- Written by Michael Z Williamson
Behold, Jason Sanford, who’s huge on Patreon. Well, he had 144 subscribers. Maybe he has a few more now. His Amazon sales rank is in the 2 million to 4 million range, so he’s sold maybe 50 books, ever. He’s not even a wannabe, he’s a nevergonnabe.
He claims and pretends to be a journalist, and went into a lengthy “investigation” of Baen’s Bar, to find something to be offended by.
He was actually able to find someone being called…The Swarthy Menace!
This, he claims, is an indication of racism.
Well, I’ve known the person in question for 15 years, so let’s give some “context,” so beloved of “liberals,” to this name.
The nickname came about when Arun waded into spacebattlesforums (which most of us call “spacebabies,” because it’s a cesspit of ignorant, immature, basement-dwelling poseurs and wannabes), and textually destroyed someone who was criticizing Kratman’s military expertise with snide comments about his “alleged” career. Which is all real. The incelcucks love to go after Tom, and to a lesser extent myself and John Ringo, stating we “claim” to have been in the military, when there are plenty of pics of all three of us in the field, and Krat even has professional papers on file with the War College.
He emerged victorious, and someone even tried throwing the “white privilege” epithet at him, which is hilarious, him being neither white nor liberal. Kratman dubbed him, and he wears the name with pride.
Oh, Arun also uses the name “Swarth Vader.”
Arun is in fact from India, which makes him:
A South Asian
An educated technical professional
A minority religion by US rules (Hindu, even though there are 700 million of them).
So I’m not sure where a pasty white liberal racist American of privilege gets off questioning how the man likes to be addressed. But Arun is pissed as hell at this racist twat using him as a poster child.
I saw Jason Sanford’s post.
As you may know and as the Colonel and our fellow flies and the attached email evidence will no doubt confirm, I’m The Swarthy Menace. The Colonel gave me that name after someone from spacebattles who had registered on the bar to argue the merits of the Colonel’s Legio Del Cid got into an argument with me thinking I’m a caucasian and a racist and I stripped their hide. I have never, ever felt that the term was racist as used by our fellow flies. I wear it proudly and my post history (see attached Swarthxx.pdf files) for evidence.
Here are some of the relevant posts from May 25, 2011 - June 1, 2011 where I got the name. Files are: Swarth 2011-1.pdf, Swarth 2011 - 2.pdf, Swarth 2011 -3.pdf, Swarth 2011 - 4.pdf, Swarth -2011 5.pdf
And here are the ones where I and the Colonel agreed upon that nickname. Files are: "Swarth - how the name came about.pdf” and "Swarth the name.pdf"
Rather than remaining silent, I would prefer that Toni went John Rambo on Jason Sanford’s ass. Hopefully, what I’ve shared is enough evidence to sue that asshole to penury.
And, the thread in question is from 2011.
So Jason Sanford has literally nothing better to do than wade through over a decade of forum posts looking for stuff to offend him, and with all that, he came up with a half dozen out of context comments. He needs a girlfriend. Or a boyfriend. I’m not one to judge. Hell, he’d be more productive masturbating to My Little Pony porn.
One of the “threats” he cites from the Bar is basically “white males should boycott America.”
Newsflash, idjit: You can’t force people to work for you. We fought a war over that a century back. Your side lost. You’re still trying to get them back, too. Though good luck getting tens of millions of Americans to refuse to work and get paid. I can’t even motivate them to stop wearing face panties as a symbol of their submission to the governor. Besides which, there’s been boycott days by blacks, Hispanics, unionists, even a threat of leftist women to not sleep with men until their aims were achieved. (Wait, is not being able to screw a leftist actually a threat? Or a generous offer?)
As far as “What happens if there’s another civil war?” This is a valid question for anyone to ask, especially in a forum of writers who write speculative fiction about wars. He claims to write speculative fiction, but he seems a bit lacking in imagination.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I’ve written at least two fictional books with detailed scenes on HOW TO DESTROY ENTIRE CITIES using available materials. I’m also Editor-At-Large for Survivalblog, where “What do we do if society collapses in any of a dozen fashions?” is a regular discussion.
And back in the real world, if that sort of thing happens, wouldn’t you like to be able to survive it with your family? Or if you don’t have a family, your dog? Discussing “What if” doesn’t have to include, “Hey, let’s kill people.” As someone with professional training in that aspect, most of you would suck at it and should just stay out of the way. But knowing how to stay out of the way is a critical skill.
But with all that, his concern is that Toni, who by the way is the single mother of a special needs child, of Jewish heritage, who made none of these statements (that aren’t even actually violent), might attend a convention! Not the people who made these “Threats,” nor the guy who uses a nickname that offends his white liberal sensibilities (They hate when POCs dare to have dissenting opinions). No, the publisher who spends her time publishing books must be scourged because somebody else said something he doesn’t approve of.
