Divine Attributes

Divine Attributes

In honor of Good Friday, a follow up to last week's theology post seems in order.

Previously we defined what theologians mean by God: the necessary, self-existing uncaused Being that is the ultimate source of all contingent being.

Having established God as the uncaused, necessary Being, we can conclude to a number of His divine attributes.

Here are the attributes of the godhead with which readers are most likely to be familiar, in no particular order.


In theological terms, infinity refers not to unrestricted extension in space or number, but means that God's perfection is unlimited, and that He possesses every possible perfection to the highest extent.

God's infinity necessarily follows from His self-existence. If any other being could place an external limitation on God, then God would in that regard be dependent on that being. He would thus be contingent, therefore not self-necessary, and therefore not God.

Nor can God limit himself, since His existence is His essence, and a change in His mode of being would require a change in His nature, which would render Him not God, which as a self-contradiction, is impossible.


Probably the most well-known of God's attributes but also the most misunderstood. Omnipotence does not mean that God can "do anything", e.g. create a rock so big He can't lift it. It means that He is free from any limitation on the exercise of the powers proper to His nature.

That said, the range of God's power excludes only what is self-contradictory, such as the rock above, a four-sided triangle, etc. The intrinsic inability of the impossible to exist is not a limitation on God's power, much as being flightless does not limit a penguin's natural powers.

God's omnipotence logically follows from His infinity. There can be no limitation on the exercise of His powers because such a limitation would constitute contingency and result in a self-contradiction.


Another often misunderstood divine attribute, eternity as attributed to God does not mean that He exists on a timeline extending perpetually into the future and the past. It means that God transcends time and dwells instead in an ever-present now.

Due to God's eternity, any mention of Him acting in the past or future tense is made only by analogy--there is no was in God. This divine attribute is attested in Sacred Scripture with the revelation of the Divine Name, "I Am."

Again, we inexorably conclude to God's eternity from His infinity, since the self-necessary Being cannot be limited in time any more than He can be limited in power.


In light of the divine attributes we've already covered, God's omnipresence needs no elaborate explanation. Since God is not limited in time, He's not limited in space.

God's omnipresence does not contradict His eternity. Though not limited in time, He coexists with it, just as He, though infinite, coexists with finite beings.

To say otherwise would be to claim that necessary and contingent being--i.e. cause and effect--are mutually exclusive, which is absurd.


It should go without saying at this point that the infinite Being cannot be limited in knowledge. For the same reason that God's power cannot be contingent on any other being, He must derive His perfect knowledge solely from Himself.

Failure to understand God's omniscience poses a stumbling block to many philosophical and theological laymen. God is not like a man atop a high tower afforded a longer view by His superior vantage point. Nor is He like a man at the end of time looking back over the historical record.

God's knowledge is not dependent on any creature, nor is it mediated by senses. Instead, God knows all things causally and from all eternity by virtue of His status as First Cause.

Consider a cellist publicly performing a new composition. The audience only knows the song through the mediation of their sense of hearing. The composer, however, knows the piece more intimately since he wrote the sheet music. This analogy is imperfect, because regarding omniscience, God didn't simply write the sheet music, He is the sheet music.

These are just a few of the divine attributes. To be precise, they're really artificial delineations of God's singular, infinitely simple nature split into separate categories for easier human understanding. Theologians are, by necessity, blind men groping an elephant. But we do know that the subject of our inquiry is there, and our investigations can obtain some truth, however incomplete.


Empress Theology and Queen Philosophy - Encore

Family business called me away from the internet today, so I thought it a good time to re-blog this post on theology and philosophy from way back in 2015.

The commendable Tom Simon writes about the contempt which late Moderns have been conditioned to hold for theology and philosophy:
Only the philosophers and theologians, nowadays, try to concern themselves with the entirety of any question, from first principles down to final answers. And we have taught the humans to regard both philosophy and theology as useless and even stupid pursuits, and thereby cut them off from any possibility of meaningful knowledge.
Mr. Simon has his finger firmly planted on the most colossal intellectual deception of our age. Passing over mangled quotes about a lie's believability being proportional to its bigness, the propaganda campaign against speculative reason has had very real and detrimental effects on Western civilization.

The reason is simple. If you limit your thinking to matters of immediate utility, you remain ignorant of the reasoning behind your actions and the ultimate ends you're laboring toward. Things still get done under such a scheme, but we're increasingly prone to forget that the why of something is as important as--if not more important than--the how.

Professor Stephen Hawking's famous report of philosophy's demise shows how even the most brilliant among us are so pre-rationally biased against speculative reason that they unironically make philosophical statements declaring philosophy dead.

For anyone who's sympathetic to late Modern pragmatic utilitarianism, I've got bad news. Philosophy and her big sister theology are both quite alive--and even worse, from your viewpoint, relevant.

Philosophy sets forth the criteria whereby we can know whether or not our ideas conform to reality. All other disciplines depend on this sole prerogative of the Queen of Sciences. Contort your thinking all you like, her writ is inescapable short of forsaking rational thought altogether.

You can rightly object that, by philosophy's own rules, reliance on reason can't justify itself by itself. What cause, then, have the West's philosophers to trust human reason?

The first principles of logical thought rest on axioms--propositions that can't be proven logically, but which have the character of universal laws that must be true for rational thought to take place. A further objection arises: why not deny the axioms? Why put faith in rational thought?

This is the point where Queen Philosophy must yield precedence to her fellow and elder sovereign Empress Theology, who answers that faith is precisely how we know that the conclusions of human reason are trustworthy.

We do well here to consider that, besides love, few words have been as mangled at the hands of modernity as faith. The old saw that faith is persistent belief in the face of contrary evidence is as insipid as it is misleading. Faith isn't cockeyed optimism. It's not wishful thinking, and it's not self-deception. It is a transcendently gifted way of knowing with certainty. Ultimately, faith is what allows us to examine evidence and accept conclusions drawn from it.

For those of utilitarian bent, it's difficult to name anything more useful to the development of Western civilization than faith. It was faith in divinely imaged human reason that gave rise to the great universities. It's no accident that initially more advanced cultures, steeped in voluntarism and occasionalism, stagnated intellectually while the foundations of the scientific revolution were being laid in the West.

