The Curse of Fandom


There are those who describe the fandom phenomenon as the circuses part of the bread and circuses of our age. That's not entirely accurate. Ancient Roman plebs didn't worship the gladiators sent out to distract them from their empire's fall.

In the crumbling American Empire, geek culture has been deployed to fill a different void than hunger or the need for entertainment. Modern comics, movies, and games superficially resemble entertainment, but they're actually filling the role once served by religion in Americans' lives.

The Big Men with Screwdrivers and the Nu Atheists were wrong after all. Kicking Christianity out of public life didn't usher in a bright, sexy chrome utopia. Instead of directing their pious energies into scientific pursuits, America did what everyone does absent Christianity: They turned pagan.

Human beings are wired for worship. If social pressure discourages worshiping God, those with less fortitude will worship trees, rocks, or even plastic figurines.

Religious identity was the engine that built the West, and it's still a major motivating force elsewhere in the world. What has happened in the American Empire is that Christian identity has shattered, and the pieces have been scattered throughout various hobbies.

Which was precisely what the main players in the Enlightenment wanted--to reduce religion to a hobby indulged in the home with no effect on public life.

People had hobbies back when the Church was allowed to matter. The sane ones didn't let their hobbies consume their identities. You might've liked gardening or stamp collecting, but you largely kept it to yourself outside the company of fellow hobbyists or unless asked.

The proper order of faith and entertainment has been inverted. Honk. Honk.

To see how people's identities have gotten mixed up in their hobbies, take a quick glance at the 'gate controversies popping up among various fandoms on a more or less daily basis. #GamerGate was the big one, but it failed due to infiltration by controlled opposition and exploitation by online grifters.

It's telling that every subsequent fandom revolt has enjoyed a brief honeymoon period before skipping straight to the "milked by grifters" stage. "If a man loses faith in God, he doesn't believe nothing, he'll believe anything," is illustrative here.

Few now can imagine--by design--a time when popular culture wasn't partitioned into myriad fractured fandoms. Sure, people had different tastes, but there were cultural touchstones everybody shared, and more of them.

Everybody tuned in to The Shadow. Everybody read Edgar Rice Burroughs. Everybody saw Gone with the Wind.

But a people with a shared culture and a strong identity is hard to conquer, so universal popular culture had to go. Fandom was the murder weapon used to kill Western culture.

This series of posts by author JD Cowan explores the subject in much greater detail. It's a lengthy read but well worth your time if you want to understand the massive snow job pulled on science fiction fans by elite snobs who thought they knew better.

Instead of putting up a united front, the scattered fandoms are isolated and relatively powerless. Hollywood learned the hard way that catering to fans alone isn't enough to make a film successful.

Fandom killed popular culture. It was a textbook case of divide and conquer.

Fortunately, there are creators laboring to forge new culture in the tradition of our ancestors. For a refreshing take on the mecha genre that clears away all the stale cliche cobwebs, check out my new martial thriller Combat Frame XSeed.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


Quintessential Boomerism

Honestly, I didn't think people who still thought this way were real, but a recent brush with pure quill Boomerism on Twitter opened my eyes to the sobering truth that some people really are this out of touch.

Boomer 1

Here are expanded versions of both graphs:

Millennial Earnings

Home Ownership

Boomer 2

Boomer 3

Dear Baby Boomers, Millennials may be immature, lazy snowflakes. They may have made poor life decisions. But a) you raised them that way, and b) you gave them school and career advice that is totally useless in today's job market because c) you turned the West into Clown World.

Now, to err is human. Boomers are hardly the first generation to set out with noble intentions that completely blew up in their children's faces. Great ambitions meet with spectacular failure as often as they yield great success.

Read closely, though, because here is the key difference that separates Baby Boomers from those prior generations and richly merits succeeding generations' scorn.

You brag about changing the world, and you did--objectively for the worse. You've presided over the West's slide into Brazil 2.0.

You hold the bilk of the money and all of the power, yet you obstinately refuse to accept one scintilla of responsibility for the cultural and economic collapse that happened on your watch.

Worse, you mock your own children for following your example--straight into poverty.

Worst of all, you murdered half of those children in the womb.

Lacking a more noble motive, enlightened self-interest alone should bestir you to use a portion of your vast power and treasure to make your children and grandchildren whole. Sadly for you, towering diabolical pride, to which you have blinded yourselves, prevents repentance.

My befuddled interlocutor expressed bafflement over younger generations' resentment toward Boomers and ascribed it to envy.

That accusation is not entirely correct. Envy is hatred of another caused by sorrow over the knowledge that he possesses what you lack, with the desire to see him deprived of those goods.

Most Millennials do not wish to see their parents lose their jobs and homes out of spite. They wish only to enjoy a similar first world lifestyle, which was promised to them but now recedes ever farther beyond reach.

A growing number of Millennials do hate their parents, though. If Boomers possessed an iota of collective intellectual curiosity, they would seriously investigate why their children hate them. As it is, they seem to have chosen the Marie Antoinette route.

Boomers may not understand Millennials' resentment. They may not like it. But neither ignorance nor contempt will change the fact that the succeeding generations they rely on to prop up their bloated retirements will soon repay their betrayal in kind.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse:

Lil' Boomer

Some members of Generation X obsequiously kiss up to Boomers in the hope of getting their table scraps. I call these wretched specimens Lil' Boomers. They're not getting Social Security, either.


Sweden Destroys the Internet


Back in September I passed along Mister Metokur's dire warning that the EU was about to destroy the internet. Now, his dread prophecy has come to pass. By a 74-vote margin, the EU parliament has approved the Directive 11 link tax and Directive 13 upload filter.

Adding extra large squeaky shoes to the clown funeral, a number of Swedish MEPs pressed the wrong voting button. If they'd voted as intended, the margin would only have been five votes, which would have allowed for additional debate and amendments to the directives.

In their panic over the EU's draconian new online copyright laws, tech giants like YouTube and Facebook are considering a continent-wide quarantine of Europe. Not only would users in the EU be barred from uploading content, they'd be banned from accessing those sites entirely.

I'm old enough to remember the dawn of the internet age, which roughly coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Everybody rejoiced that democracy had returned to Eastern Europe.

