent of human failings. Ironically, this makes the "innocents" the very "other" Scalzi's brutally ignorant culture decries.

We have become so stupid as a culture that we need studies to show us how hate speech flying under the banner of "anti-racism" creates resentments. When common sense flies out the door in favor hypocrisy, racialism and overthinking, one will naturally find Mother Nature and reality joining hands and coming to pay a visit. I'm not a bit surprised that black kids are forming flash mobs and targeting white people and white-owned businesses for attacks given how much hate speech in mainstreamed and institutionalized in America. Meanwhile, evil white people are doing no such thing, though, in Scalzi's world, they surely must be, and whites are in fact treated as if they do; his explanation is that they do it on the sly, being sly like that.

The disconnect from reality and actual as opposed to phony notions of justice from demented people like Scalzi and his equally demented cohorts is an enormous chasm. All Scalzi needs to do is read one single book about the pre-whitey Aztec Empire or 17th C. India to realize what a sad fool he is. Scalzi's imagined fantasy of peaceful non-exploitative non-white cultures in fact shows not a single one capable of a Bill of Rights, free of slavery or addicted to peace. Morons like SFWA Nebula nominees N.K. Jemisin and Saladin Ahmed racially cherry-pick history to satisfy their own racial bigotry and supremacy until it is about as real as Superman's Krypton. The bottom line is that until they can produce a dozen mainstreamed whites-only literary awards they should just shut the fuck up.

Aside from all the above considerations, the idea that a naive, uneducated yet enthusiastically politicized science fiction and fantasy community can produce layered and challenging art is ridiculous. One cannot promote art through social engineering. If one were to take the NBA and replace the 80% black players with 80% white, you'd still have the NBA but the good players would be gone. That's because the NBA is a meritocracy, one of the most despised words in the PC liberal lexicon, depending on your race and gender; in that case it can be a positive boon. And why wouldn't that contradiction occur in a community that prizes identity over principle.

As it would be in the NBA, so it is with SF&F. The 2013 Nebula Awards for Best Novel of 2012 are an expression of a racial and gender pie-chart, not good art; art can't exist in such a culture. You can't nominate a Sword and Sorcery novel as "best" just because it doesn't take place in "white (heterosexual) cisgendered" male Europe and doesn't have "white (heterosexual) cisgendered" males; that's just plain idiocy. Throw in the fact that to get to that point, you have to ignore large swaths of past fantasy works that are not Eurocentric and are in addition promoting the late-30s Grade B fantasy of Norvell Page and Henry Kuttner as "innovative" and you're doubling and tripling down on disingenuous stupidity not to mention reinventing the wheel by fixing what ain't broke. At some point the SFWA has to decide whether they want to promote and celebrate the art of fantastic literature or be a stupid intersection of the NAACP and KKK.

 

*

 

On its "What is white privilege page?," the website of the 14th Annual White Privilege Conference lists these as "examples of white privilege:"

"Being able to…

* assume that most of the people you or your children study in history classes and textbooks will be of the same race, gender, or sexual orientation as you are
* assume that your failures will not be attributed to your race, or your gender
* assume that if you work hard and follow the rules, you will get what you deserve
* success without other people being surprised; and without being held to a higher standard
* go out in public without fear of being harassed or constantly worried about physical safety
* not have to think about your race, or your gender, or your sexual orientation, or disabilities, on a daily basis..."

Basically this acknowledges that whites are about 3/4 of America's population and assigns that status as having a default value of racist, and that latter is where it gets shifty from day one. It's shifty because it assumes attitudes and posits hypothetical's and lays it at the feet of an almost invisible systemic oppression. But with these people, "oppression" has significantly changed meaning over the years, in order to keep up with the very real fact that actual systemic and institutional racism has been gone in American for a half century. This is not a systemic evaluation, but a threat assessment which is superstition combined with urban myths and not a science.

For the idea of white privilege to work, it assumes the presence of an endemic hostility by whites towards non-whites and that majority status in and of itself is a natural condition that spawns oppression and racism, which is complete nonsense. If it can't prove superior numbers equals racism, then it can't work, since it denies the idea of minority elite status and desirable cliques that are very real things in a society. Racism isn't math but a matter of hate. Unfortunately, assigning hate to millions of whites is itself racism.

