► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Elizabeth Warren supports Corporate Welfare

by Rodan ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Hipsters, Libertarianism, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties, The Political Right, Tranzis at July 23rd, 2014 - 10:48 am

elizabethwarren

The Progressive movement’s darling of the hour; Elizabeth Warren aka Fauxahontas rails about big corporations and the 1%. When push came to shove, she defended the interest of the same entities she denounces. An alliance of Social Conservatives/Tea Party and Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative Republicans are blocking the renewal of the corporate welfare based Export-Import bank. This is nothing but a form of welfare to prop up big corporations, many of whom outsource jobs overseas. When invited to join opposition to this from welfare, Elizabeth Warren defended the EX-IM bank.

It was a really nice try.

Heritage Action (the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation) invited Senator Elizabeth Warren to speak at an event dedicated to phasing out the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im, as it’s known inside the Beltway, has become a favorite target of populist forces on right.

The Ex-Im gives U.S. taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the foreign customers of giant U.S. corporations that don’t need the help. It socializes the risk while privatizing the profits. Basically, it’s free money for big businesses like GE, Caterpillar, and particularly Boeing (hence the outfit’s nickname, “the Bank of Boeing”). Even Barack Obama, shortly before he became president, derided Ex-Im as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

[....]

As first reported by Bloomberg News, Heritage sent Warren a letter asking her to speak against Ex-Im “and the political favoritism it engenders.”

“We, like you, are frustrated with a political economy that benefits well-connected elites at the expense of all Americans,” Michael Needham, the head of Heritage Action, wrote. “Your presence will send a clear signal that you are going to fight the most pressing example of corporate welfare and cronyism pending before Congress right now.”

Warren didn’t take the bait. Her spokeswoman told Bloomberg, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations.”

[....]

I’m not so sure there’s a contradiction here. Rather, I think we’re seeing why there will never really be a bipartisan Left–Right alliance against crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

The Right’s “libertarian populism” wants to separate big business and big government. That means no more “too big to fail” and no more of government picking winners and losers.

The Left’s anti-big-business populism is very different. It doesn’t want to cut the government’s incestuous relationship with big business; it simply wants to bring business to heel. Big business should do what Washington tells it to do, and when it does, it will get treats. When it doesn’t, it will get the newspaper to the nose. But big business will never be let off its leash, if the Left has its way.

The Progressive rhetoric against big corporations, is just all talk. In reality the Progressives are tied to the hip with big companies like Goldman Sachs and GE. In a heavily regulated economic structure, politically connected big corporations thrive, while medium and small firms die. This is the reason why Silicon valley, Wall and Corporate CEO’s support the Democrat Party. They ensure the government prevents competitors from rising, thus hindering the free market and destroying economic mobility.

Elizabeth Warren’s support fior the corrupt and Fascist like Export-Import bank shows that Democrats despite their rhetoric love big businesses. Fauxahontas is fraud and hypocrite like all Progressives. They just want to control those corporations to do their buidding.

If the Republicans would stop obsessing with Gays in comic books or other useless cultural crusades, they might actually be able to hit the Democrats on their Achilles heel of being the party of the well connected. Americans are hurting economically as take home pay is less than it was 14 years and many people have lost hope for the future. I will not hold my breath expecting The GOP to embrace a Libertarian-Populist ideology, hammer the Progressives on their Fascist ideology and promote a POSITIVE future oriented agenda to benefit all Americans.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren is laughing all the way to the bank!

On another note, I really recommend reading Pat Buchanan’s new book: “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create a New Majority.” It shows how the Republicans after their 64 debacle were politically resurrected by Nixon. Richard Nixon for all his faults, helped the GOP adapt to the electorate that existed and forged a coalition that would go 5-1 from 1968 to 1988. This is a lesson the GOP of today can learn if they were a serious entity.

Ex-Soviet Vladimir Jaffe Debates Socialism With Socialists

by Bunk X ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Politics, Progressives, Socialism at June 30th, 2014 - 12:01 am

During the “Occupy Wall Street” assholery, one video caught my attention. An “occupier” was handing out propaganda to people sitting along the NYC protest route when he met Vladimir Jaffe.

Jaffe grew up in the Soviet Union, and at 29 years left Moscow in 1988. He understands first-hand what life under communism is like because he lived it – he understands the grotesque economic policies imposed by socialism and the results of those policies. The discussion that followed between the kid and Jaffe was excellent. Jaffe was polite, his arguments were coherent and based upon easily identifiable facts, and whether or not any of Jaffe’s facts sunk in to Occupy Boy’s brain is up for conjecture.

Vladimir Jaffe isn’t a one-hit Utoobage wonder – he’s got 187 videos posted on YouTube to date, and he plays the logic card on every one of them. Check this one out. Note that Jaffe is polite every step of the way, even while debating a young self-identified lawyer for #Occupy.

Then there’s this guy who gets humpy when he finds he has no answers to Jaffe’s questions:

We need more people with balls like Jaffe, willing to stand up and tell the truth about socialism.

[What am I doing about it you ask? Am I doing as much as I could? Nay, I'm posting here in my free time, posting elsewhere in my free time, and voting in my free time, because my time is limited and I only have a few years left to tell Charles Johnson and other leftists to go fuck themselves.]

[Update: "How would you deal with Vladimir Jaffe?" Libtards discuss what they can't comprehend.]

Mars Attacks: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

by Mars ( 376 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Corruption, Democratic Party, Education, Environmentalism, Fascism, Free Speech, Global Warming Hoax, government, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, History, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Nazism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at June 26th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

By: Human Events
5/31/2005 03:00 AM

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

1. The Communist Manifesto

Authors: Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
Publication date: 1848
Score: 74
Summary: Marx and Engels, born in Germany in 1818 and 1820, respectively, were the intellectual godfathers of communism. Engels was the original limousine leftist: A wealthy textile heir, he financed Marx for much of his life. In 1848, the two co-authored The Communist Manifesto as a platform for a group they belonged to called the Communist League. The Manifesto envisions history as a class struggle between oppressed workers and oppressive owners, calling for a workers’ revolution so property, family and nation-states can be abolished and a proletarian Utopia established. The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice.

2. Mein Kampf

Author: Adolf Hitler
Publication date: 1925-26
Score: 41
Summary: Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was initially published in two parts in 1925 and 1926 after Hitler was imprisoned for leading Nazi Brown Shirts in the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” that tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. Here Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust. He envisioned the mass murder of Jews, and a war against France to precede a war against Russia to carve out “lebensraum” (“living room”) for Germans in Eastern Europe. The book was originally ignored. But not after Hitler rose to power. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there were 10 million copies in circulation by 1945.

