Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40

Announcing the official launch of my mecha thriller saga's second pulse-pounding installment: COMBAT FRAME XSEED: COALITION YEAR 40 is here!

They made him necessary. He’ll make them pay.

Earth groans under the yoke of the Systems Overterrestrial Coalition. Socs enjoy privileged status while grounders languish as second-class citizens.

Student Thomas Arthur Dormio leads the Brussels Service Academy’s history club, a front for a dissident grounder cell. The Human Liberation Organization conducts a campaign of blackmail, sabotage, and terrorism to free Earth from the Socs.

En route to make contact with the HLO, Second Lieutenant Theodore Red arrives in orbit over Western Europe. But before he starts the next phase of the resistance on Earth, Red has a man to kill.

Will the HLO defeat the Coalition? Will Red get his man? Get this action-packed adventure for just 99 cents, and find out now! Perfect for making that long holiday car ride or airport layover fly by!

Reader review

While I raved about the original XSeed (CY1) and its side story (CY2), it is refreshing to see CY40 offer new scenarios and new types of action and intrigue, instead of rehashing the successful CY1, while further developing the underlying 60 million year old mystery in ways that make speculation even wilder.

Of course, the key to any martial thriller is the pacing. CY40 succeeded in coaxing me to trade a night's sleep until I got to the cliffhanger ending. More XSeed is on the way, and I can't wait.

(Once again, I was a backer to the the crowdfunding campaign that funded this book.)


High praise, indeed! If you've already experienced CFXS: CY40, let the world know what you think! Reviews posted to Amazon within the first two weeks of launch are critical to raising the book's search ranking. Leaving an honest Amazon review really helps!

Review Coalition Year 40!

Thanks again to all our Indiegogo backers. All campaign perks have been fulfilled from my end. If you haven't received yours yet, don't worry. It's in the mail.

There's lots more CFXS fun inbound. You won't believe what happens next!

Get CFXS: CY40 now!


The Fish, the Sea, and the Channels

Presenting, slightly edited at the author's request, a guest post from reader Unconcord:

the sea

The Fish, the Sea, and the Channels

Once there was a village on the edge of a deep inland sea. When the sons of the village neared manhood, and the daughters neared womanhood, they climbed the steep ridge to the edge of the sea. There, they would seek fish, the young men with boats and spears, and the young women with rod and bait, and the fish they caught there would leave them fed for a lifetime, and leave them forever changed.

Usually, they came back from the sea with a new vigor and radiance that stayed with them all their days. But some came back haggard, bitter and careworn. Others came back having caught no fish at all. And these unlucky ones blamed the steepness of the ridge. 

“It is too steep to climb,” said the hungry ones. 

“It is too steep for a woman to climb,” said the haggard women, “without a man to hoist us up at times along the way – like a sack of meal. Then we stay on the shore, like a sack of meal, to catch our fish, and the fish we find make us haggard.”

The haggard men, too, remembered how they had hated the exertion in helping the women over the ridge, and regretted the exertion of the hunt, but they kept their silence. They knew these words would only anger the haggard women, and in this, they wanted cooperation.

It had long been observed that there were little fetid pools at the foot of the ridge, and sometimes fish were found in them. They were sickly fish, it was true, that sickened those who ate them, but certainly they were of the same species as the fish of the inland sea. It was deduced that the pools and the sea were connected underground.

Beginning at these pools, the work of the channels was begun. 

First the pools were extended, to prepare the way and also to display their existence to the village, and it was observed that the fish came in. “You see,” said the channel-diggers, “these fish have always desired to swim under the ridge, and now they have the chance.” They were still sickly fish, it was true, but no one could deny that the fish had come into the extended pools of their own free will, and that many more fish kept to the inland sea.

The young villagers and villagers whose fish had strengthened them saw this. Some said: “These channel-diggers have sickened the fish of the inland sea.” But others said: “These fish were diseased already, and if they were on the other side of the ridge, they might have made their eater haggard.” And they could not make up their minds.

“Then we have the remedy,” said the channel-diggers. “If the channel has sickened them, then let us give them broader passage back to the sea. If they come to the channel because they are sick, then let them more easily find their way home when they have recuperated, in the light where they may be seen.” And they began to carve channels above the pool, into the ridge itself.

Now the elders of the village grew alarmed. “If you do that,” they cried, “you will empty the sea itself!”

“We do not know that unless we try,” said the channel-diggers. But they ceased their work, and it was found that the young men and women still crested the ridge to the sea to get the fish that changed them forever and sated them for a lifetime (though curiosity drove them far more often than before to the long sickly pools after they had caught their fish, and then they were hungry once more). In the meantime, the channel-diggers told ceaselessly of their noble work to the children of the village. By the time the elders had died, the children had grown, and many of them had little wish to climb the ridge, and all they could rest their eyes on was the carved notches so long abandoned, and they set out to finish what their earnest forebears had begun.

They carved channels through the ridge, but only for those who wished them. Those who would go through the needless exertion to climb the ridge for their fish, could. Those who preferred not to climb, need not. The division was about half and half, but the half that fished in the channels felt much superior to the other, for they were the ones trying a new thing.

The fish, however, were creatures of the inland sea, and the channels cut through the ridge, boxing them in and choking the clear sea-water with mud, were no better for them than the pools that tunneled under. But this did not raise alarms as it would have in the generation of the first channel-diggers, because three things had happened.

First, it was far easier and more usual than it had been, to fish without climbing the ridge. When they spoke of the character faults of those who ate fish from the little fetid pools, it was fishing in the pools that was regarded as their prime character fault. But when half the young men and women of the village were eating the sickly channel-fish, it felt churlish to call that, itself, a fault in their character, and besides, they were human, and had many other faults as well. Some were greedy. Some were silent at times when they ought to have spoken. Some wanted quarrel at any excuse, and some wanted peace at any cost. It was for these reasons, said the villagers, that the channel-fish had disagreed with their digestions.

Second, in all this recounting of faults, a welcome thing had been discovered. The fish that did not sate for a lifetime were fish that left those who ate them unchanged! The fear of eating the fish of the sea only to become haggard had always haunted the young men and women of the village, and now that channel-fish were so easy to come by, they thought it best not to take the chance. “I will not become haggard,” said they, “and neither need I move with a new vigor and shine with the radiance of a soft candle (if indeed such people exist; perhaps they are really haggard at heart and struggling each day to hide it). For good and for ill, I will be myself, only myself, forever myself.”

Third, the channel-fish were now so numerous that a good angler (and all the village now strove to be anglers) could distinguish between them. The thinnest and puniest among them sated only for a day, but did not, usually, make their eaters very sick, so many of the villagers favored them. Larger ones would sate their eaters for a season, a year, a decade, but then they were vomited up with great suffering indeed-- but many of the villagers thought it worth the cost. And some fish, not readily distinguishable from the decade-fish, were especially hearty ones that would have wrought wondrous changes if they were not drawn from their sea. Even these did not much change those that ate them, but they did manage to sate their eaters until they died.

Everyone who fished in the channels with a good eye and a sure hand was getting precisely what they sought, and it was their own fault if they saw poorly or aimed poorly or didn't like what they were getting after they got it. 

The channels were expanded again, until they ran through every meeting-place in the village.

Even so, some were still going hungry, and lived hand-to-mouth on wild herbs and roots. These hungry ones would most often have tended a garden or a herd for their food in the days before the channels, and through their care gained something like the radiance that the sea-fish so often granted, but the sight of the fish running through all the village filled them with despair. The women among them simply shuttered their windows and their eyes against the channels, but the men found themselves maddened at the sight of fish, fish, everywhere they turned, and not one that would feed them.

