Evil League of Evil wins Hugo awards.

With assistance from Gamergate.

Hugo awards controversy

(Actually they dominated the short list, so it is not over yet, but the final outcome is pretty much baked in now)-

Politically correct science fiction simply is not science fiction, none of it, not a single recent Hugo award winner until now, because it continually lectures us on the latest issue, even if those delivering the lecture are supposedly martian elves, thus is always about the present place and the present time, and the martian elf costumes are less than skin deep.

All recent Hugo award winners have been boring tedious lectures spitting on their audience as racist and sexist, which is why Hugo award winners of fifty years ago are still today massively outselling recent Hugo award winners.

By the way, we don’t drag gays to death behind pickup trucks. That is a completely false and malign accusation. That would be lower class, demotic, and democratic. We take them out to sea, till we get to where the currents run offshore to the middle of the pacific, then blindfold them, and make them walk the plank to celebrate the traditions of our colonialist predecessors who so gloriously founded the British empire. It is much more dignified. (Were you wondering why there are so few old gays? Now you know.)

71 Responses to “Evil League of Evil wins Hugo awards.”

  1. jim says:

    Just kidding about the gays. The reason there are so few old gays is disease, suicide, criminal violence, drug overdose, and so on and so forth. We don’t drown enough to make a difference.

    • Michael says:

      has anyone worked on organizing for the collapse? yeah sure theirs lots of preppers etc the skins no doubt are in survivalist mode. but it occurs to me although america and europe are certainly in a tre revolutionary state most of the non SJW are not really prepared yet could easily maintain order if loose “tribes” were contracted. Im thinking a lot of these people know the end is nigh [its amazing how blithely the average american accepts this now] but doesnt think they can do anything. prepping takes lots of money and disruption. but groups of people agreeing in advance to maintain order and work together to survive would take far less expense and likely encourage some prep investment. the loose criminal associations likely to spring up post ZA would not stand a chance against even a modest rural or suburban alliance. and while the backcountry is actually quite prepared physically they are not prepared theoretically, these patchworks if founded on a well designed “constitution” could be the genesis of re order. the principles would have to be designed to not alienate friends to the right while minimizing entrism from the left. The only system of orderly anarchy like this i know of practical value has been AAs twelve traditions, if youre not intimately familiar i suggest not scoffing without research and i mean not just reading them. anyway im not pushing them as the solution to this problem but its my handiest example of what im imagining.
      just say there are tens of thousands of synthetic tribes who have sworn allegiance to each other and order and figured out how to communicate etc without zombies or cathedral interference. they are not necessarily ” DENRX” but close enough if not pressured to make difficult choices too soon. Crafted properly these alliances could become very popular very quickly. my question is a lot of DENRX is not happy with the sitting on the balcony enjoying the decline mindset, heres some practical populist work thats not revolutionary. the key would be a set of values that were cleverly considered. any thoughts

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Reaction will be the necessary organization after a collapse. Just as a child seeks his father during an emergency people will seek out strength in turmoil. They will also group based on race and religion, two constants throughout history. The only galvanizing force behind race mixing is a centralized power enforcing that mixing. Post collapse will resemble empire disintegration and reformation as ethno-religious nation states. The term ethno-religious nation is redundant. Nations tends towards homogeneity of race and belief to solidify a national identity. America is an empire. Japan is a nation.

        • Michael says:

          it seems DENRX thinks doing anything is going to end up being populist or anarchist, which i at least see the point but im scrptical that reaction will simply spring up its not the default human condition reactionary civilization. what will ensue will be return to thunderdome.Im one of those lowbrow reactionaries that has no problem with an ethno state thats not socialist, religion while a great cohesive i dont think DENRX mixes well with. at least Christianity. its easily pwnd by socialists multticulturalists and made to look absurd by rationalists which i hope we count ourselves; this is not to say im hostile or underestimate its historical significance and certainly dont want to alienate the conservative Christians.what im suggesting is the strength that people will seek as you say be set up in advance and in advance have stealthy reactionary principles. stealthy because while the rural areas are already pretty much all white and christian i doubt if you advertized yourself as whites only many Christians would join, i think its needs to be cleverer and i think race is only one issue that would be a tough sell pre collapse.i dont think setting up synthetic tribes will be a tough sell i bet the entire country could be quickly organized with the right structure.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            You don’t really have to worry about being ‘pwnd by socialism’ if a collapse as you describe it occurs. If a global catastrophe destroyed the West, all vestiges of socialism would be rendered irrelevant.