It's taken less than thirty years for democracy to impose crippling internet speech restrictions that would've made Stalin balk. Perhaps Merkel missed the Iron Curtain so much, she had her EU lackeys put up a digital version.

Kidding aside, it doesn't take a prophet to see that the EU is enacting such drastic censorship to conceal the crimes of their imported invaders and to hide the government's complicity in those crimes.

To those who still think the struggle of our era is between hamburgers and socialism, I direct you to the latest evidence that the latter is less damaging than diversity.

Here's Jim with the feature-length, profanity-laced, yet informative and hilarious autopsy:

My new mecha novel Combat Frame XSeed features monarchist nationalists fighting to free Europe from a tech oligarch nanny state. Get your copy before the EU bans it.

Buy it now!


Bloodlines 2

Bloodlines 2

Late last week, Paradox Interactive "leaked" news that cult hit action-RPG Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines was getting a sequel following a fifteen-year hiatus.

Many fans of the original Bloodlines found the news surprising to say the least. After all, the first game flopped due to the publisher flubbing the launch, and SJW meddling has sent VtM's brand spiraling toward final death.

Nevertheless, it looks like we're in for round two. Here's the trailer.

Being a teaser with no actual game play footage, that didn't give us much to go on. Luckily, some of the more reputable gaming press outfits are on the job.

And what they're reporting lends credence to fears aroused by the clown show surrounding VtM 5th Edition.
We’ve learned politics are going to be core to the experience in the recently announced Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2.
The news comes via an interview with developer Hardsuit Labs and VG247, where Hardsuit Labs creative director Martin Ka’ai Clooney noted their studio is putting their personal politics – including political stances on what they think is right and wrong – directly into the game’s story.
“It is a political game but I think it’s one of those few opportunities that gives us the chance to let people make their own political statement in a way that’s not cheap. I don’t believe you can look at both sides of a political argument without understanding both sides,” Clooney said.
“It’s easy to say this is good and this is bad. But it’s definitely taking some political stances on what we think are right and wrong. In terms of the main conflict what is interesting is it’s one of those truly balanced issues.”
Clooney added, “One of the reasons why that particular conflict attracted us so much was because it’s an inherently political conversation but it’s one of the few ones where it’s hard to… there are valid approaches. The world has to move forward, right?
Translation from the Leftist Death Cult ritual cant:

"Here at Hardsuit Labs, our devotion to SJW dogma far outweighs our duty to customers. Now shut up and listen while we ham-handedly ply you with cheap bumper sticker canards. Love is love! Seattle has no place for hate! No person is illegal! My body, my choice! ORANGE MAN BAD!!1!"

Seriously, the closest any of these cosmopolitan coastal bubble boys ever came to engaging with the other side of a political argument was squirming next to someone reading a Glenn Beck book on a connecting flight from Provo to Portland in 2009.

Bloodlines 2 Presser

I've pointed out before that even the first game, released way back in the more innocent days of 2004, ended up as a textbook example of a SMRT story due to its demythologizing bait-and-switch ending.

Though it must be said, VtMB turned out pretty based and redpilled thanks to the wild card element of player choice.

Troika thought their not-so-subtle nudgings in the Sibling Rivalry mission would impel players to side with the slut over her chaste twin. Turns out they didn't know me very well. #DeusVult intensifies!

Dutch Supremacy
Therese Voerman: Patrolling THOTs before it was cool.

More than a year out--no, Paradox, nobody believes you'll launch VtMB2 in Q1 2020--it's impossible to say exactly how pozzed the finished game will be. You never know, the West could repent en masse, convert to Christ, and get the heretic bonfires roaring in time to save the game.

Failing another Great Awakening/DoTR combo, there's always the possibility of an unofficial aftermarket patch. A similar method reportedly saved the dismally woke Battletech.

Speaking of which, raconteur par excellence Razörfist throws in his two tarnished cents on the upcoming VtMB2 bloodbath.

By the way, if you're in the market for a mech story that's anything but dismally woke, check out my new mil-SF thriller Combat Frame XSeed.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


'Member Moral Relativism?

College Liberal

Any Christian old enough to have debated social issues with Leftists in the 90s and early aughts probably needs an abacus to count how often he heard a basic college Lefty say, "That's just your opinion, man!"

That old moral relativist chestnut shared the 90s Left's affections with such vapid rhetoric as, "Don't try to impose your beliefs on others!" and, "Stop judging!"

Whether the topic was abortion, sodomy, removing the Ten Commandments from statehouse grounds, etc., your neighborhood tackle-faced, dreadlocked Lefty could be counted on to argue from relativistic libertinism. Who were you to denounce others' preferences?

Anyone who hasn't been living on Mars is aware of the Left's diametric rhetorical shift, which began around the start of this decade. Chameleon-like sophistry is one of the libs' defining behaviors, so abandoning relativism for authoritarianism isn't really unusual on their part.

What is strange is how few normal people seem to have noticed the shift. Your PolySci major cousin went from scolding you for being closed-minded to voicing his full-throated support for New Zealand's chief censor as he bans Jordan Peterson books.

The one constant: You're still the fascist.

Why did the Left's abrupt heel turn from social libertarianism to moral totalitarianism largely go overlooked?

The simplest answer is that the Left controls the public Narrative. They've set the Overton Window for decades, and Conservatives trip over themselves to stay within it. The side that frames the debate holds the moral high ground by default. They don't have to justify it.

What, then, was the reason for Lefty's rush to embrace authoritarianism?

Fox News commentators will tell you that the Left thought they'd achieved final victory during the Obama years. They were always petty tyrants at heart. Their messiah's election convinced them it was safe to take off the mask.

There's some truth to that theory, but it's really another answer to "when" instead of "why".

The truth is that Liberalism--the line some draw between "Classical" and contemporary liberalism is arbitrary--has totalitarianism baked in.

An ideology that deifies freedom as an absolute by definition cannot tolerate any external limitation on personal license. But because the starting premise is at odds with reality, the quest to safeguard each individual's pursuit of his personal preferences must result in tyranny.

Once again, a set of propositions that normal people see as contradictory is totally consistent in the view of the Left.

Don't want a woman to commit infanticide? You're restricting her personal choice.

Don't want to photograph the profaning of a sacrament? You're a homophobe.

Don't want unassimilable invaders who submit to an incompatible ethos flooding the West? You're a bigot.