The ground around the sea was made of good sound rock, but the ground around the channels was earth, and grew soggy and slippery with mud at the border of the channels. Sometimes, a villager would fall into the channel without meaning to. Sometimes, when it rained and the mud swelled beyond its usual bounds, a house would crumble. But this was the mud. It was nothing to do with the channel itself.

Certain of the weaker fish, the fish that were for a day or a season, grew mad in the channel, and found a taste for human flesh, and those that slipped and fell into the channel did not always come out again. The mad fish liked the flesh of children best of all, and women if that did not sate them. They fed on men too, but rarely enough that it was not always believed that they had been devoured. And the children were not usually missed, for their parents had vowed to be forever themselves, and children gave the lie to that vow. But the dead women were lamented.

This was, of course, on account of the mud the victims always slipped in, and the fault of the mad fish. The channels themselves had nothing to do with either. The channels had now been cut into the ridge three generations. The village knew nothing else. A longer and broader channel might have kept the fish from madness. 

And so they enlarged the channels again, broadening them to the size of creeks and lengthening them until they ran by the stoop of every house.

Half the village was born to sickness. The mud grew ever thicker and slimier. If fewer of the villagers fell in it now, it was because so many of the villagers, awake to the perils of sickness and mud, simply stayed shuttered away, hungry, at home.

Whenever a villager sickened with the channel-fish, another would console them that there were “many more fish in the sea,” but the well-wisher always meant the fish of the channels. The true sea was now all but forgotten.

But there were a few, even after three generations, who had not forgotten. They dammed up, with stone, the channels about their house. They vaulted and picked their way over the channels they could not avoid. They tended gardens, and herds, and strengthened their limbs that they might, with no regard for the beguiling ease of the chasms, climb the ridge one day. They looked peculiar and pitiable to the others, but they did not care.

Most even of these adventurous few had sickened with channel-fish already. When they did crest the ridge, they found the sea drained, reduced to a mere deep lake, and the clamber downward was as strenuous as the climb up. The fish in it had often been in the channels, and sometimes the sickness of the narrows and the mud lingered in them. The craft of fishing from ship or seashore was known to the young villagers only in snatches. It was often long years before cresting the ridge and coming to the sea resulted in the catching of a fish, and then they had to make the double climb, up and down again, before they could cook it.

Yet the fish they caught and ate, in the end, fed them for life, and changed them for ever.  And each drop of water that retreated from their house fell back into the sea, pure and clear sea-water once more.


Swimming Upstream

salmon swimming upstream

Hot on the heels of the rousing string of victories the pro-life movement won last week, we were treated to the usual hand wringing from the mainstream media's tame house Conservatives.

Not an inch of ground is reclaimed in the culture war that housebroken shills like Tomi Lahren and Ben Shapiro don't immediately seek to walk back.

"It's too much, too fast," they say. Never mentioned is the Left's constant breakneck stampede over the tatters of Western civilization.

The kept men of the Right always find fault with how the victory was won, or else they clutch their pearls over what their Leftist friends will think of them as a result. They never spare a thought for the substance of the win itself.

That's how you know they'e gatekeepers. Teammates playing for the same stakes as you focus on moving the ball down the field. Professionals keep their heads in the game while the clock is running. They know there's always time to review what did and didn't work after the game.

There's a reason why behavior once relegated to remote rest stops and grubby shops in the seedy part of town have, in the living memory of most people reading this, come to be lionized in the public square.

By now, everybody knows the death cult's M.O. They steadily drip subversion into pop culture to boil public morality like a frog. At the same time, an army of lawyers and officeholders advance an aggressive legislative agenda to enshrine the moral inversion in law. Leftists in Hollywood and Washington work hand in hand.

Make any mention of trying the same effective strategy in Conservative or Libertarian circles, and you'll get no shortage of deer-in-headlights looks. Propose, say, outlawing fornication and adultery again, and watch self-professed Christian social Conservatives catch the vapors.

The most common mantra recited as an excuse for Conservative inaction is Andrew Breitbart's famous observation that politics is downstream from culture. By this, Breitbart meant that most people's opinions are informed by movies and TV instead of National Review and Meet the Press. Quoting the phrase as an admonition to delay political action is a ridiculous distortion.

When it comes to the culture war, the Right can't afford to be picky. Conservatives forfeited Hollywood, the record labels, New York publishing, and the academy. Insisting that we wait for the culture to come around before implementing moral legislation is like telling the crew of a sinking sub to wait for the pressure to equalize.

God has granted His undeserving flock a miraculous series of victories against satanic foes. Is it any wonder why He's granted so few in recent decades when we insist on giving every gift horse a dental x-ray?


Unmarried, Childless Individuals

Herzl Institute President Yoram Hazony unmasks Enlightenment thought as a political philosophy by and for unmarried, childless individuals who pedestalize consent as the sole criterion of the good.

enlightenment 1

enlightenment 2

These simple, obvious truths will be suppressed until a) married people decide they've had enough of the schools indoctrinating their children and act accordingly or b) the nation collapses under the weight of the lies.

The West has made a 300-year experiment of replacing Christian tradition with Liberalism. That experiment has ended in disaster.

In order to be a valid replacement for Liberalism, any proposed successor philosophy must be grounded in a Christian understanding of human nature and the world. Any substitute will set us right back on the road to ruin.


Moloch and Ashtoreth

Presenting a guest post from reader D.J. Schreffler!


My wife and I were talking last night about the leftist females going on a sex strike to protest the anti-abortion laws (Yes! Practice abstinence outside of marriage!) and other silly so-called protests (My wife said, “The best analogy I can think of is that she’s breaking her arm to protest against the boy who eats gross things in the school cafeteria–it hurts her, and doesn’t impact him at all.”) when I said that the Left treats abortion as a sacrament.
This made her pause, not really convinced. “I’ve heard people link it to Moloch worship, but I don’t think they’re worshiping him.”
“Just because they aren’t deliberately, knowingly, worshiping Moloch doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not receiving worship.”
“But he’s not real! One of the false gods!”
“False god, yes. So a demon.”
She ended up flabbergasted, but unwilling to discard my statement because, first, I’m her husband and she honors me, second, she found it horrifically plausible once she thought it through. She ended up doing some research, and then this morning, told me the obvious (which I had known, but had never put together): Moloch’s consort is Ashtoreth, who is as intimately associated with extreme sexual immorality as Moloch is with child sacrifice.
Pray for those of the faith that are asleep that they, we, may be truly aware of the full scope of the spiritual warfare that rages about us. Once we are awake to the clamor of battle, we can become armed and armored, and wade into the fray. For though we may lose battles here on earth, we have solid assurance that the war is already ultimately won.


Witch Test

Courtesy of a reader from Twitter:

pro-choice 1

pro-choice 2


It's getting scary how this little test continues to work every single time.


Victory Defeated Liberalism

It's always salutary to periodically look back and reflect on one's opinions from a distance after some time has elapsed. Here's a repost of an article from last spring on why Liberalism has hit a dead end.