Why the relentless assault on speculative reason? Listing the specific historical-intellectual developments would fill volumes. I suspect that the ultimate motive for denigrating the sovereign sciences is simple human selfishness. The true object of philosophy is the Good Life, which is attained through practice of virtues that draw us out of ourselves and orient our thoughts and acts toward others. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and love is always selfless.

The same goes double for theology, whose Subject (for a person can never be an object) is none less than love Himself. And this love is divine Wisdom. No rivalry exists between the royal sisters. The decrees of the elder confirm and uphold the younger's judgments.

I advise rebels against these great monarchs to recant their treason and seek the wisdom--offered freely at the city gate--that promises freedom from your errors. Theology and philosophy reign whether you acknowledge their authority or not. By casting aspersions on them, you only demean yourself.


Star Wars' Target Audience

Man Cries Over Star Wars

Two cultural observations that have repeatedly been made on this blog are that Star Wars has been weaponized against its original fans and that decadent Westerners are perverting normal pious sentiment by investing it in corporate pop culture products.

Now a viral video has surfaced that documents the unholy confluence of both phenomena. Watch only if you haven't eaten recently.

Mock this video's subject for bursting into tears at a cynical marketing tool if you want. I certainly won't stop you. He's reacting to watching a commercial as if he were watching the birth of his first child.

But before you mock, know that this is how Disney sees the male segment of their fandom. The weepy soiboi in the video, which may as well be the West's epitaph, is Star Wars' target audience.

If you still call yourself a Star Wars fan; even if you're merely willing to pay to consume another Star Wars product, you can't point the finger at this manlet without three pointing back at you.

Clown World: How do they keep making it more septic every time?

Conservative capitalists abandoned Hollywood to the Leftist propaganda mill long ago. Tinseltown is now one of the most prolific vectors of the poz.

If we're to have a hope of retaking lost cultural ground, it's imperative for dissenting sci-fi aficionados to stop funding their own demise, i.e. stop giving money to people who hate you.

Lest you doubt that they hate you, watch that video again. Take careful note of the visceral revulsion you feel at the nu-male's blubbering, and understand that he is Disney's image of you.

Trudging off to the theater might be understandable if Mouse Wars were the only game in town. But we're in the midst of an indie science fiction boom the likes of which haven't been seen since the golden age of the Pulps.

There's simply no excuse for spending your finite time and money on Soy Wars instead of independent creators who share--or at least won't desecrate--your moral vision of the world.

I get that the good stuff can be hard to find, especially with converged media and Big Tech actively throttling any artist to the right of Fidel Castro. Like panning for gold, finding unpozzed entertainment in the reign of the Mouse takes some work.

Luckily, I'm in a position to make it easy for you. Get my hit mecha space adventure Combat Frame XSeed now!

Combat Frame XSeed


Abomination in the Sanctuary

Notre Dame

As the charred embers of Notre Dame Cathedral cool, the internet is abuzz with speculation from the usual speculators as to whether the fire that catastrophically damaged this monument to the height of Christendom was deliberately set.

The authorities have been diligent in the execution of their duty, which is to assure everyone that this is a freak accident. They tell us there are no signs of foul play and pin the blame on some kind of mishap vaguely related to ongoing renovations.

Skeptics of the official line point out that 875 French churches were vandalized last year alone. Most of us have probably forgotten, but one church attack in 2016 claimed the life of an 85-year-old priest.

It bears noting that as of this moment, the powers that be are right. There's no evidence, beyond rampant speculation, that Notre Dame fell prey to arson.

Even if it does turn out that the church was burned down by invaders from over the horizon, or secular death cultists feeling their oats, or government stooges intent on replicating the Reichstag Fire, it's all just window dressing.

Most of the speculators are already drawing the wrong conclusions. "This is what you get from diversity!" they say. The clear implication is that France's--and the West's--main problem is too many incompatible foreigners eroding their culture.

Causally speaking, that theory puts the cart before the horse. Immivasion is the most visible symptom of Western decline. It's not the cause. If the French still had confidence in their culture, they wouldn't be watching their churches burn.

What's the real culprit? It's almost a miracle, of the heart-hardening kind, that more people don't see the root of the crisis when it's staring them in the face. The myriad images of the cathedral in flames are crystal clear visual aids.

In Scripture and history, the loss of a nation's temple is taken as a sign that God has revoked or suspended that nation's charter. Jesus Himself prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. It was fulfilled in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans.

That's the other common theme running through these divine chastisements of nations. The transgressors' worst enemy is chosen to carry out the punishment. This extra humiliation helps drive the lesson home. God is the Lord of all nations and the Master of history. You're not putting one over on Him.

Another important takeaway is that it's the destruction of temples, not political capitals or economic centers, that sounds a nation's death knell. This makes perfect sense to everyone but late Moderns.

A nation's religion is how it explains itself to itself. Culture is what happens when religion intersects with daily life. Temples are sophisticated meme machines precision engineered to apply the power of shared faith to people's lives. Notre Dame Cathedral was the integrated microprocessor of its day.

That's the deeper significance of a temple's destruction. Culture without faith is decapitated. It's as hollowed-out as a gutted cathedral.

Some disingenuous or terminally stupid commentators have called Notre Dame Cathedral a monument to the Enlightenment. The children of the Enlightenment desecrated Notre Dame by installing a "goddess of Reason" in the sanctuary and holding raucous bacchanals.

Secular Modernists' 300-year attempt to replace Christianity with a makeshift alternative has gone down in flames, which the images of Notre Dame burning show. Banishing Christ from the heart of the West hasn't brought freedom. It's ushered in feckless nihilism that's no match for crude yet confident barbarians.

Electing nationalists is not enough. Mass deportations alone will not save the West. Perhaps the burning of Notre Dame really was a freak accident. The lesson remains the same.

We can restore Jesus Christ to His rightful place as King over our nations, as Poland has done, or our enemies will be the scourge that drives us from our former homelands.