            As I think you rightly acknowleged, it is the white male Christian (typically rural) that makes up Reaction’s foot soldier. Religious radicalism THRIVES on poverty. In the event of a collapse, people will be destitute to degrees not seen before and the average lifespan will also drop dramatically.

            You need essentially the equivalent of Romania’s ‘Iron Guard’ (look them up if you haven’t heard of them before). That is, ethnically conscious, low maintenance religious zealots under the command of a charismatic (wouldn’t hurt to also be a mystic). You need this because such people are the most successful in history when it comes to self-sacrifice for a greater political good. And if Prophetic Catastrophism proves accurate, a lot of people are going to die.

            Besides by this time, if Indiana is anything to go by, Christianity will be an embattled and perhaps far more militantly defensive religion than it has been before (think large stockpiles of guns in rural communities). The more you back people into a corner, the more dangerous and radical they are willing to become in order to overthrow institutions. Setting up crude stand-ins like Neo Paganism is a surefire way to irrelevancy. The numbers just aren’t there.

            It’s also important to say that Rationalism is actually a degenerative influence. The original Reactionary, Joseph De Maistre identified Rationalism as the key cause of instability that the French Revolution would bring. There is no stability in rationalization, for it is simply a succession of theories being overthrown and disproved shortly after they are announced. Rationalism is constant revolution. Instead, De Maistre praised the axis of the Traditional Catholic Church in Europe at that time for creating a societal basis so secretive and intangible that it couldn’t be questioned.

            Order comes from not being able to question things, something religion does very well.

            Open inquiry and free thought reliant on human rationality is inevitably an avenue to chaos.

            One day you rationalize that there is no scientific basis for kings being of nobler blood than the common man, the next day you rationalize that sodomites are just normal variations in nature.

          • B says:

            >As I think you rightly acknowleged, it is the white male Christian (typically rural) that makes up Reaction’s foot soldier.

            In a theoretical world, sure.

            In this world that we inhabit, white male Christians make up the Cathedral’s foot soldiers.

            If you look at the military, CIA, FBI, NSA, the guys doing the overwhelming majority of the work are white male Christians. Perhaps they get annoyed at their mandatory sexual harassment training or whatever, but the pay is good and the job is cool-it’s almost like having superpowers. And you think they’re gonna give that up? For what?

            Your Iron Guard was not only a psychotic and murderous mob but was a traitorous organization working to turn their country over to the Nazis. And not only that, but they failed against the Romanian military. Which was itself nothing to brag about, as witnessed by their miserable performance against the Russians. So, not just losers but losers squared. And you look up to them-what does that make you, a loser to the third power?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            You could launch exactly the same criticism AT EVERY ANTI-MODERNIST FORCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.

            They were all defeated, from the white army, to the counter-revolutionaries in France. So by your logic, fighting against Modernity at all would be the act of a ‘loser’ to the 1154th power.

            Also, specific criticisms of what went on in Romania are rather foolish, since the scenario in question was unique to the time period, and given different circumstances things would have turned out different.

            1) Killing Modernists isn’t really murder, but rather just war. I assume you think that the current ruling class will just abdicate power to you peacefully. The elite ruling Romania at that time were the traitors, since they gave away huge chunks of Romanian land to its neighbors and gave citizenship to people with no Romanian lineage.

            2) It was in fact Ion Antonescu who turned his country over to Nazi control. The Nazis approved the liquidation of the Iron Guard, something you would know if you had done any research. Much like Franco, the Iron Guard saw the Nazis as a potential ally against communism and were pro-German in the same way that the Italian and Spaniard fascists were.

            What you have said indicates a knowledge of the Guard informed perhaps by browsing Wikipedia or Searchlight International. Julius Evola had nothing but praise for the Iron Guard, so I’m sure you consider him a psychopath as well. That’s fair enough, it’s certainly what the left believes, but then you can’t really classify yourself as being of the right. Being of the right runs a little deeper than simply opposing SJWs. Corneliu Codreanu espoused a direct and pure rightism (in fact the purest of Europe’s interwar movements according to Evola). I’m not entirely sure what it is that you espouse. I’m sure it’s fascinating though.