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao

Author: Mao Zedong
Publication date: 1966
Score: 38
Summary: Mao, who died in 1976, was the leader of the Red Army in the fight for control of China against the anti-Communist forces of Chiang Kai-shek before, during and after World War II. Victorious, in 1949, he founded the People’s Republic of China, enslaving the world’s most populous nation in communism. In 1966, he published Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, otherwise known as The Little Red Book, as a tool in the “Cultural Revolution” he launched to push the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese society back in his ideological direction. Aided by compulsory distribution in China, billions were printed. Western leftists were enamored with its Marxist anti-Americanism. “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism,” wrote Mao.

4. The Kinsey Report

Author: Alfred Kinsey
Publication date: 1948
Score: 37
Summary: Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University who, in 1948, published a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, commonly known as The Kinsey Report. Five years later, he published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. “Kinsey’s initial report, released in 1948 . . . stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95% of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws,” the Washington Times reported last year when a movie on Kinsey was released. “The report included reports of sexual activity by boys–even babies–and said that 37% of adult males had had at least one homosexual experience. . . . The 1953 book also included reports of sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4, and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”

5. Democracy and Education

Author: John Dewey
Publication date: 1916
Score: 36
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education–particularly in public schools–and helped nurture the Clinton generation.

6. Das Kapital

Author: Karl Marx
Publication date: 1867-1894
Score: 31
Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two additional volumes that Marx had drafted. Das Kapital forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

7. The Feminine Mystique

Author: Betty Friedan
Publication date: 1963
Score: 30
Summary: In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, born in 1921, disparaged traditional stay-at-home motherhood as life in “a comfortable concentration camp”–a role that degraded women and denied them true fulfillment in life. She later became founding president of the National Organization for Women. Her original vocation, tellingly, was not stay-at-home motherhood but left-wing journalism. As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to David): The author documents that “Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy

Author: Auguste Comte
Publication date: 1830-1842
Score: 28
Summary: Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.

9. Beyond Good and Evil

Author: Freidrich Nietzsche
Publication date: 1886
Score: 28
Summary: An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti says: “‘God is dead’–Nietzsche” followed by “‘Nietzsche is dead’–God.” Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of Beyond Good and Evil, which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Author: John Maynard Keynes
Publication date: 1936
Score: 23
Summary: Keynes was a member of the British elite–educated at Eton and Cambridge–who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

Honorable Mention

These books won votes from two or more judges:

The Population Bomb
by Paul Ehrlich
Score: 22

What Is To Be Done
by V.I. Lenin
Score: 20

Authoritarian Personality
by Theodor Adorno
Score: 19

On Liberty
by John Stuart Mill
Score: 18

Beyond Freedom and Dignity
by B.F. Skinner
Score: 18

Reflections on Violence
by Georges Sorel
Score: 18

The Promise of American Life
by Herbert Croly
Score: 17

The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17

Madness and Civilization
by Michel Foucault
Score: 12

Soviet Communism: A New Civilization
by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Score: 12

Coming of Age in Samoa
by Margaret Mead
Score: 11

Unsafe at Any Speed
by Ralph Nader
Score: 11

Second Sex
by Simone de Beauvoir
Score: 10

Prison Notebooks
by Antonio Gramsci
Score: 10

Silent Spring
by Rachel Carson
Score: 9

Wretched of the Earth
by Frantz Fanon
Score: 9

Introduction to Psychoanalysis
by Sigmund Freud
Score: 9

The Greening of America
by Charles Reich
Score: 9

The Limits to Growth
by Club of Rome
Score: 4

Descent of Man
by Charles Darwin
Score: 2

The Judges

These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books.

Arnold Beichman
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution

Prof. Brad Birzer
Hillsdale College

Harry Crocker
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University

Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union

Prof. Robert George
Princeton University

Prof. Paul Gottfried
Elizabethtown College

Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University

Herb London
President
Hudson Institute

Prof. Mark Malvasi
Randolph-Macon College

Douglas Minson
Associate Rector
The Witherspoon Fellowships

Prof. Mark Molesky
Seton Hall University

Prof. Stephen Presser
Northwestern University

Phyllis Schlafly
President
Eagle Forum

Fred Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://www.humanevents.com/2005/05/31/ten-most-harmful-books-of-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/

Drudge: Shrillary Has Bad Heart

by Macker ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Hipsters, Political Correctness, Progressives, Socialism at June 23rd, 2014 - 7:00 pm

And I’m not just talking about the darkness in her heart, which we know has always been there. Courtesy of The Drudge Report, here’s an excerpt from an upcoming book, Blood Feud by Ed Klein:

BOOK: HILLARY HAS BAD HEART
Sun Jun 22 2014 18:01:30 ET

*Exclusive**

A new provocative work by bestselling author Ed Klein claims Hillary Clinton’s health problems are much more severe than she has publicly revealed!

“She had managed to keep her medical history secret out of fear that, should it become public, it would disqualify her from becoming president,” writes Klein in BLOOD FEUD.

BLOOD FEUD hits the street this week [it ranked #89 on AMAZON Sunday afternoon.]

Page 193

The true story of what happened to Hillary, which is being recounted in these pages for the first time, was radically different from Reines’s version.

To begin with, Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department’s infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover. However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York–Presbyterian Hospital in the Fort Washington section of Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming that Hillary was being treated at the hospital over the New Year’s holiday, it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.

While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.

She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless hours flying around the world.

To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency to form clots and faint. In addition to the fainting spell she suffered in Buffalo a few years before, she had fainted boarding her plane in Yemen, fallen and fractured her elbow in 2009, and suffered other unspecified fainting episodes. Several years earlier, she had developed a clot in her leg and was put on anticoagulant therapy by her doctor. However, she had foolishly stopped taking her anticoagulant medicine, which might have explained the most recent thrombotic event.

“The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed into a stroke,” said a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary’s condition.

Page 195

According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary’s tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age, and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well. A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were not normal. Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way.

When the author attempted to contact the Clintons’ cardiologist, Dr. Allan Schwartz, he refused to comment, which made it impossible to determine the exact nature of Hillary’s medical status or its long-term significance. However, sources who dis- cussed Hillary’s medical condition with her were told that Hillary’s doctors considered performing valve-replacement surgery. They ultimately decided against it. Still, before they released Hillary from the hospital, they warned Bill Clinton: “She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life.”

