Update: In Washington, soul-sucking leeches make children cry for reasons.
Of course I'm not talking about Feminist Girls and I'm not talking about Science Boys... but John C. Wright is talking about the exact same thing at this link and in the quote after the break... how willfully changing the rules in an never ending effort to never ever be satisfied and to always have an enemy is the goal. Without a sexist to destroy, the feminist ceases to exist at all. Her very existence depends upon pretending that her irrationality is reason and her offense is reasonable. But I shouldn't pick on feminists because they're not alone in it. I don't know if I'd say "leftist" the way that Wright does either, but he none-the-less is describing a process that can be seen, over and over, in vastly different social contexts.
Of course I'm not talking about Feminist Girls and I'm not talking about Science Boys... but John C. Wright is talking about the exact same thing at this link and in the quote after the break... how willfully changing the rules in an never ending effort to never ever be satisfied and to always have an enemy is the goal. Without a sexist to destroy, the feminist ceases to exist at all. Her very existence depends upon pretending that her irrationality is reason and her offense is reasonable. But I shouldn't pick on feminists because they're not alone in it. I don't know if I'd say "leftist" the way that Wright does either, but he none-the-less is describing a process that can be seen, over and over, in vastly different social contexts.
I've linked once or twice to some of the bizarre doings of the science fiction community... but I see the same dynamics in mainstream culture every day. Lying about people's true views doesn't matter. Making someone cry is a victory. Making someone innocent grovel is a victory. It's "raising awareness" you see. And if they win, they go poof, like a vampire exposed to sunlight, their existential purpose gone. So they can never ever win.
Wright gives one very telling example dealing with Heinlein, a true giant of science fiction who, safely dead, has been transformed into the enemy... so that this particular breed of soul-suckers may live.
The only rational response to this sort of idiocy, and to #shirtstorm as well, is to revolt.
While working on the novel that was to become Rocket Ship Galileo, Heinlein warned his agent that the inclusion of an ethnically diverse cast was not only deliberate—it was non-negotiable, and if an editor requested the removal of the Jewish character, Blassingame (the agent) was to take the book elsewhere.
This is from the letter Heinlein wrote to his agent about his wishes:
What do you think?
“I have deliberately selected a boy of Scotch-English pioneer ancestry, a boy whose father is a German immigrant, and a boy who is American Jewish. Having selected this diverse background they are then developed as American boys without reference to their backgrounds. You may run into an editor who does not want one of the young heroes to be Jewish. I will not do business with such a firm. The ancestry of the three boys is a “must” and the book is offered under those conditions. My interest was aroused in this book by the opportunity to show to kids what I conceive to be Americanism. The use of a diverse group . . . is part of my intent; it must not be changed. . . . I am as disinterested as a referee but I want to get over an object lesson in practical democracy.”
What do you think?
Commenting on this is one Mitch Wagner, freak, writing on the blog maintained by Tor books — one of the largest and most well-respected names in science fiction publishing, as well as being my own publisher. This is not some overlooked corner or outlier opinion.
What do you think?
Wagner snarks:
What do you think?
This is all admirable, but let’s keep in mind what’s missing from this cast: Asians; disabled people; non-Americans of any kind; lesbians, gays, and the transgendered; Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or representatives of the other major world religions. Heinlein’s book was enormously ethnically diverse in that it included the full variety of American Judeo-Christian boys.
What do you think?
And even the notion that the ethnically diverse boys are “developed as American boys without reference to their backgrounds” is a little creepy.
What do you think?
The freakish Mr. Wagner is not satisfied that Heinlein stormed the breach for them, being the first science fiction writer to put a Jew (Morrie Abrams from Rocket Ship Galileo), a Filipino (Juan Rico, Starship Troopers), a Negro (Rod Walker from Tunnel in the Sky
implicitly and Mr. Kiku from The Star Beast
explicitly) a Mohammedan (Dr. “Stinky” Mahmoud from Stranger in a Strange Land
) or a Maori girl (Podkayne from Podkayne of Mars
) in the spotlight as a main character and hero or heroine, but then criticizes Heinlein for not having as a main character … who? A cross-dressing homosexual castrati Hindu as a main character in a children’s book published in 1947? The Democrat Party still had Jim Crow laws and segregation in the South, and in those days the militant arm of the Democrat Party, the KKK, were still lynching blacks.
Do you understand to what the freakish Mr. Wagner is objecting? He is objecting to the melting pot theory that men of different races, locked into endless mutual hatred in the old world, can leave their hatred behind here in the new world. He is objecting to racelessness. Hence, he is a racist.
What do you think?
Heinlein showed backbone and gorm and ran the risk of being blackballed and put out of business by the Left (who, then as now, have major influence amounting to near total control in the New York publication industry) — and for this bold stance, unheard-of at the time, the gormless and freakish Mr Wagner criticizes Mr. Heinlein.
Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/11/26/politics/unthanksgiving-leftists-hate-thanksgiving/#ixzz3KPjPU345
9 comments:
http://www.hoover.org/research/al-qaedas-fantasy-ideology
"My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.
My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.
What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him."
"the whole point is what it did for him."
But isn't that the EXACT point of ALL leftist activism?
I read this same thing on a different site, Every Joe, the one Insty linked this morning.
Unthanksgiving: Leftists Have Lost the Ability to Give Thanks by John Wright.
I must say, one paragraph does not make complete ¢¢.
The Leftists do not even have gratitude to their own pioneers and forefathers. Instead of erecting shrines, like noble prechristian heathens, to their ancestors, these postmodern postchristian heathens turn on their ancestors and rend them, and dishonor the memory even of their own founders. Like Jupiter casting castrated Saturn into Hell, they maim and condemn their own fathers.
They don't erect shrines, like noble prechristian heathens, to their ancestors?
How to explain all those statues of Lenin? How to explain all their memorials?
Saturn was castrated? He was Jupiter's father? In whose version of mythology doe one find that?
He said, rending and dishonoring the memory even of their own founders is like that. I cannot make sense of that statement. I nearly dropped the whole thing as hopeless. But then he goes on to include the bits about Hugo Gernsbeckian and about Heinlein.
But then I did learn about asymptote, and that made the whole thing worthwhile.
Despite what it seems, this is not due to a mental disorder. It is a disordered philosophy that rewards them for pretending to have a mental disorder. Giving into the temptation once makes it easier to give in the next time, in a soaring parabolic asymptote of unreality.
Ew, that's a good one. Note to self: Do NOT spring that in everyday conversation. Or risk isolating yourself further.
It's two lines, at least one a curve that never meet drawn to infinity. And it is used precisely along with moving the goalposts. It can never be satisfied, if it does become satisfied, poof, it become something else.
"Note to self: Do NOT spring that in everyday conversation. Or risk isolating yourself further."
Good point. But it is an awesome phrase, isn't it?
Soaring parabolic asymptote of unreality...
The Lefties can't build, only tear down.
It's why they're losing.
The Ferguson protests are turning into a pro-communist party.
"It can never be satisfied, if it does become satisfied, poof, it become something else."
Ergo, rioting is good, Obama changing law by fiat is ok, on and on.
Rose Eveleth expressed appreciation for Matt Taylor's apology. Anyone grateful for that?
No.
Post a Comment