Mike Tyson’s story is of a journey from the bottom to the top, and back to the bottom. If you saw one of his later fights–like against Lennox Lewis–you would assume him to be overrated, if not a joke. If you had seen him in action on his way to becoming the youngest heavyweight champion in history, you would realize how far he fell.
In the days after Tyson’s one-round knockout of Carl “The Truth” Williams, many a casual sports consumer opined that nobody in the game could beat him. I pointed to a smart, skilled light-heavyweight named Evander Holyfield and told anybody who would listen, “If anybody could do it, he could.”
Unknown to most of us, or at least under-appreciated, Tyson’s personal life was a hot mess at the time and his self-destruction was already underway. In his first fight with Frank Bruno, careful observers noted the cracks appearing in his armor. He was no longer a well-oiled wrecking machine. More like a powerful-but-lazy brawler.
Tyson’s mentor/trainer/father figure, Cus D’Amato, had died. For a while his fighting discipline was maintained by trainer Kevin Rooney, but Tyson fired Rooney and replaced him with a posse of sycophants and Yes Men. His skills diminished and his motivation died. He was ripe for demolition when he arrived in Tokyo for his fateful match against a journeyman heavyweight motivated to give the performance of a lifetime.
It’s tragic that once all that talent was stripped off Tyson (by himself, mostly) there was just an ugly little person underneath. But honestly, that is the case with most celebrities. Our culture tends to worship people with Tier One talent, and/or beauty. But those things are gifts, not some outward manifestation of inner goodness.
Having followed Evander Holyfield from before he moved up to Heavyweight, I recognized him for an exceptional warrior. Even as a light-heavy, he never had the power to match Tyson (very few in history have ever had a punch like Iron Mike did), but he was smart, disciplined, had knockout power…plus miles and miles of heart.
The documentary portrays Holyfield as a disrespected hard luck fighter who struggled to emerge from under Tyson’s shadow. It’s an interesting perspective, new to me, because I recognized Evander’s potential from way back (serious fight fans had watched him since the Olympics).
Holyfield chased a title match against Tyson from when Iron Mike truly was “the baddest man on the planet.” It’s like a tragicomedy how, every time he got close to his goal, fate stepped in to deny him, time and time again.
After a long, winding path to get there, Holyfield finally got his shot. The Tyson he fought was not the fearsome juggernaut of the past, but neither was he the one-diminsional target who faced Lewis and Douglas.
Evander beat him soundly.
Then, in the infamous rematch, Tyson manifested his inner turmoil for the world to see in all its vile ugliness. Instead of channeling his anger into his fists, as Cus D’Amato had taught him, he took the coward’s way out in an unprecedented foul that ended the fight (he tried to bite Holyfield’s ear off).
Because the film maker slanted the history into such a hard luck narrative, I disagree with many assessments offered, and am disappointed that many facts are missing or touched on so briefly as to seem irrelevant.
To me, the tragic, hard luck aspect of the whole story is that, because of their performance during the downhill slides of their respective careers, history won’t remember what world-class fighters both of these men once were.
In the first installment of this series, the left wing was analyzed. It seemed like stating the obvious, but statistics prove otherwise. Then “cuckservatism” (NeoConnery, RINOcery) was held up to biblical standards. A little harder to judge, because the fruits are disguised, and basically the whole “movement” is a huge straw man.
It’s hard to make any definitive judgments about the “alt right” because there would seem to be some diversity of thought among those who self-identify as such. Who knows–there might even be some actual right-wingers among them. But in this post I’m choosing the loudest voices from the “alt right” to represent their movement. The reason why it’s important to examine this movement in this context is that there are self-professed Christians in their ranks.
This also presents a conundrum, because so-many non-Christians (who comprise most of the “alt right,” it would appear) assume that this life is all there is. Capital “S” Salvation is meaningless to them because they assume there is no judgment and hell to be saved from. Christians, however, understand that where you spend the next life is far more important than your notch count, blog traffic, travel resume, book sales, or the money you accumulate in this life. So the average “alt right” denizen judges human worth based on some subjective list of achievements on the way to the grave Physical, tangible, carnal achievements. But one who believes the Bible thinks salvation is the ultimate achievement, followed closely by rewards in the next life for the treasures he has accordingly stored up in Heaven (spiritually speaking) while walking out his faith in this fallen world.
