To Retort, Or Not To Retort

…That is the question I’ve been pondering for a while with regards to dishonest, drive-by, one-star reviews at Amazon and Goodreads.

Conventional wisdom is for authors to avoid responding to negative reviews, lest you look defensive, yada yada yada. I’ve done that up until now.

But I’ve been mulling over something I read about Trump: He’s one of those successful guys who fires right back when criticised. First debate with Shrillery notwithstanding (because he did actually come off as defensive), this has worked pretty well for him.

I’ve received negative reviews on all my novels, and some of my shorter books as well. But one of them from about a year ago stands out as the wthoughtcoporst. It’s intentionally insulting, first of all–no doubt a ploy to get an emotional rise out of me (all the more reason for me to not take the bait, I suppose, but c’est le guerre). And it’s also intentionally misleading, by somebody who evidently didn’t read the book. It’s got all the fingerprints of an SJW troll attempting to protect unwashed brains around the world from a counter-narrative.

The point-and-shriek review, and my response are here.

Trump Drops the Ball in First Debate

It’s a cardinal sin in any sort of conflict to underestimate your opponent. That’s true in football, boxing, war…and in politics. No matter how weak your adversary is, or appears to be, it is foolish to count your chickens before they’re hatched. To paraphrase Bob Griese, overconfidence leads to arrogance, which leads to carelessness, which leads to defeat.

I’m not saying underestimation was the folly of Trump himself. I do consider him overconfident, but I honestly don’t know what goes through his mind most of the time.

But it definitely is the folly of Trump’s supporters. Loudmouths all over the “Alt Right” and, in fact, all over the neomasculine blogosphere have been talking smack about the debates for months, assuming a Trump victory with some rather outlandish predictions–like Hillary wouldn’t even show up; or that she would collapse on stage or go into a coughing fit.

This smack-talking is nothing new. I remember vividly from 2012, from memes and comment threads, how the cuck Paul Ryan was going to destroy the moron Joe Biden in their debate; and even how RINO Mitt Romney was going to win the election in a landslide.

The enemy is so weak, all we have to do is show up. Like Mike Tyson in Tokyo.

Evil is rarely incompetent. The people who installed Barack Hussein Obama, and who have sold Hillary to half of the electorate already, did not get to where they are by inept buffonery. It is idiotic to assume that Hillary’s handlers can’t prep her to look good for 90 minutes. They made Obama look good, for Kek’s sake.

But the debate wasn’t lost because Hillary looked good. It wasn’t even because the “mediator” is a shill for the Democrats. (Anybody with a functioning brain has come to expect that.)

Trump beat himself.

The man is just not a good speaker. He played defense, letting Hillary take, and maintain, the initiative. He missed opening after opening, wasted time with bumbling explanations that nearly always missed the key points, and often proved himself incapable of even completing a coherent sentence.

The swing voters are just as superficial as the “Alt Right” loudmouths who assume a Trumpslide because alpha male. (And because “master of rhetoric.”) This has been a fact since the very first televised presidential debate. They will choose a silver-tongued devil like Slick Willy or Hussein every time, even when they know they’re being lied to (or should know–this goes back to the whole functioning brain qualifier).  Trump didn’t look “presidential,” or even comfortable. I fully expect to read and hear descriptive words like “rude” and “bully” all day tomorrow. Maybe even “illiterate,” “dullard,” “unintelligent” or the like. That is the image he presented to the ovine masses.

I could never be a politician, for many reasons. One of them is that I am probably even worse than Trump at expressing my ideas orally.  I do not level these criticisms of him out of any notion that I could have performed better.

I’m merely observing that he needs a different game plan if he has any hope of articulating his own ideas or exposing Hillary’s glaring weaknesses in such a fashion that the lapdog media won’t be able to continue hiding them. I’m also observing that the smack-talkers on the Trump Train are not to be taken seriously, now or ever.

Learn from history, lest you repeat it.


Riot of the Month

“Black Lives Matter” is at it again, this time in Charlotte, NC. The excuse for looting, destroying, and attacking innocent people is another police shooting.

Frankly, something stinks about both versions of the story. The Sacrosanct Victim Class is claiming that Keith Lamont Scott was reading a book inside his car when police fatally shot him for being black. The police say they were on the scene to serve a warrant on someone else, when the victim emerged from his vehicle brandishing a gun, and refused to drop it after being repeatedly ordered to disarm. The truth might be somewhere between these implausible narratives, but who cares what is true anymore?