Combat Frame Data: XCD-100



Technical Data

Model number: XCD-100
Classification: general use anti-armor combat frame
Manufacturer: Browning Engineering Corporation
Operator: EGE remnant, SOC
First deployment: CY 20
Crew: 1 pilot in cockpit in chest
Height: 19 meters
Weight: dry weight 70 metric tons, full weight 75 metric tons
Armor type: “1D” carbyne laminar armor
Powerplant: cold fusion reactor, max output 2950 KW
Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 4x 41,790 kg, 4x 20,910 kg, 2x 12,000 kg; top speed 3200 kph; maneuvering thrusters: 21, 180° turn time 0.85 seconds; legs: top ground speed 195 kph
Sensors: radar, thermal, optical array; main binocular cameras mounted in head; Vercingetorix laser targeting system
Fixed armaments: 2x plasma sword, power rated at 0.51 MW, stored in recharge rack on back, hand-carried in use; variable energy cascade shotgun, stored on back, powered by reactor/capacitor contacts in fingers, hand-carried in use
Special Equipment: nuclear self-detonation device

General Notes

While the HLO's resistance to the Coalition was still in its infancy, combat frame magnate Tesla Browning devised the first new XSeed in 18 years. His goal was twofold: 1) to test theoretical Project S concepts, 2) as a fail-safe should a later product of Project S fall into the wrong hands. This second aim would plant the seed of a bitter irony.

A staunch proponent of the "Use what you have," school of engineering, Browning started with the venerable first XSeed, the XCD-001-1. He added a nominally more powerful propulsion system and a frankly overpowered One Series generator planned for later Project S XSeeds. Despite its added weight, the XCD-100 featured only slightly reduced performance compared to the Prometheus.

Like all XSeeds, the XCD-100 was equipped with "1D" laminar carbyne armor. These layered sheets of monofilament carbon could shrug off most ballistic attacks and channel one-third of an energy attack into the CF's onboard capacitor. In an improvement borrowed from Zane Dellister's XSeed Dead Drop, the XCD-100 could power its weapons directly from its reactor or its capacitor, drastically increasing its staying power on the battlefield.

The XCD-100 retained the XCD-001-1's standard pair of plasma swords. Instead of a plasma rifle, Browning continued his habit of modifying legacy equipment with new weapons. In this case, he designed an energy "shotgun" which fired a variable proton discharge capable of destabilizing the molecular structures of carbon allotropes. Affected carbon molecules would fly apart with explosive force, and the effect could cascade to carbon-bearing structures in contact with or close proximity to the initial target.

Other XSeeds, with their carbyne and graphene components, were the XCD-100's natural prey. Browning intended the shotgun-toting CF as a predator from the start, kept in his arsenal as a last resort in case the Coalition should steal a later XSeed or manufacture one of their own.

As a One Series XSeed, the XCD-100 also carried the advanced Vercingetorix laser targeting system. It was never considered as the main targeting module for the Roter März, but it could communicate with other XSeeds of its series via laser "opticomm".

In contrast to later One Series XSeeds, the XCD-100 did not have an A.I. operating system, since a workable alternative to Max Darving's Prometheus strong A.I. wouldn't be developed until CY 40. The 100 did boast a special feature that its later brethren lacked: a nuclear self-detonation device meant to annihilate the XSeed rather than allow the nightmare scenario of the SOC acquiring it.

That nightmare scenario almost came to pass due to a series of mishaps in CY 20. An unmarked BEC transport returning the XCD-100 from Browning's black testing site in the Metis debris field met with a freak accident and crashed in China's Taklamakan Desert. A crew of former EGE soldiers-turned-scavengers led by Captain Spencer Sheridan found the crashed transport with all aboard killed. They eagerly took the XSeed as salvage, unaware that they'd opened Pandora's box.

Upon learning that his wife Dorothy had been aboard the missing transport, Project S designer Zane Dellister returned to Earth in the prototype fighter from which the XCD-102 Emancipator would descend. He hoped to use his fighter's Vercingetorix system to track the radar-invisible shuttle but instead found the XCD-100 with Sheridan and his men. An altercation between Dellister and Sheridan was preempted by the arrival of a Coalition recon squad supported by a sizable CF force.

Aided by another BEC team led by Jean-Claude du Lione and a small detachment of Wehrbund Bavaria, Zane and the EGE remnants wiped out the Soc forces. But word of a second, even stronger Coalition force soon reached the uneasy allies. Arrangements were made to evac allied personnel to Browning's satellite, but it was deemed necessary to destroy both XSeed test types with their nuclear detonators. Sheridan's right hand man volunteered to pilot the XCD-100 into the desert and set its nuclear self-detonator while the others escaped. Meanwhile, Zane unilaterally decided to sortie in his fighter against the larger Soc force and cover his friends' retreat.

The second Soc force was wiped out in a conflagration consisting of at least one and probably two nuclear blasts. Jean-Claude, Sheridan, and his men safely reached the BEC satellite. Neither Sheridan's first mate nor Zane Dellister were ever heard from again.

Combat Frame XSeed


When America Died

Each day, more people wake up to the fact that, "How can we save America?" is a pointless question. America is already a corpse. Many of us have finally noticed that it's stopped twitching.

A better question is, "When did America die?"

Was it at the start of this year when Trump signed the spending bill?

What about George W. Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, allegedly a response to 9/11, which kicked off US involvement in the Forever War?

Was it in 1998, when Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate?

How about Reagan's 1986 amnesty?

For that matter, what about the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965?

Or all the excesses of FDR's imperial style presidency?

1920 was the year when American men inexplicably gave women the franchise.

What about Wilson involving America in World War I?

Was it in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment?

Many mark America's time of death as 1861, when the Civil War killed the understanding of the United States as a voluntary union and facilitated her transformation into an international empire.

Was it in 1794, when the US government under the fledgling Constitution deployed an army against its own citizens, many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans--for protesting a tax similar to those they'd rebelled against Britain over?

Was it in 1789, when that same Constitution based not on eternal truth but on worldly compromise, took effect?

Taking a long view of history shows that America's death was not a single, violent event. It was the work of slow poison corroding the national fabric over years, even centuries.

And the poison was baked into the cake from the start--at least from the start of the United States as a political entity.

Most of you will have heard by now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested yesterday. Those who support his arrest decry him as an enemy of the United States. Meanwhile, his supporters lament his incarceration as a blow against free speech.

But America was already long dead before Assange leaked any secrets.

More so freedom of speech, which was devised by practitioners of Enlightenment realpolitik to hoodwink Christians into unilaterally disarming themselves.

What we're seeing are the inevitable wages of Liberalism. A political system based on an attempt to replace absolute good with absolute freedom can last a while in a society with a largely homogeneous demographic, cultural, and religious makeup. We have not inhabited such a society for a while.