(Just to be clear: salvation is a gift you can’t earn–only accept. This despite my use of the word “achievement.”)
With such a dichotomy of belief within the movement, we can’t exactly compare apples to apples. Hopefully the Christians in the “alt right” at least understand the spiritual concepts above, because that’s Christianity 101. What’s important for a Christian to remember is that God’s standards never even occur to the unbeliever when determining human worth, yet their ungodly attitude, prejudices and reasoning patterns can still influence your thinking if you’re constantly exposed to them. (1 Cor. 15:33)
1. The “Alt Right”:
When it comes to race, these guys don’t so much put forth deep-rooted beliefs of their own they’ve formed and tested, as they seemingly delight in following a script about the Right Wing Boogeyman crafted by the fanatic leftists who have controlled The Narrative for half a century.
Race is more important than any other factor, according to the overt cyber-reasoning of these people. They subscribe to the “Magic DNA” hypothesis, in which predisposition toward political affiliation, (therefore) form of government, and (therefore) human worth depends solely on the genetic trends that determine skin pigmentation, eye color, texture/color of hair, etc. Blacks are relegated to the bottom of the racial hierarchy and are even called “jungle apes” and the like. It is impossible for blacks to be anything but barbarians, or achieve any significant societal advancement, or desire anything other than their own myopic self interests and immediate gratification, because Magic DNA. There is no explanation for men like Ben Carson, for instance. Instead such examples are dismissed with an epithet like “house nigger.”
Conversely, only whites have the potential to significantly advance civilization (though, occasionally, high IQs among Asians are mentioned), or even maintain it. Whites are at the zenith of the racial hierarchy, and the only ones capable of self-rule, because Magic DNA. But among the “alt right” are those who take it much further: being “white” is not enough, but Anglo-Saxon heritage is really the sole genetic determinant of the ability to create, maintain, or salvage Western Civilization.
2. The Bible:
God launched the human race from the seed of a single man, and later funneled it down through a single descendant. Neither the skin color of Adam, nor Noah, is ever mentioned. Skin color is hardly mentioned at all in the Bible, and never as a determinant of human worth. For whatever reason, our Creator chose to use more than one color when designing the human race.
Jesus painted the picture of two paths in life: the wide, easy road to hell, which most of humanity is traveling; and the straight, narrow path to salvation, which few find. (Matt. 7:13-14) What path an individual travels is determined by their choice; not genetics. (Rom. 10:8-13) Jesus commanded His disciples to spread the good news to all humanity; and, in fact, people from “every nation, tribe and tongue” are/will be redeemed from the Earth, and will comprise God’s coming Kingdom. (Rev. 5:9-10)
Sinful man obsesses over outward characteristics, judging human worth based on appearance, accent, vocabulary, etc.–and the “alt right” sees nothing wrong with that; but God examines the inner workings of a person’s soul. (1 Sam. 16:7)
All people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (yes, including white Anglo-Saxons). The only DNA that can save you from justice is found in the blood of Jesus.
As for the Anglo-Saxon red herring, it really falls of its own weight when you examine it. Out of one side of the “alt right” mouth comes the assertion that the USA was established to be a white society–that the founding fathers were just as racially motivated as present-day “alt righters;” but further, that even other Europeans (outside England) don’t possess the Magic DNA required to form, preserve, or even appreciate rule of law and a representative government. Germans, specifically, are one of the nationalities listed as lacking this Magic DNA. But out the other side of the “alt right” mouth comes the decree that Anglo-Saxons are uniquely equipped with the Magic DNA necessary to create a constitutional republic such as the one established in North America in the late 18th Century.
Evidently, somebody failed to inform them that the Angles and Saxons were German.