Developing…

Indeed. One would think she might take the hint and retire. Then again she’s a Demo☭rat and is Hell-bent on becoming the first woman POTUS. Since we oppose her and her policies, we’re SEEEEEXIST!

David Thompson: On Feminism, Socialism & Liberal Hypocricy

by Bunk X ( 111 Comments › )
Filed under Links, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Socialism at June 19th, 2014 - 7:00 pm

The following words and links are not my own, but those of David Thompson on 9 June 2014. Permission to repost requested. Meanwhile, here’s the source link.

Christina Hoff Sommers on feminist scholarship:

The problem with a lot of research on women is not so much that the authors make mistakes — we all make mistakes — the problem is that the mistakes are impervious to criticism.

For a flavour of that imperviousness and some feminist reactions to being corrected, see also this.

Glenn Reynolds on unsustainable ideologies:

I’m reminded of what Robert Heinlein said about hippies: “Hippydom is not itself a culture (as the hippies seem to think) as it has no economic foundation; it can exist only as a parasitic excrescence to the ‘square’ culture.” So too with the academic humanities, which have largely squandered the moral and intellectual capital they once possessed by adopting the roles of adversaries to, rather than preservers of, the larger culture. This, too, turns out not to be sustainable.

That adversarial role-play has been discussed here many times, along with its descent into psychodrama.

And Ed Driscoll discovers there are no socialists in divorce court:

Michael Moore, who has spent his entire career attacking capitalism, wealth, and Wall Street, is suddenly very protective concerning the capital, wealth and investments he has amassed over the years. As Christian Toto writes at Big Hollywood, “Far-left filmmaker Michael Moore is divorcing his wife, and the looming court battle looks ugly already.” Christian links to this Smoking Gun report, which notes that “the couple’s combined assets are likely worth tens of millions of dollars,” including “multiple substantial residences and multiple companies.”

But America’s most outspoken socialist, being an outspoken socialist, deserves nine properties, including an agreeable Upper West Side apartment valued at $1.27 million and, naturally, a mansion. This, remember, is a self-described multimillionaire who told the world, quite boldly, “Capitalism did nothing for me.”

 

Mars Attacks: Psychology says it’s okay if you are evil, it’s not actually your fault.

by Mars ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Second Amendment, Socialism, Tranzis at June 19th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Here is another case of Psych “experts” trying to excuse behavior because “you’re just programmed that way”. Hey, but there’s good news. According to this self-serving article, the more you read articles like this, the less you believe in prison and capital punishment. So, see there is a silver lining.

Free will is just a myth according to these people you are just a preprogrammed set of impulses so it’s wrong (and probably racist) to insist that these people be locked away or executed where they can’t continue to harm those around them.

Hey, maybe this is the basis behind Obama’s catch and release terrorist program.

Enjoy this exercise in absurdity in it’s entirety.

Minimizing belief in free will may lessen support for criminal punishment

Exposure to information that diminishes free will, including brain-based accounts of behavior, seems to decrease people’s support for retributive punishment, according to research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

People who learned about neuroscientific research, either by reading a magazine article or through undergraduate coursework, proposed less severe punishment for a hypothetical criminal than did their peers. The findings suggest that they did so because they saw the criminal as less blameworthy.

“There is no academic consensus on free will, but we already do see discussions of brain processes and responsibility trickling through the justice system and other social institutions — for better or worse,” says psychological scientist and study author Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon.

While research suggests that most people believe in free will, Shariff and colleagues wondered whether increasing exposure to information about the brain, which suggests a more mechanistic account of human behavior, might have consequences for how we reason about morality and make moral attributions.

They hypothesized that exposing people to information that diminishes belief in free will — neuroscientific or otherwise — would, in turn, diminish perceptions of moral responsibility; ultimately, this shift in belief would influence how people think about crime and punishment.

So, for example, if people come to believe that the brain drives behavior, they may be less likely to hold others morally responsible for criminal actions, eliminating the need to punish so that they receive their “just deserts.”

In an initial experiment, Shariff and colleagues had college students read a passage and then read a fictional scenario about a man who beat another man to death. Some of the students read a passage that rejected free will and advocated a mechanistic view of behavior, while others read a passage unrelated to free will.

Those students who read the passage rejecting free will chose significantly shorter prison sentences, about 5 years, than did those who read the neutral passage, about 10 years.

The effect also emerged when the manipulation was more subtle: Students who read an article about neuroscience findings that only implied mechanistic explanations for human behavior chose shorter prison sentences than did their peers who read about nuclear power or natural headache remedies.

Not only that, they also placed less blame on the transgressor. Further analyses revealed that decreased blameworthiness actually accounted for the relationship between diminished belief in free will and lighter sentences.

Interestingly, students who freely enrolled and participated in an undergraduate course in cognitive neuroscience also showed the effect. Students who took a neuroscience course chose a lighter prison sentence at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning of the semester; this decrease in recommended sentence was associated with self-reported increases in knowledge about the brain over the course of the semester.

Students enrolled in a geography course, on the other hand, showed no change in their sentencing recommendations over time.

“These results show that our students are not only absorbing some of what we’re teaching them, but also seeing implications of that content for their attitudes about things as fundamental as morality and responsibility,” says Shariff. “It underscores the consequences that science education — and perhaps psychological science education, in particular — can have on our students and, ultimately, the broader public.”

Shariff and colleagues believe that their findings could have broad implications, especially in the domains of criminal justice and law.

###

This project was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Award 07-89249-000-HCD), by the Regents of the University of California, and by the John Templeton Foundation.

In addition to Shariff, study co-authors include Joshua D. Greene of Harvard University; Johan C. Karremans of Radboud University Nijmegen; Jamie B. Luguri of Yale University; Cory J. Clark of the University of California, Irvine; Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State University; and Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota.

All materials have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at osf.io/dy3pm. The complete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplementaldata.

This article has received the badge for Open Materials. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/view/ and http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.

For more information about this study, please contact: Azim Shariff at shariff@uoregon.edu.

The article abstract is available online: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/0956797614534693.abstract

Mars Attacks: Special addendum

by Mars ( 145 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Christianity, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Eric Holder, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis, Unions at June 2nd, 2014 - 8:00 am

You will notice that I have been posting these with the full article and video and no comment from myself. I have had a reason for my actions, and it isn’t laziness on my part. I feel these articles are incredibly important, so much so that I want to make sure that the original author and investigators receive all credit for their hard work. Any comments that I could have made would have, in my honest opinion, just detracted from their hard work putting together these exposes. I honestly feel that these are that important.