          • peppermint says:

            Christian morality is not slave morality but cuck morality. Christfags will cheerfully support their replacement and work harder for their replacements than they would for their own children. This as evidenced by how they do act, right now.

            As Marx said, when will your social doctrine of Christianity show itself? It has had long enough to do so.

            But, if Marx had lived for a hundred years more, and seen the plain meaning of Christianity, he would not have said that. Opium is useful to keep a patient pacified during an operation.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Ah, Peppermint. Rigorous as ever.

            While the Nazis have been brought up, honestly, what is your opinion on Adolf Hitler? You’ve had some interesting insight before on this issue.

          • B says:

            >You could launch exactly the same criticism AT EVERY ANTI-MODERNIST FORCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. They were all defeated, from the white army, to the counter-revolutionaries in France.

            Did they plot to betray their country and deliver it into the hands of their enemies? Did they mass murder innocent people in an attempt to rile up the mob and get it behind them?

            >Also, specific criticisms of what went on in Romania are rather foolish, since the scenario in question was unique to the time period, and given different circumstances things would have turned out different.

            Yes, the Russians have a great saying for these counterfactuals: “If grandma had had a dick, she would have been grandpa.”

            >Killing Modernists isn’t really murder, but rather just war.

            Yes, the Jews tortured and murdered by the Legionnaires during the Bucharest pogrom were “Modernists,” so not really murdered. Similarly, when dindus hopefully torture-murder your family, it really won’t be a crime, since doubtless your family are “racists.”

            >It was in fact Ion Antonescu who turned his country over to Nazi control.

            Antonescu was a scumbag, but he never turned Romania over to the Nazis. Romania remained an ally of the Nazis but not occupied, which enabled it to switch sides in 1944. The Legionnaires’ Rebellion was sparked by an assassination of the Iron Guard’s German liaison officer.

            >The Nazis approved the liquidation of the Iron Guard, something you would know if you had done any research.

            Of course-they were getting what they wanted from Antonescu, so supporting a bunch of psychotic idiots, incompetent ones at that, who wanted to wipe out the Volksdeutsche of Romania, was no longer expedient. When a useful idiot ceases to be useful, he becomes a liability.

            >Much like Franco, the Iron Guard saw the Nazis as a potential ally against communism and were pro-German in the same way that the Italian and Spaniard fascists were.

            Italian and Spaniard fascists did not mass murder Jews.

            >Julius Evola had nothing but praise for the Iron Guard, so I’m sure you consider him a psychopath as well.

            That’s not the only or main reason to consider Evola a psychopath.

            >That’s fair enough, it’s certainly what the left believes, but then you can’t really classify yourself as being of the right.

            Who the fuck died and left you the arbiter of who’s on the right and who’s on the left? Any other scumbags I must support or be a leftist?

            >I’m not entirely sure what it is that you espouse. I’m sure it’s fascinating though.

            I haven’t exactly been reticent about what it is that I espouse. Fascinating or not, it will be espoused by my descendants long after your descendants have forgotten who Codreanu and Evola were (although perhaps they’ll read a biography translated to Ebonics.)

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Simply saying at the start “I’m a Jew, so I don’t like Codreanu, who didn’t like the Jews” would have saved a lot of time.

            (though the ‘massacres’ you’re referring to were carried out under the Sima period of the Guard, while Codreanu was concerned with eliminating high ranking corrupt officials)

            As much as I harbor only ambivalence towards the Jews at large (some I loathe and a few I can admire), while readers like Peppermint think they are far more sinister, it’s not great practice to take their advice on the path for Occidental liberation. No more than consulting with those who use ‘ebonics’, even if they harbor some right wing views.

            It is why I can have admiration for the Muslim Turk who blogs over at the Oriental Neoreactionary (even *gasp!* in spite of Turkish history with regard to Christians). Because he doesn’t launch an Oriental criticism of Occidental efforts, in short he knows what goes on in the Occident is not his concern, nor is it a Jewish concern since Israel is not part of the Occident.

            “it will be espoused by my descendants long after”

            Good to see you’re optimistic about Israel’s future. Pays to be positive I guess.

          • B says:

            >Simply saying at the start “I’m a Jew, so I don’t like Codreanu, who didn’t like the Jews” would have saved a lot of time.

            What a postmodernist you are.

