MILO Witch Hunt Unmasks Legacy Publishers, Media

MILO

 

Media witch hunt

The recent witch hunt against Milo Yiannopoulos offered a valuable insight into how the legacy media, the political establishment, and New York publishers operate and what their real motives are.

The elites who run our government, press, and entertainment industries see themselves as better educated, better morally, and simply better than the people they seek to control.That’s why they’re unpersoning a gay Catholic of Jewish ancestry–because he poses a threat to their cultural dominance.

Look at the timing of their attacks. Three weeks ago, Leftist terrorists started riots over Milo’s planned speech at UC Berkeley. As a result, his upcoming book Dangerous climbed to the top of Amazon (which I can personally attest to, since a book on which Milo and I are credited as co-authors received a similar bump). Last week, he appeared with Bill Maher on HBO. Then came his (now cancelled) CPAC keynote speech announcement.

As independent author and journalist Mike Cernovich notes, Milo’s meteoric rise was on course to land him his own show on Fox News. The media and political elite that Milo has made a career of lambasting couldn’t allow that. In their panic to keep Milo from going mainstream, they got desperate.

Concern trolls are playing into the enemy’s hands.

Before we talk about what the media establishment’s dog-piling on Milo means for free expression, particularly on the part of non-Leftists who want to remain employed and enfranchised, let’s dispense with the blatantly ridiculous narrative that’s been deployed against him.

Here’s the video that was cherry-picked to falsely portray Milo as a pedophilia apologist. The conversation that the press mined for quotes occurs from 1:01:38 to 1:06:07 [Warning: NSFW language].

Law professor Glenn Reynolds examines a transcript of the video and delivers his informed opinion exonerating Milo (emphasis mine):

“It’s complicated” is usually the correct answer about questions concerning sex. But Milo’s actual position on pedophilia — he’s outed three pederasts in his reporting — doesn’t seem complicated at all.

Here is Milo’s own statement on the matter. The definitive quote:

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

Read the rest for some indispensable and devastating context. The short version: Milo himself was abused as a minor–in some instances by a priest. He continues to work through his childhood trauma using humor. His comments in the video weren’t intended to advocate for pedophilia–which he specifically denounced–or to belittle other victims.

Milo reiterates and expands on these points in his press conference from earlier this afternoon.

By spinning a pedophilia advocacy narrative against a victim of child sex abuse, the media establishment showed just how frightened they are.

The footage they’re using to crucify Milo has been publicly available for over a year. This isn’t a case of skeletons hidden in someone’s closet suddenly coming to light. It’s a brazen, coordinated attempt to de-platform a rival who’s proved spectacularly effective at competing for the public’s attention–specifically the vital college-age demographic.

In their attempt to destroy Milo, the legacy media resorted to pure Alinsky tactics. They targeted Milo personally and tried to polarize the Right into pro and anti-Milo camps by playing Conservatives’ own principles against them. Though support for Milo remains strong, more than a few people who are otherwise opposed to the social, political, and spiritual destruction wreaked by the mainstream media have been duped into helping them by letting themselves be led into the weeds of pointless semantic arguments and Pharisaism.

And if you think they won’t do it to you, it just means you’re not big enough yet.

The best argument for indie

Descending into the journalistic gutter to pull down Milo tipped the establishment’s hand. When they claim to champion the rights of gays, minorities, and immigrants; yet converge to destroy a homosexual Jew visiting the US from Europe, its obvious that all they care about is power.

They’re also projecting, as Milo’s former publisher Simon & Schuster demonstrate by continuing to publish admitted incestuous pedophile Lena Dunham. Aware of the glaring double standard, Salon tried to scrub all of the pro-pedophilia articles from their site. Unfortunately for them, the internet is forever.

What does all of this mean for non-Left wing writers, journalists, and public figures?