There are many, many instances in history where ethnic and religious minorities ruled nations. Egypt at least from the time of Alexander the Great to Nasser was ruled by an unbroken succession of minorities. Sadam Hussein's Iraq was ruled my minority Sunnis. Syria is today ruled by a minority. Many parts of India were ruled by minority Muslims. Scalzi and his nut-nauts are talking completely trash, both in terms of what empowers racism, but what stifles success. Why weren't a tiny minority of Turkish Mamluks stifled in Egypt instead ruling the place for two and half centuries? Scalzi and his crew simply ignore value systems and the success and failure inherent in those systems and instead parse success by sheer numbers and hatred.

In other words, there is truly no such thing as success; it is completely interchangeable regardless of what you actually discipline yourself as a culture to do. In a mind-bending turnabout, Scalzi posits that success, morality and innocence resides in race and gender and ignores or distorts history to come to this conclusion. That's aside from the racist notion of such an idea in the first place or that it completely contradicts what Scalzi preaches or that it can be equally completely turned around to throw down Scalzi's assertions. Once you stipulate a thing is different by virtue of identity alone, that will in reality never be equal; it opens the door to "better" or "worse." Scalzi, as a philosopher, is an octopus entangled in his own arms.

The devilish closed circle of hatred is that, if you look at those bullet points, there's really nothing a white person can do to escape, and that's what assigns the whole idea of WP to a trash heap of merely clever bigotry. John Scalzi has doubled down on this bigotry by assigning a default state of immorality and xenophobic hostility to heterosexuals and men as well. These people have no faces or names and number in their millions. That is classic bigotry.

As proof of where this hostility is truly emanating from, realize this conference will never go international in the sense of examining privilege itself, but only white privilege. If this conference's ideas were legitimate and not fueled by rancor, then one would see it address the Sikhs in India, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia, and the minority colonized and discriminated against status of Coptic Christians in Egypt. I promise you - you'll never see that. And if by some chance you do, white colonialism will be dragged in, exaggerated and expanded upon in the exact same way non-white historical colonialism will simply be ignored. No one in the WPC is going to go after Muslims in Egypt - end of story - correct principle, but wrong identity. White privilege isn't about a principle, or justice; it's about an identity, and demonizing that identity. The fact so many white liberals are on board with the WPC is proof to what extent the political Left in America has bought into the worst racial fantasies of the black political and academic Left in America.

Maggie Koerth-Baker at BoingBoing, in commenting about Peggy McIntosh's "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," uses words like "obvious," "blatantly," "invisible," and "subtle," in the same way one might talk about a conspiracy. McIntosh herself uses words like "denials," "recognize," "invisible," "oblivious," "unaware," "unconscious," "reveal," "unseen," "silences," "unacknowledged," "realizations," Strange words to describe a system or science. In fact what McIntosh's article is is semantic and intellectual gibberish, as is the concept of white privilege itself. The word "awareness" is used in a dangerous way in white privilege since no solutions are ever offered, only the command to "acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions," the chance to confess to ones racial and gender sins and guilt. Only then can we "redesign social systems."

The White Privilege Conference's own asinine solution is stated thusly:

"WPC is About Creating Change!

“'Whites need to acknowledge and work through the negative historical implications of ‘Whiteness’ and create for ourselves a transformed identity as White people committed to equity and social change...To teach my White students and my own children...that there are different ways of being White, and that they have a choice as White people to become champions of justice and social healing.' ~Gary Howard"

What in the fuck does that even mean? "Acknowledging" is a word also used in the BoingBoing piece. This is no attempt to arrive at a solution, but a Spanish Inquisition of correct thought requiring a confession of one's sins, combined with loathing and disdain assigned to a race and gender. How in the world does living in peace or love come about from such a hateful paradigm? I'll tell you this: as long as one believes in the "myth of meritocracy," that is exactly what you'll get. As Rochester says in "Jane Eyre," "I shall now endeavour to fail." The fact is there can be no solution to something that doesn't exist in the first place. In this sense, "acknowledging" takes on more the aspects of crowing and rattling sabers than problem solving.