Why Liberalism Failed - Deneen

According to Notre Dame Professor Patrick J. Deneen's book, reviewed by The American Conservative, Liberalism failed because it succeeded.
Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen has written a book vitally important for understanding the present crisis in Western politics. If this work had appeared two or three years ago, it still would have been of great significance, but coming as it does in the wake of Brexit, Trump, and other shocks to the liberal consensus, its relevance is further enhanced.
But a warning is in order: American conservatives may be cheered by the appearance of a book entitled “Why Liberalism Failed.” But, in the sense in which Deneen is using “liberalism,” most American conservatives are actually liberals. Deneen’s use is in fact the one common among political theorists, many of whom argue that America does not have a conservative and a liberal party. Rather, it has a right-liberal party, focused on free markets and free trade, and a left-liberal party, focused on social issues. The United States, according to this view, has never had a “church and throne” conservative party such as those seen in many European countries.
With their acknowledgement that Conservatives are actually Liberals, The American Conservative writer sounds as though he's been reading James Kalb's indispensable Tyranny of Liberalism. Or this blog.
Deneen notes that liberalism is one of the three great ideologies to dominate modern politics, along with communism and fascism. The latter two have been vanquished as serious competitors to liberalism, which had an advantage over them: “In contrast to its crueler competitor ideologies, liberalism is more insidious: as an ideology, it pretends to neutrality, claiming no preference and denying any intention of shaping the souls under its rule. It ingratiates by invitation to the easy liberties, diversions, and attractions of freedom, pleasure, and wealth.”
On paper, Liberalism claims there are no wrong answers. But it falls prey to the same error as all other utopian ideologies. In the real world, letting everyone pursue their personal preferences leads to irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Liberals then must call on the state to resolve the dispute.

Sure, the whole process is couched in the Liberal language of "government stepping in to preserve the victim's civil rights." But simply using the word "victim"--or if you like, "oppressor", "marginalized group", "bigot", etc. gives the lie to Liberalism by showing that, in practice, some answers are more equal than others.
The two liberal parties in America compete by pointing to two seemingly opposed but factually reinforcing trends. The right-liberal Republicans warn against the dominance of society by the state, while the left-liberal Democrats point to the tyranny of the market as the greatest threat to human freedom. Thus each party inspires its partisan members by fear of the threat the other party represents. But despite appearances, both parties, in fact, jointly work to expand both the state and the market.
 For those of you still scratching your heads over the omnibus bill debacle, Deneen has explained why Republicans never seem to accomplish anything no matter how large their majorities. They're not betraying Classical Liberal principles. Classical Liberalism is inherently unprincipled, and both factions of the monolithic ruling party are following its cynical, opportunistic program to a T.
As Deneen writes, “The insistent demand that we choose between protection of individual liberty and expansion of state activity masks the true relation between the state and market: that they grow constantly and necessarily together… modern liberalism proceeds by making us both more individualist and more statist.”
Here we come to the definitive failing of right-Liberals and the Classical Liberal offshoot of Libertarianism. The theory that individualism and statism are diametrically opposed is proven false in practice, and the claim that the former can serve as an antidote to the latter is demonstrably absurd. A loose mass of rootless, atomized individuals is no match for a centralized authority. Our rulers are well aware of this reality and have successfully used it to quell opposition.

Don't believe me? Look at how the dissident movement opposed to globalism, which scored impressive victories with Brexit and Trump's election, has splintered into a babel of squabbling factions.
Even if one accepts Deneen’s conclusion about this relationship between state and market under liberalism, why should we think that liberalism is failing? Isn’t our great material wealth, our increased longevity, and relative safety evidence that liberalism is succeeding, whatever its downsides might be? Deneen, well aware of this argument, has an effective counter—namely, that liberalism has been “making progress” similar to a meth addict, who has been burning up his body’s reserves, but responds to warnings about his behavior by pointing out how many times he has cleaned his room and dead-headed the roses this week. Those activities are fine things, but they are being carried out at an unsustainable pace. As Deneen puts it: “Liberalism has drawn down on a preliberal inheritance and resources that at once sustained liberalism but which it cannot replenish.”
Yet even Professor Deneen is not immune to Liberalism's creeping tentacles. After rightly refuting the foundational Liberal rhetoric of "progress", he performs the following dramatic heel turn:
Someone having reached this far into my review might suspect Deneen of being a reactionary fantasist seeking a return to some earlier “golden age.” But he is not, nor does he deny liberalism’s accomplishments. In pondering how we might proceed, if we accept his diagnosis of liberalism as a failed ideology, he writes, “First, the achievements of liberalism must be acknowledged, and the desire to ‘return’ to a preliberal age must be eschewed. We must build upon those achievements while abandoning the foundational reasons for its failures. There can be no going back, only forward.”
This glaring example of Conservative epistemic closure brought to you by cognitive dissonance. There is no argument in the above paragraph, just empty rhetoric and weasel words like "reactionary", "fantasist", and '"golden age"'--complete with scare quotes.

Note that neither Deneen nor his reviewer bother to name any achievements of Liberalism. That's because other than the material wealth, increased longevity, and relative safety--highly debatable if you live, say, in London--that they already dispensed with, Liberalism's main achievements have been to expand state power to a previously unimaginable extent. This growth also coincided with the bloodiest century in world history, though that may not be a coincidence.

Deneen and The American Conservative have it backwards. There is no going forward, because as they themselves pointed out, "forward" to what? Matter decays, entropy wins, and the only progress man is capable of making in the end is spiritual progress--a concept anathema to Liberalism. Western civilization is falling into a dark age, and if you're falling in the dark, you want to fall backward because at least you know what's behind you.

You can't build on sand. Returning to a preliberal age is precisely what must be done if the West is to endure.

We all have to go back. All the way back.

NB: One cool thing about reactionary fantasists is we write pretty awesome fantasy.

The Ophian Rising - Brian Niemeier


Abortion Is Cancelled

Crab Dance

Every action has a reaction, as Democrats who've sponsored barbaric late-term abortion bills in states like New York and Illinois have now discovered.

The tide is turning decisively against proponents of baby murder, as Georgia's governor has signed a heartbeat bill that's sending Moloch worshipers into paroxysms of rage.
Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law Tuesday that will ban most abortions on preborn babies with detectable heartbeats, defying left-wing celebrities’ threats to boycott the state and welcoming an inevitable legal challenge.
House Bill 481 forbids abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected except in cases of rape, incest, physical medical emergencies, and pregnancies deemed “medically futile.” If allowed to take effect, it will ban abortions in all other cases as early as six weeks into a pregnancy starting in January 2020.
Kemp signed the bill Tuesday morning, Fox News reports, declaring Georgia a “state that values life” and “stand[s] up for those who are unable to speak for themselves." While pro-abortion activists are expected to sue to block the law from taking effect, Kemp declared it the state’s job to “do what is right, not what is easy...we will not back down. We will always continue to fight for life."
The Georgia bill prompted witches to call for a sex strike against conservative men. Hilarity ensued.

Women's Walkout

The Alabama state legislature responded by passing one of the most comprehensive abortion bans in the nation.
On Tuesday, April 30th, the Alabama House voted 74-3 in favor of HB 314, the Human Life Protection Act, which would — according to the text of the bill itself — “make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother.” The bill “would provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion.” Only the doctor committing the abortion would be held criminally liable.
Nearly all House Democrats walked out of the chamber in protest before the vote was taken, with a few Democratic members remaining. One, Rep. John Rogers, made controversial statements on the House floor about how unwanted children should be killed by abortions now to avoid death by electric chair years later.
Tonight, the Alabama Senate passed the bill in a 25-6 vote. As ABC News points out, this bill is different from “heartbeat bills” like the one that was recently signed into law in Georgia. Alabama’s bill, which now heads to Governor Kay Ivey for her signature, provides no exemptions for rape or incest, but allows an exemption “in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” according to the bill. Ivey is pro-life, and in the past has reportedly “made statements supporting pro-life positions, including bans without exceptions for rape or incest,” according to AL.com, though she has not publicly stated whether she would sign the bill.
Some Alabama legislators tried to add an exception for rape or incest, but it was removed from the final version.