  1. Most of the government, media, and entertainment industry is corrupt. The elites who run the bureaucracies in Washington, Hollywood, and New York care only about maintaining their monopolies on power.
  2. Since their primary concern is maintaining their narrative, and because that narrative contradicts reality, the mainstream press cannot be trusted.
  3. Given that the legacy media is wholly invested in keeping its monopoly and will shamelessly lie to protect said monopoly, they will not think twice about turning their heavy artillery against anyone who dissents. This means YOU.
  4. Before indulging the urge to join the latest MSM witch hunt under the aegis of “keeping your side honest”, remember that the other side are proven liars who will distort or fabricate facts as convenient to push their narrative. Divide and conquer is their strategy. Don’t be a useful idiot.
  5. Legacy publishers are no longer a viable option for authors who are anywhere to the right of Mao. That goes double for the Big Five New York publishers. This is a blessing in disguise, since indie is almost always a smarter alternative to trad book publishing, anyway. The only exceptions I know of are Castalia House–who will be publishing my next book–and Baen.
  6. It doesn’t matter how lucrative or high-profile your brand is. The corrupt entertainment industry will gladly sacrifice anyone who deviates from the approved narrative. S&S forfeited at least $80 thousand of Milo’s advance, many times that in pre-order refunds, guaranteed spots on every major bestseller list, and millions in future sales. They knew this and still cancelled his book deal because power is more important to them than money.
  7. We need to wake up and realize that the industries and institutions that used to serve us have become not merely self-serving, but actively hostile to most people. You can’t depend on them. Stop helping them. Don’t give them one red cent of your dwindling, hard-earned wages. If you’re an author, use nontraditional publishing channels. If you have the means, build alternative platforms free of the thought police.
I don’t expect people over a certain age to understand the gravity of the situation. But for anyone who’s watched childhood promises of prosperity, an even playing field where success depends on merit, or even basic survival evaporate, trust your eyes. We are at war because war is being made on us. No one’s shooting yet, but our liberties and livelihoods are under attack by history’s most powerful cabal of lawless tyrants.
Worst of all, our forebears let the establishment have this unprecedented power over us. Our parents, professors, pastors, and politicians gave up the Western culture that was our inheritance without a fight. Mostly because they didn’t want to look “hypocritical” or “intolerant”.
Dislike Milo if you want. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m not here to police anyone’s thoughts.
But if you act on misinformed opinions by joining the establishment’s witch hunt against Milo–or any other outspoken critic of the mainstream media’s campaign to quash everyone’s right to free thought–you make yourself a willing pawn of billion dollar corporations who want to see you enslaved or dead.
You say you’re protecting our side from hypocrisy and moral turpitude? I say you’re just virtue-signaling. It doesn’t make sense to fret about the sniper who might be hiding in the hills when you’re surrounded by conspirators who are currently stabbing you to death.

Let’s get our priorities straight.

@BrianNiemeier

Superversive Music: Eye of the Storm

Link

One of the more interesting bands out there, The Cruxshadows is part Goth, and part Catholic. One might go so far as to say that they are Superversive by nature. Take for example, their song, “Eye of the Storm.” Honestly, look at the lyrics (below the video) and tell me that some verses don’t look like articles from the website.

Images from Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core.

The trials you now are facing,
They are not greater than your will,
For there is nothing under Heaven,
You cannot overcome.
See the door that lies before you,
And know – this too shall pass.
The confrontation of your fears,
In strength drawn from the past.

Where the silent voices whisper,
‘Find the course that is your own,
And however great the obstacle,
You will never be alone. ‘
For I have watched the path of Angels,
And I have heard the Heavens roar.
There is strife within the tempest,
But there is calm in the eye of the storm.

In fragments of an instant,
The chaos has returned,
And all that was left to sentiment,
Beneath the banner burned.
And as that voice was slow receded,
Into echoes, memory,
My doubts were re-ignited,
And fear awakened from it’s sleep.

I believe in what I fight for,
And I have paid for it with pain.
I am here because my contributions,
May help turn this fate away.
And all who stood by and did nothing,
Who are they to criticize?
The sacrifices of others-
Our blood has bought their lives…

This is the moment of truth,
At the point of no return.
Place faith in your convictions,
As boundaries start to blur.

There is no love untouched by hate,
No unity without discord.
There is no courage without fear,
There is no peace without a war.
There is no wisdom without regret,
No admiration without scorn.
There is strife within the tempest,
But there is calm in the eye of the storm…

The pages of our history,
Are written by the hand,
With eyes and ears and prejudice,
Too far removed to understand.
And so the heroes of the ages
Are stripped of honesty and love.
To make them seem less noble,
And hide what we can become.

This is the moment of truth,
At the point of no return.
Place faith in your convictions,
As the boundaries start to blur.

There is no love untouched by hate,
No unity without discord
There is no courage without fear,
There is no peace without a war.
There is no wisdom without regret,
No admiration without scorn
There is strife within the tempest,
And there is calm in the eye of the storm…

There is no love untouched by hate,
No unity without discord
There is no courage without fear,
There is no peace without a war.
There is no wisdom without regret,
No admiration without scorn
There is strife within the tempest,
And calm in the eye of the storm…

There is no love untouched by hate,
No unity without discord.
There is no courage without fear,
There is no peace without a war.
There is no wisdom without regret,
No admiration without scorn.
There is strife within the tempest,
And there is calm in the eye of the storm…

If you find the courage within you,
To face the path ahead,
It matters not the outcome,
If what you will gain instead,
Is a heart deepened in the knowing,
That experience carves the soul,
And the very thing that empties you,
Shall surely make you whole.

Where the silent voices whisper,
‘Find the course that is your own,
And however great the obstacle,
You will never be alone. ‘
For I have watched the path of Angels,
And I have heard the Heavens roar.
There is strife within the tempest,
But there is calm in the eye of the storm.

 

Declan Finn is a Dragon Award nominated author. His “Catholic Vampire romance novels” can be found on his personal website. As well as all the other strange things he does.

