Category: Uncategorized

The Grand Conspiracy, Part 2: Creator vs. Creation

A couple of months ago, I listened to this really fascinating interview between Daily Wire host Michael Knowles and a former occultis/astrologer who gave all that up (including a profitable podcast on the subject) to convert to Christianity. It’s a super-long interview, so here’s the TL;DL: if you don’t worship God, you will ultimately end up worshipping yourself.

This brought to my mind something I heard from a former Hindu convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when I was a missionary in California back in 2004: that all of the major world religions, with their contradictory teachings and beliefs, ultimately look to the creator of the universe as the object of their worship. So no matter how many differences we may have, if we are trying to worship the creator of the universe according to the light and knowledge that we possess, we ultimately aren’t as strange or as different from each other as we think.

Of course, there are other religions that worship the creation instead of the creator. And there are religions that purport to worship the creator, but in reality they have turned their version of the creator into an idol, refusing to worship Him as He really is, but as they wish that he would be. To one degree or another, I think we all struggle with this idolization complex: if it’s not our God that we’re turning into an idol, it’s our treasure, or our social media image, or something else that’s purely worldly. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

But ultimately, it comes down to this question: do you worship the creator of the universe according to the light and knowledge which you possess, or do you worship a mere creation? And this brings us back around to the Michael Knowles interview: because all worship of things that are merely created ultimately devolve into worship of the self.

You know what this looks like. We see examples of it everywhere: from social media narcissism to moral relativism to the modern emphasis on “finding your truth,” “giving yourself grace,” and on finding what works for you. It’s that ridiculous meme (probably wrongly attributed to Marilyn Monroe) that says “if you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” It’s been a plague on our culture since the “me” generation, and probably a long time before.

Scratch that probably: it’s certainly been a plague on our culture, because this selfishness lies at the heart of the mechanism of control that drives the grand conspiracy itself: our lusts.

Everyone who refuses to worship the Creator will come to worship the creation instead, which ultimately means that they will end up worshipping themselves. Therefore, the way to control these people is to manipulate them through their lusts. The only way to break out of this control is to renounce the self and turn everything over to God: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

It is impossible for us to worship nothing. As humans, we all have a driving need to make something the object of our worship. Indeed, this is an essential part of what it means to be human. The hardcore atheist who claims that he “doesn’t need God for a crutch” has, in fact, made some other idol the object of his worship, whether that’s his own dogmatic atheism, or the Nietzschean concept of the Übermensch (which is certainly a form of self-worship), or some other ideology or material object.

So if we, as humans, are going to worship something, and we refuse to worship the Creator, we will ultimately come to make ourselves the object of our worship, in some form or another. This makes us vulnerable to manipulation according to our lusts, which brings us under the control and influence of the Satanic forces that are working to destroy us. This is the mechanism of control behind what I am calling the Grand Conspiracy.

In the next post, we will see how the gradation of lusts creates a hierarchy, or pyramid scheme. Toward the top of this pyramid are the controllers, or those who fancy themselves to be controllers, while at the bottom we find all the useful idiots who are being manipulated, controlled, and abused.

But ultimately, everyone on this pyramid is a useful idiot, because once we give in to our lusts, we fall under the control of the Satanic forces (whether literal or metaphorical) that have orchestrated this entire scheme. Which goes back to what I said in part 1, that if you go up high enough, everyone is being controlled by an overarching malevolent force (whether literal or metaphorical).

And how does this force control us? By our lusts.

The Grand Conspiracy (Index)

Part 3: A Satanic Pyramid Scheme

The Grand Conspiracy, Part 1: Malice or Incompetence?

Remember the time before the pandemic, when “conspiracy theory” was still a dirty word? It still is in some quarters, but for many of us the term is now closer to “spoiler warning.”

After all, what are we supposed to believe: that Epstein hung himself with a bedsheet that couldn’t hold his weight, from a height that couldn’t kill him, at exactly the moment when the guards had abandoned their posts and all of the surveillance equipment had mysteriously and inexplicably gone dark? That is still the official story—just like Ghislane Maxwell, Epstein’s Madam, was thrown in prison for trafficking sex slaves to… well, nobody, at least officially.