To hear the “alt right” tell the story, you might assume the colonists settled North America in order to escape from savage hordes of “Dindu Nuffins” and establish a racially pure Aryan Empire. (After all–there’s that reference to posterity in America’s founding documents.)
In reality, what motivated the colonists to settle in North America was to escape the unjust rule of other white Europeans and a state-controlled church. They were devout Christians who recognized Christ as the sole mediator and gateway between man and his Creator (John 14:6)–they did not accept as mediator some corrupt bureaucratic hierarchy with its own axe to grind. They wanted freedom–primarily religious freedom. To this day they are still called “pilgrims” (and this historic fact has not been revised away probably because US residents have been dumbed-down to the point that they assume “pilgrim” has no meaning beyond a quaint Dutch fashion design that included buckled shoes and funny hats).
What sparked the Revolution was not some affront to racial pride or “purity” (as if the British have ever had such a thing, even from Roman times). In fact, neither was it the commodities tax on tea. It was an attempt to disarm the American people that triggered the “shot heard round the world.”
1. The “Alt Right”:
While they pounce on any opportunity to show contempt toward most of the human beings created in the image of God, regardless of the respective person’s character; they approve and/or fawn over the individuals who practice abominations–especially the Most Favored Perversion of our times. (Rom. 1:24-32)
It says a lot that, when speaking of the victims of the Orlando shooting, Donald Trump used the phrase “wonderful Americans.” He doesn’t speak that way about other victims of terrorism; just homosexuals. To him (or at least to those he’s pandering to), there’s something “wonderful” about homosexuals. They are more wonderful than normal Americans, judging by his words.
The left has been pushing sexual deviancy on the culture relentlessly, and most of the “alt right” has swallowed it whole. Ironic, because this sort of gullibility is what they frequently accuse the cucks of.
2. The Bible:
There is no ambiguity about sexual sins, including sodomy, in the Old or New Testaments. The links/scripture references would take a while to compile, and an honest individual who genuinely wants to know can easily find enough, via simple search, to make God’s position on the matter crystal clear.
Those who would have you believe God is different today from yesterday, (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8) that He must have finally evolved to humanity’s lofty 2016 pinnacle of sophistication, are banking on you never studying the book for yourselves.
Which is an act of love: yanking a careless child out of the path of a speeding truck; or letting the child be smashed into roadkill?
Which is an act of love: warning somebody that they are on the wide path to hell and they need to get off it; or encouraging them to stay on that path as long as they’re getting their jollies there? (And reinforcing the lie that there is “nothing wrong with it” and there will never be consequences.)
Salvation is available to all sinners, but steps to salvation include confession and repentance. When you deny that your perverted lifestyle is wrong,
You are calling God a liar.
You indicate your refusal to either confess or repent.
1. The “Alt Right”:
Not satisfied with cultivating generic racism (a sort of “Affirmative Action” in reverse), many outspoken agitators of the movement pride themselves on how anti-Semitic they can be.
I don’t just mean specific Jew-bashing. I mean the very word “Semitic” is often used to challenge someone’s status as “white” and therefore revoke their claim to the good strand of Magic DNA. That doesn’t just target Jews; it doesn’t just target Hebrews; it doesn’t just target the offspring of Abraham. Anyone descended from Noah’s son Shem is automatically subhuman by virtue of heritage alone–the bad strand of Magic DNA.
That’s a whole lot of people, in case you were wondering. But one person in particular needs to be highlighted here: the God/man (((Jesus Christ))). God chose to redeem the human race garbed in human flesh, but not just any random human flesh. His Jewish pedigree was very carefully established and detailed. (Matt. 1; Luke 3:23-38)
Follow the “alt right” logic through to the end, and (((Christ))) Himself is inferior to a white European (especially an Anglo-Saxon!). His life; death; resurrection; witness; character…all of it is meaningless because that Magic DNA makes him the enemy of Western Civilization.
2. The Bible:
There was a time when God set apart one strand of DNA as special, and chose to deal with the entire world through those who shared that common ancestry.
Prepare yourself for a shock, because it wasn’t Anglo-Saxons.