You may have noticed that, contra the Left's former claims of moral relativism, they only ever advocate for certain kinds of freedoms. Or rather, they only ever intervene against one side.

Remember our friends in the New Zealand government, who are led by a self-identified secular agnostic? They just removed Jesus' name from their parliamentary prayer.

Those 90s appeals to relativism were just a ploy--a rue de guerre meant to distract from the Left's true motives and true nature.

Liberalism is a secular death cult striving against Christianity for the soul of the West. It always has been.

Leftists appealed to plurality and denied objective morality while their heretical religion was still at a disadvantage against the Church.

Now we in the West find ourselves in a position we haven't seen since the reign of Julian the Apostate.

Pagans--OK, half-assed sub-pagans--have enough social capital to confidently challenge Christianity in the open. And let's entertain no illusions. The enemy feels emboldened because Western Christianity is in decline.

With the diminishment of the institution that invented universities, you get book banning.

Rolling back the culture that birthed Crusaders and chivalry gets you policewomen in head scarves confiscating your kids' scissors.

Loss of Christian confidence creates a vacuum filled by the Muslim call to prayer.

In America, Christians spent the last of our cultural clout protesting heavy metal records and D&D. It was poor target selection, but that's beside the point. The Lefty media met Christian political action with relentless mockery that convinced a whole generation that Christians were uptight squares.

Nowadays, Muslims could protest daffodils, and the same shills who mocked Christians over backwards messages in Ozzy records would rush to uproot their gardens.

The Leftist death cult used ridicule and appeals to moral relativism to disarm Christians when we were strong.

They'll increasingly turn to censorship and secular blasphemy laws as we grow weaker.

God is undefeated. We have His promise that the Church will endure to write her enemies' epitaph. Western civilization has no such guarantee.

As always, there is one remedy on the table.

Repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Combat Frame Data: Harvester

Harvester Tick

Technical Data

Model number: N/A
Code name: Harvester
Nickname: Space Tick, Space Ape
Classification: transformable resource extraction combat frame
Manufacturer: Unknown
Operator: Unknown
First deployment: Unknown, before CY -2000
Crew: 1 pilot in central cockpit
Length: main body 15 meters; with railgun turret, 18 meters
Weight: 85 metric tons
Armor type: Synthetic diamond armor
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 3888 KW
Propulsion: EM drives: 5x 17,800 kg, 2x 36,600 kg, 4x 38,200 kg, 2x 35,000kg; top speed 5400 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 30, 180° turn time 0.50 seconds
Sensors: radar, thermal, radiation, optical array; main compound cameras surrounding “mouth”
Fixed armaments: double-barreled railgun, each barrel fires 6kg nanomachine packet, mounted on retractable turret; x4 plasma claw, power rated at 0.65 MW, mounted on manipulator arms; x4 cutting laser, power rated at 5 MW, mounted on manipulator “wrists”, x6 mining laser, power rated at 15 MW, mounted around “mouth”
Special equipment: full-immersion cockpit, doubles as regeneration tank; transformation capability, TC/D drive

Combat Frame configuration

Harvester Ape

Height: 15 meters; with railgun turret, 18 meters
Weight: 85 metric tons
Armor type: synthetic diamond armor
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 3888 KW
Propulsion: EM drives: 5x 17,800 kg, 4x 38,200 kg; top speed 3240 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 27, 180° turn time 0.70 seconds; legs: top ground speed 200 kph
Sensors: radar, thermal, radiation, optical array; main compound cameras mounted in chest around cockpit canopy
Fixed armaments: double-barreled railgun, each barrel fires 6kg nanomachine packet, mounted on turret; x2 plasma claw, power rated at 1.3 MW, mounted on arms; x2 cutting laser, power rated at 10 MW, mounted on “wrists”, x6 mining laser, power rated at 15 MW, mounted around cockpit 

Artillery configuration
Harvester Gun

Length: 12 meters
Weight: 85 metric tons
Armor type: synthetic diamond armor
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 3888 KW
Sensors: radar, thermal, radiation, optical array; main compound cameras surrounding parabolic reflector
Fixed armaments: laser cannon, power rated at 1210 MW

General Notes

Two mysterious combat frames appeared from the depths of space near the start of the HALO Conflict in CY 40. These machines resembled nothing seen in the Earth Sphere before.

The first unidentified CF, code named Harvester by Coalition Transportation Secretary Sullia Zend, made first contact at the Astraea asteroid base. Along with its partner, it made a show of force that convinced the Coalition to designate it a security threat on par with HALO itself.

Secretary Zend devised a ploy whereby her team was able to obtain extensive technical information about both unknown CFs. Their analysis yielded startling results. Both machines were composed of synthetic diamond in previously unknown alleles and isomers. The diamond's four-sided pyramid molecular structure allowed it to reform into almost any configuration. Its energy absorption capabilities surpassed those of 1D carbyne armor, and the CFs' entire mass could serve as a capacitor to store captured charges.

The Harvester appeared to have originally been designed for asteroid mining. Its powerful sensors could "X-ray" space rocks to locate useful mineral deposits. Once a vein was located, its four manipulator arms would latch onto the asteroid, while its extensive array of cutting lasers extracted the material.

Gradually over its long existence, the Harvester was modified for combat. Its cutting equipment could already double as potent weapons, but the pilot took the extra step of adding a double-barreled railgun on a popup turret. This weapon's drastically different construction led Coalition analysts to conclude that it had been scavenged from a separate source. Both barrels fired tightly compressed packets of nanomachines which would spread out on impact with mechanical targets and interfere with electrical equipment. Pilots of targeted craft would naturally assume they'd been hit with an EMP, realizing too late that they'd actually been "hacked" by millions of tiny robots.

The railgun's main purpose was to immobilize targets for a coup de gras. Though the Harvester's combat frame configuration boasted the same lasers and cutting claws as its asteroid miner form, the death blow was usually administered by the immensely powerful laser cannon of the transforming machine's artillery mode. Sacrificing its drives and other weapons allowed the Harvester to route all power into a massive laser cannon. In this form, it could achieve power outputs in excess of a gigawatt. Lacking mobility, it relied on paralyzing its prey or being carried by its partner.