Here’s the key point: If Incelboi was "investigating" "right wing violence," why didn't he either take the info to the FBI, or confront Baen directly? Why be a passive-agressive little bitch and ask people to harass a convention about guest status for one editor? He's perfectly okay with the alleged violence, as long as Toni doesn't go to a con? “Yeah, they blew up a federal building, but I’m the hero who wouldn’t let the forum owner attend a convention! Go me!”
If that were to happen, the FBI would have very valid questions as to why he hadn’t reported his suspicions. They might even include the term, “Accessory before the fact.”
But in reality, had he reported it to them, they’d have scanned over it, filed it because they had to, and politely hinted that “People still have free speech and we didn’t see anything meriting further investigation. But we’ll keep an eye out.” The latter being code for “Little boy, don’t bother us again.”
There’s a reason no one pays this clown for his “investigative reporting.” It’s neither. It’s self-aggrandizing wankery by an angry white male of privilege against minorities, women, and veterans, for the sin of having the success he doesn’t and never will.
Oh, yes, he was also previously involved with the scandal around "Requires Hate," a batshit insane bigot who the lefticles endorsed while she was "punching up" (which term confesses they feel inferior by their own standards), but who rapidly turned on them and caused legal issues, threats, and complete insanity (as I recall. I knew enough to completely avoid the matter). So he's perfectly cool with literal death threats, as long as they're from the "correct" end of the spectrum.
Oh, and as far as what Twitter “thinks”—no one with a brain wastes time on Twitter. It’s the Two Minute Hate given form by Twits, and any entity that pays attention to them winds up getting slimed with their filth. The sooner everyone with any intellectual ability deletes their account, the better off civilization will be.
And the so-called “Worldcon” has been a playground for bigoted leftist scum since at least 1990. There’s a reason fewer pros attend every year.
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
I'd just like to point out, while the handwringing is going on over some random racist attacking an East Indian member of Baen's Bar over his chosen nickname, that the "Worldcon" has endorsed terrorism for literally decades.
I grew up in the UK, watching bombs blow up in the news. And the first time I attended "Worldcon," there's three assholes walking around in T-shirts for the IRA. You know, the murderous, torturous, bomb-throwing fucks who killed somewhere between 500 and 600 civilians in the UK and Ireland, and justified it as "Well, we don't like it, but it's inevitable." (Close paraphrase.) The organization that was declared terrorist in both the UK and in the Republic of Ireland, but conveniently chose "not to recognize their authority." When you literally refuse to recognize the people you claim to be fighting for, you may have a problem.
It's pretty disturbing for a young man who's seen bombs on the news, and been cautioned not to open packages because the terrorists sometimes get the address wrong, and trained never to move more than a few feet from your luggage when traveling in case it be deemed a threat, to watch terrorist sympathizers parading about singing songs about how glorious terrorism is.
And they were at every other fucking "Worldcon" I attended, too.
The only conclusion to draw is that WSFS endorsed that terrorist organization. When you let people mince about wearing shirts endorsing a publicly known, international terrorist organization, and make zero effort to stop them, you de facto endorse them.
That, btw, plus the increasing racism, anti-semitism (demonstrated yet again), and general white privilege of calling themselves the "World" science fiction convention (I've noted elsewhere, my readers in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, cannot afford American or European prices to attend, and WSFS has made zero effort to choose marginalized nations for hosting) is why I haven't attended since 2003, and probably never will again.
No decent person should. Unless, of course, they're perfectly okay with terrorism, racism, anti-semitism, and other extremism.
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
Suppose you go to your doctor, and he tells you you’re a week from an infarction that’s going to cause your heart to explode and kill you. You do fine, with a bit of stress and tension. Six months later he tells you you’re only three days away. Then it’s two weeks. Then it’s nine days, then three days again, and eventually, it’s 60 years later, and he says you also have a serious liver issue and only four days to live. And 13 years after that, 73 since he started pestering you, you’re STILL alive.
Hopefully long before then, you’d realize this “doctor” was completely full of shit and had no fucking clue what he was blathering about.
That’s the members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock which they pompously and pretentiously adjusted forward and back every time they needed attention, claiming we were within (at most) 17 minutes from the end of civilization by nuclear war, and eventually adding climate change into the mix.
Now, they may be very good nuclear scientists. But that doesn’t mean they understand political science, strategic theory, or anything else. In fact, it’s blatantly obvious they don’t. As to their credentials regarding climate change, they may be very good nuclear scientists.
And yet, despite 73 years of wailing, and having to add in a second “threat to humanity,” and STILL nothing happening, they’re given attention and credibility.
They should, in fact, be treated the way every apocalyptic religion is—with mockery and derision.
I’m not exactly sure what “Blue steam” is. But this is Paul Ehrlich and his 1970 “Population Bomb.” The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...