These articles may be about the White Privilege conference (a taxpayer funded conference for educators at every grade level that has gone on for fifteen years at this point), but this is about far more than that. These articles are being posted here for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, what have you. That is because what is being conducted here is dangerous. Not just for “whites” but for everyone that wants to have the ability to speak their minds, or have their children live in a country where they will be allowed to speak openly. These conferences are about nothing less than suppression of free speech. They want to shut down everyone who disagrees with them, and they want to go further by ensuring that your children are educated in such a way that they will never know what free speech is.

This is not about one conference. In fact there are many of these held around the country at different levels, in different places, all over this great country of ours. We shouldn’t demand these conferences be shut down, (it would be nice if they weren’t being paid for out of peoples tax money though), but these conferences should be taken out of the darkness and shown in the light for all to see and hear. These are the educators in this country, this is what they want to teach your children. Suppression of speech, capitalism is evil, and the United States is responsible for all evil on this planet. These ideas are not just dangerous, they are enough to bring down the country if put into the minds of the future.

Somehow I have posted these in the wrong order, I hope it hasn’t messed anyone up.

The Politics of Science Fiction Awards

by Mars ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Art, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Second Amendment, Socialism, The Political Right, Tranzis, Weapons at May 30th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

This is going to a long article. I have posted the entirety of a blog post by my favorite sci-fi/fantasy writer Larry Correia. Mr. Correia is an amazing writer and is well known for his conservative views. He is also ex-sheriffs dept, CCW trainer, and an accountant. Recently he was nominated for a Hugo Award, and that’s where the fun begins.

An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy
Posted on April 24, 2014 by correia45

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
Point made.

I’ve said for a long time that the awards are biased against authors because of their personal beliefs. Authors can either cheer lead for left wing causes, or they can keep their mouth shut. Open disagreement is not tolerated and will result in being sabotaged and slandered. Message or identity politics has become far more important than entertainment or quality. I was attacked for saying this. I knew that when an admitted right winger got in they would be maligned and politicked against, not for the quality of their art but rather for their unacceptable beliefs.

If one of us outspoken types got nominated, the inevitable backlash, outrage, and plans for their sabotage would be very visible. So I decided to prove this bias and launched a campaign I called Sad Puppies (because boring message fiction is the leading cause of Puppy Related Sadness).

The Hugos are supposed to be about honoring the best works, and many of the voters still take this responsibility very seriously. I thank them for this. But basically the Hugos are a popularity contest decided by the attendees of WorldCon. I am a popular writer, however my fans aren’t typical WorldCon attendees. Anyone who pays to purchase a WorldCon membership is allowed to vote. Other writers, bloggers, and even publishing houses have encouraged their fans to get involved in the nomination process before. I simply did the same thing. This controversy arises only because my fans are the wrong kind of fans.

For the people saying that I bought votes, or made up fake people, or bought memberships for a couple hundred imaginary relatives, nope. For those saying I committed fraud, put up or shut up. That would be extremely easy to prove if it were the case. I’ve been up front and public the whole time. Sadly, the thing which has so damaged your calm consisted of a few blog posts and I drew a cartoon. And I’m a terrible artist: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/14/sad-puppies-2-the-illustrated-edition/

Eventually one of my friends colored the cartoon in PhotoShop and one of my fans thought it was funny and made a video. Sorry, outrage crowd. No big evil conspiracy. An evil right winger is treading in your sacred halls because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzGKlOkQsxY

I mean, seriously, my spokesman was a manatee. No. I’m not making that up. So Sad Puppies 2: Rainbow Puppy Lighthouse The Huggening got my fans involved. Really, that was what we called it. Because writing is such a serious business.

Even last year’s winner, John Scalzi, has said that I did nothing different than what he and other authors have done before. And Scalzi and I seldom agree on anything. Tor.com wrote a scathing bit condemning my actions (and implied what a horrid writer I am). Of course, the very same website did the exact same thing explaining to Wheel of Time fans how the rules allowed them to nominate all 14 books as a single work and encouraged them to get involved. And a cursory Google search by my fans found dozens of other places where authors, reviewers, and bloggers had pushed their favorite works and tried to get fans involved.

We always hear about how fandom is supposed to be inclusive… Only apparently my fans are the wrong kind of fans. They don’t care about the liberal cause of the day. They don’t care about Social Justice. They like their books entertaining rather than preachy. They probably vote incorrectly. That sort of thing.

The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.

For those who have heard that I’m a terrible, undeserving writer whose mere presence is a mockery of their sacred system, but haven’t read any of my books, I’m actually pretty decent. Feel free to judge for yourself. For the record, my novel that is nominated, Warbound, is the final book in a trilogy that has sold extremely well, been translated into a bunch of other languages where it has also done well, gotten tons of positive reviews (out of the thousands of reviews for this series from across all the various different places I’m still at 4 ½ stars) won and been nominated for other awards, is one of the bestselling and most praised audiobook series there is, has won two Audies, is currently nominated for a third, and been a finalist for best novel in other countries where I don’t speak the language and can’t campaign, so there is that…

But everybody knows bad people can’t create art, says the side that keeps showering Roman Polanski with awards.

In closing, I would really like everybody who is a voting member of WorldCon to actually read the works in each category and vote based upon which ones they think are best. I fully expect Wheel of Time to win my category of best novel. It is a fourteen book epic written by two authors over twenty six years. Duh.

Personally, my goal has been reached. I got the thought police to show the world their pretty pink panties. :)

##

Long Version:

Now here are the behind the scenes details for whoever wants the whole story.

Bias and Motivation: In this business, most writers who are conservative, republican, libertarian, or devoutly religious have needed to keep their head down so as to not rock the boat and damage their careers. This damage comes from two directions, the publishing industry which is based in Manhattan and which is uniformly left wing, which will hurt careers out of spite, and also from the small, but extremely vocal left wing fans who swoop in to crush all dissent. I like to call them the Social Justice Warriors.

If right wing authors share their opinions, they will be openly chastised and attacked by very vocal, very angry people. Any deviation from the approved narrative is met with scorn, mockery, character assassination, and because the author doesn’t want to damage his career, he will usually fall back into line and shut his mouth. Basically if you step out, they form an angry mob and attack you until you roll over and apologize for something that shouldn’t be apologized for. Once you’re apologizing for your principles, they own you. They really don’t know what to do about people like me.