The name of this conference should be changed to the "White Confession Conference: Sins Now, Solution Later," since no other paradigm of majority privilege that exists in this world will ever be addressed other than ones involving white people. The discrimination against Muslims and the continuing caste system of Hindus in India is completely invisible to these people, who no doubt believe in the lie that the Indian government financed film "Gandhi" was. In fact, the proposed solution to white privilege is for white people to stop acting like typical white people. Since it is proven by the rhetoric of white privilege itself that this is impossible, a confession, Two Minute Hate and ten Hail Mary's will suffice, and the White Hate Conference can happily beat their drums and embrace the same failed value systems that created what they hate in the first place, which is success, not privilege. Privilege, to whatever extent it exists, is in fact not an expression of race or majority/minority but of success itself.

The at once hilarious and stupid irony here is that, for those who have widely traveled and experienced other cultures, what you often find embraced when it comes to modernization has nothing to do with arcane precepts like "privilege," but with success itself. If privilege exists, it does not spring out of the ground but from a well-spring of what works and what does not in comparison, one to the other, when such things brush up one against the other. In America, value systems are brushing up one against the other. For those who embrace success based on pragmatism and that despised word "meritocracy," they will find success. For those who cling to racial finger pointing and co-opting success by virtue of race and gender, they will always be also-rans; history is full of them.

What these hateful bigots will themselves never address is that their "solution" and "acknowledging" as a desire for some racial confession are one and the same thing and it will never move beyond that. That is because what is lost on these people is that their very focused expressions of racial and gender disdain are many times worse than some blithe and unconscious model they put forward without a stick of evidence. In one breath these morons posits over 200 million whites as a "culture" and one with a failed value system. Out of the other side of their mouths, they consider the idea that any other such culture, ones that in fact do define themselves by race, is incapable of that same failed value system. The stupidity involved with these people is as breathtaking as their bigotry is obvious. The idea one can correctly peg 200 million whites as racialists who see the world through a lens of race is straight up racism and ignorance.

The reason white privilege is so dangerous is that, in seeking new monsters to create in lieu of the dead ones, it now posits that the goal of Martin Luther King of a colorblind society itself is a racist concept. No escape - a convenient and closed argument. There is simply no way a white person is not a racist and oppressor within this theory and no way a non-white ever is. A convenience store of hatred and bigotry all wrapped up in a nice package of self-contradiction. Koerth-Baker writes:

"I was taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their attitude. But a "white" skin in the United States opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us. Individual acts can palliate but cannot end, these problems."

At the top of the White Privilege Conference page it says "I change myself, I change the world." So, which is it? I'm not surprised since the idea any of this is about working towards a solution is complete trash. This is about rabble-rousing and hate; elite, disdainful, racial and gender superiority. It's voodoo dressed up in phony intellectual prose and nothing more. If you want to talk about a system, I have real simple one: any system of thought which takes millions of people, identifies them by nothing more than their race or gender, and then assigns them morality or lack of it, intelligence or lack of it, is nothing more than straight up racism and bigotry. This has nothing to do with justice. It's a pathology that people gather around the same way people gather around the Roswell incident. People see "invisible" things out of the corner of their eyes that others are in "denial" about. The more those others deny the more "proof" it is of their stubborn resistance to such an idea. That which cannot be actually shown runs on a faith so strong it amounts to a virtual religious cult. Ask yourself this: A. Are there such things as crazy cults and B. What are the chances a tiny minority of people are gifted with an insight denied to larger society?

Koerth-Baker writes "this system leads otherwise kind and decent people to act and think in racist ways, without even realizing that's what they're doing." Privileged information for the privileged few who are stripped of decency and kindness if they don't agree. More classic and clever bigotry one usually finds in Nazi propaganda about Jews. The bottom line: no escape. Race and even gender is assigned morality and that is that. Anecdote and hypothetical are turned into science. Unfortunately, that "science" can predict exactly nothing and offers no solutions, since it is a racial trap. Scalzi's piece is nothing more than hate speech and it is as simple as that.