As for whether Governor Ivey will sign the abortion ban into law, even if she doesn't, the state legislature can override a veto with a simple majority.

But anti-child-sacrifice offensive keeps on going! Michigan's legislature has strengthened their state's partial birth abortion ban with a further ban on dismemberment abortions.
The Republican-led Michigan State House and Senate voted to ban dismemberment abortions today.
House Bills 4320 and 4321 and Senate Bills 229 and 230 would modify the state’s existing partial-birth abortion ban to include dismemberment abortions, often referred to as dilation and evacuation abortions. Dismemberment abortion is one of the most common but also most gruesome second-trimester abortion procedures, as it involves ripping the arms and legs off an unborn baby’s body with a pair of forceps. The bills include an exception if the mother's life is in danger.
The Senate voted 22-16 in favor of both bills, while the House voted 58-51 in favor. Every Democrat voted against banning dismemberment abortions.
If signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the legislation would make dismemberment abortion a felony. However, Whitmer has previously promised to veto pro-life laws that arrive at her desk, telling Planned Parenthood last month it has a “powerful backstop in a veto from my office.”
“If she refuses to sign it, we'll find 400,000 people who will and bypass her veto!” Right to Life of Michigan vowed immediately following the vote.
You can't help but notice a pattern here. Democrats sure do love them some baby killing.

As if it wasn't already clear, you can't be a Christian and a Democrat. No one can serve two masters, and the Democrat Party serves Moloch.

Before anyone objects that these bills will certainly face legal challenges from the cannibalistic Morlocks at Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, that goes without saying.

In fact, the Alabama state legislature is counting on a lawsuit because their bill was tailored specifically to make SCOTUS revisit Roe v Wade.

After 45 years of failure, Pro-Lifers may be pessimistic about a new Supreme Court ruling. But consider: We now have a 5-4 Conservative majority, including Punished Brett.

Plus, Ginsburg herself has derided Roe as a based on faulty jurisprudence and warned that it would be overturned.

It is a disgrace that it's taken almost half a century to make it this far. Pro-Life incrementalists take note: Sometimes you need to go for the touchdown instead of this, "Gain 20 yards, lose 10, repeat," approach.

Make sure to pray for victory. And keep these states' Republican legislators in your prayers, as well. They're in for some serious persecution.


Punished Brett Strikes Back

The blackpillers who've assured us that President Trump's second SCOTUS pick is a garden variety GOPe stooge just got served a nice tall glass of STFU by Coach K.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court on Monday, penning an opinion against Apple that ruled the tech company can be sued over high prices in their App Store.
The case, Apple v. Pepper, was brought by iPhone users who complained that the App Store is the only place where iPhone apps are available and that, as a result, Apple has a monopoly on “the iPhone apps aftermarket.” They claim prices are consequently high stemming from the charges Apple imposes on app developers.
Translation from the legalese:

Coach K
A district court decision had said that the iPhone users did not have standing to bring their antitrust claim because the developers -- not Apple -- are the ones selling the apps. Court precedent says that indirect purchasers who are at least two steps removed in a distribution chain cannot sue. Apple also claimed that because they don’t set the retail price of the apps on the store, iPhone users cannot sue them.
The Ninth Circuit, however, said that Apple is indeed the seller, through their App Store. Kavanaugh agreed, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Did we just go through another Mandela Effect reality shift? Because for once, I agree with the Ninth Circuit.

So does Justice Dredd:
“It is undisputed that the iPhone owners bought the apps directly from Apple,” Kavanaugh wrote. He also addressed Apple’s claim that they do not set app prices by pointing out that the company’s practice of charging app developers $99 per year plus 30 percent of sales indeed affects pricing.
“In the retail context, the price charged by a retailer to a consumer is often a result (at least in part) of the price charged by the manufacturer or supplier to the retailer, or of negotiations between the manufacturer or supplier and the retailer,” Kavanaugh said.
Here's Kavanaugh applying what used to be textbook Conservative economic doctrine. Corporations don't pay extra costs and fees. Consumers do.

Meanwhile, Trump's other SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch sides with the other Conservative justices, who are suddenly singing the "muh private megacorp!" chorus with the National Review crowd.

Others have said it, and I concur. The GOP is embroiled in an internal fight for its soul. It's the Ben "You're promised nothing but adventure" Shapiro vs. the Tucker "We won't abandon the graves of our grandfathers" Carlson factions in a brawl for all the marbles.

Coach K. just struck a mighty blow for the Carlsonian contingent by opening the door to antitrust suits against Apple. I credit his Catholic formation, which bids the citizen ask of the economy, "Does it foster virtue?"

Right now, astute readers are asking, "Haven't you said it's the law that should foster virtue?"

To which I answer, Everything should foster virtue.

God is our true, final end. As such, our every act should ultimately be ordered toward union with Him, and divine union is the perfection of virtue.

I suspect that Kavanaugh gets this. Other Republican officials seem more than happy to give tyranny free rein as long as that tyranny is coming from corporations.

Here's hoping more GOP leaders wake up to the fact that the law and the economy were made to serve man, not man to serve Caesar and Mammon.



Hat tip to author Jon Del Arroz for passing along the following exhortation to Christians from 4Chan to reject the Cult of Nice.


To defeat the Death Cult, the Church is gonna have to roll up her sleeves, get her hands dirty, and make some messes.

Gamer and fellow systematic theologian Rick Stump addresses the misperception among D&D players that good is weak and dumb.
Many years ago I had been only DMing for months when a guy I knew invited me to sit in on a game he played. He said it had a ranger, a cleric, a magic-user and two thieves. I sat with him and rolled up a paladin on my first try. I was very eager to play and described how my character rode up to the small country home they used as a base and dismounted, and introduced myself as So and So the paladin.
  At that point the entire party attacked my character and killed him in a single round.
  "What was that all about?" I asked.
  "Paladin," said one of the players, "We hate paladins. Can't stand that lawful good bull."
  "But I thought you were a ranger?" I said.
  "I am! But we're all chaotic neutral - the DM let's rangers be neutral." he replied.
  The DM felt that killing a good person for no reason was at worst a chaotic act, which surprised me even more until, sitting in (I had a spare character because that is the way I roll) I watched this party ofchaotic neutral players loot and pillage a hamlet because one of them only needed 80 experience points to level up. When they were done they even burned the farms and barns. When I asked what they thought would happen to the 60-80 innocent men, women, and children whom they had just left foodless, penniless, homeless, and without any livestock, tools, or weapons since Winter was less than a month away they replied 'who cares? Just NPCs, man'. When I asked them why they never played or liked good characters they were near universal in saying, 'Good is stupid and weak'.

  I was once sitting in with a party, just observing, as the DM ran an NPC paladin who was guiding them. The party was neutral but on a mission from the Bishop and the paladin was the only guy that knew the way. The DM rolled an encounter and boom! red dragon attacks the party. After the first round I quietly asked the DM,
  "Did you forget the paladin? He's just sitting there."
  "What? He would never help neutral people!"
  The paladin sat there on his horse, sword in its sheath and lance rested doing nothing until the dragon breathed fire, killing half the party as well as the paladin and his warhorse. The party, with no guide and too weak from the encounter anyway, turned back. When I asked the DM why he did things that way he said (as close to a direct quote as I can get after the years),
  "Have you read the books? No paladin would ever help a neutral person, ever!"
  "But his inaction let an evil creature triumph! That wasn't about helping neutral people, that was about destroying evil!"
  "The lawful part means he has to do that even if it is stupid."
Note that the evil-masquerading-as-neutral players and DMs had their concept of good formed by post-1980 fantasy books.