Evil Books

I have read few books in my life that I would categorize as evil.  But I’m sure there are some people out there that are. And no, I don’t mean a necronomicon. Those are easy — those books you burn, and don’t even ask questions. No, I mean the type of books you need to take a shower over.

However, there are plenty of books I don’t finish. Many I don’t even start. Why? Because of some topics of subject matter that I didn’t know about in the first place.

I will never read books about child rape. Never. Period. Done. We’re finished. If it’s mentioned, like a footnote in the crimes of the perp, that’s one thing, but I will not sit through reading that.

I will never read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo — yes, I’m told that the CHAPTER LONG RAPE SCENE is “soooo well written,” and I don’t care. Period. If it’s so important to the story that the readers need that much detail, screw that. I don’t need that in my head, I’m screwed up enough. Thanks.

Rape, and particularly child rape, will earn you a spot on my personal capitol punishment list. Meaning that I had better not be aware of you within my general vicinity. There’s no reason for me to read it.

We won’t even get into 50 Shades of Stupid. After all, who needs porn? Also, why did it have to be so badly written? Yes, take your pick over what offends me more, the porn or the bad writing. Though I have heard enough excerpts being read in funny little voices that at least tell me that the writing is at least hilariously bad.

There is, of course, crap writing. George RR Martin seems to spend so much time on snow and ice and dead people that I can’t bring myself to care about his work. And I tried. And I failed. Far as I’m concerned, save the world from Martin and run from it.  I expect the series to end with everybody dead. In this case, that’s not evil, that’s just a one-trick pony. His plot only moves when it is lubricated by the bodies of his characters. There are friends who can predict when the next body falls to within five pages of the event. The only reason a lot of people seem to be reading the books is to see who the last one standing is.

And then there are books like Dan Brown. Message fiction. If you don’t believe me, (SPOILERS) the last Dan Brown, Inferno, ended with a third of the world being sterilized. And instead of our heroes doing something reasonable, like trying to stop it, our heroes shrug and go “Oh well, the bad guy was right, overpopulation is a threat to everybody. Screw these people.”

No, that’s not exactly how they put it, but that’s pretty much what I walked away with.

One book I finished in my youth was called MacTeague, something that film buffs would know of via the train wreck that was the 9-hour Eric von Strohiem film Greed. The premise was that a big dumb dentist fell in love with the girl his best friend has his eyes on. The best friend “magnanimously” allows the title doofus to marry the girl.  The girl then wins the lotto (yes, really) and clings to every penny like Scrooge. It ends with the title character killing his wife for the cash, riding of into the desert, pursued by his former best friend (who’s interested only in the money).

The finale is the two of them, in the desert, with no water and no way out, still arguing about the money. All the while I could hear Indiana Jones from Temple of Doom, screaming “You, are going, to DIE.”

I think that was the second time in my life I wanted to fling a book across the room. Because the characters were both evil and stupid, all of whom you’d rather see die. And you wonder “Why did I just burn brain cells on all of this?”

Answer: Because it was assigned reading in high school.

Sadly, most of the crap books I had to finish were due to “education.”

Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye are two books that I’m relatively certain that have added nothing to my life. Honestly, the first one was just literary Thomas Hobbes, and I’ve come to hate it even more after I earned my degree in philosophy. The other was whining narration from a teenager who had a nervous breakdown because he couldn’t handle becoming a grownup, and yes, things change.

As CS Lewis once put into the mouth of a demon, Screwtape, “Of course you can’t tempt your primary soul today, that field that protects him comes from reading a good book. You must stop him from doing that. You want him to read “important” books. Books that he’ll hate.”

So, do yourself a favor everyone. Go out, and read fun books. Books you’re going to enjoy. Because life is too short to read just because someone tells you “this book is important.”

Declan Finn is a Dragon Award nominated author. His “Catholic Vampire romance novels” can be found on his personal website. As well as all the other strange things he does.

Interesting Article From Doris V. Sutherland

I’m going to start out by being somewhat controversial (for this community, anyway; in the worldwide publishing community they probably dislike or hate me for voluntarily associating myself with Vox Day, however loosely, but whatever): I no longer really have a dog (heh) in the Sad/Rabid Puppies fight.

If I did I’d be supportive of the Rabids, mostly because I was disgusted by the behavior of the Hugo regulars at the Cons. So, die Hugos. But truthfully I’ve basically stopped caring except to say that I genuinely hope the Dragon Awards continue getting more popular year after year and eventually supplant the Hugos entirely.

This is all a lead-in to say that when I call Miss (Mrs.?) Sutherland’s article interesting, I actually mean it. I found it interesting.

This is probably not going to make me too popular among some of the superversive folks, who seem to have decided Miss Sutherland is an enemy. And maybe she is; I haven’t been following along with the exchanges all along. All I know is that this particular article is one I thought was mostly fairly well-written and reasoned. There was a bias, of course – there always is, it’s human nature – but, I thought, not an angry one.

That’s not to say I agree with everything, of course.

