Church and State

Not a Christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Star Wars Is now Disney Fanfic

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

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

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


Humiliation Rituals

Bug Burger Humiliation Ritual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hecklers vs Critics

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Policy Rationale

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

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

Community Standards

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

Grummz Tweet

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

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

Policy Rationale

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

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

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

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

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

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


Green Giant

Wild Green Man

My crypto-reader returns will a spiritual successor to the tale he shared last time.
So, I was just out visiting my cop buddy in Indiana for the first time in two years, and he was regaling me with the backlog of Tales of Rural Police Adventures while we're out target practicing in his field and had one that's right up our recent conversations' alleys.
There's this drug dealer he's mentioned a few times over the years. Mostly just pushes pot they grow in the woods out there. it's one of those everyone knows things, but nobody ever had enough proof at any given time to get a warrant and do anything about, and the guy's small enough potatoes and nonviolent so they had other priorities over actively sting oping this guy
about a year ago, they get a call from the adjoining neighbor saying there' a lot of shooting going on, and like 15 minutes later they get a call from this guy begging for as many police to come as possible. They're thinking gang drug war stuff, so everyone on duty rolls out
they get out there, and this property is just trashed...he said normally it's a little rundown, but in line with everything else in the area. But this is like barn door is knocked off, windows busted in and shot out, Someone's put a couple shotgun blasts through the front door
They find this guy and his girlfriend and a couple other guys holed up in the bathroom in the center of the house, freaking out
Everyone's saying they shot at what they thought was a guy near one of their illegal forest grows, and it turned out to be a gorilla that ran off into the woods and they say a group of gorillas came back and attacked the house that night
So all the cops going "yeah fucking right" and it's written up as they sampled some of the goods and got so fucked up they hallucinated monkeys and had a paranoid weed freakout over it and shot up the house
There was like 2 palettes of bricked weed bundles in the barn. So they finally got this guy after years because of this, heh
If I were my reader's cop friend, would I have written up my report as a case of a dealer getting high on his own supply and wigging out? Yes, I would.

And yet, I can't help but note the parallels between this story and the infamous Ape Canyon incident.

See for yourself.


Dark Age Fantasy

Chartres Cathedral

Every religion provides its adherents with an origin story--an explanation for who the faithful are and how their creed came to be.

Nu-atheism is no exception. Some would argue that atheism isn't a religion but a lack of belief. Science and logic prove this claim false. Human beings are wired to worship. The only people who have no gods are nutcases who think they are God.

Listen to atheists spawned by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the like, and it soon becomes apparent that they worship their intellects and their egos. Like all faiths, theirs has a creation myth.

An integral part of the atheist creation narrative is belief in the Christian Dark Ages. During this benighted period, the story goes, Europeans lost the advances of Greece and Rome. Stifled by the Church, further technological advancement would have to wait for the Renaissance, which was mainly a warm up for the Enlightenment.

Most religions' origin stories are set during purposefully vague past epochs. When a time frame is given at all, it's in nebulous terms like, "a long time ago," or, "in the primordial chaos before time."

Nu-atheism is one of the few religions that sets a key part of its origin story during a concrete span of time. The "Dark Ages", in the original Medieval usage, referred to either the 13th or the 10th and 11th centuries, but Reformation and Enlightenment writers later expanded its duration from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance.

Conveniently, the concrete historical setting of this particular creation myth allows us to conclusively debunk it.

Any historians worth their salt have been disavowing the concept of the Dark Ages for years.

So have honest atheists, for that matter. Here's Tim O'Neill's review of Hannam, wherein he demolishes the internet atheist dogma that scientific advancement stalled in the Middle Ages.
It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.
If there were no Dark Ages, why is belief in the Dark Age myth so widespread? First, people need stories that reinforce their identities. A story that reaffirms who you are over and against someone else is especially powerful. Knowing you're not them is vital to knowing who you are.

For atheists who get their medieval history from Family Guy, an essential part of who they're not is the superstitious rubes that razed the ancient libraries and burned free thinkers at the stake. To them, it doesn't matter that that those rubes never existed.

Second, the black legend of the Dark Ages is another Christian own-goal. It was Protestants who took the ball from Petrarch, ran with it, and passed it down the field to Enlightenment secular humanists. Much like the campfire tales about the Crusades, propaganda spread by the Reformers as part of their own origin story came back to bite them.