Certainly not #FactsDon’tMatter #BlackLivesMatter.

WND reports:

A crowd of more than 200 protesters gathered in the neighborhood, which is about a mile from the campus of the University of North Carolina, after the shooting.

They could be heard yelling, “Black lives matter,” and “Hands up, don’t shoot!” Some threw rocks and bottles at police and damaged police vehicles. Some of the officers, who were clad in riot gear, fired tear gas to break up the crowd.

“We out like the Taliban!” one rioter could be heard yelling on a Facebook Live broadcast of the protests, reported the Daily Caller.

“We ain’t playin’ no motherf—in’ games, nigga!” a man yelled.

“This ain’t no one-day action!” another cried. “This is the first time people standing up!”

Sixteen police officers were injured, including one who was hit in the face with a rock,  and at least seven civilians were taken to hospitals, officials said.

Later, rioters blocked Interstate 85, one of two major expressways running through Charlotte.

TV footage showed people hurling objects at motorists inside their vehicles and breaking into semi-trucks and stealing their contents. A fire was set to block the lanes of traffic and a nearby Walmart store was also looted.

A Walmart employee told the local TV station some electronic equipment was stolen, including a flat-screen television and iPads.

Well, I’m certainly inspired by their valiant quest for justice. In fact, I’m so inspired, I may just take to the streets myself and smash some windows, steal some iPads and ambush random traffic on the highway, as a statement of social justice. …After flogging myself, of course, since the skin pigmentation I was born with automatically makes me guilty of centuries of oppression against entitled hood rats. As soon as George Soros wires me the money, I’ll bring racial harmony to a town near you by agitating a mob of no account parasites into throwing violent tantrums with bricks, rocks and incendiary implements.

The Man in the High Castle

Alternate history is a genre full of potential. Unfortunately, the concepts are usually more interesting than their execution in film or fiction.

In a world…

…Where the Axis Powers won WWII, a resistance movement sparks to life in 1962.

Now that you’re hooked with that brilliant high-concept pitch, some expository details:

  • America lost the Second World War in 1952.
  • Nazi Germany got The Bomb first, evidently, and used it to force surrender.
  • Hitler is still in power, but his health is failing.
  • Goering and Goebels (maybe Himmler, too) are jockeying into position to succeed Adolf.
  • The Eastern US is a puppet German state; the western US is occupied by Imperial Japan.
  • In the middle is “neutral territory.”
  • The reason for that neutrality, how it is maintained, and what it means exactly, is not completely clear as of Episode 3.

I see no reason to continue watching after the third episode. In fact, I pretty much knew all I needed to know 15 minutes into Episode 1. Well, probably upon reading the Amazon Prime blurb. But I’m always hoping to be surprised (and am, once in a while), so I clicked on “play.” I kept it playing for three episodes because I had paperwork to do and couldn’t find much that looked better.

There’s really nothing new here. Every part of the story so far, subtly or not-so-subtly, faithfully follows the cultural Marxist playbook. Listing quibbles would be a tedious task. Let’s cut to the Groundbreaking Plot Device:

Wanna know what motivates the resistance movement against the JapaNazis? You might suppose it would have something to do with the twofold reign of terror and a yearning for the freedom that was lost.

You’d be wrong.

See, this “Man in the High Castle” is making propaganda films. (No narcissism in Hollywood. Nope, not one smidgeon of evidence of self-importance.) These films are smuggled through underground networks, and depict an “alternate” outcome of the war, where the Good Guys won. (You know, the one we in this reality believe in.)


Without these films, Americans are unable to imagine a different course of history from the one they’ve traveled. But now, thanks to being spoon-fed what could have happened differently, it’s time to throw off the shackles of their Axis oppressors!

By watching movies.

Well, there is one act of defiance you might expect from a resistance movement…an extremely incompetent one doomed to fail, that is: an ambush of two quislings in a limousine. Despite complete surprise and a crossfire with automatic weapons (Thompsons, I think, though I wasn’t watching closely) one SS officer armed with a Luger emerges from the kill zone unscathed and takes out all 4-5 ambushers.

