Reavers of the Void

Star Knight Saga: Reavers of the Void

The highly anticipated first book Bradford Walker's Star Knight Saga, Reavers of the Void is now live on Amazon!
In the Year of Our Lord 3001, the space pirate Red Eyes brings his pirate fleet to bear against Galactic Christendom. He aims to steal one of its greatest treasures, Countess Gabriela Robin, to fulfill his warlord ambitions. Dispatched against him is one of the Star Knights of the Solar Guard, Lord Roland, with the mission to protect the Countess at all costs. With his man Sibley and his page Creton at his side, Lord Roland faces off against the would-be warlord in the Dire March of the galaxy and begin a conflict that all the galaxy cannot ignore.
Valiant heroes, dastardly villains, massive space battles--and of course, giant robots! Reavers of the Void launches the Star Knight Saga on what promises to be an epic adventure!

Full disclosure: I edited this one, so I can say with full confidence you're in for starcruiser-load of pulpy fun!

Buy it now!


Violent Magical Thinking


If you still entertain the notion that Hollywood operates primarily from a profit motive, consider the response to Georgia's abortion ban from companies like Netflix and Disney.
Bob Iger said it would be “very difficult” for Disney to keep filming in Georgia if the state enacts a new abortion law. 
In an interview with Reuters, the CEO of the Walt Disney Co. said he had doubts the company would continue production in Georgia if the controversial ban on abortion in the state comes into effect, primarily as the company's employees would be against it.
“I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully,” Iger told Reuters. 
The exec added that if the law does come into effect, he didn't "see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there."
Disney's prospective withdrawal from production in Georgia would be a huge blow to the state. Recently, Disney's Marvel Studios filmed portions of both Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame in Georgia. 
Disney's attempted shakedown of Georgia makes zero sense from a financial perspective. Not only is the Mouse risking millions in tax breaks, they're agitating for the deaths of their future customers.

What is the motive behind Hollywood's fanatical support for infanticide? Consider another group with whom Disney is now a willing bedfellow.

That's the Satanic Temple suing to stop an Indiana abortion law signed by Mike Pence. Is it a total abortion ban, a heartbeat bill, or even a bill requiring abortuaries to practice the same sanitation as Wendy's?

No. The Indiana law simply mandates disposing of fetal remains with the same dignity as other human remains, via burial or cremation.

The Satanic Temple is pursuing legal action to prevent murdered babies from receiving a decent burial.

These satanists claim the law could pose undue hardship to mothers seeking to murder their children.

Why? Because it might incline them to think of their dead babies as human beings?

There's another, darker motive.

The Death Cult which rules us, including the Satanic Temple, Disney, and Netflix, don't want these children buried.

They want them sacrificed.

Hollywood, the media, and academia belong to a heretical faith disguised with flimsy secular trappings. Their ultimate aims are not wealth and power. They instead seek warped spiritual ends that are perverted reflections of Christian graces.

Preferred pronouns are the Death Cult's version of transubstantiation. They believe they can turn men into women by uttering the right formula. This article of faith is so sacrosanct to them that they have enacted blasphemy laws protecting these incantations.

Erasing whiteness is an attempt to reverse the Death Cult analogue of original sin. But instead of immersion in water, the one whose skin announces his guilt can only be baptized in his own blood.

But the Death Cult's highest sacrament, the public liturgy which constitutes the deepest expression of their identity, is child sacrifice.

The glib rhetoric claiming they sought to protect women's best interests has been revealed as a sham. If abortion were a mere matter of civics, private companies like Disney would have no cause to risk involving themselves in a political controversy guaranteed to alienate huge numbers of their customers.

Disney, Netflix, and the Satanic Temple just want to keep murdering babies. They need to. The precepts of their diabolical faith dictate that the innocent blood must flow. The children must be fed to Moloch. They must not be interred in the ground--especially not ground consecrated to the hated Christ.

Paul Lucas on Twitter deduces through reason alone why the Death Cult hates the Christ.

Violent Magical Thikning

Authentic sacramentality inverts and confounds all heathen magic. It's as old as the story of Simon Magus.