This squashing worked for them for years, which helped establish this vision that genre fic, much like Hollywood and the rest of media, was monolithically left. In reality people like me sell a ton of books. SJWs became a powerful voting block for the Hugo’s and pushed their favorite topic of the day as the best works. Many regular readers became turned off or annoyed. Genre fiction fans are as diverse as the rest of the country. As time has gone on, more and more of us creators have gotten pissed off and started being open about our beliefs. I sold machineguns and did gun rights lobbying before I got my first book published, so being in the closet about my politics was never an option for me.

My first realization about how messed up this system was dates back to when I was first starting out. One of the smaller voting blocks at WorldCon is made up of Baen fans. They got me a nomination for the Campbell award for best new author. I was brand new, hardly anybody except for them had heard of me. No problem… Except then people looked to see who these new guys were, and they discovered that I was a Mormon, who owned a gun store, and who’d done gun rights lobbying for the Republican party, and had been running a gun nut political blog for years… Whoops. The SJWs had a complete come apart and began warning each other what a terrible, awful, horrible, bad person I was. (most of them were downright gleeful to proclaim they would never read any books from someone so despicable). A reviewer declared that Larry Correia winning the Campbell would “end literature forever”. They hadn’t read my book. The funny thing is that I was actually much more polite to my detractors on the internet back then. Within 24 hours of the announcement I knew that I would be dead last. People who believed this stuff physically avoided me at WorldCon because they’d been told how I was unsafe.

But there is no bias.

After that I got back to the business of writing books. I’ve published ten more since then. I probably would have been content to ignore awards and just keep on cashing my royalty checks, but the SJWs had to just keep on annoying me, by mocking and insulting me and my friends. A writer can only be told they’re not a *real* writer (because of their badthink) so many times before we say screw it and hoist the black flag. If you’re curious how come my fans ponied up perfectly good money to get involved, it is because they’ve been watching this transpire in the comments here, on my FB page, and on Twitter for several years. They felt invested.

This SJW angry mob inquisition has been a gradual and relatively recent development in our culture, mostly as a result of the anonymous and instant internet. It isn’t just for writers, but the demand for a rigid conformity which is expected from the entire entertainment industry. There are many on the left who cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints or philosophies, so when they arise, they must be stomped down. Any deviation from conformity is met with immediate outrage. They have been doing it to people on my side for so long that it is simply expected by us. We are used to it.

However, it comes as a shock to reasonable people on the left when so emboldened the SJWs begin to do the same thing to people on their own side. Stephen Colbert says something they don’t like. Outrage. Patton Oswalt simply agrees with someone on my side. Outrage. Jonathan Ross might say something in the future. Outrage. Patrick Rothfuss says maybe fandom shouldn’t be so quick to outrage. Outrage. Wil Wheaton simply retweets Rothfuss. Outrage. So on and so forth. It doesn’t even matter that all of these people are staunch allies of the outrage crowd, the mob has been programmed to attack, so they do.

Responding to the insults: I wasn’t joking about Google searching my name and reading the comments. Holy moly, it really is enlightening what we’re dealing with here.

First off, I know it doesn’t matter what I say here, because we’ve already seen hundreds of time that they’ll ignore my actual words and just make up new ones for me.

The thing is everybody who knows me knows that I’m actually a nice guy and all that stuff is a bunch of crap. Yes, I am extremely rude to people who attack me on the internet. It saves us all time that way. Six years of this has worn away my thin veneer of civility. Don’t show up, call me a racist teabagger, and then expect reasoned discourse. We all know where we are going to end up eventually, so why not skip all that passive aggressive foreplay and get down to where we’re going to end up anyway, with you making up stuff, and me kicking your ass.

Many of my writer friends who’ve had the option of keeping their heads down and their beliefs secret think that I’m crazy to be so public. I have a response ready for them, I usually pick out whatever topic it is that I know they personally feel very strongly about, but which goes against the accepted group think of the Social Justice Warriors and ask them to go write a blog post sharing their honest beliefs, and then see what happens. Of course, none of them ever take me up on it, because they know that the caring and tolerant crowd would immediately and blindly lash out.

The funny thing about the misogyny, racism, and homophobic allegations, is that I was a self-defense instructor for the better part of a decade and certified literally thousands of people to carry concealed firearms. I taught women, minorities, homosexuals, didn’t matter, often on my own dime, all because I think people who would try to drag anyone to death behind a pickup truck will have a difficult time doing so after they have a pair of hollow points placed into their chest cavity at high speed. Unlike the SJWs, I don’t just pay lip service to empowerment.

Since I’m a prolific political blogger, with thousands of posts to pick through, you’d think these people would have some actual example of where I’d been racist, homophobic, or misogynist, but they don’t. Go figure. In reality, all of us right wingers simply know that the outrage crowd attacking us is so boringly predictable that we have a checklist ready to go for them: http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/

Politically, I’m more of a libertarian than anything. Of all the things I’ve been called over the last few days, the most hurtful thing said was that I was a NeoCon who believed in big government welfare (that’s a bit more offensive than the woman who insinuated I’m a wife beater). If they’re looking for homophobia on my blog, they’re always sad when they discover that I’m not against gay marriage, mostly because I’m far more frightened of the overreaching federal government telling people what to do than I am of gay cooties. The angry privileged white man bit is kind of funny since legally I’m not white and I grew up in a poor immigrant community. But facts should never get in the way of a good narrative.

It is kind of sad that some republicans getting nominated is far more controversial than actual communists and socialists winning. Last time I looked those particular philosophies had killed over a hundred million people over the last hundred years, but there’s absolutely no bias in the awards…
Allegations of fraud: I also had another goal, which I never shared publically during my campaigning. I had heard many allegations of fraud in the nomination process from other authors. Tossed votes, far lower than expected counts, that sort of thing. I am a full time author now, but I am a retired auditor. I love looking for fraud. I do spreadsheets and statistical analysis for fun. So I wanted to see if votes were being tossed. When Sad Puppies 1 launched I kept track of who said they were voting, kept a tally, and then kept their emails so if necessary I could ask for their registration receipts. My suggested slate in other categories would help provide check figures in the smaller categories. (But for the record, everything I suggested was something that I read, enjoyed, and thought was of superior quality and deserving of an award).