The Harvester incorporated even more exotic technologies. Its cockpit was a sealed chamber filled with nanite-infused liquid in which the pilot was suspended. It was speculated that the pilot's body was periodically broken down and regenerated when age or injury reduced functionality below a certain operational threshold. The Harvester's diamond building blocks could serve as computer logic gates theoretically capable of storing all the information contained in a human brain.

I hope you enjoyed the first custom mech commissioned by a Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 backer. There are many more exciting CF designs to come!

If you like what you see here, check out the thrilling mech adventure that started it all. Read Combat Frame XSeed today!

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


Practical to a Fault, Reprise

As a follow up to Monday's post on the arts, and in light of KameCon folding on Vic Mignogna, here's a guest post from the vaults by author Rawle Nyanzi about the Conservative tendency to dismiss art as somehow "not real".


Rawle Nyanzi picks up from my previous post on the continued failures of conservatism with his theory on why conservatives have totally abdicated their former dominance in the arts.
Mainstream conservatives are too practical, and this is why they ignore the arts.
The US conservative ethos can be summed up as: Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Make money to support your family and improve your lifestyle. Handouts are shameful. In following this ethos, they select careers with a practical application that would get them earning right away. It’s not bad advice; you need money to live, and more money is better, for bills need to be paid. With this conventional mindset, conservatives relentlessly focus on “what works,” emphasizing careers like engineering, resource extraction, skilled trades, and other things of that nature. Since these are skills immediately useful to society, conservatives have a reputation of “getting it done.”
And it’s this exact temperament that makes them unsuited for the world of art — and by this, I mean all forms of artistic expression, not merely paintings or installations.
Art is not immediately useful; it neither grows your food nor supplies your energy. Except for a handful of megastars, art is low-paid. Most artists rely on either a job or on other people to support them in their endeavors; “don’t quit your day job” is a cliche for a reason, as is “starving artist.” It requires the mind to break with conventional modes of thinking and spend much time speculating on bizarre possibilities. Art requires one to focus on emotion.
This is as far from the conservative mindset as one can get.
As a result, conservatives do not view the arts as particularly important; to them, it feels like a useless indulgence. To the liberal (whether SJW or not), the arts pose no psychological obstacle since their self-concept does not derive from accumulating wealth, being the hardest worker, or having a conventional family life. They’re fine with being supported if that’s what it takes. They’re fine with making less money if that’s what it takes. They’re fine with not getting married or having children.
Thus liberals have the psychological advantage for art. Thus liberals put in the work to become successful at it. Thus liberals shape popular culture through it.
Though art appears useless, it is quite real — every bit as real as anything conservatives prefer to deal with. People love to engage with it to relax or to gain some emotional thrill, and such things are highly addictive. The small buildup of every little piece of art over time eventually shifts the culture. Though most entertainment is chosen, the mere availability of high-quality works can brighten someone’s day. People like being entertained.
And few conservatives provide this entertainment because they consider art to be beneath them.
It’s ironic, isn’t it? Conservatives avoid going into art, then they complain that all the art is liberal. If conservatives are to make any headway in the world of art, they have to let go of their doubts and do what they do best: get to work and get it done.
No one reads think tank papers for fun.
Rawle is on to something, here. To clarify, I think that contemporary conservatives' temperamental aversion to the arts isn't natural, but is a rather recent ideological development. After all, the days when most movie studios, and even major comic book companies, were controlled by what would now be considered arch-conservatives, are within the living memory of any American over 60.

But the question remains: how did conservatives let their cultural hegemony slip through their fingers? I'm convinced that certain axioms of their philosophy made this reversal of fortune inevitable.
Each of these positions is precisely backwards. Economics is downstream from culture. Speculative reason has primacy over practical reason, because practical reason can't explain which of the two is preferable. Leisure is the end purpose of work; not wasting time when you aren't working.

Modern conservatism has sidelined speculative reason and leisure, and without these there can be no culture.

Support artists who are working to create new, healthy culture. Check out my thrilling mech adventure Combat Frame XSeed.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