(Maybe the scene betrays the director’s closet belief in Aryan Supremacy?)

kinopoisk.ruIt’s a mystery how such silly storytelling can be delivered with a straight face. Perhaps the artistic geniuses behind this series assume an alternate history movie (again, not one iota of painfully obvious self-aggrandizement, here) is revolutionary because they don’t know what life is like outside their leftist echo chamber. In Hollywood (the capitol of Social Justice Propaganda) anyone who dares challenge The Narrative is apprehended by the Thought Police and summarily character assassinated…which means this plot is an example of one of the three Laws of the SJWs: they always project.

In fact, peel away some of the semantic/visual disguises, and this series paints a dystopian portrait of the fundamental transformation to be wrought on America within a few years (but already underway in the Obamanation).

You know–aside from the quibble that the USA they aspire to will not enjoy any prosperity similar to the actual America of 1962.

Churchianity and the Biblical Worldview

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel—not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!

-Galatians 1:6-9

Previously, I contrasted the Biblical worldview with some political affiliations: the Left Wing (“liberals” for those who insist on using Newspeak); the NeoCons/RINOs/cucks; and the “Alt Right.” Of course there are more out there, but those seem to be the three most significant camps  right now.

Identifying churchianity and determining how it stacks up against the Biblical worldview is more important than any of the other comparisons by far, for a few reasons. It is a perversion of Christianity itself, for starters.

Churchianity can be found in all political affiliations and demographics. But churchians don’t identify themselves by this term and would take offense to be called “churchian.” They identify themselves as (and most believe they are) Christians.

What is a Christian? Most would agree that a Christian is a follower or disciple of Christ. So lets remember just a sample of proclamations that Christ made:

  • Christ is the only way to God the Father–there is no way except through Him. (John 14:6)
  • Only those who do the will of God the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 7:21)
  • Christ’s disciples continually follow His teachings. (John 8:31)
  • Christ and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
  • Christ’s words will never pass away. (Luke 21:33)

The Church, as Jesus defined it, is made up of His followers. The Church  transcends time, geography and ethnicity. The WASP down the street from you, the African convert in the 19th Century, and the very first disciples–Jews who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago–are all part of the Church. But because human beings are careless in their terminology, “church” has come to mean a specific congregation, a worship service, and/or the building where that worship service takes place. Rarely is “church” used the way Jesus used it. To avoid confusion, I’m typing a capital “C” when using the Biblical definition.

“Churchian,” then, identifies a person or people who “go to church,” but who do not follow Biblical teaching. Their belief system isn’t Christian (though it appears so to the world, and to many who have only a superficial Biblical understanding), but is formed more by church traditions, by humanistic philosophies, popular opinion, and emotion.

Politically speaking, it is easy to conflate churchianity with cuckservatism, because most white “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” are cucks. However, multiple political stripes run through mainstream churchianity. The enemy will use whatever flavor of deception is needed to steer people away from the truth, on a case-by-case basis.

The common denominator among all churchians is that, to one degree or another, they reject or ignore Biblical teaching, in favor of what their itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3-4).



Nearly every churchian has been taught, believes, and regurgitates a feminized gospel.

  • Many parts of the Bible will never be taught because they seem “sexist” or “misogynistic” by our lofty 21st Century standards.
  • If those parts are ever read aloud, it is only to explain them away as not meaning what they obviously mean.
  • This is most blatant when it comes to the Biblical instructions given to wives and husbands.
  • Females are considered innately pure. They do not have a fallen nature like males do. Usually the only sin they are capable of is not having a big enough ego.
  • Single mothers are heroic role models. Any time a woman appears to be sinful (and the sin can’t be denied or rationalized away) it is presumed to ultimately be the fault of a man or men.
  • “Submission” doesn’t really mean what it means. Except in Ephesians 5:21.  But not in the very next verse.
  • Ephesians 5:21 means husbands should submit to their wives. 5:22 (which was clearly conceived by some sexist scribe, not by God, because equality) if it means anything at all, means the wife can pay her husband a compliment now and then, if he has faithfully catered to her every whim.
  • Unlike women, men are untrustworthy brutes who will become abusive monsters if the the Bible is not revised, reinterpreted, and/or selectively taught. Because (insert anecdotal example of an abusive husband, real or fictional).
  • God approves of female leadership in church, despite everything in His written word. He only allowed those mean, sexist things (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:12) in the Bible because the chauvenistic simpletons of the past might have taken offense if He had addressed them at the level of our 21st Century sophistication. And you know God is afraid of offending anyone, evident by how His Messiah (Christ) routinely addressed the religious authorities of His day. (Luke 3:7; 12:56; 13:15; Matt. 12:34; 15:7; 23:13, 29, 33; etc.)
  • Masculinity is feared. But rather than admit this, churchians redefine masculinity out of existence: a “real man” is a supplicating, effeminate white knight who lives to serve the female imperative.