            Obviously, the fact that Codreanu created an organization which massacred my relatives does not inspire me with a positive opinion of the man. However, I am not a fan of anyone whose modus operandi for acquiring power is to rile up a mob of dumbshits against a smarter and more successful market minority, and then slaughter the latter. Even if Codreanu was an Indonesian nationalist and the people his boys murdered were Overseas Chinese, I would not find him admirable, believe it or not.

            >(though the ‘massacres’ you’re referring to were carried out under the Sima period of the Guard, while Codreanu was concerned with eliminating high ranking corrupt officials)

            Oh, very good. Your honor, I don’t believe this gentleman was ever bitten by a dog. Furthermore, my client doesn’t even own a dog. And further, the dog that bit him was of a completely different breed than my client’s dog. And furthermore, the dog was securely on the chain two states away at the time. What do I care which Iron Guard leader was responsible for the murders of Jews and the burning of synagogues?

            >Because he doesn’t launch an Oriental criticism of Occidental efforts, in short he knows what goes on in the Occident is not his concern, nor is it a Jewish concern since Israel is not part of the Occident.

            We Jews have been living in the Occident since your ancestors were painting themselves with woad. I grew up there, served in the military there, finished college and have family there. So I think that I have as much of a right to have an opinion on “the Occident” as you do to have an opinion on 1930s/40s Romania. Alright, chap?

            >Good to see you’re optimistic about Israel’s future. Pays to be positive I guess.

            Well, people such as yourself have been issuing critical assessments and predicting our doom for so long that it’s hard to take them seriously. Besides, where are they? The Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc.? In museums. Even the Germans aren’t doing so hot these days.

            • jim says:

              What do I care which Iron Guard leader was responsible for the murders of Jews and the burning of synagogues?

              Jewish agitator to mob of ugly revolting peasants:

              You are oppressed by evil capitalist through their ownership of the means of production. Smash the means of production!

              Ugly mob of revolting peasants:

              Yes, lets burn the distillery and take the oppressor’s vodka.

              Get the vodka!

              Jewish agitator to mob of ugly revolting peasants:

              Hang on, that is my father’s distillery!

              Mob of ugly revolting peasants stops listening:

              Vodka, vodka!

              My point being that anticapitalist agitation, which tends to be disproportionately conducted by Jews, tends to result in attacks on market dominant minorities, and then Jews rewrite history to erase their role in causing the disorders of which they were disproportionately victims, write the (largely Jewish) left out attacks on market dominant minorities.

              So maybe it would be better for your survival if you did worry which person vaguely associated with the Iron Guard committed which crime.

          • B says:

            >My point being that anticapitalist agitation, which tends to be disproportionately conducted by Jews, tends to result in attacks on market dominant minorities, and then Jews rewrite history to erase their role in causing the disorders of which they were disproportionately victims, write the (largely Jewish) left out attacks on market dominant minorities.

            Attacks on market dominant minorities happen just fine without anticapitalist agitation. Or were the Chinese in Indonesia etc. the ones riling up the peasants?

            >So maybe it would be better for your survival if you did worry which person vaguely associated with the Iron Guard committed which crime.

            Codreanu was not “vaguely associated with” the Iron Guard-he founded it. Sima was not “vaguely associated” either, but was the leader.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Killing Modernists isn’t really murder, but rather just war.”
            
So, I imagine you are getting your jackboots on and prepared to bash the heads of the offspring of Modernists, correct? Or are you all talk per usual?

            Regardless, had you read your Acquinas, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state and must occur for a just purpose. Are you such an authority and are you selfless, Mark?

  2. Max says:

    You truly are a treasure, jim.

  3. Strelok says:

    Yes, Vox day has more gory details and SJW reactions.
    http://voxday.blogspot.pt/2015/04/their-greatest-threat.html

    “Could there be a connection between the white supremacist Perussuomalaiset (Finns Party), the overtly racist Sweden Democrats, the Dark Enlightenment/neoreactionary movement, and Vox Day’s peculiarly toxic sect of Christian Dominionist theology?”

    The International Coalition of the Willingly Evil.

  4. bob k. mando says:

    you’re jumping the gun, Jim.

    SP and RP have lots of nominations ( in some cases, sweeping the slate ) but no awards have been voted on yet.

    and there is still the possibility that the Nielson-Hayden’s can organize enough Fen to vote ‘No Award’ and blank the entire 2015 ballot.

    which, given that they are shitlibs, is a perfectly logical extrapolation of what they will try to do.