Here's yet more dumbfuckery about white privilege, written by Eric Liu, who is also in love with profiling 240 million white Americans as racists, at Time of all places. It's called "Trayvon Martin and Making Whiteness Visible." I'd ask when Eric is going to make his brains visible and stop being a racist asshole by saying white suck and that Zimmerman was an "honorary white" just to shoehorn his hopelessly moronic point across. Boo hoo hoo, Liu. Here's a hanky. As far as I'm concerned, Liu can go fuck himself.

Liu starts the piece by writing:

"If there is one hopeful note amidst all the anguish and recrimination from the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it’s that growing numbers of white people have come to appreciate whiteness for what it is: an unearned set of privileges."

I end the piece by saying keep dreaming and reiterating fuck you. According to Liu's little bio at the bottom, he "was a speechwriter and policy adviser to President Clinton." I'm assuming the speeches were Cyrano-like advice about wanting blow jobs and that Liu knew just how to put it. 

White privilege is purest bullshit. It is identity vs. principle. Were it about principle, you would see equal weight and concern about other such paradigms of privilege around the world, irregardless of the ethnic groups involved; you do not. White privilege is conspicuously focused racism and hate speech, pure and simple. White privilege is based on a view of global history that is so racially gerrymandered, distorted and jumbled that it amounts to a lie. John Scalzi, the SFWA, and the larger SF&F community are heavily involved, not only in hate speech, but in mainstreaming it because they feel it is an important message that needs to get out "there." Where "there" is, is in fact some seventh hell of idiocy.

If you want to see what one of these white privilege morons looks like in person, and how fucking stupid they sound, check out this woman on youtube at a Trayvon Martin acquittal protest on July 14, 2013:

Don't look for this dipshit to express solidarity by actually moving into a black neighborhood or ever figuring our Zimmerman wasn't white.

White privilege is the exact same ignorant bleating as the idea of "cultural appropriation;" only one race is ever guilty of it, though, if such a thing exists, it is plain all partake of it. Ironically, since it is the Third World that largely appropriates the West's culture and not the other way around, the stupidity of the idea is all the more profound; a Cairene or New Delhi subway system is not Cairene or Hindu. There are baseball caps all over Brazil but no baseball stadiums. I am not wearing a sarong but Indonesians are wearing Scorpions t-shirts and with Rod Stewart shag haircuts. Some Asian women where tight mini-skirts but there is no history of such a thing in Asia. There is a McDonald's franchise in Legian, Bali but no mie goreng franchises throughout America. This is not an enforced interchange but one of preference; it is a free expression of success and what works and feels good, and not privilege or running dog cultural imperialism.

The Left's obsession with European colonialism and imperialism in the midst of obvious and even worse non-European paradigms in history is telling. When Paolo Bacigalupi writes a science fiction novel about Thailand, that is cultural appropriation. When a Thai plays a video game, creates ESPN Asia, makes a film using Western expressions of cinematography, editing and narration, or opens a McDonald's, that is forced on them. In other words, cultural appropriation is a racist paradigm a liberal decides purely on race, and not consistent principle or idea, and they've stacked the deck with bizarre arguments set up so they are never wrong. PoC are never wrong and whites are never right. Convenient.

What this is really about is not good or evil, right or wrong, but about the identity of success, the racial identity. It's why so many people say liberals despise success; they clearly do - their own. They have been taught and have taught themselves to hate their own success and furthermore to divide up success in the world according to race, and not according to who played the great games of national competitions in the last 500 years. In the eyes of a liberal, the Aztecs were not an empire equally as debased, oppressive or greedy as the Spanish Empire by the simple virtue of the fact the Aztecs lost plus the lucky fact they were not white. It is assumed the Aztecs would never have done the same to Spain what they in fact actually did do to others about them, even with the terrifying description of all the weapons of murder in Montezuma's arsenal at Tenochtitlan chronicled by Bernal Diaz and a de facto and an actual empire as proof.

This essay isn't about me complaining about disconnected things that bother me. This is about making a case that the same racialist and identity driven drivel whereby morality is conveyed by identity is a shared world view from a specific racialized and politicized culture. In fact, taken in a vacuum, none of this stuff bothers me. It is the fact the message bearers consistently violate their own "principles" and confuse identity with an actual principle that bothers me. It's a double standard and the very type of double standard these folks are so supposedly on fire about.