Yes, Fire Your Agent


For any authors who didn't think I was serious last time, a reader provides another case study in why you need to fire your literary agent. Or better yet, never hire one in the first place.
We push forward a decade to 2002 when I have sold my own dramatic television series to HBO. The Wire pilot turned out well enough that the project is set to get a first-season order from HBO and my television agent, Jeff Jacobs of CAA, suggests to me that this thing might really have legs.
“We want to package you,” he offers.
“Package me?”
“Yeah, we’ll take a package on this project and you get your ten-percent commission back.  Like with Homicide?
Hanh? “Jake, what the fuck are you talking about.”
Homicide was packaged and we’ll do the same thing with The Wire.”
“Jake, slow down, what the hell does ‘packaged’ mean?”
And for the first time, Jacobs explains it to me: In order that my agents — the folks who held an absolute fiduciary responsibility to negotiate in good faith on my behalf and on behalf of my book — could be players in the creation of the TV project from that book, in order that they could own a chunk of the project itself and profit by millions of dollars from the work I had asked them to sell, they were willing to return my 7.5 percent commission and the commissions of any other talent they represented, packaging all of us together in a happy bundle for the network. Yes, incredibly, to avoid the most overt and untenable conflict-of-interest, they were willing to heroically give back to me a few thousand dollars in exchange for millions of dollars in points on a piece of NBC’s Homicide: Life on the Street which ran for seven years.
“Jake, no one told me. No one said anything to me. Ever.”
There was a quiet on the phone.  Until I asked a second question: “What other talent did you package with me?”
“Barry Levinson.”
At which point, there was no more quiet.
“Jake, do you mean to say that you represented me, a pissant police reporter from Baltimore in a head-on negotiation with one of Hollywood’s A-list directors and you also represented the director?  You represented both sides in the sale of my book and when the low-ball offer came to me, Matt fucking Snyder acted like it was the only offer I might ever get? Is that what you motherfuckers did?”
“I thought you knew.”
“I did not know.”
“Didn’t Matt inform you?”
He did not. Not in any of our conversations.
“Did your book agent tell you?”
He did not.
Then I asked another question: “Jake, do you have any written consent from me on file in which I authorize you to rep both sides of the sale of my book? I will answer that for you: You do not. I never authorized this. Not to CAA. Not to my book agent. I never gave informed consent. I couldn’t. Because I was never informed.”
Had CAA, in fact, returned the 7.5 percent of my commission?
They had — to my book agent, who pocketed it. Quietly. I immediately wrote a letter to that grasping bastard: Dear thief, you will remit all of that 7.5 percent to me by week’s end or I will write up what happened here and have it posted on every Newspaper Guild bulletin board in every newsroom on the Mid-Atlantic seaboard and you will be known for what you are.  Further, I might also contact a U.S. Attorney about a failure of fiduciary responsibility so fundamental that it effectively constitutes the sharing of a bribe in exchange for an agreement to reduce the sale price of my book. Suffice to say, a check to me for the full 7.5 percent arrived within days.
Then I turned to CAA, a Big Four agency that was once fully content to screw me over when I was a stumblefuck newspaper reporter who to their thinking could only provide them with a book or two for sale. Years later, I was now a client about to become a showrunner on a premiere cable network. I had a little more leverage.
“Jake, I’m firing you and I’m taking The Wire and everything else with me.”
“Look,” he pleaded, “I know you’re mad. I don’t blame you. But personally, I didn’t do any of this. I’ve been straight up with you. I wasn’t your agent then. I wasn’t involved in packaging your book.”
No, I explained, but your agency was. And the profits from that are fungible. You’ve been good, Jake. You’ve been fair. But on a lie of omission, CAA — your agency — made millions and millions of dollars and did so by undercutting my negotiation with Levinson and failing to inform me of an absolute conflict of interest. I gotta go.
“What can we do to make this right?”
I thought about that because unlike the fucksquib in CAA’s literary department who should die of venereal boils, I actually liked my TV agent. He had, in fact, been forthright and fair in all of my subsequent years in television. So I explained that the agency had made millions off the conflict of interest and that for a reasonable “taste of their taste” of Homicide, whatever that was, I would remain as his client.
He ran that back up the ladder and came back a few days later: “We can’t do that. If we agree to give you a percentage of our packaging fees, it would set a bad precedent for all of our other packages.”
“Motherfucker, you’re talking about bad precedents? CAA repped both sides of a negotiation without informing me so that your taste of the profits would dwarf mine, your client.  How much money did CAA actually make on Homicide?”
Jake wasn’t allowed to say. Transparency was not an option. Instead, he suggested another path:
“What about a one-time lump sum payment that isn’t officially tied to our package?”
Eventually, frustrated but willing to compromise to keep Jake as my agent, I agreed to allow CAA to write a check for the same “penalty” that I had exacted from my literary agent. Another 7.5 percent of my original commission came back and  yes, Jeff Jacobs has remained my agent to this moment. Oh, I also asked Jake to make his CAA colleague get on the phone. I had some things to say.
I said them, and incredibly, the fiduciary pratfall and ethical void known as Matt Snyder stayed on the other end of that call insisting — after admitting he had no record whatsoever of me being informed of the conflict-of-interest between myself and the buyer of my book, or any claimed recollection of having informed me of such in all of our conversations — that he had done nothing improper, that my literary agent should have explained it all to me.
“Matt — absent any evidence of informed consent by me — that you and CAA proceeded to negotiate with Barry Levinson, whom you also represented, is a prima facie conflict-of-interest and a breach of fiduciary duty. If you were a realtor secretly representing both sides of a house sale, your license would be torn up. If you were a lawyer, you’d be disbarred.”
There was only a small pause before he explained himself:
“But I’m not a lawyer. I’m an agent.”
Yes you are.  Yes you fucking are.
It's interesting to note that David Simon was willing to continue working with his TV agent Jeff Jacobs, even after it became crystal clear that Jacobs' first loyalty was to his agency--the same agency that had unrepentantly screwed Simon and sought to keep screwing him.

Authors have a reputation for naive softheartedness in negotiation that is sadly well-deserved.

You are the creator of the work. Without you and your fellow artists, none of these parasitic agents would have jobs. Even in legacy media, publishers, editors, and agents are contractors who work FOR YOU. You are the boss. Act accordingly.

And support indie science fiction by picking up the thrilling mech adventure Combat Frame XSeed.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


A Digital Tammany Hall

Twitter lawsuit

Having been subjected to Twitter's shadow bans myself, I was gladdened to hear of Devin Nunes' $250 million lawsuit against what his attorney calls a, "Modern day Tammany Hall."
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" to secretly hide their posts, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints, and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes claimed Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019, as he looked into alleged and apparent surveillance abuses by the government. Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
The lawsuit alleged defamation, conspiracy and negligence, as well as violations of the state's prohibition against "insulting words" -- effectively fighting words that tend towards "violence and breach of the peace." The complaint sought not only damages, but also an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he said harassed and defamed him.
There's one major wrinkle in Nunes' plan: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which exempts social media companies from the libel and defamation liabilities normally incurred by publishers.

Nunes' lawyer has an argument ready to answer a CDA Section 230 objection:
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability at all levels, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content -- as opposed to merely hosting it -- that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like Nunes' attorney is arguing that Twitter fails the three-pronged test used to determine if a defendant qualifies for Section 230 protection. Here are the criteria from the article linked above:

  1. The defendant must be a provider or user of an interactive computer service.
  2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must view the defendant as the publisher or speaker of the harmful information at issue.
  3. The information must be provided by another information content provider. That is, the defendant must not be the information content provider of the harmful information at issue.

It looks like Nunes' lawyer is arguing that Twitter shouldn't enjoy Section 230 immunity from liability in this case because point 3 doesn't apply. Since Twitter encouraged and helped develop the harmful content, they're not just platform providers; they're content providers.

On a related note, guys like Nick Fuentes have been pushing for the revocation of Twitter, Facebook, and Google's Section 230 immunity based on similar logic.

The idea goes like this: If you run a digital public square, which Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called his company, you should have two choices. One, you can let all users speak their minds uncensored. In that case, you're acting as a platform provider, not a publisher, and should be immune from liability.

Two, you can actively curate the platform and censor offending speech. But since you're taking an active hand in the kind and quality of content that appears on your platform, you've stepped over a line and become a publisher subject to liability.

Right now, Big Social gets to freely straddle the line. Nunes is right. They should have to pick a lane and stay in it.

We'll see if the pushback against Big Tech gains steam, and which direction it heads in. A certain executive order we were promised a while back would help.