  5. Dan says:

    It is not over. The old guard could still vote ‘No Award’ in all the categories and basically kill the big Sci Fi award. The left will gladly burn institutions to the ground to simply because those institutions don’t conform, so that is what to expect.

    • jim says:

      If they did not have the numbers to stop the shortlist, unlikely to have the numbers to stop the awards.

      • bob k. mando says:

        we will see.

        they succeeded in knocking Vox down to 6th out of five places last year.

        this year, both sides are far more energized.

        • glenfilthie says:

          Vox Day is a deeply flawed man that is capable of sporadic worthwhile social commentary…but his fiction sucks balls. His arch enemy – John Scalzi – is a progtard of epic proportions and probably a bisexual degenerate…but even he writes better stuff than Vox Day.

          I too find it annoying to shell out for a book only to find that it was written by a sexually disturbed homo or feminist – who is basically using the genre to preach their poison. It throws me out of the story.

          I was pleasantly surprised by the movie “Interstellar” recently- I did not see even one mention of gratuitous faggotry or sexual deviancy. Maybe they pushed all the queers out the airlock…?

    • R. says:

      It’s a big, crap SF award.

      Basically a fucking popularity contest. Not a true measure of merit. Always has been.

  6. Dr. Faust says:

    I don’t understand the problem with gays. I must be misunderstanding something. If orientation is largely fixed at birth then it’s not going to be something which is structurally caustic to civilization. They can’t recruit.

    • jim says:

      1. Not all that fixed at birth, they do recruit. Observe, for example that a lot of people turn gay in prison, particularly the younger ones. Similarly, Afghanistan. The changes they are imposing on the school curriculum are quite clearly intended to recruit children. Whether it works or not, those forcing these changes obviously believe that it will work – obviously believe that children’s sexual orientation is malleable.

      2. Gays are not really a serious problem. They primarily engage in self destructive behavior, rather than other destructive behavior. I just wanted to tease the leftists by taking advantage of their paranoia.

      • R. says:

        >>Observe, for example that a lot of people turn gay in prison, particularly the younger ones. Similarly, Afghanistan.<<

        There's a difference between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior in a situation where other sexual behavior is severely curtailed(prisons, single-sex boarding schools etc).

        I don't see anything short of actually making children have gay sex as likely to 'recruit' anyone. Might confuse some people some of the time though.

      • glenfilthie says:

        The uninformed and low intellect leftists like to think homosexuals are nice people that just want to be left alone. In reality most are wretched and angry- particularly the lesbians.

        I believe they are a serious threat. They often undermine and divide families. Divided families make for divided communities. Divided communities lead to weak nations.

        Homosexuality will not destroy America- it is just one of many nails going into the coffin…

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Disagree – they’re a huge problem.

        The tolerance of gays is massively socially corrosive. It poisons relationships between men and leads to crass behavior to avoid the stigma of being associated with gays.

        All this to make a tiny minority more comfortable when the real issue that causes them to be uncomfortable is their own self-hatred which exists for very good reason.

        • ron says:

          It does one more thing that most of us haven’t noticed, it encourages heterosexual coupling to resemble that of male homosexuals.

          From my understanding Anal sex, One night stands, etc, were uncommon in the 70’s. Now it’s considered normal.

          As the society turns towards sexual materialism we can expect more extreme acts becoming normal. Much like any addiction, the addict is unsatisfied by the act, and also becomes jaded, and so seeks out new more extreme experiences.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            There’s no causal mechanism there.

            There are plenty of clear reasons why the relationships between men and women have changed due to social changes unrelated to social acceptance of man on man sodomy.

            Even the anal sex thing isn’t necessarily directly related to the changing social view of man on man sodomy – more of an arms race among women to degrade themselves maximally to show their devotion and availability to the men they’re competing for.

  7. Just sayin' says:

    Gays do recruit.

    In Ancient Greece and modern Afghanistan (really the whole middle east), huge percentages of the population engaged in homosexual acts. That’s not likely to be driven by genetics.

    And in the U.S. the percentage of gays in younger age groups is far higher than in older age groups; we’re already seeing rapid growth of gayness.

  8. anonymous says:

    speaking of science fiction, anybody know what happened to nick land’s blog at xenosystems?