There is no putting Humpty Dumpty back together. Nor should we want to. Recreating America ca. 1955 would eventually land us right back in Clown World.

Providence will soon give us the chance to start again and avoid the mistakes of the past. We can build a new, sane order founded on immutable truth. But first enough of us must let go of the homeland where we grew up, and which is just as lost as Atlantis.

If we let go of the past, we can build a future where the rhythm of life harmonizes with human nature, where the state and the market exist to serve man, and where the common good is upheld.

The last black pill has turned out to be the ultimate white pill after all.


Proof From Atheist Absurdity

Atheist Church

Over at John C. Wright's blog, Basic atheist Ilja Deifts copiously demonstrates why no one takes atheism seriously anymore.

The verbal onanist spews quite a torrent of sophistic effluvium, so I'll just hit the high notes from his smug, effeminate efforts to rebut Mr. Wright's argument against an infinite regress.

First up, our very own D.J. weighs in.

As always, an #IFuckingLoveScience! type retreats into intellectual nihilism rather than confront the reality of You Know Who. Philosophical illiterates like Deifts fear the light so much that they'll plunge us into a dark age to escape it.

Enter JCW.

It looks like John's laser scalpel logic might have cut through the fog dimming Deifts' intellect.

I spoke too soon. The cool, rational atheist who spends hours obsessing over the God he doesn't believe in on the internet just can't help himself. And once again, he undermines his own position.

Before making a rookie category error.

JCW delivers the coup de grace.

Atheism briefly gained some traction in the previous decade by plying the gullible with a world where they'd be free to indulge their vices with impunity. Their gains evaporated when even the less astute realized it was also a world without accumulated knowledge, electricity, or indoor plumbing.

Having cataloged so much of it lately, I'm tempted to cite internet atheists' sheer absurdity as a proof for God.


A Proof for God

Creation of Adam

Based on reader feedback from Monday's post on the definition of God, presenting a proof for God's existence seemed in order. Here's the salient excerpt from a previous post that dealt with the subject.

Defining God

The first obstacle that must be surmounted is the generally debased state of contemporary philosophy and language itself. Let's start by defining the key term God, as far as is possible for limited beings.

When Christians--and some theist philosophers like Aristotle--say God, we don't mean an old man on a mountaintop composing a global naughty/nice list when he's not conjuring boulders he can't lift. Such a being would fall into the category of a creature, albeit a powerful creature, existing within the material, temporal order.

What we mean by God is the uncreated, all-powerful, and absolute Being who transcends the created order.

Proving God's Existence

Anyone who says God's existence can't be proven is either ignorant or lying. The deception usually lies in moving the goalposts regarding what constitutes evidence. Materialists are fond of demanding physical proof of God while they themselves required no physical proof for materialism.

The claim that God's existence can't be proven contains another subtle a priori bias. It assumes that God exists in the same way that a hydrogen atom, a pencil, or an aardvark exists; that is, contingently within the order of creation. God does not have existence per se. It's more accurate to say that God is Being. The Bible sees eye to eye with Aristotle here. "I Am that I Am."

In truth, absolute, uncaused, necessary Being is self-explanatory. The physical universe is more in need of an explanation--both from its origins and at every moment--than the eternal, transcendent God.

Christians are sometimes accused of begging the question by positing a self-necessary Being from the start and declaring God's existence a fait accompli. That accusation gets the process backwards. Theologians and philosophers start from evidence gathered through observation, experience, and reason and conclude to absolute Being.

The most elegant and time-tested arguments for absolute Being are the cosmological arguments refined by St. Thomas Aquinas. Moderns and Postmoderns will glibly scoff that these arguments have long been discredited. But each attempt to refute the classical arguments from cosmology, such as David Hume's, is revealed as a straw man under scrutiny.

Here's a common cosmological argument. An apple ripens on a tree branch. That means the apple had the potential to move from unripeness to ripeness, and that potential was put into act. We can rightly ask where the impetus to actualize that potential came from. Apples aren't self-sufficient. They need water, sunlight, and a host of other conditions to grow. You can try locating the source of the apple's actualization in any or all of these contingencies, but that just kicks the can a little farther down the road since water, the sun, etc. all contain potentialities requiring external contingencies to actualize.

Positing that it's contingent beings all the way down doesn't do any good. That just gets you an infinite train of boxcars with no locomotive. Such a train would be incapable of motion. Similarly, an infinite chain of contingent causality could never move the apple from unripeness to ripeness.

[Ed. Why not? Because there would be an infinite number of preceding steps that would have to be completed before the apple could ripen. But by definition, an infinite series of steps can never be completed.]

We do see apples that ripen and myriad other examples of actualized potential, yet an infinite chain of contingent beings would be absurd. The only logical conclusion is that a being which is pure act with no unrealized potential is the ultimate source of all being. Since existing potentially instead of in actuality is a limitation on being, that which is pure act must be unlimited being and is therefore Being itself. And that is what Christians call God.


I'm Not Saying It's Demons...

In all the years I've run this blog, nothing I've written has triggered the Leftist death cult more than my observation that their heretical religion is demonically informed and motivated.

Here's a comment that recently showed up out of the blue on a post I wrote almost four years ago.

Note the result of my little demonic activity check. The anon who went to the trouble of digging up a post from 2015 just to leave a mocking comment suddenly falls silent when I ask him to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. This wasn't the last instance of that phenomenon.

A reference to the same post from 2015 appears in a 2017 post by a blogger and Hugo nominee who calls himself Camestros Felapton.

16th Century

Camestros wants everyone to know that he had a hearty laugh over my warning that Leftists show signs of demonic obsession. I clearly don't know that it's Current Year. Anyway, he isn't bothered by superstitious hocus pocus.

But then, just four days after the drive-by comment on my old demonic activity post, Camestros himself showed up to troll the comments.

Camestros Felapton1

Camestros Felapton2

That's him performing Exorcist style contortions to deny me the satisfaction of hearing him admit that  this shape is a triangle:

blue triangle
And note that he specifically won't admit it to me. He has no problem calling the triangle by its right name in his first comment in the second image, which was a reply to someone else in the same thread.

I went ahead and applied the test.

2 choices

Suddenly the trolling stops. It's like flipping a switch! A pattern is starting to emerge here.