Churchians elevate Romans 13 as possibly more important than any/every other part of the Bible. Specific to America, they ignore  that the people are the lawful authority and the politicians are our public servants. They also don’t bother to research the word translated “authority” or study the matter out.

So, according to the churchian gospel, the Bolsheviks were wrong to oppose the Czar; but once they were in power, it was wrong for Lenin to usurp them; yet once Lenin and the Soviets were in power, it was wrong for the Russian people to resist the Soviets, because they were appointed by God to rule righteously and carry out God’s justice.

The French Revolution was wrong, see, until it obtained power. Then it was wrong for Napoleon to overthrow the revolutionary oligarchy. But once he did, it was wrong to oppose Napoleon because he was established by God and didn’t bear the sword in vain.

I am wrong to oppose the criminal traitors in Washington; but if I stage a coup tomorrow and overthrow them, then announce myself dictator for life, then I am the righteous authority appointed by God and you are obligated to submit to my rule. See how it works?

In other words, God approves of everything happening on Planet Earth. It is all His will. Might equals Right and whoever comes to power, by whatever means, automatically has His blessing. Some observers note that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. According to churchian dogma, power purifies, and simply attaining power, all by itself, makes a ruler automatically righteous, legitimate, and a co-regent with God. Every God-hating authority from the King of Sodom to the coming world dictator (the “beast” of Revelation) is a legitimate ruler in god’s sight. God acted against His own doctrine by having Moses oppose Pharaoh, if you follow this logic out.

The popular understanding of Romans 13 is thoroughly NeoCon–another reason it’s easy to conflate cuckservatism with churchianity. For obvious reasons, Romans 13 is also the favorite cherry-picking of the God-haters who are “fundamentally transforming” our country into a third-world police state. “Render unto Caesar” is another misused favorite.


Churchianity runs the gamut from those who deny the supernatural, to those so desperate to witness the supernatural that they will try to fake spiritual gifts.


Popular opinion is more important to the leadership of churchianity than anything God says. One reason they have adopted a different gospel is because they fear offending the world with the real one.

In one of Jesus’ sheep-herding analogies, He teaches that the good shepherd will leave the flock unattended to go find one sheep that has gone astray, and bring it back under his protection. (Matthew 18:12) In the typical church of today, the shepherd would rather lose the one soul who is earnestly seeking the kingdom of God, than offend the 99 churchians who are there out of tradition, to make a withdrawal from the Spiritual ATM, and to hear the feel-good message their ears are itching for.

Church attendance (and, not coincidentally, tithe revenue) is supreme in the “seeker friendly” churches. The Great Commission? (Mark 16:15) Not so much. The Gospel must be modified or watered down, lest attendance suffer because too many people were convicted by the full counsel of God.

Lets Have Church

The Feminized Gospel is universal. Then, for the materialistic Mamon worshipers (Luke 16:13), there is the Prosperity Gospel. For the minority tribalist/victim class churchians there is the Social Justice Gospel. For white nationalists, I’m sure there’s a Caucasian Supremacy Gospel. Whatever your itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3), churchianity has a “gospel” to appeal to you.

Because popular opinion is more important than God’s will, homosexuality is rarely condemned. In fact, ever more frequently, it is embraced. Lifestyle sodomites are being welcomed into the clergy and even ordained. It’s just a trickle now, but the flood is surely coming. Preachers and priests still boldly rail against divorce at every opportunity, because divorcees haven’t formed powerful lobbyist groups that have co-opted the courts into persecuting those who criticize divorce. To speak the truth about sodomy might actually cost you something, these days.

Some churchians have adopted a “Many Paths to God” Gospel, which is the New Age idea that Jesus is just one way of many to salvation. For instance, I’m sure you’ve heard the churchian declarations that Allah is just the Arabic name for the Hebrew/Christian God, and Muslims serve the same entity that Christians do.


This is related to the above segment. Propriety is an idol in the Temple of Churchianity.