Miss Sutherland says this:

Towards the end, he makes an abrupt change of subject from heroic horror films to heroic horror literature: but does he mention Robert E. Howard, whose sword-and-sorcery protagonists regularly faced Lovecraftian abominations? Does he acknowledge the writers who have shaped the occult detective genre, from H. and E. Heron through to Jim Butcher? Does he namecheck anyone from the legion of authors, from Bram Stoker onwards, who have thrilled readers with tales of cross-wielding vampire hunters?

Nope, nope, and nope. It is Brian Niemeier who has the distinction of being the only writer mentioned in Young’s survey of horror.

This is a very odd complaint to make. The article Miss Sutherland is referring to is this one, by Josh Young. In the article, Josh made one – one – extremely brief name check of a horror novel that he liked and happened to be superversive. There was no “abrupt subject change”. After that extremely brief name check of a guy who happens to be part of the superversive team and wrote a book Josh enjoyed, Josh continued making his overarching point. He even asked people to offer other recommendations for superversive horror.

Which point of hers Miss Sutherland thinks this supports completely escapes me. Superversives like his novel? Well, sure. Since he’s part of team superversive Josh made a point to mention it? Okay. It illustrated Josh’s point? Sure. But why are any of these problematic?

Miss Sutherland’s point that “Souldancer” is not popular among the sorts of horror fans who follow the Bram Stoker awards seems solid enough, though I’m not sure if this really makes her case that “real” horror fans don’t like Brian’s novel. One of the main puppy points is that we’re trying to end the sort of divide between fans and trufans, who REALLY know what’s what and look down on “Not really” horror fans.

If anything her argument seems to be that the Dragon Awards should get more exposure, so that the long time and hardcore horror fans can have more influence. Good point. They should. But so what?

And I think that’s the biggest point here. Miss Sutherland seems to be saying that, though Brian won, it doesn’t really mean his work is the most popular horror novel, since most horror fans haven’t been following the Puppies controversy and the various literary movements that have sprung up in opposition to SJW convergance. Okay. If that’s the case, vote for something else. Seriously. The option is there. Nobody is stopping her. If she wants to get the word out to the horror community that there’s a new horror award, and see if people are interested in voting for it, that’s great! Go for it.

The problem here is that she’s acting like this delegitimizes Brian’s win. But why? Brian won an open vote fair and square. It’s not his fault that hardcore horror fans didn’t vote for it. He still won.

Miss Sutherland makes some decent points that Brian’s novel wasn’t actually the most popular horror novel written that year, sales wise. Fair enough; I don’t think Brian said it was, but maybe I missed something. He did say it was voted most popular by Dragon Award voters, which is quite true. She also makes the fair point that as of her writing, Jemisin’s traditionally published novel was outpublishing Neimeier. Fair enough. But none of that changes the fact that the Dragon Awards 1) Weren’t started by Puppies groups, and 2) Aren’t open only to puppies groups.

The reason Puppy writers won is that more people voted for them.

She also loses a LOT of credibility by writing this:

Nevertheless, the Puppies – or, more specifically, Niemeier and his immediate circle of friends – kept up the charade that the little-known Souldancer was the most popular horror novel published within the Dragons’ twelve-month eligibility period. Niemeier’s blog post received replies comparing me variously to a spoilt child, a high school mean girl and a wiggling worm for venturing to suggest otherwise. My personal favourite comment came from Niemeier himself; apparently channelling his inner Benjanun Sriduangkaew, he felt it appropriate to threaten me with physical violence:

It’s not the easily excitable guys whose anger you should worry about. It’s the patient, reserved guys quietly sipping their drinks and reading Heinlein novels until they decide they’ve had enough of the loudmouths making a scene, take you out in the parking lot, and bust out your teeth.

(The bold is Brian’s quote.)

As should be clear to – bluntly – anyone with half a brain, Brian wasn’t actually threatenting to bust Miss Sutherland’s teeth. He was making the point that the people who have been quietly taking it for a long time are losing their tempers and starting to fight back; that fighting back is taking the form of the many negative comments and insults she is so concerned about.

More than that – that’s not a threat anyway. Brian’s not threatening to punch anybody, merely warning people that if you keep making a scene, people will eventually get tired of it and fight back. Calling it a “threat” is just an obvious lie.

Later on, she quotes an article by the Injustice Gamer, referring to him as one of Brian’s friends. Well, I don’t know if this is true or not, but she takes issue to this comment by him:

Genesson starts his three-pronged rebuttal by suggesting, bizarrely, that people who give positive reviews to Souldancer are in danger of losing their jobs. He seems to expect us to believe that the legions of Souldancer fans have gathered into some kind of Fight Club-like underground subculture that dare not speak its name.

 

Okay. I read the linked article. I am confusedas to what she is referring to. Maybe this?:

It would seem that Souldancer succeeded in beating out more popular horror nominees, such as Christina Henry’s Alice, merely because its author is pro-Puppy.

Yes, we all trust reviews, do we? Maybe some of us realize how active your type is at disemployment.