SJWs may always lie, but even though they have no problem running their mouths when it comes to snarky sniping at normal people, they can't bring themselves to profess faith in You Know Who, not even in jest.

Guess what an aversion to holy things is a sign of.

By the way, the name of the tipster who alerted Camestros to my post rings a bell. Why does the name Doris V. Sutherland sound familiar?

Oh, yeah. "Doris" is a six-foot-tall cyberstalking tranny.

Drag Queen Story Time

Can't imagine why an actually mentally ill cyberstalker would take issue with me pointing out the rampant demonic influence on the Left.

By now everyone knows that the slippery slope is real. What the death cult vehemently denies one day, they violently enforce the next. Just as with butt marriage and child trannyfreakism, your celebration of and participation in open satanism will soon be legally mandated.

Free market worship and the NAP are no match for the twisted religion of conquest that is the current Left. Wake up, repent, and believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has authority over demons.


What We Talk About When We Talk About God


Over the weekend several readers asked me to do a dedicated theology post. I'm not entirely convinced they know what they're asking for. Western culture is now so estranged from basic theological knowledge--purposefully, it bears noting--that most people don't even know what theology is. Of those who fancy they have some idea, most think it's a curious branch of philosophy wherein old men in silly robes endlessly debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

To disabuse you of that notion, angelology is a separate discipline. Nor are questions of Petrine primacy or congregational structure theology in the strict sense. Those are ecclesiological issues. Thought experiments about whether or not a Christian can lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in his attic aren't theology, either. That's Christian moral philosophy. Even the study of Christ's saving work is soteriology, not theology per se.

These opening paragraphs do provide an introduction to the key method of theology, which by necessity begins with what its subject is not.

What is theology, then? Theology is the science of obtaining true knowledge with certainty about God. In its pure sense, theological inquiry properly deals with the godhead itself.

That means today we won't be urging absentee pastors to defy Susan from the parish council, shaming Millennial women for browsing SnapChat in church, or commanding the demons riding SJWs to disclose their names. We'll have plenty of time for all that later.

Today I thought we'd wade into the shallows before diving in the deep end. Because the academy has been asleep at the wheel for 300 years, almost everyone on the internet is so theologically illiterate, if we mapped their theological literacy to real literacy, they'd be writing their names in finger paint--with multiple misspellings.

Let's start with the most basic and vital definition. What is the meaning of God? Specifically, what do theologians mean by God?

The meaning of God is a deceptively contentious subject. The whole of modern atheism is really just a word game that arbitrarily ignores the consistent understanding shared for over 2000 years and substitutes a handy tackling dummy.

First we need to lay a little groundwork. There are two fundamental aspects of every really existing being: what it is and that it is.

Everything that exists has intelligible qualities. Empirical science relies on that fact. Those qualities come in two types: optional attributes that could be otherwise, and necessary qualities determined by what the thing possessing the quality is.

Here's a blue triangle.

Blue Triangle
It is blue and three-sided. You can discern which quality is necessary by performing this fun experiment at home. Simply ask yourself the following questions:
  1. Would this shape still be a triangle if it were red?
  2. Would this shape still be a triangle if it had four sides?
A a green triangle is still a triangle. A four-sided triangle is an absurd contradiction in terms. We know with certainty that a triangle necessarily has three sides. A three-sided figure is what it is.

You may well ask, if every existing thing possesses some qualities by necessity, can the same be said of any being's existence?

I answer: Yes, O intellectually curious and insightful reader.

Once again approaching our subject by defining what it is not, consider that it is in no way absurd to ask why the triangle above exists or to posit circumstances under which it would not exist. I could edit the post and erase it, for example. The triangle doesn't possess existence necessarily--like it possesses three-sidedness. Its existence is contingent.

Every contingent being is so called because its existence relies on some other being. The source of its existence is outside itself.

But there must be a being whose existence is self-explanatory. It must exist in the same way a triangle must have three sides. Otherwise, contingent being would be groundless with no ultimate cause of its existence. No motion could take place. No qualities inhering in contingent beings could unfold and mature. The cosmos would be an infinite chain of boxcars with no locomotive.

A being that exists by necessity is called necessary being. It possesses no variable qualities. Instead, what it is is that it is.

In metaphysical terms, necessary being's existence is its essence.

That means it's just as absurd to deny necessary being's existence as it is to deny that a triangle has three sides.

And necessary being is what theologians mean by God.


Hard Theology

Out of the silent Planet

Science fiction grand master John C. Wright poses a long overdue question in his recent post on hard science fiction.
Heinlein never penned a sequel where the bastard children of Mike the Martian, six-fingered giants educated in Martian psionic arts by the ghost of their dead patriarch, overthrow and trample all other religions, shatter the corrupt federation with kinetic bombardments from the moon, to erect a worldwide theocratic state under the Church of Nine Worlds devoted to the worship of The Beast. But that would have been more theologically accurate than his “Thou art God” houey.
A book where humans evolve into angels is not just not Hard SF, it is not Hard Theology. As in science fiction, we can divide the genre of angels stories into “hard” and “soft.” Where angels follow heretic ideas or popular misconceptions (such as Clarance in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE) is “soft”. Where they are portrayed accurately as Thomas Aquinas described (the Eldil in CS Lewis’ Planetary Trilogy), is “hard.”
Now, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE is one of my favorite films. I would not change it for the world. I mean no disrespect by calling it “soft” any more than I would offer disrespect to A. Merritt or HP Lovecraft or Robert E Howard or Jack Vance by calling them writers of weird fiction.
This leaves a question unanswered: are there any books that treat with angels and other divine things in a theologically well-researched fashion? Did anyone write “Hard Theo” aside from Charles Williams and CS Lewis? Does Dante count?
The chief occupation of fiction authors, much like stage magicians, is to deceive the audience enough to enable suspension of disbelief. The boy at the birthday party must believe, if only for a moment, that he had a coin hidden behind his ear. The science fiction reader must not question the possibility of warp drive while the story lasts.

Like a good carnival huckster, a science fiction author must be a jack of all trades. He must know just enough about his story's technological trappings to make the illusion hold up at a respectable distance.

This literary sleight of hand, mainly intended to satisfy the layman, often runs afoul of the STEM set. The astronomer shakes his head at faster-than-light travel. The biologist winces at atomic energy growing a spider to gargantuan size. Even your company's IT guy reacts to Computers are Magic! movies like Hackers and Swordfish with facepalms.