Or are we supposed to believe that a novel coronavirus whose genetic profile shows clear evidence of artificial manipulation jumped species from a bat to a pangolin to a human, in a Chinese wet market (which the CCP destroyed before any investigation could be launched) more than 900 miles from the bat’s native habitat, which also just happens to be down the street from the Wuhan Institute of Virology where gain-of-function research was being conducted with bat coronaviruses? I’m not generally a fan of Jon Stewart, but I think he hit the nail on the head with this one:

Of course, this isn’t to say that all conspiracy theories have weight and value. By no means do I believe that the moon landings were fake—there are just too many people who would have to be in on the thing to keep it secret for long, and also, we can see the tracks of the moon landings from Earth. But conspiracies do happen, and often have tremendous impact on the course of history. For example, the United States constitution was born out of the Philadelphia Convention, which conspired to throw out the Articles of Convention and replace them with something entirely different, which was technically an act of treason at the time.

Conspiracies are real, though not all conspiracy theories are true. The challenge is separating conspiracy theory from conspiracy fact.

Which brings us to the old aphorism: “never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.” For the last two years, when I look at the direction my country is going and all of the harm that the Biden Administration has done, I find myself constantly asking: “is this malice, or is this incompetence?” After all, if my goal was to destroy this country, I could hardly do better than what this administration has already done (Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article about that, and he says it better than me). And yet, every time the press secretary opens her mouth, I am reminded of just how staggering is the incompetence of these people. Or is it?

And then I had a realization: if you go up high enough, all of these people are useful idiots to a force of pure malice that is striving to bring about our spiritual enslavement and destruction. I am speaking, of course, of Satan himself.

Now, perhaps you don’t believe that the devil is real. Laying aside the aphorism that “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist,” you don’t have to believe in a literal fallen angel and his hordes of demonic followers in order to follow this particular rabbit hole. The devil is an archetype for a reason, after all. Personally, my own experience has convinced me that demonic forces do indeed exist, but that’s all I care to say on the subject, and I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

But my point is that it’s not like the forces of evil are monolithic: there is a hierarchy of conspirators and useful idiots, and some who may be conspirators on one level are useful idiots on another. At the bottom, it’s almost all useful idiots wreaking havoc by their own incompetence, but at the top, it’s all driven by malice.

Because here’s the thing: when we attribute a particular action to incompetence, we are making an implicit assumption about the motive behind that action. If we assume that Biden’s motive is to serve the interests of the American people, he’s doing a piss-poor job of it—but if we consider that he may have been compromised by China (as the Hunter Biden laptop implicates), or that he only cares about the Biden crime family’s interests, then his actions no longer reak of so much incompetence.

In the game of chess, there’s a thing called a gambit, where the player sacrifices a piece in order to gain an advantage of tempo or position. To the inexperienced player, a gambit often looks like a mistake. Some of the most brilliant chess moves involve a gambit that seems, at first, to be an act of utter incompetence, but that in fact make winning inevitable if the opponent falls for the gambit.

So even though “never attribute to malice” is a good rule of thumb, it’s clearly not sophisticated enough to explain all the insanity we’ve seen in the last two years. But neither is it sufficient to explain this insanity in terms of pure conspiracy—indeed, falling into that trap makes us susceptible to becoming infected by that insanity ourselves. Mattias Desmet points this out in chapter 8 of his seminal work, The Psychology of Totalitarianism. He also says:

In the whole process of exercising power—i.e., shaping the world to the ideological beliefs—there usually is little need to make secret plans and agreements. As Noam Chomsky put it, if you have to tell someone what to do, you’ve chosen the wrong person. In other words: the dominant ideology selects who ends up in key positions… Consequently, all people in positions of power automatically follow the same rules in their thinking and in their behavior and are under the influence of the same attractors.

One of the main points that Desmet makes in this chapter is that when people are driven by an evil ideology—or, in the words of Jordan Peterson, become ideologically possessed—their actions often appear, to someone on the outside, as if they are all part of a grand conspiracy. And yet, none (or at least, very few) of these people have actually entered into a clandestine agreement to support a deliberate plan: they are all just playing the part that they find themselves in, most of them unwittingly.

And yet, even though there is no “conspiracy” in the classical sense, the people who get caught up in the insanity all end up working to advance the purposes of something much bigger than themselves. Indeed, explaining this phenomenon is the entire purpose of Mattias Desmet’s book. He does a brilliant job of it, but mostly from a psychological perspective.