So, that didn’t happen.
He was predicting nuclear war over arable land by 2000.
So, that didn’t happen either.
Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area." He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods.
Wow. There’s no possible way THAT could be abused for political purposes. Nor would impoverishing families AND driving up the cost of the goods they need to raise children have ANY POSSIBLE negative outcomes on society.
On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler," Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding an airplane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." When this scenario did not occur, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else." Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb that, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."
Oops. Oh, there’s another bunch of bootlickers who credit these statements
with fixing those problems. Despite the fact that:
A: no one with a brain thought this retard was credible,
2) the timeframe involved wouldn’t allow for those problems to be prevented that quickly, and
C} there’s very little evidence that any action was taken, and certainly none of his fucktarded concepts.
And I DEFINITELY want to play Poker with this idiot.
But wait! There’s more!
As of 2010: Retrospectively, Ehrlich believes that The Population Bomb was "way too optimistic".
This shithead was more than 100% inaccurate (because STILL none of that has happened, in almost double the timespan he gave), but believes he was “Too optimistic.”
Nonetheless, Ehrlich continues to stand by his general thesis that the human population is too large, posing a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet. Indeed, he states that if he were to write the book today, “My language would be even more apocalyptic.”
This mental midget doesn’t know when to shut up. Of course, “liberal” shit for brainses who “follow the science” pay good money to prostrate themselves before his altar and beg absolution.
Also, human population is flattening out as technology and society improves, and will likely see some decline soon anyway.
He claims credit for that, due to the curve changing about the same time his book came out, because of course all those non-English speaking, subliterate, impoverished people in Africa, India and China took his lesson to heart. Or it could be, just maybe, correlation instead of causality, because birth control was becoming much more effective, and important technologies that made children less critical as draft animals were becoming widespread. But what do I know? I didn’t predict the collapse of civilization by the year 2000.
This guy, however: Julian Simon, a cornucopian economist, argued that overpopulation is not a problem as such and that humanity will adapt to changing conditions. Simon argued that eventually human creativity will improve living standards, and that most resources were replaceable. Simon stated that over hundreds of years, the prices of virtually all commodities have decreased significantly and persistently. Ehrlich termed Simon the proponent of a "space-age cargo cult" of economists convinced that human creativity and ingenuity would create substitutes for scarce resources and reasserted the idea that population growth was outstripping the earth's supplies of food, fresh water and minerals. This exchange resulted in the Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet about the trend of prices for resources during a ten-year period that was made with Simon in 1980. Ehrlich was allowed to choose ten commodities that he predicted would become scarce and thus increase in price. Ehrlich chose mostly metals, and lost the bet, as their average price decreased by about 30% in the next 10 years. Simon and Ehrlich could not agree about the terms of a second bet.
Yeah, I REALLY need to play Poker with this bloviating dork. BTW, the “world is gonna die! And that new technology isn’t going to fix it!” goes back a long way.
One writer in the Times of London predicted; “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
And don’t go thinking that automobile has fixed the problem. That just delayed the inevitable. The manure apocalypse is still coming! Mostly from the Ivy League in the form of predictions.
Let’s not forget: Scientists who worked for the government all agreed that Kudzu would help halt the erosion, provide fodder for animals, and be ornamental. It was a miracle plant.
Climate change is a very real thing, and there’s a lot of human components, starting with pollution (air, water, ground, even orbital space). How much we don’t know, and in some cases may never know, since some of the data was retconned “for our own good” and to pretend alarmist BS never happened.
For example, some of us are old enough to remember that yes, “global cooling” really WAS a “serious” concern, to the point of think tanks, articles, and TV specials.
And as soon as that short trend ended, well, DIAL UP THE GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA!
Now, there’s a difference between science and propaganda. I have a friend who works in the climate field, and as he describes it: “Take an 8000 mile ball of molten iron, rock, mud, and water. Spin it in front of a variable heat source and predict what happens next.” We still don’t even know what all the variables are. Making ACCURATE predictions beyond stellar devolution and some gross interpretations of tectonic patterns and rough ocean currents is going to be a long time coming. Certainly in the meantime, we should minimize pollution and keep detailed, accurate, HONEST records. But when you make predictions from insufficient data:
The good part: It didn’t happen. The better part: I was right. The best part: They were wrong. Every. Fucking. Time.
I was called a “denier.” Except, I was correct. I denied fallacy. None of those things have happened. But I’m not “Following the science.”
Actually, I am. I have a pretty good grounding in science. The difference is, mine’s not dependent upon my religion.