As for Rick...
  I had been running my Seaward campaign for 6 years before I read The Hobbit and for 8 before I read The Lord of the Rings. I had spent my early years reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. Rider Haggard, Andre Norton, Le Morte D'Arthur, and (especially) the stories of Charlemagne and the Twelve Peers. Heck, I read Vance's Lyonesse before I read The Fellowship of the Ring.
  The great thing about the books that I read first and most, from the Twelve Peers to the Return of the King, was that they all give a very clear idea of what is meant by good and evil, especially within the milieu of fantasy, be it literature or tabletop role playing.
  The Twelve Peers, John Carter, Allan Quatermaine all shared a few traits - they were brave, they were honest, the protected the weak, and they were decisive. They also laughed, had close friends, drank, and fought. But they also were champions of the weak, loyal friends, fierce enemies, and able to judge others by their words and deeds rather than being bigoted (John Carter not only has friends of all of the races of Mars he forges close ties between them for the first time in millenia; Allan Quatermaine admires and supports Umbopa/Ignosi long before he learns he is a king; if a man is a good fighter and a Catholic his past is his past to the paladins.
Once again, we see the stark difference--not just in quality, but underlying morality--between post-1980 fiction and the pulps/classics.

As for good being stupid and weak, ask the golden calf worshipers about Moses. Ask the priests of Baal about Elijah. Ask the heresiarch Arius about St. Nicholas and the traitorous French nobles about St. Joan of Arc.

Not only is goodness the truth, it is being. Evil is nothing more than a lacking in the good with no positive existence of its own.

Sickness is the absence of health. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Sin is a lack of charity.

This parasitic relationship means that evil is not only weaker than the good, evil is wholly dependent on it.

Similarly, defeat is the lack of victory. Evil can only win if good men cooperate with it through act or omission. Let's act accordingly.

No anonymous comments allowed. Comments by Anonymous will be deleted. Please pick a name when commenting.


Laurel Canyon

Laurel Canyon log cabin

Before his untimely death, the late researcher and author Dave McGowan brought to light a number of disturbing facts about the music industry. Could the psychedelic music genre and the entire hippie scene have resulted from a US military psyop?

I'm not sure. Decide for yourself.
It is the first week of August, 1964, and U.S. warships under the command of U.S. Navy Admiral George Stephen Morrison have allegedly come under attack while patrolling Vietnam’s Tonkin Gulf. This event, subsequently dubbed the ‘Tonkin Gulf Incident,’ will result in the immediate passing by the U.S. Congress of the obviously pre-drafted Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which will, in turn, quickly lead to America’s deep immersion into the bloody Vietnam quagmire. Before it is over, well over fifty thousand American bodies – along with literally millions of Southeast Asian bodies – will litter the battlefields of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
If the Admiral's name rings a bell, it should.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world in those early months of 1965, a new ‘scene’ is just beginning to take shape in the city of Los Angeles. In a geographically and socially isolated community known as Laurel Canyon – a heavily wooded, rustic, serene, yet vaguely ominous slice of LA nestled in the hills that separate the Los Angeles basin from the San Fernando Valley – musicians, singers and songwriters suddenly begin to gather as though summoned there by some unseen Pied Piper. Within months, the ‘hippie/flower child’ movement will be given birth there, along with the new style of music that will provide the soundtrack for the tumultuous second half of the 1960s.
An uncanny number of rock music superstars will emerge from Laurel Canyon beginning in the mid-1960s and carrying through the decade of the 1970s. The first to drop an album will be The Byrds, whose biggest star will prove to be David Crosby. The band’s debut effort, “Mr. Tambourine Man,” will be released on the Summer Solstice of 1965. It will quickly be followed by releases from the John Phillips-led Mamas and the Papas (“If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears,” January 1966), Love with Arthur Lee (“Love,” May 1966), Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention (“Freak Out,” June 1966), Buffalo Springfield, featuring Stephen Stills and Neil Young (“Buffalo Springfield,” October 1966), and The Doors (“The Doors,” January 1967).
One of the earliest on the Laurel Canyon/Sunset Strip scene is Jim Morrison, the enigmatic lead singer of The Doors. Jim will quickly become one of the most iconic, controversial, critically acclaimed, and influential figures to take up residence in Laurel Canyon. Curiously enough though, the self-proclaimed “Lizard King” has another claim to fame as well, albeit one that none of his numerous chroniclers will feel is of much relevance to his career and possible untimely death: he is the son, as it turns out, of the aforementioned Admiral George Stephen Morrison.
That's a lot of talent coming out of one city, neighborhood, and in most cases, house. Zappa's log cabin was a veritable rock star farm.

