Church and State

Not a Christian

Over the weekend, Team Fedora Tipper got a couple of anti-Christian hashtags trending on Twitter. That's nothing new, since these people define their identity by their hatred of Christians.

What is interesting about Christian-bashing on the part of internet atheists, and the Left in general, is how their rhetoric has taken on an implicit--and sometimes explicit--moralistic character.

Here's a tweet from some vapid New Zealand MP claiming that the Holy Family were "Palestinian refugees."

The Death Cult understand neither their enemy nor themselves, so it's quite the spectacle watching them obliviously sermonize, complete with moral appeals to a faith about which they know nothing.

Such ill-informed preaching, particularly coming from a government official, represents another unforced tactical error on the Death Cult's part. Their Enlightenment forebears conned Christians into accepting separation of Church and state to unilaterally disarm ourselves in the culture wars.

By prompting Christians to think about politics in terms of their faith, the Left risks forfeiting the advantage of granting themselves the freedom to speak politically in religious terms while Christians are reduced to engaging in politics solely with economic arguments.

Smugly browbeating Christians with pig-ignorant takes on their own religion is so colossally dumb, I can't immediately grasp why the Left would do it.

All I can come up with is that it's a striking example of premature Leftist overreach. They were supposed to have gained total victory by now, and their time preference is so high, they're doing a touchdown dance on our twenty yard line.

I'm not the only one who's noticed an air of thinly veiled desperation surrounding Leftist rhetoric these days. When you're in a utopian cult that believed legalizing infanticide and butt marriage and electing a black president would usher in the end of history, seeing the prophecies fail must set you on edge.

There's also Leftists' growing dissatisfaction with Big Tech deplatforming anyone to the right of FDR. Concerning as we may find the Adpocalypse, the Left is beginning to realize that kicking Alex Jones off YouTube, banning MILO from Facebook, and shutting down Laura Loomer's Twitter account hasn't made the boogeyman go away.

The Left find themselves in a worse position, after a fashion. Before, all they had to do to keep tabs on what Paul Joseph Watson was up to was skim a Buzzfeed hit piece peppered with out-of-context tweets. Banishing him from their sight just let him slip into the shadows. He could be hiding in the laundry hamper for all they know.

The realization is dawning on a lot of ordinary people that we've been losing because our self-styled leaders keep honoring gentlemen's agreements with the Left that categorically prevent us from winning.

A smart movement whose leaders cared about the rank and file's interests would seize the advantage offered by exile to the underground. Thus the Conservative Inc. quislings will have to be deposed first.


Star Wars Is now Disney Fanfic

YoutTuber David Stewart explains why there is no longer any reason to pay the least bit of attention to the Disney fan fiction masquerading as Star Wars
Disney Star Wars - it's not canon guys. It's unofficial. It's fan fiction. View it as such, treat it as such, talk about it as such; including not treating it as anything that needs to be paid attention to or be thought of as official. And anyone that says it is official, they're incorrect, right? Just as they'd be incorrect about Thor being a woman or anything else like that. 
Once you separate creator and creation, it's completely unofficial. It's a fan work. It's something like ... you go see a Dio hologram. You're not seeing Dio, that's obvious, but all of these things are like the Dio hologram. They're just continuations of something which has already passed on from this earth.
Watch the full video.

Our culture will begin the long road to recovery when most people accept that their beloved childhood IPs are dead. Luckily, there is a new generation of creators hard at work on new stories. If Western civilization can trudge on for another decade or two, perhaps some of the new storytellers' works will break out to entertain and inspire large audiences.

One thing's for certain: We can't succeed without readers. Set aside your fear, skepticism, or simple procrastination, and support independent authors today.


Humiliation Rituals

Bug Burger Humiliation Ritual

People have slowly started to notice a new fad gaining traction among our ruling class. Check your social media feeds or the entertainment news, and odds are you'll see a piece extolling the virtues of eating bugs.

As if it had to be said again, you should never take our rulers' stated motives at face value. They don't think eating bugs will save the planet, nor do they think bug burgers are delicious. We know this because our betters won't be dining on meal worms. When the daily bug ration is mandated, they'll make unprincipled exceptions for themselves.

It's good to see people catching on to the real purpose behind pushing bugs as haute cuisine. They've seen enough humiliation rituals to know the next one when it pops up.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept, the most commonly cited example of a humiliation ritual was Eastern Bloc shopkeepers being pressured to place "Workers of the world unite" signs in their front windows. If you didn't display the sign and the local party functionary stopped by, there'd be trouble.

Now, this practice continued well into the 20th century, when it had become obvious to anyone with a brain that there would be no global Communist uprising. We know the guys in charge knew it. That wasn't the point. They didn't think the revolution would come if only enough shopkeepers displayed little red stars.