Non-bold is Miss Sutherland, bold is the injustice gamer.

Miss Sutherland seems to be extrapolating an extraordinary amount from the Injustice Gamer’s quote. He appears to be observing that SJW’s – which, true or not of Miss Sutherland (frankly, it seems to be true; maybe she wouldn’t even deny it), the Injustice Gamer seems to be referring to – actively try and end the employment of people they don’t agree with. This is observably true; this is a pretty casual article, but if I tried I could come up with quite a few examples of this. This, the Injustice Gamer seems to be contending, means that perhaps some people are worried about leaving positive reviews of Brian’s books.

What this has to do with a “Figh Club underground subculture” escapes me.

For the record, I don’t really agree with the Injustice Gamer. We’ve got enough of a base now that people actually seem to enjoy writing reviews of books a larger segment of the population would denounce as somehow bigoted or dangerous. John C. Wright and Vox Day are far more hated than Brian, but each gets hundreds of reviews of their books. Probably the reason Souldancer doesn’t have as many reviews as either of those guys means Brian doesn’t have as big of an audience. But really, who doesn’t know that?

In that sense, Miss Sutherland is correct. Brian IS held up as the leading Puppy horror author, and he is not one of the most popular horror writers in the world right now. But what Brian IS is an author who is now, by writing horror novels, making enough money to pay bills, gaining more and more popularity as time goes on, and representing a subculture of horror fans that haven’t been catered towards for awhile. He won the Dragon Awards because of those fans, that is true; but other people were perfectly free to vote. They didn’t.

In that sense, the Dragon Awards really are a populist award, because you don’t need to pay to enter, there is no real chance of secret ballot pushing since everything is out in the open, and partially, at least, as a result of that works are winning there that wouldn’t have a chance in the Hugo Awards. That’s important!

She later says this:

If you want to argue that Souldancer is a good novel, then go ahead. If you want to argue that it deserves to be popular, and may someday be popular, then go ahead. But you cannot argue, with any kind of intellectual honesty, that it is currently a popular novel amongst fans of the genre.

This is going to probably get me some hate from all sides, but here it is: I both agree and disagree with this sentiment.

I agree in the sense that of all of the horror books out there, “Souldancer” is not – yet – among the most famous or popular, though its fame and popularity is growing.

What I disagree with – what the Puppies have been fighting with all along – is the distinction between various types of fans of the genre. What about the Josh Young fans of the genre? She mentions earlier that Josh didn’t mention Jim Butcher, which is true. What she did NOT mention is that Jim Butcher IS held in extremely high regard by virtually the entirety of the Puppy fandom. She, bizarrely, points out that Josh didn’t mention Robert E. Howard when Howard is 1) Practically a deity in the Puppy world and 2) Is long dead and not representative of the sorts of people who gets votes in awards. Brian won not because he has a bunch of friends – most of us have probably never met Brian in person and know little about him (like me) – but because he catered to a segment of the audience that had been ignored for a long time.

Is this audience small? Apparently not as small as originally thought. And as awareness for Brian’s novel grows, it is quickly becoming apparent that more and more people are happy that a novel like Brian’s exists.

And YES, it is true that the Puppies were knocking a lot of the paranormal romance/urban fantasy varieties of horror. The reason for this isn’t because the fans didn’t count, but because the novels could hardly be classified as horror. So I’ll move on.

Miss Sutherland, in her anger at how polemic some of Brian’s responses and posts directed towards her were, seems to be unable to help herself from lying or misrepresenting Brian’s comments. She says this:

Incidentally, when I first reported on the Dragon Awards at WWAC, I received a reply from one of the non-Puppy nominees where she mentioned her “obscure indie published military sci fi book”. She has the right idea. She sees that there is no shame in being a little-league writer who does what they enjoy, who picks up a few fans along the way, and who may someday go on to bigger things.

Brian Niemeier does not seem to realise this. For him, it is clearly not enough to have a small but loyal readership that has pushed him to the top of an online poll. He has to present himself as being fandom’s favourite horror writer – the “Dragon of Horror”, as he styles himself – even though he knows full well that this is simply not the truth.

Well, let’s look at that post of Brian’s she linked to. Why does he call himself the Dragon of Horror, anyway?

By popular acclamation, authors of Dragon Award-winning books shall now be styled according to the category in which they won.

So what? Now it’s a problem that Brian is proud of the fact that he won the Dragon Award for best horror novel, and can’t mention that when talking about himself? He calls EVERYONE who won a Dragon award the Dragon of [category]. It doesn’t reference anything except for the fact that he won the award – which is true.

Let me end it with this:

Miss Sutherland seems to be mad that Brian is “keeping up the charade” that his novel was the most popular novel during the period of Dragon Award nominations and voting. She goes on to prove – it seems pretty decisively, to me at least – that Brian’s novel is not more popular than Jemisin’s. Fair enough.

But I’m trying to find where Brian said his novel was actually the most popular. I can’t find it. He’s not an idiot.