Our Creator chose Abraham and his descendants to bless the world through (Gen. 12:3). For the next two generations, that purpose was narrowed down twice more, through Isaac, then Jacob/Israel.
Two concrete examples of how the world was blessed through that lineage:
The Messiah (“Christ”).
Is a Jew, Israelite, or other Semitic person, automatically holy due simply to the fact that they were born with a specific DNA? Obviously not–any more than an Anglo-Saxon is. This is a fallacy many Christians fall into: that Israel is magically “good” because of the Abrahamic covenant. In reality, their politicians are just as corrupt as ours; Israelis are just as morally bankrupt, if not more so, than US residents; and they follow the tenets of their religion about as faithfully as the average US citizen practices Christianity. Furthermore, most of them are hostile toward their own Messiah and those who follow Him.
And yet, there is a remnant of Israel that God will redeem (Isaiah 10:20-21; Heb. 8:8-12), even though they are spiritually blind for a while. (Rom. 11)
The Church is not a replacement for Israel, as some would have you believe. There is more overlap than you would suspect (i.e: Christians of Hebrew lineage–like the apostles, disciples, and most of the 1st Century Christians), but the roles and missions of the two entities are different.
Again, those who teach Replacement Theology or any other anti-Semitic doctrines (Rev. 3:9) as Christian either don’t know/believe the Bible, or are calling God a liar.
IDOLATRY AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION
1. The “Alt Right”:
Most on the “alt right” have little appreciation or affection for the constitutional republic in America, and will tell you as much with no qualms. The only time they ostensibly take a pro-American stance is to try to reinterpret this country as Anglo-Saxia, or some similar Magic DNA argument.
It is “Western Civilization” they pledge allegiance to.
What do they mean by “Western CIvilization?”
Good question. Important question.
Beyond the Magic DNA assumption, I suspect that phrase has a thousand different meanings, depending on who uses it.
Whether it is meant to conjure up Greco-Roman sculpture and architecture; the solidarity (ha!) of the Holy Roman Empire; the chivalry of Medieval times; the art and music of the Napoleonic era; or the technological innovation of the Third Reich, it requires an historic myopia to trade your American birthright for any of that despotic stew.
More than one “alt-righter” has literally voiced their desire for a “god-king” or “god-emperor” (who they currently envision as Donald Trump).
Starting with the Caesars, Western Civilization has seen its share of “god-kings.” But nobody on the alt-right has sold me on the benefits of living in a civilization wherein the word of one man can cause you to be imprisoned, crucified, fed to the lions, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, tortured to death, sent to the guillotine, or locked in an oven. Frankly, I don’t understand why you would want to be considered guilty until proven innocent; exchange God-given rights, which are inalienable, for government-granted privileges which can be revoked at any time; and where another human determines how you will live your life.
That’s what Western Civilization was, before the United States of America. That’s what the left wants it to be again. And by Odin, as long as the god-emperor is an alpha male with Magic DNA, full speed ahead!
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny that so many agitating bloggers assume they’ll still be able to spout off their opinions freely under a “god-king.” When the last vestiges of our freedom, protected by “muh Constitution,” are gone, you will only be allowed to speak or blog what your “god-king” agrees with.
Maybe a couple of the “god-kings” of Western Civilization were as good as many assume President Trump would be. They were the exception, not the rule.
Some seem to recognize the fallacy of a “god-king” like Barack Hussein Obama aspires to be. It’s idiotic to assume it would be any less wrong if only his skin was paler. And, historically, there have been a whole lot more pale-skinned Obama-type rulers in Western Civilization than there have been King Arthurs (or whoever the idyllic god-king is).
Western Civilization has become an idol; and the “alt right” is willing to make a sacrifice of our lives, liberty, and property, to whatever “god-king” steps up.
2. The Bible:
The First Commandment is for us to have no other “gods” before our Creator God.
The “alt right” ranks Western Civilization of utmost importance, and trusts their desired god-emperor more than they trust our Creator.