This should go without saying, but some have been slow to get the picture. Cancel your Netflix subscription, and don't give Disney one red cent of your hard-earned money.


Masculinity Quiz Answers

In our previous post, I gave a quiz testing readers' understanding of masculinity. Many thanks to those who posted their answers in the comments. It's encouraging to see such a high level of participation.

For those just joining us, and as a reminder, readers were presented with five sets of two scenarios. Each section featured one man exhibiting masculine behavior and one man displaying effeminacy. Contra the reductive modern definition, I employ the classical definition of effeminacy as lacking masculine virtue.

Readers were asked to identify which man in each set was being masculine and which was being effeminate. Here are the answers.

Section 1

Richard and Scott are twentysomething single men. While Richard is a successful pickup artist who seeks the pleasures of a high notch count, Scott is a virgin who is saving the gift of his sexuality for his future wife.

Who is masculine?

Nice Guy

Readers who identified Scott as the more masculine man answered correctly.

Everyone is obligated to practice chastity, the virtue for regulating indulgence in pleasures in a manner proper to one's state in life. Pleasure is a signal that the activity which produces it is essentially good. However, indulging any good in excess is disordered, and seeking pleasure for its own sake is always wrong.

Richard's pleasure-seeking betrays a lack of chastity. Furthermore, men are called to be chaste for the sake of their future wives. Richard's compounding of his lust with selfishness is therefore effeminate as well.

Section 1 recap: A. effeminate, B. masculine.

Section 2

Alan and Dave are both hardworking men who seek to exercise Christian headship in their homes. Alan takes part in household chores with his wife's assistance. Dave, on the other hand, gives sole responsibility for the housework to his wife.

Who is masculine?

Man Cooking

If you said that Alan is the more masculine husband, you are correct.

God gives men primary authority over the entire household, not just those tasks which are customarily considered men's work. Women were created as men's helpers, not our slaves.

Not only does Dave's habit of watching TV while his wife cleans indicate a vicious proclivity toward pleasure seeking, he actually cedes some of his headship to her by abdicating all of his responsibility for the housework.

Section 2 recap: A. masculine, B. effeminate.

Section 3

Jeffrey and Dominic were both offered partnerships in a risky startup venture. Jeffrey not only left his secure job to take the new position, he invested a considerable portion of his family's savings in the business. Meanwhile, Dominic judged the new job's higher income potential an insufficient reason to risk his family's financial security.

Who is masculine?

Wage Slave

The one virtue above all others which men are called to master to an even greater degree than women is prudence. A man's headship of his household comes with a price tag of always being obligated to act in his family's best interests--even if it means sacrificing his preferences.

Men are more disposed to risk-taking then women, but these must be reasonable risks. By taking a leap without fully appreciating the potential consequences, Jeffrey acted rashly, and thus effeminately.

On a theological level, men are particularly called to image Christ through sacrificial suffering. That is why professions such as the priesthood and soldiering are properly reserved to men.

Dominic's job may suck, but his obligation as a husband and father is to offer it up in sacrifice while he works to find sufficiently stable work that better fits his dispositions.

Section 3 recap: A. effeminate, B. masculine

Section 4

Glenn and Mike are both attending a seminar put on by their company. When the speaker discusses a new corporate policy proposal, Glenn feels wary about the suggested course of action but holds his peace pending further information since he's insufficiently informed on the subject. Mike knows just as little, yet he doesn't hesitate to share his uninformed opinion with the room.

Who is masculine?

Man Listening

Those who said that Glenn exercised greater masculinity are correct.

Another key virtue in which men are to excel is humility. Taking undue pleasure in one's own intellectual excellence, including the presumption that others are always better off hearing your opinion, regardless of whether it's informed or not, is intellectually prideful and effeminate.

In other words, a masculine man speaks because he has something to say. An effeminate speaks because he has to say something.

Section 4 recap: A. masculine, B. effeminate.

Section 5

Darren and James both receive petty insults from their coworkers. Darren quietly suffers the barb, while James flips his lid and retaliates in kind.

Who is masculine?

Man Walking Away

If you answered that Darren showed greater masculinity by keeping his cool under fire, pat yourself on the back.