They knew from history that forcing people to publicly state manifest untruths demoralized them.

That's how humiliation rituals work. If you can sap the people's fortitude until they'll willingly recite patent falsehoods, they won't have the fortitude to challenge the elite.

A good example of the Left's current favorite humiliation ritual came across my Twitter timeline yesterday. It's astounding that there are any Conservatives who still think the Left's noises about gay rights are on the level. Yet there they are, publicly endorsing butt stuff while wondering why it still hasn't won them any brownie points with the Death Cult.

The reason for these housebroken Conservatives' confusion is, as usual, their penchant for linear thinking. They can't imagine anyone having ulterior motives, or if they can, they imagine some deliberate mass conspiracy; the SJWs getting daily marching orders from the Central Committee.

In reality, the Death Cult works more like a school of fish. They're always sending subtle signals to each other to produce what looks like consciously coordinated movement.

That's why Conservatives trying to be more pro-LGBT/anti-racist/feminist than the Left never works. They forget they're dealing with a heretical religion, not a bunch of individuals who subscribe to an ideology.

To the Death Cult, a Conservative proclaiming his commitment to gay rights is LARPing with his fly open. He's burning his pinch of incense and professing Caesar's divinity while visibly crossing his fingers. The cult knows he's not one of them, so his attempts to placate them come off as sacrilege.

That's also why Conservatives lost the culture war. The point of a humiliation ritual is to make the enemy parrot your side's moral code. For decades, Conservatives have dutifully performed every humiliation ritual the Death Cult liturgists have devised.

This isn't a battle of divergent policies. It's a war of conflicting morals. In asymmetrical warfare, whoever captures the moral level wins. Accepting the Death Cult's moral framework is suicide, as Conservatives have proven. Beating this enemy will mean rejecting their morality wholesale.


Hecklers vs Critics

I've been getting a lot of requests for writing advice lately. Knowing how to recognize and take constructive criticism is among the most important skills a writer can master, so I've dug this post out of the vaults.


Writers tend to be introverts. Most of us also crave external validation. Add in the fact that naturally shy authors seek approval by submitting deeply personal works for public consumption, and it's no mystery why many authors--and creative people of all kinds--are averse to criticism.

This aversion to criticism amounts to a fear of failure, which is a detrimental mindset for anyone; not just us creative types. Nobody likes being rejected, but unless you're putting yourself out there--and make no mistake; as an author, your product is you--and inviting rejection, you won't get anywhere.

Here's an uncomfortable fact that writers need to get realistic about if they want to improve as artists: accepting constructive criticism will teach you far more than will living in a hermetically sealed hugbox.

I understand that facing your critics can be an agonizing ordeal, but there are ways to soften the blow. Here's some advice on how to take criticism.

Know the Difference Between Criticism and Heckling
Criticism itself is a subtle and noble art. Unfortunately, the number of highly opinionated people with internet access far exceeds the number of skilled critics. As a result, most online critics are really hecklers.

In this clip, comedian Jamie Kennedy briefly discusses the difference between a critic and a heckler (he even made a movie about it). Whether you enjoy Kennedy's humor or not, he has some valid points.

  • Heckling consists of emotion-based, personal insults intended to tear the artist down; usually to inflate the heckler's ego.
  • Criticism is an honest effort to appraise the strengths and shortcomings of a work. Legitimate critics analyze books, movies, games, etc. based on accepted artistic standards. The aim of criticism is to help the artist improve, thereby improving the state of the art.

You can probably see from the definition of criticism alone how constructive critiques are invaluable resources for improvement. If you don't know something's wrong, you can't fix it. Luckily, a real critic will restrict criticism to your work. Someone making it personal is a heckler who can be safely ignored.

Find a Trusted Critic Whose Style Fits Your Disposition
If you're still not convinced that criticism is an invaluable tool for creative growth, consider The Lord of the Rings. By all accounts, the early drafts of Tolkien's beloved masterpiece sucked. Seriously, if he'd had his way, instead of the world's greatest fantasy epic we'd have gotten a thousand page account of Bilbo's 111th birthday bash. No orcs, no balrog, not even the titular Dark Lord; just a bunch of hobbits stuffing their faces and telling jokes.

C.S. Lewis single-handedly saved us from that adorable yet tedious fate. His advice to Tolkien that hobbits are only entertaining when they're doing unhobbitlike things is possibly the greatest piece of criticism ever given. Lewis deserves a Nobel Prize for that alone.

Yet Lewis' true genius didn't shine forth in the criticism he gave, but in how he delivered it. Knowing that Tolkien was among the shyest introverts of a notoriously shy and introverted breed--and since both of them were university professors--he framed his criticism of LotR by adopting Tolkien's conceit that it was a real history and critiquing the "translators" of "The Red Book of Westmarch".