The Bible is Rated “R” by churchian standards. It documents sex and violence that is simply too risque` to ever be read aloud in churchian company, much less inside a church building. Imagine (gasp!) if children were to hear/read such sordid accounts! Better to let the world teach them about sex and other aspects of human reality.

Which it will.

Conversely, churchians will watch movies and TV shows that glorify adultery, sodomy, etc; that blaspheme, or try to convince the audience God doesn’t even exist; that whitewashes witchcraft and manufactures obsession about demons, ghosts, vampires or werewolves; which deceive the audience about what is in the Bible and bear false witness about God Himself…and yet they cringe only when the dialog includes cuss words.

To many churchians, anything goes. Except if you utter a synonym for excrement which begins with an “S” instead of a “P”. Then you have broken the Ultimate Commandment. You can  misuse the Lord’s name and many churchians won’t bat an eye; but let an F-bomb slip out in conversation and they will question your salvation.


The culture at large is completely deceived about what love is, and churchians are no different. We have been hoodwinked by all the pop songs, movies and books focused on romance. We assume that love is an emotion.

chippingawayWhen you speak the truth and it makes somebody feel bad, the churchian is quick to denounce you for not speaking “in love.”

Most of Jesus’ ministry was spent telling people what they didn’t want to hear. Yet all of His life here in mortal flesh, from the manger to the cross, was a testimony of love.

Furthermore, although God has perfect love, don’t fool yourself: He also has perfect judgment and perfect wrath. He is not Santa Clause.

Thankfully for all of us, God is longsuffering. But there is coming a day when it will be too late to accept His mercy.

Your refusal to believe in something does not revoke its existence, despite what some philosophers may teach. Hell is real, and you are going there if you reject salvation.


We were warned that there would come a great apostasy (“rebellion” or “falling away” in some translations) of the Church toward the conclusion of history. (1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:3; Matt. 24:12)

It is happening now.

Hillary Wants the Presidency

It’s actually rather pathetic how desperate the Government-Media-Entertainment Complex is to install Hillary RODHAM-Clinton in the White House–from the ongoing coverups, to the gaslighting about her bald-faced lies, to manipulating polls , to blatantly rigging the presidential election to such an extent that the 2012 results would seem legitimate by comparison.

We’re at it again with the song parodies. Enjoy. Share. Like.

Well, many in the “Alt Right” have been pining for a dictator, and to sweep “muh Constitution” and “muh ‘Merica” into the dustbin of history. The Klinton Mafia plans to give them what they’re asking for, good and hard. Since the “Alt Right” are incapable of grasping the Laws of Unintended Consequences in the abstract, they will learn the hard way, by experience.

And drag the rest of us down with them.


Hegelian Plan to Steal the 2016 Election Underway?

Perhaps Hillary’s handlers are worried their armies of illegal aliens, dead and serial voters, plus rigged voting machines won’t be enough. Zero Hedge has the scoop:

What do you do when you’re the dictatorial leader of an oppressive government regime looking to maintain power while simultaneously preserving the facade of free and open elections?  Well, if you’re the Obama administration then you look for avenues to nationalize state-run election infrastructure.

But you can’t just seize control of infrastructure that has been successfully run at the state level for a couple hundred years…that kind of stuff only happens in Venezuela and we’re better than that.  No, you need a catalyst for this kind of blatant power grab.  “Coincidentally”, a catalyst just like the FBI’s warning a couple of days ago about “foreign hackers [read Putin] penetrating state election systems.”  Then, once you’ve defined the super villain, all you need is a couple of political cronies to go on a fear mongering tour to whip the electorate into a frenzy.  And wouldn’t you know it…Harry Reid recently did just that by sending a letter to the FBI voicing his “concerns” that the “Russian government” may be looking to tamper with the upcoming presidential election.  Per the New York Times, Harry Reid’s letter to the FBI included the following:

I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.

The combination of all these things might be just enough to scare the American electorate into forfeiting another chunk of their individual sovereignty to the elite political class in Washington DC while plunging us one step closer to the inevitable end game of “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional democracy into a police state.

Per the Washington Examiner, this sort of scenario is precisely what Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, discussed at an event hosted by The Christian Science Monitor earlier this month.

We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure.”

There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process.


It also seems that  the impartial media has concocted a way to protect Clinton II from any uncomfortable questions Trump might ask: their “debate” will require the candidates to address the audience (and the nation) seperately, allowing Hillary to evade and continue lying without suffering a meltdown if Trump goes off-Narrative.