    • Strelok says:

      From his Twitter:

      “Xenosystems seems to be under some kind of massive attack, and the host has closed everything down. Trying to fix the situation.
      2 retweets 5 favorites”

  9. Erik says:

    How did Gamergate assist?

    • Craig says:

      This seems to have begun as an accusation made by Teresa Nielsen-Hayden as an excuse for the SP/RP success, without real evidence. As far as I can tell — as an outsider reading a fair amount of the commentary — Gamergate wasn’t involved.

      There are some indications that they’ve picked up on the accusations and are starting to get involved now, but not (yet?) in any serious way.

      • jim says:

        We should encourage the paranoia of our enemies. I want them to believe that Gamergate and the Evil League of Evil are funded by millionaires who are systematically drowning large numbers of gays.

  10. […] cleanse themselves of insufficiently progressive filth is priceless. Jim, too, is pleased with the Evil League of Evil’s […]

  11. […] Hugo brouhaha (sampled, 1, <a target="_blank" […]

  12. unknown128 says:

    “The reason there are so few old gays is disease, suicide, criminal violence, drug overdose, and so on and so forth. We don’t drown enough to make a difference.”

    Are you sure that the fact that older homosexuals are just more reluctant to identifie themselves as such ist also responsible for the fact there are so few old gays?

    sorry for the bad english

  13. unknown128 says:

    “And in the U.S. the percentage of gays in younger age groups is far higher than in older age groups; we’re already seeing rapid growth of gayness.”
    Not acording to this: http://evoandproud.blogspot.de/2012/07/born-this-way.html It actualy seems to be declining

    • B says:

      If we assume there is some genetic component, stands to reason that with the social encouragement of exclusive homosexuality (as opposed to the black down low phenomenon, or the Middle Eastern “we’re not gay, we’re both married with children, just helping each other out phenomenon,) a higher percentage of those with this component will become homosexual, effectively taking themselves out of the gene pool and lowering the incidence of homosexuality in the future.

      On the other hand, if you assume that people can be converted to homosexuality, whether through memes or parasites as Cochran suspects, then more encouragement of homosexuality will probably cause more homosexuality in the future.

      If both these effects are in play, it would be hard to tell what was going on statistically.

      • Peppermint says:

        Lets encourage them, and encourage them to chop their balls off, to cleanse our genome of any hint of this abomination.

        Also we can help the sub-human garbage reproduce or whatever they think they want to do with their pathetic “lives”, and hopefully they can impress us with their music and cooking; the only real concern is that they don’t accidentally develop new parasites that could be a problem for us due to our bizarrely similar biology. But we need to be careful about reproduction of humans to ensure progress in genetic quality.

        • B says:

          Tell me, how will you implement this brilliant plan? You’re not going to be the one administering it-it would require a large bureaucracy, right, to decide who is sub-human garbage and who is a human?

          Who would man this bureaucracy? I mean, it doesn’t seem like a fun job, sorting subhuman garbage from the humans, helping the former reproduce and being careful about the reproduction of the latter. Would take a lot of time and paperwork and be boring.

          So, you’d have basically the DMV in charge of sorting people and supervising their breeding. What could possibly go wrong?

          • jim says:

            My plan is that anyone on welfare or without visible means of support would from time to time face inspection as to whether they were deserving poor or undeserving poor. Undeserving poor get sold into chattel slavery. This discourages people from being on welfare, and encourages people to have visible means of support. Evaluation of “deserving” would be thoroughly racist, sexist, classist, and every other x-ist and x-phobic.

            Also debt slavery for some forms of personal bankruptcy. One of the forms of personal bankruptcy that would get the treatment would be bankruptcy resulting from unsuccessful term transformation. Financial crises would result in financiers being enslaved.

          • Hidden Author says:

            A funny thing about certain “libertarians”: they say the rich deserve their money and the poor deserve their poverty because the free market distributes wealth efficiently and justly. Then when you point out inefficiencies and injustices, they blame the government conceding that a free market does not actually exist and so cannot distribute wealth in any way whatsoever. Then when the conversation ends and a new one starts, they again assert that the rich deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty. While Kevin Carson is too extremist and left-wing for me to agree with him on everything, he does have a point in describing this phenomenon of “vulgar libertarianism”.

            • jim says:

              There are degrees of market freedom, for example Hong Kong and Singapore are very free.