*

The millionth proof is that is Scalzi again promoting racialism and identity before character on Sept. 23, 2013 on his blog with a post titled "Strange Horizons: Why You Should Support It." Strange Horizons is a webzine that publishes SFF stories, but it takes a little bit to get to explaining that ahead of it's agenda and priority of race and gender before art. Keep in mind, this is the culture that goes nuts if you point out an editor is a "lady," and then proceeds to promote Strange Horizons doing essentially that exact thing.

Editor-In-Chief Niall Harrison, who should get some kind of award for the most fawning, mewling politically correct gender and race-freak in the SFF 'zine community, starts off by telling us one more year of SH will get you more of a list of white woman and colored women who aren't white men.

Yeah, but is there any good SFF?

Then Harrison tells us "It means another year of a magazine committed to diverse voices."

So the fuck what? Any good SFF hanging about?

Then Harrison writes: "This year we’ve had contributors from Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Sweden, as well as the UK and US."

Great... how's the work?

Next: "We’ve published writers of color, queer writers, and non-neurotypical writers."

Fantastic. WOULD THERE HAPPEN TO BE ANY GOOD STORIES AVAILABLE ALREADY?!?!? Jesus fucking H. Christ.

As a parting shot, Harrison lets us know there's "stories dealing with imperialism and cultural exchange, stories exploring queer YA experience." Great, now go fuck off, cuz I can "hear" it when colored people are writing; it comes write off the page. And I always know when queers are writing, cuz they never shut the fuck up about being queer. Imagine the old Star Trek TV shows produced by Harrison. You'd get to the end of the hour without a fucking plot, just fierce blowhard wimmen, cultural appropriation, gay stuff, and colored people ahoy. In the whirly-gig of the justice league of race and gender, identity IS its own plot, and these people never get bored with themselves. They can't actually fucking write, so why not?

Let me tell you something: no way art can survive this sad crucible of hypocritical stupidity which holds art in such low contempt, and inquisitions when anyone outside their racialist gender league does exactly what they do. David Duke and his Taliban-like associates in the GOP can die in peace; they now have a whole new generation of clueless fucks to carry on institutional segregation and discrimination. Happy "Safer Space" assholes. Don't forget to institute some kind of racially segregated SFF high-school prom, cuz that'll fight racism for sure. And we need more SFF awards for women only, cuz men hate them so.

Here's what racism looks like when it's convinced by the nature of its own identities it is incapable of it. In other words, when morons are convinced that racism and sexism will only ever come from the same old place, e.g., neo-Nazis, white men, KKK, then guards are dropped, principle thrown aside, and clueless posts like this one at Strange Horizons called "Set Truth on Stun: Reimagining an Anti-Oppressive SF/F."

The post starts by lauding N.K. Jemisin's unprecedented racist speech in Australia as some font of wisdom and so the post is drowned right at the beginning. Jemisin=black=never-can-be-racist=must-be-wisdom-by-default. One moron calls Jemisin's David Duke imitation "brilliant."

The one fucking ray of light, and the crucial point that is lost of these fools, is mentioned and then quickly ignored. Leónicka Valcius writes "'When you hear someone insulting the Jews pay attention; he is talking about you.'" That would go for men and whites too, but the moment passes and the entire argument against this insipid culture is wrecked on the rocks. What follows is the usual stupidity and the "oppression" that no one can quite document. In fact, the most oppressive racist and sexists in the SFF community are right there on that page and in their mirrors. The intellectual failure is stunning to say the least. The justice league of race and gender's "anti-racists" and "anti-sexists." What a fucking laugh. The pathological carping about "males" and "whites" reminds me of how some people talk about earthworms.

And of course, every racist and sexist institution within SFF is mentioned as being the complete opposite: a righteous group of defenders against white oppression. Yeah, they're "talking about you." I laughed at "white allies." I presume that referes to the minority of good whites. Apparently there are a smattering about. My own shorter rebuttal is "fuck off." Needless to say, with all the supposed education of these morons, the one thing that is absolutely unavailable to them are tools of self-criticism. With that they are at sea, and for good. These are people who don't check themselves on one fucking day of the week.