That’s a Magic DNA fail right there, since it’s pretty much what those Semitic, Hebraic, non-Western-Civilized Israelites demonstrated (1 Sam. 8:4-20). In America we have no Caesar and no king but Jesus (who we are free to reject, to our own damnation), but the “alt right” would rather be ruled by the creature than the Creator.
At least one book could be written on how political affiliations compare to the Biblical worldview. I encourage the honest reader to research it further on his own, if this post fails to cover the “alt right” in adequate detail.
There will be at least one more post in this series.
TEOTWAWKI or “The End Of The World As We Know It” is a brand which has been traditionally applied to post-apocalyptic movies, games, and books. In such narratives, the story begins AFTER some cataclysmic event has forever altered life on Earth.
SHTF or “Shit Hits The Fan” stories are about, or take place DURING the cataclysmic event. (Most “patriot fiction” fits inside this genre.)
It occurred to me we’ve been throwing everything under the TEOTWAWKI umbrella (including my own latest novel). Because I review so much work in the genre, I have now made a SHTF category and moved all (I hope) the relevant posts into it, for ease and accuracy of navigation.
I’ve been consuming a lot of SHTF and TEOTWAWKI entertainment lately. Recently I’ve tossed two books aside before finishing them. That has prompted me to create a new category called “Pet Peeves,” and this is my first post to be categorized that way.
There are a few different tropes that often annoy me enough to quit watching or reading whatever incorporates them. As regular readers of Virtual Pulp can probably guess, left-wing propaganda is one of them (explaining why I rarely go to movies anymore, and never watch TV). Another nauseating trope is the obligatory “strong female character,” which in action/adventure manifests as the obligatory Amazon Superninja.
Another deal-breaker for me is excessive stupidity, in whatever form. Going back to TEOTWAWKI, this is why I didn’t get very far watching the Jericho series on Netflix. It started out with a lot of promise, but smacked me out of my suspension of disbelief too many times to even be engaged by the point where we discover the EMP was caused by the Right Wing Boogeyman (egads! What a surprise!).
I recently picked up a handful of books on free promotion, for my Kindle. One of them featured a rare (for the SHTF genre) protagonist: an extremely naive civilian suburbanite victim of normalcy bias. I know too many people like this guy in real life (throw a rock in North America, and you’ll hit one), and find them a real challenge to engage with on any meaningful level. Yet, for me, it was a unique storytelling perspective (and perhaps overdue), and I guessed he would have to wise up in order to survive.
The character did show signs of maturing over the course of several chapters, and I gritted my teeth through his Pollyana attitude/reactions. I even held my peace, with an eye-roll or two, at how cash was still accepted after the economy, infrastructure, and even government itself were all rendered moot.
Then I came to a scene in which the protag and his companions are waylayed by literal highway robbers. Our hero is armed. The villains are not. He has some supplies he and his pals will require to survive along their journey. The bad guys want to take it.
So he lets them take it, in an alleged compromise (they won’t rape the girl traveling with him).
You have to wonder why some people even have guns, if they’re unwilling to use them even in matters of survival. The sad part is, this character is all too real, and the “compromise” is too perfect a metaphor for how we’ve allowed our freedoms, our government, and our country to be “compromised” away from us. Real life and its stupid people are more than enough, thank-you. This story and character is too much stupidity for something I read voluntarily and sacrifice time for.
The population has been so relentlessly conditioned that it’s hard to escape from the malignant sodomiphilic echo chamber even in indie fiction.
Another book in the genre was also from a suburbanite perspective. There were some trace amounts of the “all men are rapists” attitude in this one, but it wasn’t so “in your face” as to make it unreadable. I had finished reading about 90% of the book before the author sucker-punched me by revealing a character as homosexual.
The reaction to this by one of the main characters was how all reasonable, “open-minded” people are supposed to react: immediate support, equal or surpassing what a “straight” individual should get. Just in case there are still some dirty brains still out there, the efforts to wash them are ubiquitous and never-ending.
No thanks. Pass. I have no interest in reading the remaining 10%.