Recently I was brainstorming a custom mech with a cherished reader who backed the sequel to my mecha Mil-SF novel Combat Frame XSeed.

My reader's friend, who happens to be a physicist, overheard our boyish gushing over giant robots. She graciously took the time to explain why certain conceits of our secondary world tech violated the current understanding of basic physical laws. She was quite professional, but I could hear the eye rolling over the phone.

That's to be expected. Combat Frame XSeed falls within the Real Robot genre, a cultural product of the inscrutable East. While the genre label hints at an affinity with hard SF, Real Robot also features tropes such as space psychics capable of stopping asteroid drops with magic sparkles as they fade into the Force. It defies easy mapping to any Western genre.

Nonetheless, I can sympathize with the rocket scientists, engineers, and network admins who groan at authorial violations of physical laws. That's because I contend that the single most hamhandedly misrepresented and abused science in all of fiction is mine, the queen and mistress of all sciences, theology.

Now, hard SF usually provides a respite from the relentless drumbeat of theological illiteracy pervading the rest of pop culture, if only because hard SF tends to studiously ignore theological questions. The worst you get is a Big Men with Screwdrivers Meet Scooby-Doo story like Star Trek V.

When any other genre deals with theology or a related discipline like ecclesiology, soteriology, pneumatology, etc., it subjects your local theologian to a trial of Christian patience.

The worst offenders are fantasy games and films wherein the goal is to, "kill the gods!" A close second is stories in which the deities are said to be reliant on mortals in some way. I'm looking at you, Clash of the Titans remake and American Gods.

To give a physics analogy, that's not producing a clever bit of handwavium to break the light speed limit. That's proposing a universe where the acceleration formula has been changed from a=dv/dt to a=purple/leaf blower.

Gross theological error is a perennial fixture of what I like to call Death Metal Narration Tales. They tend to be Smrt stories, though it's often due to laziness rather than malice. Named for the spoken word segments between tracks on certain metal albums, such stories can be from any genre. What they have in common is severe theological indifference.

They authors of DMN stories can't really be blamed. Clown World gives them good cause to claim invincible ignorance. Like Clown World itself, the problem goes back to the Enlightenment, when theology was maliciously dethroned from its chief place at the Western universities which owe their existence to it. The Queen of Sciences has languished in the liberal arts department ever since.

What a rank injustice. Unlike so-called "hard sciences" whose body of knowledge undergoes constant and often drastic revisions, only theology brings men knowledge of absolute, immutable truth with certainty. It's more technically correct to say that theology is the ONLY science.

But, we can't entertain serious scholarly claims that one religion is true while the others are false or that there's an objective moral reality. That might hurt someone's feelings.

To address Mr. Wright's excellent question, do any modern authors write "hard theology"? Other than Lewis, I can't name any who even tried. And no, Dante doesn't count. He's a superlative poet, but his scholarly rigor leaves something to be desired.

Let's put it this way. I'm a trained theologian, and even I didn't shoot for high theological accuracy in my Dante-inspired Soul Cycle. On the contrary, I purposefully imagined a secondary world with radically divergent cosmological and theological principles so I could meet readers awash in DMN stories halfway.

Is writing hard theology stories even possible today? I'm skeptical. Lewis could do it in the 30s, back when the zeitgeist still retained a strong vestige of Christian culture. My vampire yarn "Izcacus" is my best stab at a theologically correct story. Give it a read, and see if you can spot the departures from how a DMN author would've handled the material.

The main obstacle to authors doing hard theology is that precious few theologians do hard theology these days.


Gen Y Profiles

My occasional posts on the various generations inhabiting Clown World draw a lot of comment. Somebody always expresses confusion over my tendency to eschew more common generational labels, which shift at the Boomers' convenience.

Here's a helpful rundown of my preferred dates and definitions for each generation. Spend some time with that post, and you'll quickly see the delineations aren't arbitrary. Nor are they designed to massage anyone's ego. There's a strong case that the lines I've drawn are real.

Generation Y is a perfect case in point. People over 35 will remember "Gen Y" as the once-standard label for the cohort following Generation X. It was everywhere in the mass media throughout the 80s and early 90s. Then one day, the word came down to retire the term.

Why was the Gen Y label phased out? Simple. The Millennial generation's defining personality traits started broaching the public consciousness in the late 90s. Their much stronger and more obnoxious group identity gave the Boomers a better foil, so Gen Y was forgotten.

Due to being airbrushed out of the picture, Gen Y is harder for mainstream media-educated folks to grok than any other--Generation Jones comes a close second. But Ys really did have markedly different formative experiences and now have a different outlook than Xers and Millennials.

Allow me to illustrate. Remember: Gen Xers graduated college between 1990 and 2000. Ys graduated between 2001 and 2011. Millennials started graduating in 2012.

College Tuition

Tuition rose from roughly $3000 to $7000 while Gen X was in college. It rose from over $5,000 to almost $13,000 while Ys attended. These are just the state school numbers.

Real Median Wages

Most members of Gen X graduated during a massive upswing in real median wages. Gen Y entered the workforce during a protracted downward trend.

Home Ownership by Age

This graph breaks down age groups almost exactly according to my ranges for each generation. Here we have Millennials, Ys, Xers, Jonesers, and Boomers helpfully represented by color-coded lines indicating changes in home ownership. Ys and Xers both fare poorly, but Ys take the shit cake.

Now, this is not a contest to see which generation got screwed over the worst. The Zoomers win that trophy hands down.

The point is that Gen Y experienced the brunt of America's collapse into Clown World during adolescence. Gen X was into adulthood and able to snag some Boomer scraps by 1997-2001.

Millennials know only post-America and revel in it.

Gen Y grew up in the golden window of the 80s and early 90s, got fed the same Boomer prosperity gospel as the Xers, but then had the rug pulled out from under them just when they thought they were going to collect.

This generational blueballing has produced some characteristic effects. Most Ys crawled inside the blue pill bottle circa 2005 and are still waiting quietly for a promised future that will never come.

The few Gen Ys that do wake up to their betrayal come in two general types. I'd like to offer a prominent example of each type in the form of online personalities with whom my readers are likely familiar.