This post isn't to knock all religious origin stories set during a concrete point in history. The existence and ministry of Jesus, for example, is better attested than the lives of Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.


Together or Separately Again

This post would be evergreen even if current events didn't make it especially timely. Word to the wise.


The legacy media propaganda machine is currently mobilizing for a two minutes hate against Dr. Jordan Peterson. Apparently the good doctor went on the Beeb to point out some basic facts about economics and human psychology that your average high school student used to take for granted.

The journo they sent in to trap him ended up turning herself into a living example of Peterson's points. That's not surprising, because the anti-intellectual cult the Left is beholden to requires them to take it on faith that anyone outside the cult is either stupid, insane, evil, or all three.

I didn't watch the debate itself. Though I've sampled my share of "must-watch" Jordan Peterson videos, I've never heard him say anything particularly interesting. His specialty is doling out what used to be called common sense to young adults whose society has utterly failed them on every level.

That's not a knock against Peterson. We've had a couple of generations raised without fathers in deed or in fact, and he fulfills the vital role of imparting useful life skills and counteracting media and academia-inflicted brainwashing. Which is why the media has to destroy him.

As others have pointed out, the press is geared up to run the MILO script on Peterson. They know that further debate is useless--not that they ever meant to beat him in a good-faith contest of ideas; rather they tried and failed to trip him up. So they're trotting out the tactic that's been their go-to gambit since #GamerGate: make vague, unsubstantiated claims of harassment, blame Peterson's fans, and smear him by association. His continued presence is a painful reminder of their humiliation, so the game now is to get him de-platformed and disemployed.

I hate to break it to the hacks in the press penning their hit pieces as we speak, but it won't work this time. Peterson has two things that past conservative victims of the hate mob lacked: tenure and his own massive platform that doesn't rely on old media.

That's good for Peterson, but what about past and future casualties of SJW shriek swarms who lack the same protections? As I've noted before, they're pretty much screwed. After all, the Left wouldn't bother trying to disemploy and de-platform hatefact purveyors on the Right if Conservatives didn't indulge them.

It's been said before, and it bears saying again: Conservatives' main weakness is their critical lack of solidarity. It comes from the nasty individualist streak in their capitalist and Liberal influences. I've seen right-leaning business owners flatly refuse employment to like-minded friends because the job-seekers' unemployment exceeded an arbitrary 18 month limit. Even an otherwise solid guy like Stefan Molyneux, who speaks passionately about the need to put winning first, says he won't hire people who've "lost momentum".

One big advantage of being on the Left is that, if you check the right boxes and recite the proper credal formulas, the cult looks out for you. Note the curious phenomenon of lefties in media and business "failing upward". SJW editors from protected groups who bankrupt venerable sci-fi magazines don't have to apply at Target. They're given cushy writing assignments at Marvel Comics. When their unreadable books are inevitably cancelled, there'll be junior college associate professorships waiting to break the fall.

Conservatives who publicly speak uncomfortable truths are in for a rougher ride. First, the bow tie-bedecked moderates can be counted on to show up and virtue signal at the victim's expense. "Sure, he denounced the harassment," they'll say, "but if he meant it, he'd disavow his unruly followers who're causing all the trouble." Always conveniently forgotten is the fact that it's the Left who are stirring up fake outrage to distract from their loss.

After that, the employer will decide it's best to discontinue their working relationship with the victim because nothing says "sound, long-term business planning" like sacrificing a productive employee who reliably adds value to the company for the sake of dispersing an angry mob that would've lost interest and gone away on its own if management had just ignored them.

The abandoned ex-employee whose name is now mud in the industry where he was a twenty-year veteran is then told to apply for a minimum-wage job so he can at least "re-enter the workforce". At that point, one of two things happens:
  1. He finds that all available entry-level jobs have already been filled by women, minorities, and illegal aliens thanks to affirmative action laws that Conservatives were too spineless to repeal and immigration laws they were too lazy to enforce. (And capitalist employers love them because they're cheaper!)
  2. He gets the minimum-wage job, earning less than he did on unemployment and food stamps. The aforementioned factors keep him from getting promoted, and he's right back in the unemployment line in a few months when the almost certainly temporary job ends.
But at least the disemployed hate mob victim is doing his best to avoid relying on collectivism and pull himself up by his bootstraps!