The final numbers for last year were within the expected deviation. No red flags. LonCon has struck me as perfectly honest in my dealings with them. So I’m happy to say that I see no evidence of dishonesty in the nominating process. That is excellent.

So me being accused of making up fake voters is kind of funny since you can go through my blog and Facebook comments and see all the real live genre fiction fans I’ve been collecting.

Applying a little critical thinking to this (something Social Justice Warriors struggle with) I’m a popular author. I have more daily blog readers than the total attendance of WorldCon. And not only that, my fans aren’t casual, they are hardcore. I just did a Kickstarter and sold over a hundred thousand dollars worth of merchandise related to one of my book series. (still waiting on those last 70 coins, dang it, stupid broken molds!). That’s not a typo, over $100,000 of merchandise on one project in a month… My last Kickstarter before that did $85,000. So what’s more likely, my fans are hard core and have enough disposal income to drop $40 to make a point to an annoying group of people who despises my fans, or that I spent thousands of dollars of my own money to make up imaginary relatives?

Please, keep in mind, my fan base is the same group that routinely is able to sway the entire ranking system of the biggest online book retailer in the world. Once a month, I pick a book, Book Bomb it, and my fans move it onto the Amazon bestseller lists. I’d say that the evidence suggests that A. I’ve got fans. B. They like books. C. Many of them have money.

I find it fascinating that many people on the left end of the spectrum actually believe that their beliefs are the norm among genre fiction readers. They’ve created an echo chamber to validate each other. They’ve taken over SFWA and dominate the conversation there. They’re right and good and any who disagree are evil and bad. They formed a powerful voting block in the most prestigious awards and once a year they could reinforce just how brilliant and important they are by nominating their friends to the various categories. In the last Sad Puppies post’s comments my fans collected a whole bunch of the SJW’s tweets demonstrating this mindset, where conservatives are these anti-science flyover country barbarians who are dying off… Yet, they’re totally oblivious to the fact that guys like me sell a lot of books because there is a big market out there who is tired of being preached at about the SJW cause of the day, and just wants to enjoy their fiction again. They can’t wrap their brains around the fact that people like me are more popular than they are out in the world.

Storytellers win where it counts, BOOK SALES. The SJW contingent wins awards. If the barbarians start taking awards from them they’ll have nothing left.

No wonder they are so angry.

EDIT: I must add the best new bit of character assassination… Larry Correia’s Sad Puppies was where he threatened to kill puppies if his fans didn’t vote. :D

The Controversial Slate: For the record, I’m only the second most hated man who got a nomination. The most despised is Vox Day by far, however, I’m the one who suggested him to my fans who were participating in Sad Puppies 2. So if he’s their devil, I’m the antichrist.

Let’s back up. The reason Vox is so hated is that he is the only person ever kicked out of SFWA. He makes me look cuddly and diplomatic. He was expelled from SFWA because the powers that be decided he was a racist, in fact, it was so obvious that he was racist that it only took a thirty page thesis explaining how stuff he said was actually racist, including the leadership of SFWA searching through the vile cesspool that is Stormfront until they found some nazi skin head who used similar words, and then holding him accountable for things that posters said in his blog comments (us right wing bloggers don’t believe in censorship so we don’t “manage” or “massage” our comments like they do) then they kicked him out for misusing their Twitter account.

Basically, he called Nora Jesmin an “ignorant half-savage” and that pissed everybody off. See, Nora, is a beloved libprog activist and Social Justice Warrior, and all the reports of her victimization at the hands of the villainous Vox usually leave out the parts where she’d been hurling personal insults at him for years. Myself? I thought that comment might be a bit over the line, but then again, Google search my name and see what the SJW’s have been calling me for the last few days. It is way worse that ignorant or savage, and I think I’m darker skinned than K. Tempest Bradford. I’ve yet to see any SJWs condemning those comments about me. Tolerance is a one way street with them.

I didn’t really know the guy that well before he started pissing so many people off, but having been character assassinated myself, I’ve learned never to take the internet’s word about somebody’s character. Having actually talked with, and then gotten into long arguments and debates with Vox, he is a contrarian, can be a jerk is extremely opinionated, but I honestly don’t think he’s a racist (He’s also not a white guy, but most of the people attacking him don’t know that). We’ve had some long, heated debates on different subjects now, but since I’m not a panty twisted liberal, I can handle differing beliefs.

We disagree about a lot. I disagree with him on some fundamental philosophy. His “rabid hateful” views on homosexuality match about a third of America, most staunch Catholics, and he’s far more moderate on the issue than any devout Muslim or average European villager. So I disagree with him, but he’s not the out there whackadoo his detractors make him out to be, but then again, these same people say I want to drag gays to death behind my truck, so take the hate with a grain of salt. He thinks I’m nuts on several topics, but the dude is smart, and he can write. As for the people saying he “bought” the awards… Holy moly, you’ve got no idea what his day job is. If the man wanted to simply buy votes, he’d be up for everything from Best Novel to Motor Trend Car of the Year.

So when I was putting together my slate and looking for ideas, I remembered his novelette that I read earlier that year. I was surprised by how good it was. I found it to be a really good story (it is actually about love and friendship, with a moral philosophy based on Thomas Aquinas, so not really what you’d expect from such a supposed hatemonger of hatey-hate). I plugged it to my fans earlier this year, which meant that a lot of them had read it as well. To be fair, it was only my second favorite work I read of that size this year, but that’s a tough one because I believe that Brad Torgersen is the best new sci-fi writer around. So I threw them both on the slate.

Yes, I will totally admit that I knew this would spur additional outrage. And oh, how I was proven right. His existence offends them. They aren’t going to read his work. They’re proud to admit it. In the spirit of the awards, a certain Tor editor—who has no problem marching with communists—is pushing for everyone to automatically vote No Award over Vox. Stay classy, noble Social Justice Warrior, but once again, there’s no bias.

The thing is, even if what these people say about Vox is true,(and I personally think it is as grossly exaggerated as anything else these people decide to attack) what they’re declaring is that assholes can’t make good art… Well, the entire history of art would like to disagree with you. Truly brilliant works of art have been created by people who are bat shit crazy. So now that it is nominated, how about you goose stepping morons try reading books instead of burning them?