The Doom Chronicler

Mister Metokur

Internet prankster, archivist of forbidden digital lore, and intransigent agent of chaos, the entity best known as Jim belongs to Generation Y based on his dubious doxx and his "Goodbye, Carl" response to Sargon of Akkad.

The little we know of Jim fits with the typical Gen Y experience. He fondly remembers attending Sunday church services with his family before falling away from the faith in adolescence. He cherishes memories of the internet as a wide open free-for-all where anything could happen.

That nostalgia for the internet's Wild West days defines Jim's online persona, whereby he chronicles web ephemera which he finds entertaining, retarded, or angering. He'll showcase underwater hamster objectivism one day, mock an eceleb the next, and follow up by exposing a pedophile.

An air of melancholy hangs over Jim's impish escapades. He's painfully aware that the internet he loved is gone forever, and it will only get worse. His work resembles an attempt to create a time capsule of the free internet's last days.

Don't turn to Jim for answers. He offers no solutions, holds out no hope, and he is not your friend. Ask him what's to be done about EU directives 11 and 13, and he'll laugh and call you a fag, if he responds at all.

This is "One bad day" theory applied to Gen Y. When confronted with the monumental farce of his pillaged life, the redpilled Y may embrace his sheer helplessness, grab a bucket of popcorn, and pick out a good seat to watch the world burn.

Owing to his title and dignity as Internet Aristocrat, Jim has the best seat.

The Augustinian Convert

Roosh V

Roosh V's early adult life resembles that of the narrator from Fight Club. A child of divorce, he got a STEM degree, got a well-paying job, and embarked on the search for a woman. "A woman" ended up being "myriad women" in Roosh's case.

Roosh describes his life's journey as a progression from the blue pill to the red pill, during which he traveled extensively and authored a series of books offering sex advice to men. It would be accurate to describe Roosh as a cad and a pickup artist during his red pill phase.

Events took a strange turn when Roosh attracted the notice of people in high places. They coined the rhetorically loaded but nonsensical epithet "rape apologist" for him and used it as a pretext to ban him from multiple countries, all because he sought to bring young men together to share ideas.

This unpersoning by the powers that be culminated in several of Roosh's books getting banned by Amazon.

Like Jim, Roosh came to realize his helplessness in the face of the overwhelming forces seeking to destroy his life. Yet he recognized this black pill stage as a necessary dark night of the soul and embraced the desolation to purify himself.

The result has been a dramatic Augustinian conversion, whereby Roosh has left materialist atheism for his childhood Armenian Orthodox faith. He has renounced hedonism while acknowledging the spiritual lessons imparted by the shallowness and despair of his carnal pursuits.

Roosh is convinced that God has allowed him to suffer privation and desolation to prepare him for a personal calling. His pigeon story, starting around the four-minute mark, is a better homily than any I've heard at church this decade.

Here we have a sterling example of the special role members of Generation Y can fill if they reject worldliness and despair. Younger generations, especially Zoomers, can learn from our experiences and mistakes. We can impart knowledge that, and why, the world was better.

The most important lesson of all is that faith in Jesus Christ is indispensable. Lacking faith, the best one can do is build a captivating yet lifeless shrine to a bygone moment.

But faith promises hope, and the expectation of receiving what is hoped for. And it teaches us what is worthy of hope.

Roosh correctly stated that no one can stay blackpilled forever. Constantly raging against Commies, Boomers, and Jews ultimately achieves nothing. One either retreats back to the red pill for ever-higher doses of self-medication, or one finally takes the God pill.

This is the hurdle that dissident atheists cannot surmount. Society is not going back to a late 80s combination of demographics and relative permissiveness where you can indulge your vices hassle-free.

We will burn down the corrupt edifice of Modernism and usher in a new era in line with nature devoted to the good.

Atheists who only want low taxes and freely available porn, i.e. a permanent retreat to the red pill, are going to be faced with a choice. They will either join the Christ or His enemy. Generation Y has one foot in each world. They would do well to choose carefully.


Dear Notre Dame: Mandate Chapel Veils

Chapel Veil

A Catholic mother recently penned an editorial pleading with young women at the University of Notre Dame to exercise a scintilla of modesty after a group of young women in skintight leggings scandalized her sons.
The emergence of leggings as pants some years ago baffled me. They’re such an unforgiving garment. Last fall, they obtruded painfully on my landscape. I was at Mass at the Basilica with my family. In front of us was a group of young women, all wearing very snug-fitting leggings and all wearing short-waisted tops (so that the lower body was uncovered except for the leggings). Some of them truly looked as though the leggings had been painted on them.
It boggles the mind that young women at a Catholic university could reach the age of reason and yet appear unashamed in a state of brazen immodesty before the King of Kings. Did their mothers not teach them? Did their fathers not discipline them?
Leggings are so naked, so form fitting, so exposing. Could you think of the mothers of sons the next time you go shopping and consider choosing jeans instead? Let Notre Dame girls be the first to turn their backs(ides) on leggings. You have every right to wear them. But you have every right to choose not to. Thanks for listening to the lecture. Catholic moms are good at those!
Some might call that a reasonable request. They would be wrong. It is an absurd request, because it should not have to be made. Can college-age women not refrain from whorish displays for the forty-five minutes it takes to celebrate Holy Mass?

This being Clown World, the response from the young slatterns of Notre Dame was a resounding, "Honk, honk!"
A mother-of-four is facing backlash after penning a letter pleading with female students at the University of Notre Dame to opt out of wearing leggings “and consider choosing jeans instead.”
Note that even Fox News downplays the original editorial's context, viz. young women wearing paint at Mass.
Irish 4 Reproductive Health, a campus nonprofit group, dubbed Tuesday “Leggings Pride Day” and called on people to take part and post pictures of themselves wearing their favorite pair of leggings. Many students posted pictures of their favorite leggings with the hashtag #LeggingsDayND.
Stocking Mask

How is this even a discussion? Young women are publicly displaying, at Mass, sights reserved for their future husbands only. Young men have sex rubbed in their faces ever minute of every day, and it's not as if these skanks are oblivious to it. They're willingly participating in it.
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
--The Catechism of the Catholic Church
These callous witches know what they're doing. The entire purpose of wearing tights in public is to draw male attention with sex. They value dopamine hits from strangers above young men's eternal souls. They are stumbling blocks to their brothers in Christ.