THE ROAD/JOURNEY PLOT
This really should have been pondered long ago, but only lately has it really become a point of fascination to me that 95-99% of post-apocalyptic tales depict a journey of the protagonist. Most often, the journey is taken in order to reunite with family.
On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense. When the SHTF a lot of people will be separated from loved ones by varying distances. They’ll be away on a business trip, or at the office, grocery store, etc., when disaster strikes. So it’s a valid plot.
It’s also a grossly overused plot. So overused that I’m now rethinking a few sequels to False Flag, and a zombie parody I had in mind.
Because he is so above such sordid affairs of course. Why, his administration is a bastion of honesty, transparency and integrity.
Barack Hussein wouldn’t be in the White House without rigged elections. And massive coverups perpetrated by the lapdog media. And a weaponized welfare state. And generations of dumbing-down the electorate via government schools.
He is a symptom, not the cancer itself.
Don’t imagine for a second the same forces that installed him don’t intend to install Hillary by any means necessary.
I’ve been at this point before–where I’m convinced the entertainment industry is incapable of producing any movie other than formulaic pap, recycled vehicles from decades past, chick-flicks (overt or disguised) or “social justice” agitprop. Then I stumble across something like My All-American, and am amazed that something worth watching can still slip through the cracks.
There are only so many plot variations to be utilized in a jock story, so, granted: one can argue that this film should be included in the “formulaic pap” comment I made above. In fact, you might note many similarities between this movie and Rudy and The Express (or, going back farther, to Brian’s Song, or, changing sports, The Natural). Nevertheless, this biopic should be celebrated by red pill masculists everywhere–especially those raising a son, yearning for something worth watching together.
My All-American tells the story of Freddy Steinmark, who was born to play football. Gifted with natural athletic ability, his father, while working two jobs to support the family, pushed Freddy to relentlessly expand on his talent with rigorous conditioning. His mother (a stay-at-home mom, it seems) was on-board with her son’s disciplined upbringing, complimenting her husband’s stern agenda with loving encouragement.
That family dynamic may not have been so unusual in the stories of yesteryear, but it is downright alien in the reality of America today.
Not only is the home life of Steinmark idiosyncratic in our present cultural context, but Freddy himself was exceptional, in any time and place. He is the model of what a young man should be–and what most parents would once have aspired to raise. To list his positive qualities would make this post too long, but I’ll list three that would seem to be diametrically opposed in any other film coming out of Homowood, Commiefornia. He is:
Ah, crap, I have to list a couple more. The Freddy Steinmark of this film shows the guts, determination and toughness that once exemplified the average American male. Considered too small for most college football programs to take him seriously, there is no “quit” in him, and he fights an uphill battle toward a full-ride scholarship with the Texas Longhorns. I should mention here that other players on the team, and the coach, are developed just enough to make me want to read the book for more details. Despite Steinmark being a terror at defensive back, the team was a team, not a one-man-show. I’m thankful for the authenticy of the film’s depiction of how a football team works (or can work, anyway) from the inside.
One very interesting subplot depicts the starting quarterback–a phenomenal player with a cannon arm–losing his position to a fourth-stringer with better instincts for reading opposing defenses, and who more readily adapts to the coach’s new “triple option” offensive scheme.
Though he is a devout Catholic, Steinmark’s portrayal (by Finn Wittrock) is a case study in Christian integrity–not the wussified churchianity so en vogue on both sides of the pulpit in pretty much every denomination today. Even the leading lady’s (Sarah Bolger) portrayal is a departure from the obligatory grrrrl power! cliche`s rammed down our collective throats everywhere else. The only time she gets “assertive” with boyfriend Freddy, it is due to genuine concern over his well-being. (Director Angelo Pizzo, however, does overdo it trying to milk our emotions in a few smarmy scenes no doubt included to appeal to the females in the audience.)
I’m not sure how faithful the movie is to the true story of Freddy Steinmark, though it does ring true. In any case, you won’t find many movies made since the early 1960s or so which present unabashed manhood in such a positive light.
Red-Blooded American Men Examine Pop-Culture and the World