Keep Recruiting

More lies.

The Morlocks seem not to realize that everyone not of their particular camp is repelled rather than attracted to stupid lies. Intelligent people are repelled because of the stupidity and honest people are repelled because of the dishonesty.

Of course, I may be too optimistic. For what if this behavior is purposeful, not the product of incompetence? It takes a particularly neurotic, morbid, and cynical sort of self-hatred to voice a lie one knows has no chance to be believed, but to utter it anyway, knowing your fellow neurotics will be attracted to the siren song of morbid cynicism. If they are doing such a thing on purpose, one wonders at the psychology.

I am on chapter one of my next novel, which I hope to finish rapidly. I have not the time to fisk the article line by line.

I invite the readers to list the half-truths and full out lies involved here.

I will mention only one:

The sociopolitical conservatism of the Puppies’ leaders and their highest-profile nominees is not inherently a problem; Orson Scott Card is merely one name in a long line of right-wingers who have written phenomenal speculative fiction and been honored at the Hugos accordingly. But John C. Wright and Theodore Beale go well beyond the pale when it comes to their views on women, people of color, and homosexuals. That’s the point. In championing Wright and Beale, the Puppies are taking the Hugo Awards out of the realm of literary appreciation and into the new culture war that has arisen in the age of #GamerGate.

Note the gratuitous and pointless insertion of a reference to Gamergate. As far as I know, the only gamer who has ever read my SF space opera was Daddy Warpig. To him I give thanks and praise: he apparently by himself, merely by liking my space stories, can overturn all of human history.


I am sorry now that I am not a pagan, for otherwise I would erect a suitable shrine to Daddy Warpig, a stepped pyramid rising from the steaming jungles of Mexico, adorned with larger-than-life marble statues of raging boars coated with hammered gold, on which to sacrifice captive foes, and offer their still beating hearts to his glory!

Hm. On second thought, paganism is over-rated. But I like and note that fact that Gamergate has the same enemies I do, merely because we do not share the philosophy of self-loathing and hellish hatred of love, life, and truth known as Political Correctness.

As for the sentence quoted in the hit piece, let me say a word or three:

I have no views on People of Color and have never written a single word on the topic. Baptism is not a racial characteristic but a spiritual one. Sainthood is not an inherited characteristic.

My views on woman are those of a dyed-in-the-wool romantic of the chivalrous Christian school, who adores both Saint Mary and Saint Mary Magdalen as saints. I also have a healthy fascination with the character of Nausicaa from Miyazaki’s VALLEY OF THE WIND (see below) and an unhealthy fascination for the character of the Catwoman. And this is being condemned, why, again exactly? Because I respect both saints and sinners of the fair sex, both princesses and cat-burglars? Why is having contempt for woman a sign of Political Correctness, again, exactly, please?

My views, to the best of my knowledge, and have no point of overlap with the dour cynicism of my publisher and friend Theodore Beale, so the sentence as it stands is meaningless. It is like saying, “The views of the Easter Bunny and Count Dracula on avoiding the drinking human blood during Lent go beyond the pale.” But there is no view the Bunny and the Count share on this point.

My views on homosexuals are the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which is to say, the views of Western Civilization since the time of Constantine onward. Those views are ones of love and respect, more respect indeed by far than felt by those who would encourage the sexual desecration of the human person. Why is pitiless contempt for those suffering sexual aberration a sign of Political Correctness, again, exactly, please?

The phrase ‘beyond the pale’ refers to the boundary between civilization and barbarism. Originally, this was said to be the Wall of Hadrian, which held the Picts back from the civilization of Roman Britain.

Which of the two of us, me (the champion of civilization, Christ and Rome) or Mr. Miles Schneiderman (a pathological liar and libeler, champion of ignorance, barbarism, confusion, untruths, and hate-mongering) is beyond the pale?

Mr. Schneiderman has the effrontery to say that the title of my article “Saving Science Fiction from Strong Female Characters” is seriously meant, when, in fact, IN THE COLUMN, I say that the title is so absurd that no sane person would take it seriously. So he merely reports the exact opposite of what I actually said as if I meant the exact opposite of what I mean. What a maroon.

I do not mind lies, if told for good reasons, like a thief trying to win my trust in order to rob me. The lying thief at least has a proper human respect for private property. He merely wants it to be his, rather than mine. But lies told for no reason, a lie that no one would believe, a lie about a column where anyone could click the link, see what was written, and know it was a lie — what is the point or purpose of that?

It is chilling. The North Vietnamese make their slaves speak lies in order to break their spirit, to show the slaves that the slaves have no power to prevent themselves from uttering nonsense on command. It shows the slaves that the slave has no mastery over even his own tongue. But why does someone act so as to break his own spirit?