BTW, notice how that magic Year 2000 crops up in liberal Millennialist apocalyptic religion as often as it does in other religions? Before that it was 1900. It’s a cult. Instead of a cult of self-loathing about human grace and instincts, it’s a cult of flagellation and guilt over accomplishments. Of course, none of THEM want live in caves or huts. Last I checked, Al Gore was still flying around in a private fucking jet and owned a half dozen houses, several of which are RIGHT ABOUT SEA LEVEL. So he obviously doesn’t believe his own bullshit, at least as far as sea level rise. If they were all in the Alps or Idaho, I might give him a smidgeon of respect as a credible charlatan. Of course, he’s an Oscar-winning scientist.
In 2008 (I probably still have the email archived) an acquaintance of mine loudly assured me that “Peak Oil was 6 months ago.” Twelve years later, I’m paying less for gas than I did then, in adjusted dollars.
Pretty much since the beginning of the space program, it’s been liberals lamenting “All that money spent on a few Moon rocks while we have real problems here on Earth.”
In fact, the space program (any of the space programs) have cost very little to the taxpayers, and yielded huge benefits in weather forecasting for crops and survival of people during storms, land management, food development, that climate change they claim to worry about, and a hundred other things. The technology developed for those issues has spun off to the point where you couldn’t read this without it, couldn’t operate your vehicle or conduct business without it, and I can get music such as Senegalese soul, Mongolian metal, and Siberian techno for my listening pleasure.
Have you figured out the myth yet? It’s the myth that “science has a liberal bias.” Incorrect. Science does not HAVE a bias, or else it’s not science.
And, “liberals are inherently more sciency than conservatives.”
Horseshit. Every day, liberals demonstrate that not only do they not grasp science, but they’re mentally incapable of doing so, even when it’s plonked down on the table in front of them. Present them with an easily demonstrable fact, and they’ll wail that they’re “Following the science!” that bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
Not all liberals. There are a handful who can accept facts that offend their worldview. Though there are also “liberal” “Scientists” who can manipulate a few figures within their specialty, but can do fuck-all outside it.
My 6 year old has a better grasp of science than your average “liberal.”
IT SHOULD BE NOTED: Not all of these cites above were made by actual scientists. Some were made by politicians. Some are misquoted. But to the Church of Apocalyptic Liberalism, they are all gospel. And when nothing happens? Still gospel, and you’re still a denier. They even disown actual scientists who revise their estimates.
Which brings us once again to:
“If we just wear masks for 4-8 weeks, we can beat the Covids!”
So, we’re past 30 weeks and counting.
“You’re a science denier!”
Not at all. I can show you 45 YEARS of studies that cloth masks don’t stop viruses, and explain that a 3 micron mesh CANNOT stop a 100 nanometer virion. There’s no magic spell that tells the fabric which way the virion is passing, and while droplets ARE a problem, they’re not the ONLY problem. And…
IT HASN’T FUCKING WORKED. (Well, according to liberals it hasn’t worked. According to people who can think, the Covids stopped being a relevant problem long before they started wearing face panties.)(And once again, check the package of your face panty for a NIOSH rating. It has none. It has ZERO rating to do anything. That’s science.)
When your prediction is complete bullshit, again and again and again, it means you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about, so shut your face and let the adults handle things.
You are a pathetic bunch of failures.
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
My comment as submitted. I think I see their "intent," and as usual, they have a ham-handed, complicated response:
docket number (ATF 2020R-10)
I do not own nor have any interest in arm braces myself. I understand the published criteria and subjective nature of the difference between a brace that is functional and one that may be a workaround for an actual stock.
However, ATF should consider that constant flexible and re-interpreted definitions serve at one level to create contempt and distrust of the agency. One outcome of this could be greater deliberate disregard of the law and refusal to attempt to comply. Another significant risk, one that has been observed, is the inadvertent violation of an increasingly complicated set of criteria beyond the grasp of the casual, non-expert firearm user. In the former case, deliberate violations of fine points of law may lead to greater violations of the NFA and other firearm law. In the latter case, people with no criminal intent may be found guilty of serious federal crimes over purely administrative details.
ATF notes that some firearms with braces are long and heavy enough to not function well with a brace. However, such weapons are also difficult to conceal and therefore the risk of deliberate violation of the INTENT of the law regarding SBR/SBS is very low. Such crimes, if they occur, are usually part of another violation and can be punished as such.
ATF's criteria seem to favor shorter weapons with smaller cartridges, that ironically function better in a concealed role. However, with a brace mounted, these become less concealable, and this supports the intent of the NFA proscription.
I would urge that any brace be considered to be exactly that--a brace.
A shorter brace on larger firearms does not function well as a stock due to eye-relief and recoil. While there would be an administrative violation in such case, the practical ability to commit a crime of violence isn't great.
A shorter brace on a bona fide pistol makes shouldering cramped and ineffective, and hinders concealability.
ATF should therefore research if a maximum possible length of pull of say, 10-12", serves the practical purpose of supporting a small weapon for one-handed firing, while limiting the ability to convert a firearm into a de-facto short carbine or shotgun.
Page 5 of 122