Individualism is poison. It was introduced into right-wing thought by the enemy, and they count on it to keep their opposition atomized, cut off from support, and vulnerable to their Alinsky tactics. 

Don't play along. Are you a business owner or manager who knows someone who's been disemployed by SJWs? GIVE HIM A FUCKING JOB.

But what if he's been unemployed for two years?

It doesn't matter.

But what if he drinks?

Doesn't matter.

But what if he stole from his last company to buy meth?

Who gives a shit?

If you're hiding behind any of these excuses, you clearly don't understand that this is bigger than him, you, or your precious little company. Culture warriors need something to fight for and resources to fight with. Yes, the ideal is planting oak trees we'll never live to nap under. We still need a reliable support structure to have our backs while we're digging.

Standing up for the truth at grave personal risk is heroic. But imagine if it didn't have to be. Heroes are always a tiny percentage of the population. The easier you make it for ordinary guys to speak plain, obvious truth, the more soldiers we'll have on our side. 

Still don't feel comfortable offering Frank an internal position now that he's been out of the game for a while? Come up with a make-work position and give it to him on a contract basis. Let him know it's temporary, and he'd better leave any bad habits he's picked up at the door because you're doing him a massive favor. Unless he's a total screw-up, he'll get the hint. That way, Frank can fill the employment gap on his resume with a job that's technically in the industry. He can use the time and money you're giving him to hone his skills on the job or get more training. If he puts in any effort at all, he'll be able to get a real job in his field before the contract runs out.

Or you can throw Frank to the wolves and hope they don't come back for you next time.

With this final novel, Mr. Niemeier has created a work of art and beauty that I believe will stand the test of time.


Crotch Worship

Let this recent Twitter exchange serve to remind you that atheism is incompatible with traditionalism and nationalism.

Crotch Worship 1

Crotch Worship 2

Crotch Worship 3

Crotch Worship 4

Crotch Worship 5

Crotch Worship 6

Materialist atheists are not of the Right because they do not share the Right's essential motives.

Historically, the Right were defined as those who supported throne and altar against rebellion. They know that Christianity is an essential pillar of all Western nations because only Christianity offers a coherent national origin story that also reinforces each nation's unique identity.

Atomized, hedonistic atheists, on the other hand, at best view the dissident Right as a vehicle to bring them a homogeneous high-trust society where they can indulge in recreational drugs and unfettered crotch worship.

They're barnacles hoping to ride out the storm on Peter's Bark while openly plotting mutiny as soon as they reach the shore.

As for my interlocutor's question, Who cares if Poland, Russia, and China stay Polish, Russian, and Chinese? The answer is Poles, Russians, and the Chinese.

Another reminder appears to be in order. Once again, atheists seeking to hitch themselves to the new Right's wagon have four choices--because late Moderns are all about choice.

  1. Confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has raised Him from the dead, and accept Him as your Lord and Savior.
  2. LARP for an hour each Sunday at the church of your choice.
  3. Shut up.
  4. Join the Left. They have all the sexdrugs anyway.

P.S. A few other Twitter users asked me for citations on China going majority Christian by 2050. I originally stumbled upon the prediction while doing research for Combat Frame XSeed. Those notes are on another device which I haven't had time to dig up yet, but another user and I found the following:

First, a 2014 article in the Telegraph titled, "China on Course to Become 'World's Most Christian Nation' within Fifteen Years"
Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.
Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.
"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.
"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."
Next, a report from Pew Research which corrects for under-reporting on the part of China's officially atheist government to indicate that Christians may not be 2% of the population as was thought, but 5%.

Christians in China

That number may seem small, but bear in mind that A) Christianity has only been allowed in China since 1976, yet rose from zero to 5% in 35 years.

And that growth was mainly due to conversions. Religions have another, more effective method of propagation, which was largely denied to Chinese Christians--until 2015.
The first day of 2016 marks the end of China's controversial, 40-year-old one-child policy.
Although families will still require government-issued birth permits, or face the sanction of a forced abortion, couples in China can now request to have two children.
Based on historical trends, who is more likely to take advantage of the allowance to have a second child--atheists or Christians?
By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.
"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."
As do all who scheme to lay violent hands on Christ's bride.