Because of the potentially more dire consequences of unchecked male passion, men are specially obliged to regulate our passions. Anger itself is not a sin, but it must always be subject to reason. Getting overtly emotional over petty insults is effeminate.

Section 5 recap: A. masculine, B. effeminate.

Final tally (who is masculine):
1. B
2. A
3. B
4. A
5. A

Looking over the responses, commenters averaged a score of 3.8 out of 5 correct answers. It's reassuring to have a readership that is demonstrably more masculine than average.

If you like masculine adventure stories, my latest mecha thriller novel Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40 is now available. Buy it today!

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40


Who's More Masculine?

Yesterday's post addressed the masculinity crisis that is plunging the West into a dark age. A critical aspect of the problem is that academia, the media, and even misinformed manosphere bloggers have given men false ideas of what authentic masculinity is.

By the same token, most people reduce the vice of effeminacy to mean acting like a sissy. That is only one way in which men can be effeminate, which actually denotes lacking virtues essential to living their vocation as men.

For your edification, here is a short quiz on masculinity and effeminacy according to the Scholastic and Aristotelian traditions. In each section, you will be presented with two images, each depicting men engaged in various behaviors. Use your judgment to discern which man in each set is exercising masculine virtue and which is displaying effeminacy.

Post your responses in the comments. Since everyone is made to possess all virtues, though men and women are called to higher degrees of perfection in the virtues most proper to their respective sexes, women are encouraged to take part in the quiz as well. I'll post the correct answers tomorrow.

Ready? Begin.

Section 1

Ladies Man

A. Though still in his early 20s, Richard is highly accomplished with women. He delights in pursuing young, attractive females, keeps a stable of several girls in rotation at all times, and has bedded dozens of high quality women. He is open to marrying and starting a family someday, but he wants to have fun first.

Nice Guy

B. Scott is the same age as Richard. He is also unmarried but is looking for a woman who is good wife material. His search has proven rather difficult, but since Scott is committed to voluntary celibacy before marriage, he is still a virgin.

Who is masculine? Who is effeminate?

Section 2

Man Cooking

A. Alan often works 50 or 60 hour weeks, but he makes a point of being home on time to cook Saturday dinner for his family whenever possible. Having cooked for himself since college, Alan is even better in the kitchen than his wife, but he delegates important parts of the meal prep to her, and she gladly assists.

Woman cleans. Man watches TV.

B. After a hard work week, Dave enjoys kicking back and watching Formula One racing on TV. He has made it a house rule that his wife is to perform all the Saturday housework without disturbing his R&R, invoking his headship of the family. Desiring to live the Biblical model of marriage, his wife honors his wishes and does all the cleaning while he unwinds.

Who is masculine? Who is effeminate?

Section 3


A. Jeffrey recently took the plunge and accepted a partnership at a new startup venture organized by his friend. His wife is supportive, but she is openly wary of the risks Jeffrey took by leaving his more secure corporate job and investing a sizable chunk of the family's savings in the new business. Jeffrey allays her fears by pointing out that, should the startup succeed, his vastly higher earning potential will greatly benefit them and their daughter.

Wage Slave

B. Dominic finds his corporate rat race job stressful and stultifying. He, too, was offered a ground-floor partnership in the same startup as Jeffrey. But unwilling to risk his family's finances, Dominic stays at the job he hates.

Who is masculine? Who is effeminate?

Section 4

Man Listening

A. Glenn attends a company seminar, where he hears a speaker discuss a proposed policy initiative. His gut tells him the proposal is a bad idea, but he's not sure he's qualified to give useful feedback. Instead of speaking up, Glenn reserves judgment and listens quietly.

Speaking Up

B. At the same event, Mike boldly and easily takes to the mic to voice his take. He doesn't let his unfamiliarity with the subject matter deter him but forges ahead, sure that sharing his opinion is better than keeping quiet.

Who is masculine? Who is effeminate.

Section 5

Man Walking Away

A. On the way into the office, a junior coworker envious of Darren's promotion snidely insinuates that Darren slept with their female boss to get the job. Darren leaves the insult unanswered and walks away.