What I want to do is look at this phenomenon from a spiritual and an archetypal perspective, not as a scientist but as a storyteller. That’s why I’m calling it the “grand conspiracy,” even though I recognize that on most levels, it’s not a conspiracy so much as a confluence of interests (or more accurately, a confluence of lusts). I do think that there’s a lot that can be gleaned by looking at it this way, because there is a spiritual dimension to our lives—as Mattias Desmet emphatically points out—and stories and archetypes have been absolutely essential to our understanding of the world since prehistoric times. I happen to believe that Satan is more than just an archetype, but you don’t have to believe that in order for this grand conspiracy to be useful and make sense.

I’ve planned this series out in twelve parts, listed here. From now until the end of February, I’ll post about once a week. Since Christmas is coming and I don’t want to be thinking about all this diabolical stuff over the holiday itself, I’ll post part 2 next Tuesday, and part 3 the week after that, then go back to posting on Saturdays. The first three parts will outline the general theory that I’ve come up with, and the next eight parts will examine each piece of the theory in detail. In the end, I’ll share some concluding thoughts about how this grand conspiracy can—and indeed, ultimately will—be defeated.

I hope you find this series interesting, and I look forward to hearing what you think about it!

Part 2: Creator vs. Created

The Grand Conspiracy (Index)

The Burden of America

The prophecies of Isaiah were written around 750 B.C. and pertained primarily to the major powers of his own day, but if you tweak them just a bit, they apply remarkably well to us. Believers will say that’s because his prophecies were laced with intentional double-meaning, but you don’t have to be a believer to see how remarkably well his words apply to our day and age.

According to Avraham Gileadi (my favorite commentator on the book of Isaiah), the ancient nation that most closely corresponds to the modern United States of America is Egypt. So I thought it would be interesting to present a few exceprts from Isaiah 19, replacing “Egypt” with “America,” “Egyptian” with “American,” etc.

1 The burden of America. Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into the United States of America: and the idols of America shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of America shall melt in the midst of it.

2 And I will set the Americans against the Americans: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

3 And the American Dream shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

4 And the Americans will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce dictator shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts.

…

11  Surely the Republicans are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellors of the president is become brutish: how say ye unto the president, I am the son of the wise, the son of the founding fathers?

12 Where are they? where are thy founding fathers? and let them tell thee now, and let them know what the Lord of hosts hath purposed upon America.

13 The Republicans are become fools, the Democrats are deceived; they have also seduced America, even they that are the stay of the states thereof.

14 The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused the United States to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.

…

22 And the Lord shall smite the United States of America: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be entreated of them, and shall heal them.

What do you want to see more of in author group promotions?

For the last several months, I’ve quietly been running these Christian Author group promotions on Book Funnel and Story Origin. I started them in response to some other group author promotions that I saw floating around on Facebook, with banners that have the standard woke progressive litany. You know how it goes: in this home, we believe that love is love, science is real, black lives matter, vaccines are yada yada yada.

Anyway, I saw those super left-wing promotions floating around, and thought: how can I signal to the readers who think that woke nonsense is insane that I also think it’s insane and don’t have any of that woke crap in my books? In other words, how can I organize a group promotion for non-woke authors without actually coming out and saying “we aren’t woke!”

The reason I don’t want to just come out and say “we aren’t woke!” is because if that’s the way you define yourself, you’re going to be overtly political, just in the opposite direction. For that reason, books that advertise as “anti-woke” are often just as terrible as woke books—or in other words, just as infected with toxic politics. Since the whole point was to get away from the toxic politics, I wanted to anchor the promotions on something that is very much antithetical to the woke nonsense, but not overtly political.

Hence the reason I settled on Christian authors as the theme: not on overtly Christian books, but books that are written by Christians. The thinking was that authors who self-identify as Christians probably wouldn’t go for all that woke nonsense that is, after all, antithetical to Christian teachings, and that readers who want to read Christian authors are also probably trying to avoid fiction that is infected with woke ideology.