Far, far better men than our effete ruling class have tried and failed to destroy the Church. Does Tim Cook think himself the equal of Julian the Apostate? Does Mark Zuckerberg fancy himself a new Napoleon? Can Merkel hold a candle to Mao?

The Church is the rock that endures while nations crumble. But she is also the eternal spring that nourishes those nations which remain in her embrace.

To weather the storm on the red horizon, we must repent and return to Jesus Christ through his bride the Church. Any other way leads to destruction.


How to Twitter

Twitter instructions

Embarrassing admission time: I have a chronic case of boomer tech when it comes to social media.

Longtime readers know I relentlessly advocate for elevating publishing out of the oldpub tar pits and into the newpub promised land. I'm the first to ditch obsolete publishing bromides and embrace newly emergent best practices.

Yet is was recently pointed out to me that my Twitter game was amateur hour. In effect, I'd been using the platform without reading the instruction manual.

In fairness, it's not as if they issue the manual to everyone who signs up for an account. If Amazon obsessively fixes things till they're broke and Facebook is a Byzantine confidence scheme, Twitter is so badly programmed and managed that its incompetence is indistinguishable from malice (h/t Daddy Warpig).

That last point seems like a strike against using Twitter in the first place, but the prevailing state of chaos down at Twitter HQ can work in your favor. As the redheaded adopted stepchild of Big Tech, Twitter is often the last to get the memo when a dissenter is sentenced to techno-exile.

Anyway, the first step is admitting the problem. Many people forget that you then have to take the other steps.

I'm pleased to report that I have at long last entered Twitter noob recovery with the help of savvy creators like Adam Lane Smith, Jeff Putnam, and Jon Parker.

Which Twitter vices have these gentlemen helped me identify and overcome?

First and foremost, they made me realize I'd been stuck in the Oldpub Marketing Department Mindset. My approach to Twitter used to be mechanistically tweeting A, B, C, & D type tweets X times per day. Straight out the legacy media marketing playbook.

What my fine colleagues helped me realize was that by taking this approach, I'd been talking at potential readers instead of talking with them.

Hang around the indie publishing scene for any length of time, and you'll hear authors--even some big names--swear on a stack that Twitter is death to book sales.

Try an experiment and check out the timelines of authors who say they can't sell books on Twitter. Nine times out of ten, they're not engaging with readers in optimal ways for the platform.

If, like me, you've heard it said that the key to Twitter success is authentic engagement, but you didn't have the first clue what that meant, allow me to expand on the concept.

A couple days ago, I sent out this tweet using the engagement philosophy I'm learning from my author friends.

Result: My sales that day were five times higher than average.

What's more, those sales were overwhelmingly books from my older Soul Cycle series. That tells me this was new readers discovering my back catalog.

In light of these results, what actionable advice can I give hungry young writers looking to build a Twitter following who will actually buy their books?

Authenticity is key

Most importantly, but perhaps counterintuitively, you've got to be genuine in how you present yourself.

People are so inundated with fakes and prefab personalities that they're starving for interactions with real human beings.

A lot of brand gurus will tell you to put up a slick front that portrays you as some kind of infallible ubermensch. That kind of public image comes off as dull. In storytelling terms--and marketing is storytelling--it's the Mary Sue of branding.

Flesh-and-blood human beings who encounter everyday challenges--and sometimes fail--resonate with people far more than unblemished bronze idols.

If you want to build trust, you have to present yourself on the level, warts and all.

Converse, don't dictate

As for the nuts & bolts, you foster engagement by adding value.

  • Retweet quality content.
  • Don't just RT. Include our own insightful commentary. It's gotta be more than, "Agreed" or "Concur".
  • Like and RT anytime someone comments on and RTs your tweets.
  • Don't be afraid to tag in users with bigger followings than yours.
  • Don't argue with users whose followings are smaller than yours.
  • Talking politics is a double-edged sword. You'll gain followers, but they'll expect you to talk politics all the time.
  • If you do go the political pundit route, stake out a position, be willing to change your mind when new information presents itself, and be up front with your followers. Don't shill.
That about exhausts my current level of Twitter boomer recovery. What other tips do the Twitter virtuosos out there have to share?