Enough. Priests and bishops, the confessional has no doubt acquainted you with the massive epidemic of young men enslaved to sexual sin. How can they combat these loathsome vices when you allow them no respite from temptation, not even within the walls of Holy Mother Church?

Announce that leggings are forbidden starting next Sunday. Any woman in leggings who presents herself for communion after that point can be assumed to be giving scandal obstinately and willfully. As such, she is in a state of mortal sin. Deny her communion.

If your female congregants can't bear to part with their hooker pants, make chapel veils mandatory again. Have the ushers hand them out to every woman who walks in the door. If a woman presents herself for communion without a veil...you guessed it.

And for the sake of all that's holy, Notre Dame, ban Irish 4 Reproductive Health. Not only are they heretics, their spelling is a disgrace to the university system.

If female congregants don't like these proposals, they can find somewhere else to troll for johns. I recommend the lot behind the bus station.

Of course, I don't expect any of these common sense and frankly morally obligatory steps to be taken. The childless Boomer hags who run most parishes share their younger counterparts' satanic contempt for men. They just can't squeeze into tights anymore.

To Millennial women who complain that they can't find a good man: Do you not understand that we find you not just distasteful, but monstrous? You treat men as sources of attention, pleasure, and resources, yet you dismiss men's concerns with ever shriller calls for rights you already have.

A record number of men under 30 have stopped having sex altogether. Do have any idea how hard it is to deny that basic masculine drive? For today's sex-addicted men, it's like going without food or water. Congratulations, ladies, you are so awful that some men are doing the equivalent of starving themselves rather than be with you.

Sex decline

Because sex--or more commonly advertising sex--is all you have to offer. But your other qualities are so repellent, it's not enough.

Go ahead. Mock this mother's godly concern for her sons. Ridicule men for being fragile. Use this as yet another excuse to take off your clothes in public. It's your only trick, and honestly, it's dead boring.

No one besides your equally perverse and vapid Instagram friends will care, and then only for a moment. They you'll grow old, spend your last fifty years as invisible nonentities, die alone, and roast in hell.

Or the Catholic hierarchy could enforce liturgical discipline. But you know how risky that is. Someone might call you a mean name on Facebook.


White Knighting for Campbell


The Unz Review shows how the Right all too often rushes to enshrine earlier Leftist subversion simply because it precedes current Leftist subversion.

This time, the subject of misguided right wing hagiography is John W. Campbell, Jr.
Alec Nevala-Lee, an Asian-American science fiction writer, has here written something remarkable: an intentionally PC multi-biography that nevertheless manages to be well-informed and informative, well-written and compulsively readable.
It’s the first substantive biography of John W. Campbell, Jr., the man – or, as we’ll see, some would insist on “the white male” – who basically invented modern science fiction; and that last point means that to do so properly, we have to take into account the three men – yes, again, white males – whose writing careers he promoted in order to do it.
It’s an index of Campbell’s importance that, although I am not really a science fiction fan – certainly not to the level of the fanatical creeps that slip in and out of these pages – I could recognize almost every work referred to, and had indeed read most of them; and I bet you have, too.
The reviewer stumbles right out of the gate. Nevala-Lee is an intersectionalist true believer straight from central casting. A quick glance at his bio reveals he is a Hugo Finalist who mostly writes nonfiction books about how problematic science fiction is.

If the reviewer is unaware of SJWs' compulsive dishonesty, why would he take Lee's religious tract--which is what his book really is--at face value? Especially if he's admittedly unfamiliar with science fiction beyond the "important" books all the revisionists say we should read?

But like a broken clock, Lee does present two accurate data points, which science fiction readers who know better will see as red flags.
All [Campbell, Asimov, Hubbard, and Heinlein] were generalists who saw science fiction as an educational tool – although to radically different ends. And they all embodied Campbell’s conviction, which he never abandoned, that science fiction could change lives.
Therein lies the origin of message fic--the scourge that has plagued science fiction sine the 1930s.

Campbell wasn't the man who, "basically invented science fiction." He helped destroy the far more popular pulps--science fiction's true Golden Age.

The reviewer may have read "Nightfall", Foundation, and Stranger in a Strange Land. Once upon a time, everybody read Edgar Rice Burroughs and Walter B. Gibson.

Lee notes Campbell's association with notorious perverts Isaac Asimov and Samuel R. Delany--especially Asimov, whose career Campbell made. Why, then, does the reviewer white knight for Campbell?

Because Lee calls him waciss.
At his worst, Campbell expressed views that were unforgivably racist, and even today, the most reactionary movements in modern fandom – with their deep distrust of women and minorities – have openly stated, “We have called for a Campbellian revolution in science fiction.”
Lee's quote is out of date. It comes from a 2015 Vox Popoli post written before Vox's publishing house released the seminal Appendix N.

Appendix N

The pulp revolution Jeffro Johnson fostered is neither reactionary nor part of a decrepit fandom. It recognizes Campbell as a deleterious influence on science fiction who replaced the fun and mass  appeal of the pulps with agenda-driven message fic.

Folks on the Right desperately need to learn not to defend people the Left is attacking just because the Left is attacking them. The death cult's need to constantly reset to year zero means they routinely anathematize their former fellow travelers.

Today's commissar throwing the useful idiot under the bus is tomorrow's useful idiot. Don't interrupt him.


Burrito Avenger

Maxwell Cain: Burrito Avenger

80s action fans rejoice! the latest novel from author Adam Lane Smith, Maxwell Cain: Burrito Avenger, is here!

An action novel for fans of John Wick, Demolition Man, or Die Hard.

Maxwell Cain, also known as “Bloody Rain Cain,” is a cop fed up with the murderous hooligans who control the streets of San Pajita, California.

After years of public service, Max is fired for executing too many dirtbags, and he seeks solace at his favorite taqueria. When his comfort burrito is sullied by the careless actions of brutal thugs, Max finally snaps. What begins as an argument over a ruined lunch quickly spirals into a hurricane of blood and revenge.

Max is joined in his fight by the gorgeous Kate Valentine, a baker with an itchy trigger finger. As the two rush into battle against an entire criminal organization, they are hunted by the relentless terror of the seedy underworld: Johnny Legion.

This book is designed to feel like watching a classic 80s or 90s American action flick.

As this book's editor, I can confirm that Adam nailed the 80s feel he was aiming for. And the protagonist's goal is ingenious in its simplicity.

Buy it now!