              Comparing countries that score high in the index of economic freedom, with countries that score low, it is obvious that the poor are better off, relatively and absolutely, in countries with high economic freedom. (Yes, I know there is a pile of statistics supposedly demonstrating that socialistic countries have low economic inequality, but it is obvious at a glance that these statistics are lies.)

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes a self-interested capitalist oligarchy will leave themselves vulnerable to enslavement. That’s very realistic! You admire aristocratic governments so much so surely you’ve read all about them and therefore know about their two-tiered justice systems…

            • jim says:

              Financiers rob the rich. Who did Jon Corzine steal from?

              With great regularity they rob the rich in the name of helping the poor, as for example our recent financial crisis, which was a minority mortgage meltdown. Ninety nine percent of the toxic assets were mortgages in neighborhoods that should have been redlined.

              Where and when the wealthy had real power, disasters ensuing from term transformation were punished with extreme severity. Going soft on financial misdeeds is tightly correlated with demotism.

          • B says:

            It’s not a very good plan. The sort of people attracted to running the bureaucracy involved would themselves be pretty unworthy on average.

            Selling someone into chattel slavery involves finding a buyer. The sort of people who have skills or abilities which make them an interesting acquisition generally tend to have some means of support (even if it’s rebuilding 1970s GM engines and trannies under a shade tree while sipping brake cleaner.) So most of your clients would be unbuyable except as an insane charity case, like a big cat rescue. Then what, organs? Cat food? Set adrift? Since whatever it would be would be the outcome for 90% of the undeserving poor, you might as well just cut to that chase and cut out the slave auction bit.

            In the Torah, the only way that a Hebrew could become a slave would be either by selling himself or through the court selling him for insolvency or a theft that he didn’t have the means to restitute 4 or 5 fold. Slavery was for a fixed term no longer than 6 years and the owner had very heavy obligations as far as maintenance and upkeep (also of the slave’s wife and children if he had any.) Different story with Canaanite slaves. I understand that your proposal is for something like Canaanite slaves. I’d suggest you settle on an ultimate value/objective first and then work from there. Is it rehabilitation? Financial profit? Providing social safety for the mass of humans who are capable of supporting themselves?

            • jim says:

              Lots of people who are disinclined to work for the distant promise of income, are quite inclined to work for the immediate threat of being hit with a stick.

              Lots of people who are incompetent to make their own decisions, and reluctant to let others make decisions for them, would do fine if forced to accept the decisions of those better than themselves.

          • peppermint says:

            meh. There are plenty of low-skill jobs they could do for a few hours a day so they can feel like they’re being productive. There’s no shortage of garbage that needs to be picked up off the streets, for one thing, though obviously if I was in charge there would be a shortage in a pretty short amount of time.

          • B says:

            >Lots of people who are disinclined to work for the distant promise of income, are quite inclined to work for the immediate threat of being hit with a stick.

            Such people tend to work for immediate income, to avoid the immediate threat of hunger. You might have heard of the phenomenon of day laborers, temp agencies, etc. So they can’t be the issue-a day laborer has visible means of support. Of course, if you pay people enough welfare to get by without working, many of them will not work, but I presume that in your system that won’t be a problem to begin with. So you’re dealing with people who don’t even have the gumption to work for cash at the end of the day. Such people, frankly, suck to supervise and are near-impossible to turn a profit on.

            >Lots of people who are incompetent to make their own decisions, and reluctant to let others make decisions for them, would do fine if forced to accept the decisions of those better than themselves.

            This abstract statement doesn’t at all address the concrete issues I raised. Furthermore, it’s untrue-as anyone who’s served in the military can attest, such people typically do piss-poor work even under threat of punishment, and require more supervision than their maximum productivity can justify. You can put them to work digging ditches or something similar, but modern equipment makes them pointless as a source of manual labor and they can’t be trusted as equipment operators.

            >There are plenty of low-skill jobs they could do for a few hours a day so they can feel like they’re being productive.

            This is a non sequitur. If you propose to sell people into slavery, there must be a buyer. If your buyer is in the private sector, he must be able to make enough of a profit off their labor after taking care of their basic needs and management expenses to make the whole exercise worth it. If you buyer is a sanitation company, you have to presume that these garbagepicking slaves, over their working life, will be more efficient than free men operating advanced equipment. Which does not strike me as very likely.