He DOES say that it is popular. Well, you can quibble with that I guess, but Brian recently paid some of his bills with the royalties from his writing*, so that seems like something of a stretch at best.

You can point out that it’s not up to 50 reviews, as he claimed. That’s true, but really tangential to the main point.

He does try to argue that the Dragon Awards DO represent the fans. I think he is right for the simple reason that anyone can vote for them, and the awards were made public and spread pretty far. I think she DID successfully prove that he misrepresented – probably unintentionally – his sales numbers.

She did not prove that Brian won merely because he is “pro-puppy”. She didn’t really even make the case, except to say “It kind of makes sense”. I would respond that – as the current rise of Castalia, Superversive SF, and others are proving – he won because he filled a niche.

Sure, not as many people voted in the awards as theoretically could have. It’s the first year! That doesn’t mean he didn’t win the vote – the popular vote.

So while Miss Sutherland made some good, intelligent points, I think she missed the forest for the trees – and she would look quite a bit better if she didn’t grossly misrepresent what some of those writers she quoted were saying. So it goes.

*The J List – 

  • Authors who are still getting used to the idea people want to read their crap.
  • Authors who have sold a respectable number of books.
  • Authors who check their book’s Amazon rank every hour.
  • Authors who start to pay most of their bills with their royalties.

EDIT: Brian responds, and points out that he did not say “Souldancer” sold more copies than Jemisin’s book, but rather that it moved more copies. Brian is correct, meaning that Sutherland was actually wrong about that. As far as I can see the rest of my points still stand.

Also, now that I’m already here I shouldn’t forget to mention that I was wrong about it being Miss Sutherland, since it’s actually a man who got disfiguring surgeries. In the interest of accuracy, please disregard the uses of Miss and insert Mr.

Beginning of the End

Image result for spider-man homecomingI’ve been thinking of that “Homecoming” trailer, and I realized something: My analysis was wrong. “Homecoming” is the beginning of the end of the MCU.

Well, not “Homecoming”. Technically “Doctor Strange”.

I’ll explain:

Early in the MCU, there was no guarantee the franchise would be a juggernaut. “Iron Man” was a huge risk. There’s a reason they followed it up with name brand heroes like the Hulk and Captain America. They wanted to build a brand. Even Thor was a little more well known than Iron Man was, if only from Norse mythology. The risky franchises, like “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Ant-Man”, came later.

Then “Doctor Strange” was made. The Marvel formula always included background and side characters of different races and sexes. But “Doctor Strange” was different. Not only was Eastern European aristocrat Baron Mordo turned into a well-spoken black man, the Ancient One was changed from an old oriental man to a middle-aged Scottish woman. Yes, she was changed into a white person, but don’t kid yourself: This was about social justice. It was about adding a woman and changing stereotypes. Tilda Swinton was terrific, sure, but that wasn’t the point.

“Doctor Strange” wisely didn’t comment on this at all, since it had nothing to do with the movie, but it was an experiment: viewers were willing to accept changes to even more major characters without revolting.

And now “Spider-Man: Homecoming” is continuing the experiment. I’m sure “Homecoming” will be very good. They don’t seem to be attempting to do any commentary on racial issues, the casting for Peter Parker is excellent, and honestly it does make sense for an NYC high school to have more minorities than white folks.

But focusing on that misses the point. Now *everybody* who is a part of Peter’s world, including best friends, BOTH love interests, and even Flash Thompson, are minorities. Even if Zendaya’s character isn’t Mary Jane, they specifically made Peter’s love interests minorities. They specifically made sure to make his best friend a minority. And don’t think for a second that the villain being white is a coincidence – you’re “allowed” to make the villain white and still fulfill your social justice quota.

“Homecoming” isn’t the end point. It’s a test. It’s to see how much diversity casting audiences are willing to accept without revolt. “Star Wars” underwent the same evolution. The prequels made Star Wars think they were invincible; even after critical bashing, they were all still huge monetary hits. Thinking they could get away with anything, they started diversity casting with “The Force Awakens”. It was also a huge hit, but this time…there were rumblings. Brian Niemeier relays those concerns well.

But the franchise still doesn’t see it. They still think they’re invincible. And now, “Rogue One”, explicitly a pro-diversity, SJW film, as openly bragged about by the writers, is going to be the beginning of the end. Oh, it will do well. But it won’t do as well as they expect it to do. They still don’t understand the difference between a movie being poor and insulting your viewers.

“Homecoming” is Marvel’s test. And it will do well. And it will be the beginning of the end for Marvel, because they will think they’re invincible, and their SJW messages will get more and more overt, and, as always, people will get tired of it.

I don’t think “Spider-Man: Homecoming will be bad. In fact, I think it’ll probably be great. But it’s a sign of things to come, and mark my words: It’s not a good one.

The Perfect Society and the Body of Christ

I have recently read 1984 by George Orwell, and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley for the first time.

Both excellent pieces of Science Fiction.