*

What's the bottom line here for Scalzi; what does he or civilization stand to lose if he knocks off the incessant racial and gender chatter? What solutions does he propose? How does this make it easier for people to live together as opposed to fragmenting into racial and gender camps? Does he have a grasp of how many people are simply saying "fuck this" and leaving the scene of the crime, turned off by having gender and race pushed in their face and calling it "art" and "justice?" Scalzi and his insulated crowd of racialists may have not noticed that intolerance and censorship isn't exactly inclusive; people simply go elsewhere, and there's a lot to read in this world and a lot of competition for a buck. When you're left on the field of battle and there's pretty much only you and yours left, you've won; the question is - what?

The truth is that when you mainstream the insanity of insulated subsets of cultures you get millions of young people acting in predictably insane ways.

Although I have made a case for the fact that the rhetoric of Bourke, Scalzi, Jemisin and others arguably violate the laws of many nations outside America, I don't want to give the impression that I am in favor of such anti-free speech laws; I am not - I find them despicable. I wanted to highlight the irony that the very PC culture that has created such laws are not only subject to them, but violating them.

Scalzi sits in a house all day and somehow thinks that, an internet connection, and his sheer intellect and nice judgment makes his lair the center of some web from where he make jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncements about a world that, in real terms, he doesn't know jack shit about, other than what he reads about. In living almost hermetically sealed lives on the internet with an occasional foray to a promotional appearance, Scalzi and his bunch are in fact almost phenomenally disconnected from the world. What kind of a fool leaves 30,000 remarks on Twitter alone, aside from tens of thousands of words on a daily blog going back a decade? Is that Indian Jones territory? In my mind, it's a sure way to assure oneself of knowing precisely nothing but the sound of one's own voice. You can double that when you run a blog that literally turns its back on any form of dissent, probably symbolic of the contempt Scalzi holds for any voice that doesn't sound like his own.

From my vantage point, Scalzi has more in common with a blisteringly stupid demagogue than with a free-wheeling, open minded outside-the-box thinker.

*

ARE YOU A RUNNING DOG PAPER TIGER IMPERIALIST COLONIALIST? NO FUCKING NEBULA FOR YOU

The SFWA is turning off a lot of people. The Tuesday before the 2013 Nebula Awards Weekend the SFWA was still hawking 100 tickets. Considering its legacy, this is an event that should be sold out months in advance. The truth is that no one wants to see a bunch of amateur and boring writers who've been leap-frogged into status by virtue of their race, gender and politics which consists of spending the year on their blogs, Twitter and webzine articles piously lighting up half the population of the United States past and present as post-colonialist, homophobic, women-hating, racists. Neither do they wish to hear about the SFWA's own confessions/cleanliness in this regard. It's a stomach churning inquisition full of bald-face hypocrisy is what it is. I call it SFWA Awards Weekend "The Geek White Privilege Conference."

At that Nebula Awards Weekend for 2013, these dumbfuck morons held a session called "What Happens to Your Novel after You’ve Turned it In: The Difference Between Marketing and PR."

Well, let me tell you what happens to your novel after you turn it in.

• You censor your fans for mere disagreement
• You have Nebula Nominee Aliette de Bodard let people know it's an "acknowledged fact" they're too fucking stupid to know the difference between China and Vietnam cuz they're ethnocentric racists
• You have Nebula Nominee Saladin Ahmed tell them whites are xenophobic racists
• You have Nebula Nominee N.K. Jemisin tell them they're all a bunch of racists and their favorite authors too
• You have Nebula Nominee Mary Robinette Kowal tell them she's a racist and oh by the way so are you
• You have SFWA president and Nebula Winner John Scalzi tell them they're privileged from they're own racism and immoral cuz they're men
• You have SFWA member Jim Hines admit he's a racist and you probably are too cuz "none of these things happen in isolation" By this standard, Jim Hines believes any anti-white sentiment or crime by a dozen black folks equals all black folks, Muslim terrorists equals all Muslims, etc. Because of course we all know a mural Hines mentions equals America. Hines confirms this by linking to an anti-white site that claims "whites fear us"
• You have SFWA member Charles Stross forbid speculation as to a minority racial identity of the Boston Marathon bombers and then one hour later speculate they're white
• You have Nebula Nominee Charlie Jane Anders write a piece at io9 titled "What do you do when you find weird racism in old science fiction books?," fail to actually do so, and then don't tell the truth about the story in question

If I wanted, I could make that list much, much longer. Racism, racism, more racism, a side of racism and racism on top of that. What the fuck are these people trying to prove in 2013? What? What is this fucking obsession these people have with racism and post-colonialism and all the other bullshit they are trying to wring out of reality?