Men Arguing

B. After leaving a meeting where James impressed his supervisor with a presentation he'd worked on for weeks, a spiteful colleague falsely accuses him of stealing his idea. James responds in kind, putting the little weasel in his place with a withering insult.

Who is masculine? Who is effeminate?




Denizens of the less conformist corners of the web have taken to calling our gravely dysfunctional society Clown World. This moniker arose from noticing our leaders' mania for foisting ever more humiliating absurdities on ordinary people.

That's a bit of a simplification. What's really happening is that domineering women in government and the media are getting vicious kicks out of making sport of the men beneath them, who manically caper like clowns.

Watch this video by Mister Metokur about Carl Benjamin's failed stunt candidacy for EU parliament, and you can't help but notice a succession of schoolmarmish shrews scolding male UKIP officials.

While Benjamin is the only one who doesn't storm out or grovel, his smug, self-serving responses manage to botch the situation even worse.

Such vanity was once rightly deemed effeminate. Women see right through the false alpha front and loathe the egoist even more for it. Accepting the other side's egalitarian frame to justify insulting a female MP  internet blood sports style just digs him in deeper.

The myriad ills of our age can be traced to (largely childless) women in leadership wielding the whip hand over men who are too effeminate to know how those women secretly wish they'd respond--by exercising virtue.

Confronted with the word "effeminate", modern readers will picture a mincing fop who spends too much time on his hair. That's only one type of what's classically called effeminacy.

In the broader sense, effeminacy is simply when a man fails to cultivate and exercise the virtues in which men are particularly called to excel. Now, men are called to possess all the virtues, but prudence, humility, and fortitude are prime examples of good moral habits that men are designed to master.

For a more in-depth treatment of masculine virtue, watch this Fr. Chad Ripperger video. At an hour and some change it's a bit longer, but it's well worth your time.

The long and short of it is that feminists--AKA women who envy men--have assumed positions of power in government and the workplace, and they use this power to punish their male subordinates.

These shrews think they hate masculinity, which they often denigrate as "toxic". The feminists are actually projecting. Hating their own femininity, they strive to emasculate men for vindication but only deepen their contempt when they succeed.

In the meantime, government and industry grind to a halt. This isn't just because of the shrewocracy's fondness for #metoo witch hunts. Compared to men, women in general tend not to excel at the abstract thinking and goal-oriented behavior that are men's forte.

If you've wondered why Liberal Western governments can't govern and science has stopped innovating, look no further.

This doesn't mean that merely replacing women in politics and business with men will fix clown world overnight. Thanks to public education and mass media indoctrination exacerbated by rampant helicopter parenting, we have multiple generations of young men who were never taught to develop masculine virtues.

It might already be too late for many members of Gen X, Gen Y, and the Millennials. These virtues are instilled by enduring suffering and overcoming adversity under adult supervision during childhood. The longer you've indulged a bad habit, the harder it is to break.

We'd better hope that parents who belong to these generations can muster the willpower to instill the virtues we never learned in the Zoomers.

If you want to read a book about a man rebelling against a space shrewocracy, pick up my new martial thriller Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40. It's just 99 cents through today, so don't wait. Buy it now!

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40

Already have Coalition Year 40? Thanks! Please consider leaving a review on Amazon. Reviews left within the first two weeks of launch help raise a book's rankings in search results, and every one counts!

Review Coalition Year 40!


Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40

Combat Frame XSeed: Coalition Year 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reader review

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

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

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


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

Review Coalition Year 40!

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

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

Get CFXS: CY40 now!


The Fish, the Sea, and the Channels

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

the sea

The Fish, the Sea, and the Channels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Swimming Upstream

salmon swimming upstream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Unmarried, Childless Individuals

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

enlightenment 1

enlightenment 2

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

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

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


Moloch and Ashtoreth

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


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


Witch Test

Courtesy of a reader from Twitter:

pro-choice 1

pro-choice 2


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


Victory Defeated Liberalism

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

Why Liberalism Failed - Deneen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ophian Rising - Brian Niemeier


Abortion Is Cancelled

Crab Dance

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

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

Women's Walkout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Punished Brett Strikes Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I answer, Everything should foster virtue.

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Laurel Canyon

Laurel Canyon log cabin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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