Both immensely disturbing.

When I finished Brave New World, I began to think and muse, and compare it to the world of 1984. In doing so, I discovered both have a surprising amount of things in common.

First, in both stories the society is under strict control. But while one is controlled through force and hatred, the other is controlled through Soma and conditioning. The second common theme is that for the societies to work, the sense of individuality must be destroyed. They need everyone to fit and work together; they need the people to be perfectly in place to make everything run smoothly – just like gears in a machine. But gears are expendable. So if one gear starts acting up, it is much easier to toss it aside and replace it with a more manageable gear. Which is something they wouldn’t hesitate to do.

I was thinking about all this, about a world where everyone is united under one force, working perfectly together. In theory, it sounds great. Since everyone is united, there is no strife and no war within that society. Everyone agrees on everything. And so, in theory, there is world peace. But as you see in both stories, when there are those who dream and who don’t want to live in the boxes they are told to fit into, it almost never comes to a good end. So how can you have a stable society and world peace, but also have free will and imagination? Well, I believe the answer is, you can’t.

If you want a perfect society, you need perfect people. The problem lies in the fact that humanity is messy and imperfect. The only way to make the perfect people for your perfect society, is to take away their humanity and turn them into compliant sheep. Because thinking, dreaming, and using our imagination and intellect is always a dangerous thing, especially to those trying to rule over us. After all, if the sheep started thinking, they might build a ladder over the fence or set the farmhouse on fire.

As I mused over all this, I got to wondering if it was possible to be completely united under one force, while keeping the respect for the individual and human life. Indeed that is possible. People band together for important causes, or to defend themselves in war, and I’m sure a lot of other reason. But it’s never perfect, there will always be some clashing of will within the most united movement.

And so I was trying to think of the closest thing there was to a perfect and completely united people, that still held their individuality. My mind was immediately drawn to the The Body of Christ. Just look at the saints – the men and woman that completely immersed themselves in the Body of Christ. They are all united in their dedication to serve God’s will; yet at the same time, are so vastly different.

Saint Joan of Arc: A warrior and martyr.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: A master theologian.

Saint Gabriel Possenti: Who single handedly ran ruffians out of his village at gunpoint.

Saint Therese of Lisieux: A girl who wanted, throughout all her childhood, to be a nun.

As you can see, there is everything from warriors to thoughtful monks. Certainly, the Body of Christ it is not perfect. Since it is made up of imperfect humans, there will always be small and large struggles; there will always be things that could be better. But it has held up for over 2,000 year – of course, it’s only been held up by the grace of God – but that’s kinda the whole point of it. The Body of Christ is so connected, yet so completely diverse. That’s what makes the Body of Christ so unique and different from the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World.

With all those thoughts melding in my mind, I began to compare the Body of Christ to the Societies. So allow me to further lay out my musing.

As I mentioned before, both societies seek to destroy the individual. Human life is not valued. And so, you are just a part of a machine and have no worth other than serving the society.

Where in the Body of Christ and His Church, you have innate value. And although you have a duty to serve, your value comes from the fact that you are a child of God – made in his image. Not from what you can do or produce.

The other thing is that in both societies, marriage is offensive and the family is repulsive. I find it interesting that even though intercourse in the two societies is viewed in completely opposite ways, their hatred for family and the strong relationships found within it, are almost equal.

In 1984, the family is a threat. The loyalty of the people must be exclusive to Big Brother. Procreation is viewed as an unsavory, yet necessary, act that is not allowed to be enjoyed. The children are instructed in watching and monitoring their parents, and they are rewarded for betraying their parents to the Thought Police for even the tiniest offence.

The family is just as much of a threat in Brave New World as in 1984. Because they are conditioned to flinch at the very word “mother.” Because everyone belongs to everyone else. Because it is not good if someone feels too strongly for someone else. Because intercourse is just a pastime. Because strong feelings lead to strong action. And we have Soma to take that away.

Another common theme is segregations. You can see this in 1984, not only that the inner Party is much richer than the normal labor folks, but in the almost livestock view of the Proles. The Proles aren’t really part of the Party, they are only there to do the dirty work. They are let to their own ways: to work, and drink, and breed. They are less than lower class to everyone else.

However, Brave New World is where you can really see the segregation. Everyone is made into a class. They are made the fit into that class by tamperings while they develop in a bottle, and they learn to love their class from hypnotic conditioning in their sleep as children. There is never much hate between the classes. At most it’s disdain, especially from the upper classes. While you are conditioned to love your group above the others, you are also conditioned to recognize you need to other classes. You’re just really glad you’re not them.

But in the Body of Christ, all are equal and all are welcome. Everytime I go to mass I see rich and poor, man and woman, black, white, and purple, all kneeling next to each other and praying in the same voice. We have people of different backgrounds and walks of life. But neither do we go around bragging about how “diverse” we are. No, I never even notice. I just see people. Because everyone will be looked at and judged the same when brought before the Lord.