The Doors' military connection is a weird coincidence. But as we'll see, it's hardly a one-off deal.
Zappa, along with certain members of his sizable entourage (the ‘Log Cabin’ was run as an early commune, with numerous hangers-on occupying various rooms in the main house and the guest house, as well as in the peculiar caves and tunnels lacing the grounds of the home; far from the quaint homestead the name seems to imply, by the way, the ‘Log Cabin’ was a cavernous five-level home that featured a 2,000+ square-foot living room with three massive chandeliers and an enormous floor-to-ceiling stone fireplace), will also be instrumental in introducing the look and attitude that will define the ‘hippie’ counterculture (although the Zappa crew preferred the label ‘Freak’). Nevertheless, Zappa (born, curiously enough, on the Winter Solstice of 1940) never really made a secret of the fact that he had nothing but contempt for the ‘hippie’ culture that he helped create and that he surrounded himself with.
Given that Zappa was, by numerous accounts, a rigidly authoritarian control-freak and a supporter of U.S. military actions in Southeast Asia, it is perhaps not surprising that he would not feel a kinship with the youth movement that he helped nurture. And it is probably safe to say that Frank’s dad also had little regard for the youth culture of the 1960s, given that Francis Zappa was, in case you were wondering, a chemical warfare specialist assigned to – where else? – the Edgewood Arsenal. Edgewood is, of course, the longtime home of America’s chemical warfare program, as well as a facility frequently cited as being deeply enmeshed in MK-ULTRA operations. Curiously enough, Frank Zappa literally grew up at the Edgewood Arsenal, having lived the first seven years of his life in military housing on the grounds of the facility. The family later moved to Lancaster, California, near Edwards Air Force Base, where Francis Zappa continued to busy himself with doing classified work for the military/intelligence complex. His son, meanwhile, prepped himself to become an icon of the peace & love crowd. Again, nothing unusual about that, I suppose.
But wait, there's more.
Zappa’s manager, by the way, is a shadowy character by the name of Herb Cohen, who had come out to L.A. from the Bronx with his brother Mutt just before the music and club scene began heating up. Cohen, a former U.S. Marine, had spent a few years traveling the world before his arrival on the Laurel Canyon scene. Those travels, curiously, had taken him to the Congo in 1961, at the very time that leftist Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was being tortured and killed by our very own CIA. Not to worry though; according to one of Zappa’s biographers, Cohen wasn’t in the Congo on some kind of nefarious intelligence mission. No, he was there, believe it or not, to supply arms to Lumumba “in defiance of the CIA.” Because, you know, that is the kind of thing that globetrotting ex-Marines did in those days (as we’ll see soon enough when we take a look at another Laurel Canyonluminary).
Making up the other half of Laurel Canyon’s First Family is Frank’s wife, Gail Zappa, known formerly as Adelaide Sloatman. Gail hails from a long line of career Naval officers, including her father, who spent his life working on classified nuclear weapons research for the U.S. Navy. Gail herself had once worked as a secretary for the Office of Naval Research and Development (she also once told an interviewer that she had “heard voices all [her] life”). Many years before their nearly simultaneous arrival in Laurel Canyon, Gail had attended a Naval kindergarten with “Mr. Mojo Risin’” himself, Jim Morrison (it is claimed that, as children, Gail once hit Jim over the head with a hammer). The very same Jim Morrison had later attended the same Alexandria, Virginia high school as two other future Laurel Canyon luminaries – John Phillips and Cass Elliott.
Think that's weird? It gets even better.
Before arriving in Laurel Canyon and opening the doors of his home to the soon-to-be famous, the already famous, and the infamous (such as the aforementioned Charlie Manson, whose ‘Family’ also spent time at the Log Cabin and at the Laurel Canyon home of “Mama” Cass Elliot, which, in case you didn’t know, sat right across the street from the Laurel Canyon home of Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here), John Edmund Andrew Phillips was, shockingly enough, yet another child of the military/intelligence complex. The son of U.S. Marine Corp Captain Claude Andrew Phillips and a mother who claimed to have psychic and telekinetic powers, John attended a series of elite military prep schools in the Washington, D.C. area, culminating in an appointment to the prestigious U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis
And the hits just keep coming.
Before his arrival in Laurel Canyon, Stephen Stills was (*yawn*) the product of yet another career military family. Raised partly in Texas, young Stephen spent large swaths of his childhood in El Salvador, Costa Rica, the Panama Canal Zone, and various other parts of Central America – alongside his father, who was, we can be fairly certain, helping to spread ‘democracy’ to the unwashed masses in that endearingly American way. As with the rest of our cast of characters, Stills was educated primarily at schools on military bases and at elite military academies. Among his contemporaries in Laurel Canyon, he was widely viewed as having an abrasive, authoritarian personality. Nothing unusual about any of that, of course, as we have already seen with the rest of our cast of characters.
Think that's unusual? Check out Stills' bandmate.
But David Crosby is much more than just the son of Major Floyd Delafield Crosby. David Van Cortlandt Crosby, as it turns out, is a scion of the closely intertwined Van Cortlandt, Van Schuyler and Van Rensselaer families. And while you’re probably thinking, “the Van Who families?,” I can assure you that if you plug those names in over at Wikipedia, you can spend a pretty fair amount of time reading up on the power wielded by this clan for the last, oh, two-and-a-quarter centuries or so. Suffice it to say that the Crosby family tree includes a truly dizzying array of US senators and congressmen, state senators and assemblymen, governors, mayors, judges, Supreme Court justices, Revolutionary and Civil War generals, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and members of the Continental Congress. It also includes, I should hasten to add – for those of you with a taste for such things – more than a few high-ranking Masons. Stephen Van Rensselaer III, for example, reportedly served as Grand Master of Masons for New York. And if all that isn’t impressive enough, according to the New England Genealogical Society, David Van Cortlandt Crosby is also a direct descendant of ‘Founding Fathers’ and Federalist Papers’ authors Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
There's much more weirdness, but I'll leave it there, except to note that Laurel Canyon lies at the foot of Lookout Mountain, a former US Air Force base turned movie studio.

Was the 60s counterculture a government operation to overthrow America's dominant Christian culture in order to produce a populace of atomized, consumerist, easy-to-control NPCs?

Whatever the intent, that was inarguably the result, as droves of Baby Boomers traded in their VW minibuses for BMWs in the 80s.

That so many Laurel Canyon figures were Army brats could be explained by the fact that it was 20 years after WWII. Everybody had family who'd served in the military back then.

And yet, we must contend with the inordinate number of superstars that emerged from the same crossroads in a shady corner of LA.


Razörfist and Rekieta

The Rageaholic

Ribald raconteur Razörfist, with whom I've twice had the pleasure of appearing on stream, joined lawyer Nick Rekieta on the latter's stream last night to offer an energetic and meticulously researched defense of deceased King of Pop Michael Jackson.

Full video below. Nick's streams tend to run long, and this one is no exception at a whopping 4+ hours. Consume it in chunks if you have to, but it's required listening if you want a counterbalance to the lockstep media narrative of Jackson's guilt.

Also, many thanks to reader Crusader Saracen for plugging my mecha thriller Combat Frame XSeed via super chat.

Now, the mere fact that the FakeNews media says Jackson did it doesn't mean he's innocent. The California judiciary's failure to indict him the first time and convict him the second lends more weight to his innocence. Ditto with many of his accusers' retractions, which largely went unreported, and the increasingly glaring contradictions in the more prominent remaining accusations.

My opinion? I'm willing to admit I just don't know. Like the jury, I don't find the allegations convincing enough to condemn Jackson outright. In charity, I don't think publicly smearing him is justified.


The Old Man of the Woods

Wild Man

A reader who shall remain anonymous for reasons that the post will make self-evident kindly provides us with an eerily intriguing diversion.
Cousin lived with my grandparents in a hunting cabin in Missouri. Still lives there now that they're gone. Their neighbor back then was this old Indian guy who raised buffalo. Decent guy. Told us not to go down paths with certain markers or the old man of the woods would get mad ad throw rocks. If he throws rocks leave. Well, being boys gotta explore and find those markers test it out.
Woods in that area is like a series of clearings connected by game trails (some natural some cut by hand) and off the game trails are briar thickets about 10-20' tall and so dense you can only see about 10' in any direction. Makes deer hunting a nice ambush exercise. Also means you can't see shit like coyotes and mountain lions until you step on them, heh
So we find some of these markers and nothing happens the first couple years. Eventually we start hearing something parallelling us in the briars, and when it was upwind you could smell this like rest stop that's not been cleaned in a week smell. If we kept going after it got close, small rocks would start landing at our feet
You'd also get it approach and get rocks tossed but never come out out the brambles if we'd target practice at their range for more than an hour.
We figured old man of the woods...some stinky hobo squatting. So one time we yelled and took shots into the tree canopy near where we heard it.  Then the brush and trees started shaking like crazy, my cousin got beaned in the forehead with a golf ball sized rock, and it took off through the brush making shitton of noise
After that we'd get pelted with rocks if we waited until it got to the edge of the briar while we were shooting, so we got to where we'd just bug out back to the house. Grandma saw the rocks hit us one time and freaked out because apparently her brother ran into the same thing back in the early 50s and he said he managed to flush it out one time and it was the Beaman Monster,which is like the area's pre-bigfoot name for a Bigfoot, and it went on a rampage through his chicken farm and killed all the birds. She wouldn't let us go out without my uncle being with us armed with one of his big game rifles after that, heh
Stinky Bushman hasn't been back since there was a population explosion of coyotes and cougar in the area
My comment:

Cryptozoology has been a sporadic hobby of mine since childhood. I've studied the research of investigators like Loren Coleman, Jeff Meldrum, and John Keel for years.

I can't tell you what our guest blogger encountered. I can tell you that his account perfectly aligns with multiple data points consistently found in the most credible Bigfoot reports.

One of those points, which particularly impressed me, is the witness' aversion to the words "Sasquatch" and "Bigfoot". He only uses the latter twice, and only to explain the Beaman Monster to readers not familiar with the local lore.