He then says that a woman who enjoys being feminine is a hateful an idea as a slave enjoying slavery. Got that, O ye Daughters of Eve?

His stance is there is no such thing as feminine strength or virtue, because all strengths and virtues are masculine. His stance is that being female is hateful to all females. His stance is all women want to be just like men in every way, to cut off a breast or two to be an Amazon.

What do you say, ladies? Is this an accurate report of your preferences and longings?


AND TRUE TO MY PREDICTION: About one second after I typed the above column, I ran across this by Tom Knighton, who is sicked of the lies and sneers:

Go going, Morlocks. Your intransigent and reckless hate-mongering has offended yet another formerly neutral (or at least a somewhat silent) onlooker into sympathy with our cause.



I felt compelled to leave a note in the message box there, to one of the dupes Mr, Schneiderman fooled:


Did you read the essay or did you only read Mr. Schneiderman’s carefully selected misquotes?

Here is the original quote given in context. Please note exactly what words were left out, and what impression is created when they are:

“It is not the equality of the sexes that is at question in a story like A PRINCESS OF MARS. If memory serves, nearly every heroine of the several Barsoom books of Edgar Rice Burroughs and his many imitators is a princess. In other words, in such simple adventure stories the woman usually outranks the man. She is royalty and he is a nobody, a stranger, or an earthman. He is in love not with an equal but with a superior, hence winning her heart is a more difficult victory, hence more satisfying a drama.

“Likewise, on the distaff side of the equation, I note that the particular example I selected of an exemplary woman’s romance, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, it is Elizabeth Bennet who is lower in status than the proud and handsome Mr Darcy. Equality is not a part of the mating dance: the drama of such girlish tales comes from the humble girl, the Cinderella, winning the high and aloof prince, and likewise the drama of boyish tale comes from the humble boy winning the heart of the princess.

“In that most famous homage to sciffy serial adventure, namely STAR WARS, please notice that it was a princess who needed rescuing. While the space farmboy Luke is low class enough to be a proper suitor when he becomes imbued with magic powers as a psionic Warlock-Samurai, he is no longer low enough in rank to be a satisfying suitor, and the lovable space rogue Solo the Smuggler is selected instead. And Luke is not the brother of the space princess until the third movie, a plot twist needed to eliminate any possible romantic interest.

“But perhaps it is not the inequality of rank between space princess and space rogue that concerns us here. The objection is that the space hero does the rescuing, his is the initiative and the action, and he gets to fly the spaceship through the palace wall, whereas the space princess is given no role but to languish in prison, perhaps wearing chains or perhaps wearing a silky harem outfit, and await rescue. The inequality is between the active versus the passive role.

“I submit that this is not inequality, no more than Fred leading and Ginger following during a stirring waltz is inequality. It is complementary. Those who object that men should not lead in the dance, whatever they say, are not friends of women; they just want to stop the joy of the dance.”

The words left out of Mr. Schneiderman’s quote were the ones were I said that a passive role was not inequality compared to the active role.

By leaving this out, he is trying to create the impression that the exaggerated and sarcastic description of a rescue scene was what I was advocating, and NOT what I was condemning as a false caricature of the feminine role.

Do you understand now? Mr Schneiderman lied to you.

The sentence Mr Schneiderman left out was the one where I used the word “NOT”. He left it out in order to create the impression that I was saying the opposite of what I really said.

Please be lest trusting in the future. You did not actually read what I said.


He played a similar trick in a line where he quotes me where I am quoting a exaggerated and false SJW perception of a sane person toward homosexuals. I am saying SJWs falsely accuse sane persons of wanting to beat gays to death. It is an accusation not only false but stupid.

He misquotes the line to make it look as if I am saying we sane people want to beat gays to death. He left out the question which asked me what I think went on the minds of SJWs who put young cute lesbians in films and stories rather than gay men.

The question of “What do I think lunatic and freakishly dishonest SJWs (who lie with each and every thought in their lying-ass lying heads) think sane and honest people think?” is not the same as the question, “What do sane and honest think?” And so, the liar lies about the fact that I was talking about their lies, and quotes part of the words to make it look as if I said them. I said the opposite.

Likewise here: the question of what I think the SJW objection to inequality is differs from the question of whether being in the active versus the passive role is a sign of inequality, particularly one of rank. I was, in fact, saying in these stories, the princess outranks the hero. They are unequal because he is not good enough, not at the beginning of the tale. That is precisely the opposite of what he says I said, which is that men should treat women as masters treat slaves.

This degree of blithering idiocy cannot be a matter of oversight or accident. It is a libel. The reason why I do not pursue legal action is merely because I am a Christian. I expect to be slandered, and I am commanded to forgive.