The SJW contingent isn’t just outraged that these vile hatemongers are on there, but since I’m popular and I riled up a whole bunch of normally uninvolved fans, most of the stuff I suggested also wound up on there too. My other nomination for best novel was for Sarah Hoyt’s (a Latino immigrant woman) story with a gay male as its main PoV character and hero… It checks all their boxes! Oh, but wait… Sarah’s a libertarian and I only nominated A Few Good Men because it was a really good book and not for social justice. Only not as many of my fans had read that one yet, so it didn’t make the list. So much for that monolithic group think thing we’re supposed to have going on over here.

Normally, media tie in fiction, as in books relating to games, movies, etc. is considered contemptible by the WorldCon voters. Tie in writers are looked down on and sneered at by the literati. You’ve got writers who’ve written hundreds of books, like Anderson, Stackpole, or Zahn, with some of them being brilliant, but it would be a cold day in hell before some media tie in fiction got any respect at WorldCon. In any normal year a work of tie in fiction getting a nomination would be extremely controversial. This year it doesn’t even make a blip on the radar.

Peter David writes Star Trek novels, comic books, and other things. I saw a post from him lamenting how sad it was that a racist got on the ballot but tie in fiction can’t… Little did he realize that my slate pushed the excellent Butcher of Khardov by Dan Wells, which is Warmachine tie in fiction, and got it a nomination for Best Novella. As far as I’m aware, in the history of the Hugos this has never happened before… So you’re welcome, Peter. My “wrong kind of fans” broke new ground for you on the very same slate.

It has made me sad to see Dan Wells getting caught up in their hate. Dan is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, and he’s a political moderate. I nominated Butcher because it is excellent. It is a story about a homicidal maniac that made me tear up at the end. And now the same people who despise me without having ever read my fiction are conspiring against this brilliant, creative, artist simply for the crime of being recommended by a bad person like me.

But there’s no bias…

I thought it was interesting that the Fanzine category, which is normally dominated by the same handful of groups year after year, taking turns giving each other the Hugo, is actually totally shaken up this year with new nominees… Because last year I demonstrated what happened when a creator simply asked their fans to get involved, so people did. And those little categories can be swayed by a couple dozen votes. Of course, those old Fanzines with their closets full of Hugos simply love me now. :)

Toni Weisskopf is one of the most successful and prolific editors in publishing. She’s edited some of the most successful authors in genre fiction, discovered tons of new talent, and runs one of the biggest sci-fi publishing houses in the country… Everybody in the industry knows Toni. The woman is brilliant. Yet did you know that she’d never gotten a Hugo nomination until I launched Sad Puppies? Back during Sad Puppies, some Fanzine (that had like 30 Hugo nominations) was offended by the uncouth barbarity of me asking my people (the wrong kind of fans) to get involved, but even they had to admit that Toni Weisskopf deserved a Hugo.

Meanwhile, the Tor editor who is cool with his followers organizing to vote No Award against the barbaric interlopers? Ten nominations. But there is absolutely no bias in the awards.

I actually got Marko Kloos nominated for the Campbell as well, but it turned out he had his first pro sale in 2011 so he was ineligible. I nominated him because Terms of Enlistment was a really good debut novel. So of my slate, I only missed a single category.

And as they scream and rail against me, this is what my fans accomplished while mildly amused and a little annoyed. Keep attacking us with crazy accusations and maybe I’ll do this again next year, only with more manatees.

Actually reading the books. Crazy idea, I know. The people warning others not to read the nominated works because of badthink. Good. They’re simply demonstrating that they are the small minded, bigoted, control freak, censorship loving, statists I accused them of being.

Now for everybody else who isn’t a jerk, I would encourage you to read the works for yourself and rank them accordingly.

Brandon Sanderson posted about this. Most of the WorldCon voters really want the Hugo to be about quality and art more than politics, and they take their voting very seriously. I agree with him. His fans are being attacked in some quarters as well because they are outsiders. I thought his response to this was very well reasoned. Brandon is a class act. I look forward to his inevitable mud stomping of me and the other competitors.

I actually had a Stross novel on my nightstand to be read when the announcements were made. I’ve read Mira Grant and think she’s a solid writer. I’d encourage anybody who signed up because of Sad Puppies to read and vote based upon the quality of the work.

Tor owes me. Now, in any normal year, the entire fourteen book series of the Wheel of Time, written over 26 years, by two different authors being nominated as “best novel” would be by far the most controversial thing about the Hugos. Instead most of the outragers are spending their energy praying Vox gets cancer.

You are welcome, Tor. Now please go down to Tor.com and tell some of your idiot bloggers to at least try and get their facts straight before they make shit up about me. And to that one junior editor who supposedly could only make it through the first 20 pages of Hard Magic, part of being an editor is finding sellable talent, and I’ve sold the hell out of this series in multiple countries now, so you must really suck at your job.

The rules allow WoT to be considered a novel, so it is there. I’d ask readers to judge the works accordingly. If you love the WoT, vote for it. But please, actually read some of it and don’t vote for it simply because Rand was awesome when you were in middle school. It is bad enough to be outnumbered 27 pages to one, but none of us can compete with 12 year old you’s nostalgia.

That said, my money is on Brandon. :)

The Actual Awards. To the morons who keep talking about how they wouldn’t “feel safe” if I attended WorldCon, you may untwist your panties. I’m not going. That’s the same weekend as GenCon, which is actually fun (and has an excellent writing track by the way). If I’m going to go all the way to England, it is going to be to play tourist around a beautiful country, not sit around being lectured on the dangers of cismale gendernormative fascism and neocolonial patriarchy.

And seriously, when you “feel unsafe” in real life you usually end up calling somebody like my average fan to come save you, so quit the drama queen act. It is annoying as hell.

I don’t expect to win anything, and don’t really care. I got my trophy as soon as the Social Justice Warrior contingent demonstrated to the world that they’re a bunch of hypocritical little fascists.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/

Mars Attacks: White Privilege Conference Part 4

by Mars ( 92 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis, Unions at May 27th, 2014 - 3:00 pm

WPC14 UNDERCOVER VIDEO➙ White Student Booted From White Privilege Session – His Race Was Too Offensive

Posted on Friday, May 16th, 2014 at 12:10 pm by Kyle Olson

Editor’s Note: Part 4 of 4

MADISON, Wis. – When one looks through the rhetorical veneer of the White Privilege Conference, hypocrisies abound.

The White Privilege folks say Christianity is oppressive while the violent Muslim Brotherhood is just a “political party.” Capitalism is bad even though conference organizers hawk facilitator guides for $99. And nothing says “I’m oppressed” quite like a $50 polo shirt!