This is consistent with the most reliable and best-attested accounts. Bob Gymlan points out that such witnesses tend to use terms like, "whatever it was", "that thing", and "it". Our guest blogger uses "The Old Man of the Woods" because it was the term he was given by a more knowledgeable resident.

If you're inclined to scoff at claims of an undiscovered large ape inhabiting the forests of North America, recall that the mountain gorilla was only recognized by science in 1902.

Even cryptozoologists admit that 95% of reported Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications of known animals. But all it takes is one authentic report.


Identity Entertainment


We mischievous iconoclasts who strive to throw back the curtain on the subversion of pop culture must face a harsh reality. Most members of fandom like it where they are.

They don't want to be redpilled. Like the dwellers in the Matrix, they will fight to protect the system that hates and exploits them.

Pure intentions aren't enough. The fact is, pop culture has to varying degrees filled the void left by the de-Christianization of the West.

A man's religion is part of his identity. Any aspersions cast on his object of faith are seen as existential threats. Turning my back on Hollywood while friends and colleagues have held onto converged franchises like Star Wars and the MCU has damaged and even destroyed some of those relationships.

Yesterday's post occasioned more than one case in point. Multiple folks I consider friends and industry peers rushed to Endgame's defense. The blow back culminated in a Twitter dustup with fellow author Declan Finn, who's been a staunch supporter up to this point.

In fairness to Declan, it was pointed out to me that I played rougher than the situation called for. Offense was unintentionally given, and I extend a public mea culpa for my lapse in charity.

Since the strict meaning of an apology is to explain oneself, I'm not angry at anyone--except the death cultists in Hollywood. The intent behind these posts and the offending tweets is to alert people I care about to the spiritual danger they're walking into.

I'll lay my cards on the table. Disney is evil. Its content creators and corporate officers include people who hate Christ and His church. Accomplished exorcists like Fr. Chad Ripperger warn that diabolically influenced corporations subject their customers to spiritual attack by cursing their entertainment products.

If you profess Christianity but doubt the reality of curses, you are at odds with Scripture and Tradition. Jesus Himself affirmed that curses are real and effective.

Multiple Disney fans have called me on the carpet for denouncing movies without seeing them. I answer that debating the artistic and technical merit of films made by antichrists who hate us misses the point.

If you caught your friend watching a hardcore porn flick, would you stop to debate the film's merits, or would you urge him to turn it off?

That the question even needs to be asked is proof of the lingering taint of Liberalism.

We are no longer in a world where two sides debate over competing goods. One side is manifestly evil and shouts it from the rooftops, and there is only one choice.

Don't give money to people who hate you.

Error has no rights.

Freedom is worthless unless it leads to virtue.

When so many have integrated darkness with their identities, how do you lead them to the light? This is the needle that Christians seeking to resuscitate Western culture must thread.


Not a Movie

Avengers Endgame

A reader writes:
Hi there,
Came across a blog post you made about the degredation of nerd culture since the 90's. I've kind of been waking up to the evident corporate hijacking of nerd culture vehicles more and more, and now I can't even enjoy watching a film anymore for the most part - I went to see Marvel Avengers Endgame and I was just there in the movie theatre, and for the first time I felt so alone, alienated, isolated - it was literally not a movie. There was no real conflict or narrative. Just a mish mash of images/ characters/ impressive vistas. It was like a shitty porn or something - I can't even explain. And it had this shitty beta humour going through it all an their new 'heroine' is a soulless arrogant excuse for a heroine
I felt like I was in a movie threatre in the Brave New World universe but I didn't have my hand on the feelie mitt. 
I've felt this scourge wash over a lot of entertainment, even other forms of culture nowadays - its crazy but once you see it, you see it everywhere. It's pathetic. Star wars, marvel, dc, comic/nerd culture, harry potter... its not the same, its been hijacked and there seems to be something very odd about it, I feel like everything isn't the same, and no one is awake...
My reply:

Your experiences with recent installments of Avengers, Star Wars, the DC Cinematic Universe, etc. are not isolated incidents. I am in daily contact with people who feel exactly the same way.

Over the years I've written numerous posts chronicling the collapse of pop culture and the reasons for its decline. In the interests of time, I can boil it down to two causes.

1) The West's abandonment of Christianity

Whether or not Christianity is true isn't relevant here. The Christian faith formed an indispensable pillar of Western civilization and fueled our cultural works. Look at Notre Dame Cathedral. It took over two centuries to build. The original architect began the project knowing he'd never see it completed. Nor would his grandchildren. Nobody in the West has that kind of cultural confidence anymore.

Why not? A twisted shadow of Christianity rose up in the Modern period to challenge the faith it split off from. This Christian heresy has gone by a lot of names, and it changes its name frequently to disguise itself, but its core dogmas are that human nature is malleable, people can be perfected through science, policy, and economics, and that personal license must be maximized without any reference to good or evil. This heretical cult originally rose up to shake Christians from their complacency and challenge them to fight for their beliefs. Instead of fighting, most Christians chose to accommodate the heretics and lost their culture.

After winning control of the West, adherents of this heresy devoured the Christians' rich store of cultural capital until there was nothing left. That's why you felt like you were watching a disjointed series of images with no unifying story. The heretics have taken over, and since they have a purely parasitic relationship with original Christian culture, they cannot create new cultural works. They can only imitate and destroy. They are incapable of devising an original vision of their own since opposition to Christ defines them. That is why the situation in Hollywood and all other areas of the established entertainment industry can only get worse.

You might be skeptical. After all, most of the people Disney and Marvel pander to would describe themselves as irreligious. I had my doubts too, until I started asking these people to say they believe in Jesus. They could even lie if they wanted, but I made continuing the conversation dependent upon them mentioning Jesus in a positive light. To this day, none of them have taken me up on it. Every single one of them has quit the conversation rather than mention Jesus Christ in a non-disparaging manner. Again, for this explanation to be true, it's not necessary to believe in Jesus, but they clearly do--and they hate him.

2) Conservatives' surrender of cultural institutions

Long story short, the Conservative capitalists who used to run Hollywood and the record and publishing industries sold out to the cult. They let short-term profits come before long-term cultural influence.

You don't have to look that far back for a perfect example of Conservative betrayal in action. PayPal was started by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Neither of them are rabid SJWs, but the people they sold their company to regularly ban people whose politics basically align with Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.

1+2=Clown World.

Incidentally, if you want to read a sci-fi novel that doesn't assume mankind will "grow out" of religion, but instead bases its world building on projections of actual demographic and sociological trends, check out my new martial thriller Combat Frame XSeed.

Combat Frame XSeed


Traitors Before Enemies


By now everybody's heard about Facebook's banning of Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Louis Farrakhan.

You may not have heard that simply posting links to Jones and Watson can get you a Facebook ban, as well.
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Any account that shares Infowars content will see the content removed; if an account violates terms on multiple occasions it will be banned. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles, and Facebook will remove any Groups set up to share Infowars content and Events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Alex Jones and Infowars.)
But in their magnanimity, our tech oligarch overlords have thrown their serfs a bone.
Jones, Yiannopoulos, Watson, Loomer, Nehlen, and Farrakhan are all personally banned, as are any accounts set up in their likenesses. But users may still praise those figures on Instagram or share content related to them that doesn't violate other Instagram and Facebook terms of service.
You read that right. Not only are FB users forbidden to share links to Alex Jones, the social media giant will punish users for praising him.

Look, we've been over this before. The 2016 election humiliated our ruling class. They've issued strict orders to their Big Tech trigger men to make sure it never happens again.