In the meantime, escape to a future where not only is offending speech legal, so is hiring a mercenary to cluster bomb the guy who offended you!

Hope Is Not a Strategy

Buy the new Four Horsemen Universe anthology Hope Is Not a Strategy, including my short story "The Problem of the Qualis" now!


Ars Longa


Hang out around science fiction authors long enough, and you get the sense that they're all crazy.

John Scalzi claims that Donald Trump and the weather conspired to give him writer's block. Patrick Rothfuss and George R. R. Martin have cited similarly temperamental reasons for not finishing their popular series.

The ancient Romans had a saying, Ars longa, vita brevis. Moderns take it to mean that life is short, but works of art last.

We post-Renaissance types get the, "Life is short," part right. But ancients and Medievals didn't restrict the meaning of ars to "fine art". For them, it could apply to any craft.

The equivalent Greek word is techne. That's a big clue that everybody before the Modern era would have put Michelangelo and Steve Jobs in the same general category. Both made stuff according to a standard.

That's really what writing is. A carpenter makes a birdhouse by putting wood, nails, and glue together in the right configuration. An author makes a book by doing the same thing with character, setting, and conflict.

The arbitrary split between fine arts like oil painting, sculpture, and literature and crafts like carpentry, plumbing, and coding is a Modern novelty. We take it for granted, but historically it's an anomaly based on largely unexamined assumptions.

Reading the previous two paragraphs may incite the knee-jerk response that broadly classifying authors alongside plumbers is materialist reductionism that sucks the soul out of writing.

Only if you think that plumbers don't have souls.

The appeal to mysticism as justification for placing fine art in its own airy realm high above the noise and odors of the trades betrays the same Modernist bias I'm calling out.

Ancients and Medievals understood that man is spirit and flesh at once, and thus all of his actions have a spiritual dimension. There is a role for both Martha and Mary. The shoemaker is no less holy than St. Anthony.

Cartesian philosophy, with its crude mind-body dualism, caused a rupture between the mystical and the mundane that's since plagued Western thought. The body perishes, but the soul is immortal, so the soul must take priority.

That appraisal doesn't jibe with the example of a God who holds the human body in such high esteem that He became incarnate.

Imposing a false binary that relegates skilled craftsmen to grunt status while elevating "real artists" has created a class of neurotic posers who perpetually fret about muses and demons. Meanwhile, we have to wait five years to find out what happens in book three.

And because heresies always come in pairs, you get small-soulded bugmen preaching the opposite extreme: STEM and the trades are the only fields of "real value". Jobs in the arts are decadent sinecures for losers who can't make it in the grownup world.

The fault lies in the choice of interpretive key. Too many grope at the arts in the darkness of either/or. The only light that can reveal the whole beast is both/and.

All craftsmen are human beings with immortal souls. Poetry is a craft. Setting up a network in an office building can be a mystical experience.

If you're an aspiring author, ditch the angsty writers' workshop BS, and nail yourself to the wood of your desk.

Marketing is an art, too. Check out my latest martial thriller, Combat Frame XSeed, the hit novel that sets a new standard in mech fiction.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


The First One's Free

Red Pills

The phrase "taking the red pill" has become a bit of a cliche in dissident circles. It's so shopworn that pointing out it's a cliche is becoming cliche. That's not to say the metaphor is ineffective. Tropes are tropes because they work.

It's also been frequently observed that getting redpilled, i.e. waking up to sociopolitical realities the powers that be would prefer you remain oblivious to, is not a one-and-done proposition.

One epiphany can't break the conditioning imposed by government, media, and academia. Instead there's a series of red pills the seeker of enlightenment must take, each expanding his awareness of the truth.

Realizing that the entire news media isn't just biased, but is knowingly and with malice aforethought pushing enemy propaganda, might be the first red pill most normal people take.

Back in the pre-911 days, most Fox News viewers and Rush Limbaugh listeners agreed that the mainstream media had a leftist bias. Of course, the same normies insisted there was nothing wrong with that. The shenanigans were in lying about that bias.

The media's mask has rapidly slipped over the years to the point that most people now understand it's not just a case of undisclosed bias. CNN, The Washington Post, and Buzzfeed are propaganda organs through which our elites wage constant psychological warfare on us.

Newspaper Trust

Becoming aware of enemy action is a starting point, not an endpoint. Once you realize the folks in charge really do have it in for you, a whole slew of other questions naturally arise.

Why do our rulers hate us? What do they want? Is nonstop media propaganda the only weapon in their arsenal?

Consider elitist toady Bill Maher's unctuous micturition all over half the country.

Puck Boyardee

As with all approved "comedians", Maher's job is to perpetually tell coastal urbanites the only joke they'll tolerate, because it strokes their all-consuming vanity: "You are morally and materially superior to those rubes in flyover country. You're on the right side of history."

Maher's brand of compulsive back-patting also serves to salve urban bubble dwellers' inescapable realization that they're essentially parasites living off the flyover rubes' useful labor.

The cosmopolitan jet set's deep, festering resentment over their total dependence on normal people also drives their compulsive need to viciously mock real America's beliefs. It's why we have nine-year-old drag queens shoved in our faces on TV.


The main focus of our elites' diabolical hatred is, of course, America's traditional Christian faith. Hence the relentless push for same-sex "marriage" and transgenderism and the merciless persecution of those who object.

Most people who wake up to the spiritual nature of the current conflict attribute the problem to a sudden rise in anti-Christian sentiment. Another red pill moment is understanding that this is a reversal of cause and effect.

An anomalous rise in secularism/nu-paganism isn't to blame for renewed persecution of the Church. Matters have only deteriorated to this point because widespread apostasy has made the Church vulnerable.

Ask yourself: If a majority of Americans truly followed a robust, traditional Christianity, would the Clown World circus still be in town?

To ask the question is to answer it. Anytime before the cultural revolution of the 60s, the freak show would've been run out of town on a rail.

Here's the red pill that's hardest for ex-normies to swallow: The West's decline is a direct consequence of the Enlightenment thinking that overturned centuries of tradition ca. 300 years ago. Clown World was baked into the Classical Liberal cake.

The advent of Liberalism started the countdown to the day when our store of Christian cultural capital ran out. When a people toss out a worldview based on objective truth and embrace a philosophy based on compromise, fallen human nature takes over, and this is the result.