Whereas Tolkien tended to flee from direct criticism, Lewis found that playing along with his friend's fantasy was the sugar coating that helped his advice go down. Brandon Rhodes gave an outstanding talk on how Lewis' mastery of wise and gentle criticism coaxed Tolkien out of his artistic shell. The whole video is well worth any artist or critic's time.

The takeaway: friends who will tell you the truth about a project you're emotionally invested in are rarer than pearls. Critics who can tell you that something you made sucks in a way that makes you glad to hear it are more precious than gold. Seek out both, and thank God if you can find one person who fits into both categories.

Sift Your Feedback
Not all critics are created equal. Not all criticism is equally useful. Learning how to sift feedback is just as important as training yourself to seek it out. Here are some reliable methods:

  • Assemble your own group of handpicked beta readers/first critics. As mentioned above, select for people who will tell it like it is without being jerks. This will take time--probably years--and will be an ongoing process.
  • Do not try to implement all feedback. Doing so will undermine your artistic voice and creative freedom. A solid rule of thumb is to take roughly 25% of the advice you get from readers--even your trusted beta readers.
  • Once is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is proof. Don't fret if a single, isolated review calls your protagonist one-dimensional. If several critics take issue with your characterization, strongly consider taking action.
  • Your target audience takes precedence over critics who aren't fans of your particular genre/themes/mood, etc. As a professional writer, pleasing your readers is your job. Treat repeated complaints from your hardcore fans much as you would critiques from your trusted beta readers. Likewise, if you write nuts & bolts hard SF, take a bad review from a self-described super squishy space opera fanboy with a grain of salt.
If They Really Bug You, Don't Read Bad Reviews
I know of several authors who just plain skip negative reviews of their work. That practice may sound detrimental based on what I've said so far, but there's sound reasoning behind it. Most of those writers already have solid beta readers--many of whom are also professional authors, and they run their work by pro editors.

Besides, someone who posts a one or two star review probably won't become a fan, even if you improve. Your fans are the folks you want to please, and they'll usually point out where there's room for improvement. So you can learn from reading bad reviews, but it's not mandatory.

I'm really grateful that my readers have given my work pretty high marks. Even those four and five star reviews can be mined for useful criticism, and I've learned a lot about my audience's tastes that way. Thanks to constructive criticism from my beta readers, editors, and fans, I've grown as an author and I look forward to improving even more.

To be sure, there've been folks who tried my writing and didn't like it. I'm thankful that they've all been super good sports and have explained their distaste in ways that made perfect sense. But even when someone's decided my work isn't for him, I've benefited when he told me why.

And if this article teaches you nothing else, I'm obligated to leave you with this one, crucial law:

Never, ever, under any circumstances, should you respond to a negative review.

As an author, defending yourself against bad reviews makes you look like an amateur, takes time away from writing you get paid for, and if the review is from a heckler, it gives him the grand prize: your attention. If you can't resist leaping to defend your precious book's honor, you should definitely stop reading negative reviews altogether.

So that's what becoming a professional author has taught me about taking criticism. If you're a working artist, I hope you'll confidently go and seek out feedback.


Policy Rationale

Online dissident circles were abuzz yesterday with word that technocleric Mark Zuckerberg had issued a fatwa against the infidels on his company's index of Dangerous Individuals.

The uproar broke out when alt-lite journalist Paul Joseph Watson discovered an ominous update to Facebook's community standards allowing threats of "high-severity violence" against people who've been deplatformed from the site.

Community Standards

A tip o' the hat to legendary game developer Mark Kern.

Grummz Tweet

People recently kicked off Facebook for being dangerous include Conservative rabble rousers like PJW himself, his old boss Alex Jones, as well as Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, who both happen to be Jews but are tarred as Nazis anyway.

Predictably, Facebook walked back their new policy with a hasty update to the update.

Policy Rationale

The supposed clarification that Facebook's threat allowance is limited to, "aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors," is an obvious fig leaf. These re people whose whole ethos revolves around twisting language.

The same folks who call Milo, Loomer, Ben Shapiro, and Dennis Prager Nazis long ago abdicated all credibility to define "violent actors".

We already know that Zuckerberg and his fellow oligarchs define "violence" as insufficiently enthusiastic adherence to the Death Cult. Here he is bragging about interfering with the Irish abortion vote by blocking pro-life ads.

Facebook's policy rationale has nothing to do with stemming violence. The real purpose behind these guidelines is to make those deemed heretical by the Death Cult de facto outlaws who are fair game for any type of abuse, up to and including death.

The walkback is temporary. Expect even more explicit versions of these anathemas soon, along with their adoption by the rest of the Big Tech cabal.

Our rulers are conditioning the Left to regard anyone who disagrees with them as subhuman. Prepare for the intended results accordingly.