Other aspects include segregated workshops open to only some conference participants, based solely on the color of their skin. The reason? An organizer told our investigator: “It can feel, for some people of color, unsafe. Not universally – like in your group everybody was fine, but for some people it can feel like, oh, I don’t … ”

“Because I was white they would feel unsafe?” our reporter asked as he was led out of the workshop.

“Exactly. Exactly,” the organizer said. “And it’s not because you’ve done anything. You seem like a perfectly fine person, but it’s because of experiences they’ve had with others.”

If a white person displayed that attitude with any person of color, it would be called racism. If, for example, an elderly White woman clutches her purse a little tighter in a parking lot when a black man is approaching – because she recently heard about a rash of purse snatchings – she’s a racist.

But if a person of color isn’t comfortable sitting in a room with a White person because of something another White person may have done to them, well that must be racism, too.

But perhaps the most ironic and contradictory occurrence was Victor Woods’ sweet ride.

Woods, convict-turned-best-selling author, wouldn’t tell the audience all of his secrets.

You’d be surprised how many people say, ‘How’d you do it?’ I guarantee you someone in this session will walk up to me when everyone’s gone and say (inaudible) and I will let you know, and it’s in the book for $24.95!

Woods’ red Corvette could be seen parked in the most privileged spot in the parking lot at the conference hotel.

But Woods’ main message was likely lost on attendees.

This is America! … Anything you want to do you can do. … I wrote this book: “Successfully Achieving Your Vision.” Eyesight’s what’s in front of you. Vision is what you see down the road. Work ethic. Perseverance. Do you know how long it took to write this book? Five years. .. See the world opens up for a man or woman who knows where they’re going.

That’s a wise and lasting message for true victims of racism and oppression. But purveyors of the White Privilege Conference would instead have them wallow in pity, anger and ultimately, failure.

Do the White Privilege people really believe they are doing black children any favors by teaching them that America hates them, and there’s no hope for them in this racist society?

Authored by Kyle Olson

http://www.progressivestoday.com/white-privilege-victim-drives-his-corvette-to-the-conference-and-other-hypocrisies-abound-exclusive-video/

Mars Attacks: Part 3 of the White Privilege Conference

by Mars ( 144 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Christianity, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Eric Holder, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Unions, Unions at May 21st, 2014 - 2:00 pm

White Privilege Conference speakers train teachers to inject theory into ELEMENTARY classrooms (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO)

Posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2014 at 6:00 am by Kyle Olson

Editor’s note: This is Part 3 of a 4-part series

Highlights include:

Teacher Diana Reeves: ‘Insert social justice … information for even little kids to understand.’
8-year-olds answer that the Constitution doesn’t work equally for everyone because ‘some people have different beliefs’ and ‘If you are privileged you are white.’
Teachers guide unassuming children to their desired answers.
8-year-old child: ‘White privilege is when people that are White get an advantage to the people who are people of color.’
Another 8-year-old child: ‘White privilege is something that White people have, meaning they have an advantage in a lot of things and they can get a job more easily.’
Another student claims privilege is ‘systematic’ because of the Constitution.
High school student: ‘I feel like I’m going to go home and tell my parents that I’m a racist … ’

Speakers include:

Teacher Rosemary Colt
Teacher Diana Reeves
8-year-old students
High school students

MADISON, Wis. – “White Privilege” theorists aren’t content with just indoctrinating high school students. Their agenda is to start earlier than that. Four- and five-year-olds are much more impressionable than a skeptical teenager.

That’s why there was a session at the 2014 White Privilege Conference – held in Madison, Wisconsin in late March – titled, “Examining White Privilege and Building Foundations for Social Justice Thinking in the Elementary Classroom.” The session was led by two teachers, Rosemary Colt and Diana Reeves.

“But what we’re hoping to be able to convince you is possible is to take the (inaudible) sequences, which you are directed to be using, and to find within them opportunities to begin to insert social justice, anti-racist information for even little kids to understand,” Reeves said.

The teachers posted examples of their lessons for attendees to consider.

One lesson dealt with the U.S. Constitution.

“Does it work equally well for everyone?” the worksheet asks.

“No,” one child wrote, “because some people have different beliefs.”

“What does it mean to be privileged,” another question asks.

“If you are privileged you are white,” another child answered.

The teachers also played a video they produced with their students, where they interviewed them about their perceptions of race and privilege. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is how the teachers guide the students to the desired answers. (No wonder they have to target unassuming children.)

“Do you remember that word that I used when we were talking about our previous role play, where it’s sometimes hard, if you are this, to think about people who may not be so. It started with a P –pri…”

“Pretending!” one child exclaims.

“No, pretending is what we’re doing,” the teacher responds.

“Sometimes you have a lot, and you’re not even aware of how much you have. And it’s sometimes called privilege,” the teacher says in the video.

So “privilege” refers to how much stuff people have? Only White people have lots of stuff and therefore privilege?

“Do you remember that word, privilege?” the teacher asked the children. “If you have privileges, it’s sometimes difficult to even think about people who might not have privileges.”

The teachers’ video then features 8-year-old students sounding off on what they’ve been taught by their activist teachers.

“White privilege is when people that are white get an advantage to the people who are people of color,” one child said.

“So if there was like a job, and a person of color was applying, and a white person was applying, and the owner was a white person, they might pick the white person just because of the person’s color, even if the black person was better,” the student says.

“White privilege is something that white people have, meaning they have an advantage in a lot of things and they can get a job more easily,” another child says in the teachers’ video presentation.

“Many people say, ‘Oh, the U.S. is improving in these areas.’ Is it really? Because those were the foundations put in the first place,” a student told our investigator. “And the foundation was systematic because we’re still following the Constitution today.”

At the end of the conference, attendees had a chance to sound off before the audience.

“I’m really happy to be here. I feel like I’ve learned a lot. I feel like I’ve had this space where I can be weak and vulnerable and I don’t have to lie about that,” one student told the audience from the main staging.

“I can talk about how the racism inside me, I feel like I’m going to go home and tell my parents that I’m a racist and I’m not proud of that but I’m proud that I can say that,” he said.

At that moment, the assembled group of educators and activists applauded their latest convert.

Coming tomorrow: contradictions and hypocrisy amongst the anti-capitalist activists.

Authored by Kyle Olson

http://www.progressivestoday.com/white-privilege-conference-speakers-train-teachers-to-inject-theory-into-elementary-classrooms-exclusive-video/