But that's not the last pill in the bottle.

The Leftist death cult that is the ultimate logical conclusion of Liberalism tries to replace absolute truth by attempting to absolutize freedom. Thus, it's at odds with reality. God is undefeated. Clown world is destined for a fall.

That means what comes next, by necessity, will bear little resemblance to the neoliberal order we've known our whole lives. Clinging to Liberal concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and blank slate equality only holds the door to Clown World open.

Here's the real choice:
  • You take the blue pill. You go back to sleep and persist in delusions like absolute freedom and equality. Clown World marches ahead on squeaky shoes.
  • You take the red pill. You wake up and embrace the fact that Christianity, in its traditional orthodox form is a necessary pillar of Western civilization. You realize that error has no rights and live your life accordingly.
I should have mentioned that there's also a time limit and a gun to your head--to everyone's heads. Either enough of us take the red pill to turn this clown car around, or the West lapses into a dark age--not the fedora-tipping fake kind, the real deal--from which no light can emerge.


Combat Frame Data: XCD-103

XCD-103 Eisenpferd

Technical Data

Model number: XCD-103
Code name: Eisenpferd
Nickname: Iron Horse
Classification: heavy assault combat frame
Manufacturer: Browning Engineering Corporation
Operator: HALO
First deployment: CY 40
Crew: 1 pilot in cockpit in chest
Height: 19 meters
Weight: dry weight 105 metric tons, full weight 165 metric tons
Armor type: “1D” carbyne laminar armor
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 2950 KW
Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 4x 44,730 kg, 4x 23,970 kg; top speed 850 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 36, 180° turn time 0.98 seconds; legs: top ground speed 155 kph
Sensors: radar, thermal, optical array; main binocular cameras mounted in head; Vercingetorix laser targeting system
Fixed armaments: x2 80mm Vulcan cannon, mounted on shoulders; x2 3-tube missile launcher, carry graphene cap warheads, pop up from backpack in use
Optional ranged armaments: x2 3-tube missile pod, attach to pauldrons, can load high explosive, anti-armor, and other specialized ordnance; x2 3-tube micro missile pod, attach to legs, carry spray missiles, anti-beam cloud missiles, and ECM “chaff” missiles
Optional hand armaments: heat greataxe, stored in charging rack on backpack, carried two-handed in use; carbyne shield, attaches to left arm
Special Equipment: A.I. operating system

General Notes

"Father of the Combat Frame" Tesla Browning maintained his reputation in more ways than one when he produced the first 1-Series XSeed for use in the co-opted Project S. In keeping with his design philosophy of adding more weapons to existing technology, Browning started with the original XCD-001-1 Prometheus. He proceeded to add as many weapons and layers of armor as the frame could hold without critically compromising mobility. Always intended as an essay in the craft, the resulting XSeed was rejected as a targeting module for the Roter März and given model number XCD-103.

When members of the Human Liberation Organization assisted BEC in creating a soft A.I. operating system for the XSeeds, HLO mechanic Faust Hayden christened the XCD-103's A.I. iteration Eisenpferd or "Iron Horse" in homage to the heavy XSeed's ability to roll over anything in its path.

Like the XCD-104 Eschaton, the Eisenpferd distinguished itself by carrying no energy weapons. In contrast to the close attack XSeed, the XCD-103's loadout featured a dizzying array of ranged armaments. Its primary weapons were a pair of fire-linked Vulcan cannons mounted on its shoulders capable of firing 80mm rounds at blisteringly high rates of fire. These rotary cannons proved more than adequate for dispatching the Coalition's woefully overmatched Guardian combat frames.

To deal with harder targets, the Eisenpferd could be equipped with up to four missile pods bearing three tubes each. The two larger pods attached to the XSeed's pauldrons and carried heavy ordnance for taking out enemy armor and artillery. Two smaller pods mounted on the legs could load cluster bomb-style spray missiles to handle small vehicles and personnel. Various utility missiles, including rockets mounted with chaff and anti-beam gas-dispersing warheads, could also be fired from the leg pods.

In the event that an enemy made it through Eisenpferd's defenses, the XSeed carried an enormous two-handed heat axe capable of bisecting a combat frame in one swing. It also mounted a carbyne-reinforced shield on its left arm for close quarters defense.

The XCD-103's devastating firepower exacted a cost in speed and mobility. It was the only 1-Series XSeed limited to subsonic flight, and its ground speed was relatively ponderous. These drawbacks left Eisenpferd vulnerable to fast-moving attackers. Browning compensated for the XCD-103's lack of mobility by giving it the thickest armor of any CF to date. Not only could the Eisenpferd withstand a direct hit from practically any conventional weapon, its superconducting carbyne armor could channel one-third of an energy weapon strike into an onboard capacitor of the type carried by every XSeed. This system made the Eisenpferd highly resistant to energy attacks and invisible to radar as long as its capacitor wasn't full.

Since the XCD-103 lacked energy weapons of its own, Browning solved the problem of discharging its capacitor in a novel manner. He installed a pair of retractable 3-tube missile launchers in Eisenpferd's backpack. Each tube stored a warhead containing a miniature version of the XSeed's graphene capacitor. The warheads could be charged from the main capacitor to make more room for absorbing attacks. When fired, a primer charge in each warhead unfurled its mini capacitor and released its stored energy on impact. A fully charged graphene cap warhead could rival low-yield nuclear detonations. Eisenpferd could also bleed off its capacitor charge via less spectacular tunable IR laser.

Despite its unequaled offensive and defensive capabilities, the Eisenpferd's pilot had to keep a close eye on his ammunition. If the XSeed ran out of missiles and bullets, which could easily happen in the heat of battle, it risked being left to face faster enemies with only its axe and shield. This factor made teamwork with the other XSeeds a must.

Update: Thanks to my valued readers, the Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 crowdfunder was a rousing success! I'm making excellent progress on the book, and perk fulfillment should begin soon.

Did you miss out on the campaign? No problem! Pick up the original martial mecha thriller Combat Frame XSeed, and have it read in time for the sequel's launch.

Combat Frame XSeed

Buy it now!