The delplatforming of dissident influencers thought to have moved the needle for Trump started out relatively subtle. At least by Silicon Valley bugman standards.

Now they've dropped even the pretense of free speech and are imposing a Soviet style lock down across the board.

Why are the online gulag wardens so emboldened?

Because the very Republicans that Big Tech's muzzling campaign is directed against have made it clear they won't lift a finger to prevent their own defeat.


Anyone who wants you condemned to penniless, disenfranchised second-class citizenship is not your friend.

Cabot Phillips Daddy

The response to Conservative traitors mouthing "Muh free market!" bromides is to ask two questions.
  1. Who benefits from letting Big Tech have free rein to internally exile dissidents?
  2. Does allowing 1 help the people cultivate virtue?
Too powerful

Anyone who argues against regulating the Big Tech trusts at this point is either an establishment shill like Phillips or doesn't understand cause and effect.

Big Tech's censorship spree is intended to make sure that the increasingly socialist Democrat party secures permanent electoral victory. Government intervention is the only way to stop them. Failing to stop them, even in the name of capitalism, ensures capitalism's demise.

And let us hear no more of this, "Just be good, and the Big Tech commissars won't send you to the social media gulag!" claptrap. Alex Jones, PJW, and MILO are rather tame civic nationalists. Now just favorably mentioning the first two can get you banned.

The Left only tolerates dissent when they lack the power to enforce conformity.

Traitors like Phillips have floated the Christian bakery story in ill-advised defense of their principle of preemptive surrender.

The Colorado case more aptly illustrates the fact that the death cult will not leave you alone. Quiet, personal dissent is not allowed. They will chase you down and make you submit.

Unless the Republicans who theoretically control 2.5 branches of government find their dormant sense of self-preservation.


PulpRev Mega Review Post

Author JD Cowan unleashed a mega review post featuring a plethora of #PulpRev and adjacent books, including the final book in my award-winning Soul Cycle, The Ophian Rising.
In many ways this book is an epilogue to the first three as the third entry wrapped up a lot of character arcs. This one closes off the final few and adds a couple more to be sure. However, it does confirm a theory I had about the universe since the first book in regards to what this place really is and lets you know why it has been such a struggle to turn the hell around. By the end of the story the pieces come together and it leaves you with the feeling that Good will eventually win over the Evil this place is infected with. It will not be easy, but it will happen. Considering how much carnage and destruction these books have this says a lot that such a positive takeaway can be gathered from only a single plot turn..
And of course, being that this is an action adventure story I am happy to report the author has them both in spades here. Even though we have seen this universe four times now I never get sick of exploding buildings, demonic pits, eerie magic, exotic monsters, and trippy spacecrafts. Every event is punctuated with an action set piece that would leave Chuck Norris giving a solemn nod, and the story moves briskly from intrigue and reveal to yet another escalation in stakes without breaking a sweat. Of all four books this one has the best flow.
One thing the author should be praised with doing is going in the opposite direction of epic fantasy and science fiction writers when it comes to the length. Each book in the Soul Cycle is sharper and quicker than the last with this entry being the shortest and sharpest. Rowling would have learned well from this series.
But the key to the success of this series is the wonder. Niemeier doesn't explain everything. He doesn't tie everything up in a neat bow. The story ends when the threat has been defeated and the main character arc has ended. There are questions that haven't been answered and there are events that still must play out. Not everything is shoveled out, but the story has still ended.
This is a good thing.
Writing tip: The story is over when the themes are resolved, not necessarily when every plot thread and question is tied up.
This is what brings the Soul Cycle from being just another fantasy series that explains everything for my feeble brain so I can forget all about it five minutes after reading to being an adventure that keeps me thinking about possibilities and events that might play out after the last page has been turned. It sticks because it leaves you with questions about the world you will want to figure out for yourself.
It's a feeling a try to get across in my stories, and Niemeier has done it here and made it look so very easy. As a writer I admire what he has done here, but as a reader I am even more pleased.
This usage of wonder has successfully made the Soul Cycle one of the best series I've read in recent memory. If you haven't jumped in by now then what are you waiting for? Get going! You won't read anything else like it today.
The most rewarding part of being a professional author isn't winning awards. It certainly isn't the money. It's hearing a reader say you entertained him and, perhaps, gave him pause to contemplate a new idea.

Anyhow, I of course second JD's recommendation.

The Ophian Rising - Brian Niemeier


The Music Makers

Max Martin

Reader SmockMan comments on a recent post:
I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say Ariana Grande has prayed the the biggest, most powerful demon. Just listen to the lyrics of all her songs. All about destroying the soul of women. Congrats. You created a beautiful dumpster fire.
SmockMan and subsequent commenters reminded me of the now notorious post I wrote about 1997 being ground zero for pop culture's decline.

Like all sectors of the entertainment industry, pop music suffered a marked collapse--not just in sales, but in quality--in the late 90s.

What happened ca. 1996-1999 that brought popular music so low? Did every act suddenly endure a catastrophic loss of inspiration?

It turns out they didn't have to. Pretty much all chart-topping pop is now written by a handful of highly placed songwriters. Three of the most prominent have connections to a particular songwriting group. The man at the center of it all is Martin Karl Sandberg, AKA Max Martin.
Martin Karl Sandberg (born February 26, 1971), known professionally as Max Martin, is a Swedish music producer and songwriter. He rose to prominence in the mid-1990s after making a string of major hits for artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears and 'N Sync. Some of his earlier hits include "I Want It That Way" (1999), "...Baby One More Time" (1999) and "It's My Life" (2000).
Martin's big breakout moment came when he co-wrote and co-produced a majority of the tracks on the Backstreet Boys' album Millennium. That album still holds the US record for most copies shipped, and it's among the best-selling albums of all time with over 40 million copies sold.

And it came out in 1999.

Martin has gone on to write, co-write, and produce hit songs for Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Kelly Clarkson, Pink, Christina Aguilera, and Taylor Swift. He's written multiple songs for Katy Perry, including the irredeemably pozzed "I Kissed a Girl".

Predictably, he's written and produced for GoGurrrl of the moment Ariana Grnde

A quick glance at Martin's catalog reveals Martin's M.O. He writes catchy ear worm beats that disarm listeners against lyrics that encourage conformity with post sexual revolution death cult anti-morality.

These songs are overwhelmingly aimed at girls and young women.

Martin isn't doing his evil work alone, either. He has three influential disciples.
Martin's influence in the music field is also seen in the effect he has had on co-producers. The music site Stereogum singles out three people as his "disciples", Savan Kotecha, Dr. Luke, and Shellback. Time Magazine reported that "There’s a cluster of high-powered songwriters who are based in Sweden, and the grandmaster is Max Martin"
The weaponization of pop music is real. It's due to a coordinated, top-down effort by a small cartel of taste-makers, and it started in the late 1990s.

How much are you willing to bet we'd find a similar pattern operating in other media at the same time?

A likewise small, dedicated group of artists are striving to retake popular entertainment from the death cult grandmasters. Make no mistake, restoring truth, goodness, and beauty to pop culture will be an uphill slog. Men of goodwill with artistic gifts are morally bound to try.

Being a novelist and not a musician, my most prominent contribution thus far is the award-winning Soul Cycle. If you just got stuck in an elevator where you were bombarded with Ariana Grande muzak, the dimension-spanning adventures of a powerful yet feminine and loyal heroine will cleanse your palate nicely.

The Ophian Rising - Brian Niemeier