Author John Scalzi’s propensity for terrified whimpering grovelling before leftists has led Heartiste to coin a new word “Scalzied”:

When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Inwardly Scalzi is a reactionary, in that he despises democracy and supports war and colonialism, but is terrified lest our masters detect his evil thoughts.

Because of crimestop, an author can get away with a lot of thoughtcrime without our masters noticing. See “District 9” for a spectacular example. The movie is a lecture that it is the duty of the superior race to rule the inferior, and failure to do so results not only in disaster for the superior, but considerably worse disaster for the inferior. Progressives totally failed to notice the message, for to notice it would be indication of agreeing with it. Scalzi allows himself a little bit of thoughtcrime in his novels, but not nearly as much as he could easily get away with.

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Scalzied”

  1. james gregory routt

    […]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[…]

  2. baduin says:

    It is no longer the Second World War. The Party Line has changed long ago.

    At present it requires one to support verbally democracy, peace, anti-colonialism etc, but at the same time one should suggest indirectly support only to the formal aspects, not the real thing.

    Ie “I, as all right-thinking people, support democracy. However, this does not mean that populism can be tolerated, not to speak of any attempts to introduce fascism and racism. Everyone knows that Hitler was elected. We must be careful to destroy any fascism and racism before it can spread.

    I am also against war. Obviously, we cannot allow terrorism to spread, and the Holy Army of the Republic must intervene in the most remote corner of the world if there is a danger that any terrorism could appear there.

    I am also against colonialism. For example, I heard that in the most remote border of Uganda there is a small group of bandits. The Holy Army of the Republic must immediately intervene and introduce Truth, Goodness and Multicultural American Way there.”

    Similarly, Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize at the start of his reign. Despite that, during his whole reign, America was conducting various colonial wars. (Obama is still much more cautious than Bush.)

    In fact, Obama is a good example, because he so perfectly personifies the ruling consensus. Can anyone imagine Obama not being democratic? Impossible. But, on the other hand, Obama allowing racists to determine the policy of United States? Absurd.

    Mon, 09/19/2011 – 6:56pm — Jim Kalb

    The world is run by people who run things. Liberalism eliminates the principle of authority and puts the individual and his desires at the center of concern, so it makes it important for people who run things to be able to claim that the people at large have agreed to what they’re doing—they approved the particular measure, or the basic principle. or the decisionmakers, or anyway they could vote everybody out and change the constitution if they’ve really got a problem.

    A joker in the deck is that if the people are confused or misled and make mistakes of fact, or if they think thoughts or have motives they shouldn’t, then what they think and do doesn’t count and shouldn’t be given effect. That’s why opposition to Obamacare didn’t matter—the people were being stupid, or irrational, or racist, or they were dupes of the Republicans, so there was no reason to pay attention to them.

    As liberalism develops and its demands because broader, more detailed, and more at odds with the way people ordinarily look at things, that kind of situation seems likely to become more common. The limiting case, of course, would be that of a people’s democracy, in which popular approval is purely ritualistic.

Leave a Reply