This is the difference between marketing and PR. It's how to make friends and influence people. It's how to indulge in wholesale racial and gender bigotry, not realize it, and accuse the world of it. It's how to destroy a genre from within. It's a template on how to destroy art. It's how to become irrelevant. It's how to suck fun right out of a genre built around the concept of fun. It's how to show a lack of faith in the human spirit. It's how to show the inability to make simple comparisons or what a cart and a horse is or where they go. It's how to turn the SFWA into an amalgam of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the KKK; an uneasy fit, to say the least.

Can you imagine these people running a country? Well, they're running the SFWA and have a massive influence within SF&F which is the same thing as saying they're a wrecking crew. They despise the history of America, themselves as admittedly racist, and their own genre; what's the chances they will promote anything besides the reasons behind their disdain? This is not a culture of normal people - this is a pathology of like-minded people who have coalesced around one another while not noticing how many have hit the exit doors who want nothing to do with such weirdness.

These cannot be fun people to hang around with and nor are they fair-minded. They must walk around the Nebula Awards on tenterhooks like frickin' porcupines. If John Belushi's character from "Animal House" attended, I can see where a lot of metaphorical guitars would be smashed. This is a community which once held a world view of satire and humor similar to Monty Python or underground comix. Today this community is the same one R. Crumb and the Python's made fun of as raging, self-righteous and stuffy hypocrites. Since our race-nauts also subscribe to "ableism" they must then micro-manage their own speech so they don't accidentally say "weak," or "lame." If they're called out on something like that by one of their own flagging them on Twitter, they will bow their heads in shame, utter mea culpas and watch as they shrink their own writer's vocabulary right down to a silly nub and art along with it.

What must some of these racialists think as they attend the 2013 Nebulas, knowing the extent to which they've trashed the very genre they so ardently want to be a part of and pushed to the front as examples of diversity in no way merited by their writing? It begs the question of why they'd want to be a part of the genre in the first place, since they denounce their own literary forebearers in no uncertain terms. Like all retro-moralizing racialists, these are people who sit among the wreckage of a thing they didn't and couldn't create, let alone sustain.

What I've made a case for is a small, inbred, insulated and completely interconnected community who are frighteningly in alignment when it comes to bigoted views of race and gender, even employing the exact same oddball words and phrases. Without names, I couldn't even tell their rhetoric about race and gender apart, so similar are they. Who in their right fucking mind calls someone "cisgendered?" They remind me of those creepy kids in "Village of the Damned" In this community, one does not step out of line in even the smallest way. Comments and debate on blogs are assiduously censored, usually on the Socratic notion of "It's my blog." Imagine if our Congress worked like that and then imagine these people consider themselves as artists. If they are artists, then no one in this world is not an artist.

And in all this, don't discount the amount of calculated politically correct posturing that amounts to a con game to make a writer more appealing to an audience and more saleable. Think about celebrity Tweets on social issues. I mean, what else are they going to say? Lying pays, it always has, and image is more important than reality, and that is much more true when there is no actual talent to promote. The problem is that in 2013, SFF writers who are nothing more than conformist rednecks are trying to portray themselves as edgy iconoclasts, even while they are awash in iPhones, iPads, laptops, house and car payments, stupid fucking TV shows like Buffy or Dr. Who and literature about zombies, shape-changing vampires and Star Trek/Wars dreck that is dead from the neck up. But that's what's going to happen when a genre is changed into the Dept. of Justice and the actual work itself is a time-consuming but in reality hobbiest afterthought.