            • jim says:

              >Lots of people who are disinclined to work for the distant promise of income, are quite inclined to work for the immediate threat of being hit with a stick.

              Such people tend to work for immediate income, to avoid the immediate threat of hunger. You might have heard of the phenomenon of day laborers, temp agencies, etc.

              Such people are not the problem. Day laborers have visible means of support. The problem is that there are lots of people who lack the necessary self discipline for day labor, and therefore need to be supplied with external discipline.

            • jim says:

              Furthermore, it’s untrue-as anyone who’s served in the military can attest, such people typically do piss-poor work even under threat of punishment, and require more supervision than their maximum productivity can justify.

              I am pretty sure your military did not try the solution of hitting them with a stick on the spot. For such people immediate punishment is more effectual than the distant threat of dire punishment.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Don’t you get it, B? Jim doesn’t have to make sense; he just has to assert superiority over nigger coons like the trailer trash he is in order to prove that he has a big-man cock!

          • peppermint says:

            Jim and B are having a reasonable discussion, HA. Disrupting them is my job, and you’re not as funny as me. You could at least find some slurs and stereotypes less overplayed than trailers and dicks.

          • B says:

            I thought I would never say this, but…ugh..dammit…Peppermint…is…Peppermint is right.

          • B says:

            >Such people are not the problem. Day laborers have visible means of support. The problem is that there are lots of people who lack the necessary self discipline for day labor, and therefore need to be supplied with external discipline.

            Nope. The kind of people who lack the self discipline for day labor, external discipline won’t make them productive. Trust me on this one, dude, I’ve worked moving furniture, washing dishes, all kinds of manual labor shit with junkies and murderers, black dope dealers and thieves on probation, etc. The next level down is pure vile protoplasm.

            >I am pretty sure your military did not try the solution of hitting them with a stick on the spot. For such people immediate punishment is more effectual than the distant threat of dire punishment.

            I am pretty sure you are unfamiliar with how combat arms work in the military. There are all kinds of ways to inflict high levels of pain, right on the spot. Nontheless, a shitbag is a shitbag.

            • jim says:

              >I am pretty sure your military did not try the solution of hitting them with a stick on the spot. For such people immediate punishment is more effectual than the distant threat of dire punishment

              I am pretty sure you are unfamiliar with how combat arms work in the military. There are all kinds of ways to inflict high levels of pain, right on the spot.

              Actually there are not legitimate and acceptable ways of punishing a shitbag on the spot who is goofing of from work, even in the military.

          • B says:

            Wonders never cease.

      • jim says:

        I am pretty sure people can be converted to modern type homosexuality, and that modern type homosexuality has become common in modern times because there is a whole lot of conversion going on. Afghans make a clear distinction between old type homosexuality – all the girls belong to the rich men, so the poor men fuck boys, and modern type homosexuality – the boys grow up wanting to be fucked by US marines. Seems obvious that Afghans wanting to be fucked by the US marines is the result of conversion.

        • B says:

          I didn’t see the Afghans making this clear distinction. Is this another case of Jim being privy to secret and unfalsifiable knowledge? What I saw in Afghanistan-you don’t have to be rich to acquire a wife, but you have to have some means. So young men generally don’t marry until they’ve earned enough. But even after they marry, they continue homosexual activity.

          In Iraq, I noticed that they were opportunistically gay, meaning that they’d have sex with a snake if it held still long enough. Given what I’ve read about Babylon, this is not a new pattern of behavior for the region.

          In both places it seemed like men who were married were gaying it up as hard as anyone else, despite having access to women, and that this was nothing new in the area. The cult of the dancing boy in Central Asia, for instance, goes back to time immemorial, and the dancing boys were a luxury, not for the poor.

          I assume that homosexuality is, like many other things, something people get used to if you expose them at a young age. So just like the homos in England who were a product of their public school system, the homos in Central Asia, Iraq etc. were largely the product of social conditioning. They still married, had children etc. Given the general repugnance of the subject and the fact that I had to gain rapport with people there in order to survive and operate, and prying about people’s perversions is not a good way to build rapport, I didn’t make very serious inquiries in this area. But I suspect that people who were the passive partner in gay sex at a vulnerable time in their childhood grow up with gay sex as a constant fallback option in the back of their head, and that they learn to enjoy being the passive partner more than the active partner. Hence the apparent disbalance between femme and domme homosexual numbers in the states.

Leave a Reply