Next is the subject about rations, and how everything is assigned: from who they are – as I mentioned earlier – even to what they eat. In 1984 it is very clear to see. The Ministry of Plenty controls how much of what you get, from clothes, to razors, to food. And with the “war” going on, it’s easier for them cut back and give you less.

In Brave New World, it is not as harsh. In fact, is seems like most everyone has plenty of whatever they want. But the Soma is regulated to a degree and passed out from day to day.

In the Body of Christ we are not promised that we will have any earthly comfort. We are only asked to trust that God will provide, and to trust and follow his will. But at the same time this doesn’t mean we can’t work hard and try to make something out of what we have. You can push yourself to do better, you can improve. You do not always have to be stuck with is handed out to you.

Lastly, and what I found most interesting, is that both societies severely limit your free time. They must keep you working, making, doing. They fear, and rightly so, that if a person is allowed to be without distraction and let their mind settle, they will be drawn to find truth.

Where, in the Body of Christ, we are encouraged and even commanded to be still, to pray, and to be alone with the one who made us. The longing for silence is a spiritual longing. And I’m not simply talking about absence of  sound. I’m talking of an inner silence and quieting of mind – the longing to find who you truly are, and from where you came.

You can see this happening in Bernard and Winston.

In Brave New World, Bernard desires to be away from the crowd and the noise: out of the stupor of the Soma, to be alone. Of course this is unheard of and scandalous, and everyone shuns him for it. He feels cast out and empty – looking to be filled by something beyond him.

You can also see this in Helmholtz. He is a writer, wishing to write something with power – or as he puts it, something piercing. He is tired of writing the same, formulated propaganda. He seeks more than just the shallow entertainment allowed to the masses. However, that is impossible, since high art is not allowed in their stable society. They are to be happy, dull, sheep – not made to think too hard about things.

It is very similar for Winston in 1984. He hates that his every move, and every thought, is being watched. He chafes and strains against this strict society. He wishes for, and pursues, freedom. Of course, doing so means certain death.

I believe the common thread unifying these characters, is that they are reaching beyond themselves. Winston wonders and hopes that there is a world, or people, beyond the cruel one he knows. Bernard wants to know what it’s like to have self control, and he wants to be able to sit and look at the world. And Helmholtz wishes to write something to stir the hearts of men. In the societies in which they live, they are held back. But in the Body of Christ, they would be praised and fulfilled.

 

Unpersoned by Twitter’s Deep Shadowban

No Twitter

Having written before about Twitter’s nasty penchant for censoring and outright banning users who deviate from the company’s rigid left wing ideology, I fully expected the Twitter thought police to come for me. Milo Yiannopoulos warned as much.

I just didn’t expect them this soon.

Daddy Warpig tweet 1

Late Friday afternoon: friends on Twitter started complaining that they couldn’t see my tweets. Daddy Warpig placed the blame on a shadowban.

NB: if you’re unfamiliar with the concept of a shadowban, it’s an unofficial and highly passive-aggressive method that Twitter uses to censor people who disagree with them, but who haven’t broken any rules. By keeping the shadowbanned user’s followers from seeing his tweets or even notifications from him, Twitter can say it’s a bug and maintain plausible deniability.

Shadow bans usually last for 24; sometimes 48 hours.

Daddy Warpig tweet 2

Mine was still in effect a day later.

Keep in mind, this whole time I hadn’t received any communication from Twitter. No prior warnings, no notice of a TOS violation, no explanation of what was happening or why. Nothing.

This wasn’t a surprise, since it perfectly fits the kind of arbitrary censorious behavior that conservative and libertarian users have sadly come to expect from Twitter. I’m neither a conservative nor a libertarian, but Twitter just puts everyone to the right of Chairman Mao into the same badthink box.

The censorship continued through Sunday and into today. Lasting longer and with more extensive effects than ever before, this represents a new form of Deep Shadowban.

Rawle tweet 1

Brand visibility is a matter of life and death for a writer’s career. Until quite recently, deplatforming an author could only hurt his career. That’s clearly what Twitter was banking on, but for a social network they’re pretty mired in analog thinking.

The shadowban’s main effect has been to piss my followers off.

PoW tweet

I can’t blame them for getting mad when conversations that look like this to me:

Convo 2

look like this to them:

Convo 3

But it’s the unintended side effects that should really make Twitter rethink the wisdom of shadowbans, especially in this age of antifragility.

Convo 4

 

Greyed tweet

My number of followers before the shadowban: 970.

My number of followers now: 1,033 and counting.

And has this whole messy business helped me sell books?

You bet 🙂

I’m not upset with Twitter for censoring me. Like a small but growing number of independent authors, that only makes me richer and stronger.

I am upset that my readers are upset. I answer to them; never to Twitter. So I’d appreciate it if Twitter would kindly stop belaboring my bosses’ social media experience.

Of course, I expect Twitter to double down. Again. They enjoy making people weaker than them miserable. Let’s see how they like it when the tables are turned.