Put Down the Ayn Rand

Wherein author Alex Hellene speaks authoritatively on a subject that weighs heavily on my mind, as well: busting the Big Tech trusts.
Get over your knee-jerk “Muh private businesses!” conditioning and realize these tech giants do not care about the Constitution, fair play, freedom of speech, competition, or any classical definitions of what we call “capitalism.” The Masters of the Universe are unelected individuals with gigantic organizations that have as much power and influence as governments.
“Build your own platform!” “Vote with your wallet!” “Use something else!”
Loser talk! These attitudes are why we are where we are. You can’t just “build your own Google.” The way things are structured are anti-competitive.
And Google, Facebook, et al. have more information about you than even the government. Why do you trust big tech with that?
Oh, right: “Because all businessmen are heroes!”
Put down the Ayn Rand for a second and realize no they are not. They may start as heroes, and small business owners and entrepreneurs–who represent the majority of Americans–are amazing people. But there comes a point in the cycle where corporations do amass too much power and influence and get to throw their near-limitless money around to bend the rules to favor them. Bye-bye competition!
Some call this “crony capitalism.” Others “corporatism.” I call it “inevitable.” Whether the system is a democratically representative republic or a socialist autocracy, the end result is the same.
You may not like to hear it. The prospect may offend your deeply ingrained free market sensibilities, but Alex is absolutely right. Big Tech delenda est.

To those who object, "But we shouldn't give the government any more power than they already have!" I answer as follows:
  1. The government already has the power to break up Big Tech.
  2. Big Tech kommissars are already acting as de facto bag men for the government. Why go to the trouble of burning books when you can have Amazon ban them?
  3. "Business good. Government bad," is a simplistic false binary made wholly irrelevant by Big Tech's ongoing rampage against dissenters.
It really does seem as if their capitalist conditioning is overriding the self-preservation drives of most Republicans--even Republicans widely considered to be outsiders. Consider President Trump's response to social media's anti-Conservative bias.

Just Be Good

Contrast that answer with two Democrat candidates' positions.

Warren FAG

Yang Agree on this

On a positive note, it is encouraging to see both wings of the uniparty pushing back against Big Tech censorship. Hopefully something will come of it.

Reminder: Today is the last day of the Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 crowdfunder. If you want to get the book early and choose from a dazzling assortment of cool perks, this is your last chance!

Back it now!


The Long Shadow

Fade to Black

Lately I've been going back and watching movies from the 80s with an eye to overlooked gems that I'd somehow managed to miss all these years.

A lot of Gen X and Gen Y folks look back on the 80s as a Silver Age--a George Lucas remake of the Golden Age that was the 1950s. Millennials are more likely to regard 80s culture as problematic. They still allowed jokes at homosexuals' expense in movies back then, don't ya know?

What pops out at you once the veneer of nostalgia wears off is how subversive 80s Hollywood already was. In retrospect, it shouldn't be surprising. Despite Star Wars taking pop culture by storm and reaffirming the traditions of the pulps, the studios were still beholden to the 70s hippie influx.

The two 80s films I've watched most recently bring up a fascinating aspect of Hollywood's campaign to propagandize moviegoers. The first is Fade to Black, a slasher flick from 1980, and Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy released two years later.

Fade to Black is a schlock horror film that's way better than it has any right to be. It nabbed Vernon Zimmerman a Saturn Award nomination, but it would have ended up as Best of the Worst fodder if not for its lead actor's performance.

In case you haven't seen it, The King of Comedy is Martin Scorsese's character study/caper film about an aspiring comic played by Robert De Niro who kidnaps a fictionalized version of Johnny Carson played by Jerry Lewis.

Both movies share a striking similarity. Their protagonists are both socially awkward fans of famous entertainers whose fantasies spiral out of control and lead them to commit serious crimes.

In The King of Comedy, an A list comedian gets kidnapped. In Fade to Black, a scummy producer gets murdered, and an aspiring actress is kidnapped.

At first I found Hollywood's portrayal of movie fans as potentially violent nerds puzzling. Then I remembered that Hollywood hates its own audience. Yes, even in the more innocent 80s, film makers regarded moviegoers with fear and contempt.

Dennis Christopher's Eric Binford is the portrait of an omega male. He lives in his shrewish mother's attic, works a dead-end job, and has no social life. There's nothing to recommend him except for his encyclopedic knowledge of movie trivia. Today he'd be moderating /r/movies.

De Niro's Rupert Pupkin lives in his mother's basement. He has no visible source of income, his only friend is a crazed female stalker, and he has a raging case of oneitis for a former cheerleader from high school. His delusions of grandeur approach the level of psychotic breaks.

Why did Zimmerman and Scorsese portray their fans this way? This was the insight that fascinated me. Both directors were showing us how they--and the rest of Hollywood--see their audience.

And they've been telling us since at least the 1980s. The poz casts a long shadow.

To the shameless pimps in Hollywood, we are weak, pathetic, unattractive losers. But they're painfully aware that they depend on us to maintain their lavish lifestyle, and they hate us for it. They also fear that one day, we'll realize they hate us and pull the plug on their nonstop party.

Another question presents itself. If Hollywood is afraid we'll wake up to the fact that they hate us, why make movies revealing their hatred?

Why do open borders proponents proudly declare that they want to turn the whole country into California? Why do intersectionalists openly fantasize about killing straight, white, Christian men?

Towering, diabolical pride is a defining feature of the Left. Like the serial killer who gets a rush from sending clues to the police, the death cultists get off on explaining their dastardly schemes to their intended victims.

It's not like they have much of a disincentive. A defining feature of Conservatism has been its puzzling refusal to take the Left's admissions of its goals seriously.

What about you, dear reader? Now that you know Hollywood detests you as an ineffectual, oblivious nebbish, are you still inclined to pay for their elaborately produced insults?

As a member of Hollywood's IATSE union recently advised:
Make the money dry up.
Stop going to the movie theaters.
Stop using the products they pimp.
Stop paying to be entertained. 
Now, being an entertainer who respects and cherishes his audience, I would edit the last line to read, "Stop paying to be insulted." If you want to pay honest creators interested only in providing you with a fun time, more power to you.

On a related note, the crowdfunder for the imminent sequel to my mech adventure Combat Frame XSeed has less than two days left.

Don't miss your chance to get the book before its official launch and claim sweet perks like exclusive trading cards, signed books, and short story commissions. Back Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 now!

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40