I have no interest in listening to these sick racial confessions and accusations. Write some SF and fantasy and make it good. Otherwise step out of the way and let others be artists and promote that art, rather than some sick racial obsession. The reason it's a sick obsession is because these people think more racism will solve racism. They historically and socially exaggerate racism where it actually was and is and racially ignore it where it obviously has been and is. In fighting against the idea that race and gender should make one a second class citizen, they have in fact taken up that exact stance as their banner. They exaggerate racism as a driving force in world events in the first place, and even if it was true, simply censor out the parts they don't like, as if only the West ever saw a culture as different and expressed disdain for an "other." The actual historic record shows that's complete bullshit. The actual historic record shows a tiny fraction of racialism in the world's rhetoric and philosophy compared to these modern PC racialists themselves, who never shut up about it. They are in fact the enemy they most ardently posit and seek out.

"In real life, people who are most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all." - G.K. Chesterton

What that quote means to me fits Scalzi and all the rest of his sad brood to a "T." They have no convictions, no principles, nothing. They have only identity and, as William Shirer puts it, an "ugly assault upon the human spirit."

I personally believe the way to fight mainstreaming hate speech is to ostracize and marginalize such morons in the public arena, as I am doing now. But before a moron can be banished to the fringes of our society, one must first recognize they are morons and that would mean not nominating them for literary awards. I don't agree with Orson Scott Card's views on gay folks but how can these people go after Card when they themselves indulge in even worse behaviors? Now that the torch of the SFWA presidency is passing on to Steven Gould in Summer 2013, famous nunic writer of "Jaunters," "Jaunter's Twilight," and "Ender's Hunger Jaunters," I'm sure we'll see many pale-faced LOL's and anti-racist Tweets about privileged running dog colonialist paper tigers.

CAESAR: "Pardon him Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II - George Bernard Shaw 

"John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 13h I have a degree in philosophy of language. I actually do know a bad argument when I see one. I have a low tolerance for them." 

Hahahahaha.

Is this a future headline for Scalzi, the SFWA and friends?

"US bloggers banned from entering UK. The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate."

And then there's overseas sales, where there is no First Amendment, another can of stinky tuna fish. Wake up assholes. Your insulated world is your insulated world, and law is law. Try making that into the funny name of a band. Do the people I've quoted in this and the series of essays that follow "foster hatred" and "inter-community" violence? You be the judge.

*

If you didn't understand this essay, read it again. Forget about its grammar, address the ideas. If its length is too long, then stop reading short stories. If you think length equals immorality and stupidity, then go for help. There is a reason this and the 4 other essays are so long, not least of which is the mountain of material I had to work with. If this sad hate speech had been less institutionalized within SFF fandom and more anecdotal, there would've been no reason to write anything.

More importantly, I wanted to drive home my points and quotes again and again and again, so that the trend and similarity of thought within this depraved culture of race and gender would leap out at the reader.

The giant fail here is that Scalzi and people like him don't understand that the historic nature of the fight in America was about institutional and lawful racism, not that of individuals. On an individual level, anyone can be a bigot. I'm sure there were a ton of Germans who didn't like Jews in 1925, but they had no institutional power to start putting them on trains.

Scalzi and his brood making up bizarre theories as a substitute for institutionalized racism ignores progress and moves the cart from behind the horse to the front. It also leads one slowly and undetectably from justified expressions of anti-racism into racism itself. Suddenly you raise your head and the only racial institutions and mainstream hate speech left on the field of battle are those on your side. If you posit a war is never won, it never will be, even long after it is over. One then needs to create an enemy. White privilege will do for starters, and then other pseudo-science vehicles of racial grievance like 3rd wave feminism intersectionality, critical race theory, New Jim Crow, post-colonialist studies, critical pedagogy and other attack platforms that operate under the guise of academics. But in each instance, there is a human enemy, and who it is is all too clear.

The SFF community's justice league of race and gender is a society and an inquisition of hate, bigotry and strawmen fueled by complaint, blame and self-pity.

"Be prepared to appreciate what you meet" - Frank Herbert

"To any vision must be brought an eye adapted to what is to be seen. If the eye that ventures the vision be dimmed by vice, impure or weak, then it sees nothing, even though another points to what lies plain before it." - Plotinus - 3rd Century A.D.