Amerigeddon–A Review

There’s a scene in the movie The Right Stuff which takes place during the first few months of “the Space Race” after Sputnik was launched. An American muses, “Why do our rockets always blow up on the launch pad?” or something to that effect. I would have had the same question, seeing as how America was still an industrial giant and the world leader in technology. How could Russian rocket scientists be enjoying more success than ours, especially in a country like the USSR where people capable of creative thinking are among those targeted and routinely murdered by the state?

I’ll bet I have the same kind of frustration those late ’50s rocket scientists had. How is it that smart, hardworking, independent thinkers are consistently outperformed at cinematic storytelling by the left-wing hive mind? Why do our movies always suffer poor story telling, cheesy dialog and generally inept suspension of disbelief?

The first couple minutes of Amerigeddon are promising. But then the primary villain was introduced and my cringing began. But I didn’t cringe because of how eeee-veel the bad guys are. The ensuing conversation is corny enough to embarrass a B-Movie Nazi, and it doesn’t get better from there.

Unfortunately, some of the characters are soldiers in the 101st Division. I say unfortunately because the film makers evidently did not bother to recruit a technical advisor with some basic military knowledge. I suppose they get things wrong no worse than most movies and TV shows with alleged military elements, but this is a big taboo for me. I wouldn’t try to shoot a film about doctors or stock brokers without consulting one or more. With all the veterans out here, there’s no excuse for getting the basics so utterly jacked-up.

The plot is fairly weak, though I have seen worse. The hero confronts a Congressional committee about our state of helplessness in the case of an ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP). One wonders what he hoped to accomplish, other than get himself placed on a Domestic Terrorist (“red”) List. The politicians ignore the warning and make veiled threats against the hero.

The EMP occurs once all the exposition is established. A few of the characters know it’s an EMP from the moment the lights go out. Meanwhile, the “soldier” character realizes that the US Army has been subsumed by the UN, and deserts. The rest of the movie depicts a small conglomeration of family and friends retreating to the safety of the rich prepper hero’s backwoods retreat; then fighting off an attack by UN troops in a slipshod, lackluster climactic sequence.

Filming the climactic scenes was probably more exciting than watching them is.


Even though the producer is a millionaire, and millions probably went into making this film, it comes off as very low-budget. With the right choices, that wouldn’t have been as obvious. But no budget is big enough to compensate for what coulda’/shoulda’ been straightened out in the screenwriting stage.

I wanted this movie to be good. It is not.

The only people who will cut this movie some slack are those like me who appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. Watching it is not going to change anyone’s mind, or nudge fence-sitters into an epiphany…because the glaring problems result in a total package which doesn’t come off as believable.

The culture war is not a fair fight. The left has been sneaking their messages into entertainment for a long, long time. They could afford to be subtle because they had so much time to program the minds of the masses, and almost nobody called them out for it (before the Internet came along, anyway). Most people alive today have had The Narrative spoon-fed to them for all their lives. We can’t boil frogs the way they have, for a number of reasons.

And frankly, we are running out of time. We haven’t yet felt the bite of efforts like “Net Neutrality,” just as the “greatest generation” didn’t suffer the full consequences of the New Deal until it could be blamed on convenient scapegoats (like the free market itself), and like the Great Recession and “housing bubble” didn’t manifest until their architects were retired and could safely blame their successors. And like the catastrophic effects of Obamacare won’t be fully felt until Hussein is duly whitewashed, canonized, and (with the media’s willing assistance) can blame his political rivals. But even beyond “Net Neutrality,” Hillary has hinted at her intent to shut down the alternative media. A clear violation of the law she will swear to uphold and defend, but who is going to hold her accountable to her oath–the FBI?  The DOJ? The Supreme Court? Congress? You?

Yeah, just like Obama has been held accountable.

Ahem. So with time running out, we can’t plant little seeds like the left did over the course of generations. Besides, they were virtually unopposed while we have opposition everywhere. When it comes to the arts, the left has an overwhelming numerical advantage. When it comes to film, TV, video games and other expensive arts, they have every conceivable advantage (other than their Narrative itself, which is built with and on lies, and routinely contradicts itself).

So what can we do?

I’ve drifted too far off-topic already. This movie will not win hearts and minds.

Below is a link to some speculative SHTF tales that are much better (though the plausibility of the Red Dawn remake is questionable).