Then I read Church of Cowards by Matt Walsh, and I realized that my plan had a fatal flaw: Christianity itself has become so infected with woke ideology that it no longer serves as an effective filter or signal against it. Of course, I knew that this was a problem, but I didn’t know serious the problem had become. In my church, we all still dress in church clothes on Sunday, still actually go to church on Sunday, believe in scripture as the literal word of God, and, you know, accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Apparently, all of those points are now super controversial among those who profess to be Christians. Go figure.

Also, Christian fiction comes with its own baggage that isn’t doing these group promotions any favors—which is a shame, because it’s not the books that are explicitly Christian, just the authors themselves. But apparently, Christian fiction has become so sappy and poorly written that I can hardly blame most readers for looking at those banners and thinking “uh, no thanks”—even the believing Christian readers. In particular, Matt Walsh took apart the God’s Not Dead series, which is apparently worse than most self-published stuff. Also, I tried out Left Behind last month, and DNFed it before the end of the first chapter just because of how ludicrous the setup for that book/series is.

(Seriously, Russia makes an alliance with… Ethiopia? …and randomly decides to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, only to have their ENTIRE AIR FORCE destroyed in a day by a supernatural event? Every combination of the words in that sentence is laughably nonsensical to anyone who follows contemporary geopolitics. The current situation in the Middle East, with Russia and Iran basing forces in Syria, and Iran supplying Russia with kamikaze drones, is a more believable fulfillment of the Gog and Magog prophecies—and that’s before the Russo-Ukraine war spirals into a global conflict. Reality is far more terrifying—and far more Biblical—than anything the Left Behind series cooked up.)

With all of that in mind, it’s not much of a surprise that these Christian Author promotions have underperformed, not just among my existing newsletter subscribers, but among readers generally. So now I’m looking to try out some different themes for group promotions. Some of them are going to be totally non-political: I’ve always had success with the September Space Adventure group promo, after all. But how to reach that reader who thinks that this woke nonsense is insane?

The second banner might be a little too on-point (not to mention, it may get me banned from a few places), but I’m trying out this Books They Want to Ban theme again right now. I did something like it a while ago, and it didn’t do super well, but it’s worth running at least a couple of times to see how it goes.

So what do you think? Should I try running with this theme, or just totally avoid the woke / anti-woke politics altogether?

What’s really behind the “Mormon Church”‘s stance on the Respect for Marriage Act?

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court overthrew Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. This was a major legal and cultural earthquake. A big question that arose from this decision was how will this affect Obergefell v. Hodges, which codified same-sex marriage as legal back in 2015? Most of the conservative justices stated that Dobbs does not affect Obergefell, but Justice Thomas stated that he was willing to revisit that case.

In response, congress crafted the Respect for Marriage Act, which would require the federal government to redefine “marriage” in a way that would recognize same-sex marriage equally with traditional marriage. What does this mean for those who believe that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman? As I understand it, those who espouse this view could be prosecuted for discrimination if this bill passes. There are some protections for religious institutions, but many conservatives believe that these are too weak, and that this law would put us on the slippery slope to churches losing their tax exempt status and possibly even being forced to perform same-sex marriages.

To everyone’s surprise, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out with an official statement in support of this legislation, or specifically, this “way forward.” There’s been a lot of noise in the press about this, most of which is either misinformed or outright misinformation, so here is the full statement:

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.

We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.

Some outlets, like the Washington Post (where democracy dies in darkness), are reporting that this statement represents a doctrinal shift for the church, and an embrace of same-sex marriage. However, a careful reading should demonstrate that this is fake news calculated to create a false narrative and manufacture consent for that false narrative. Sadly, this is typical of MSM rags like the Washington Post.

Other commentators argue that the restored church has “surrendered to the spirit of the age” and is siding with Utah Senator Mitt Romney, who is ready to sign the Respect for Marriage Act as it stands, instead of Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is pushing for an amendment to the bill that would strengthen the protections for religious freedom.

Frankly, I don’t see that. The church’s statement does not endorse any specific legislation, but “this [new] approach,” and expresses support for “the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections.” (emphasis added) Yes, the statement came out before the bill passed the house and Mike Lee put forward his amendments, but I don’t see anything to indicate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is siding with Romney over Lee.

But has the restored church gone over to the spirit of the age? At best, it appears that the church is making a strategic retreat in the culture wars. It’s certainly a far cry from the Proposition 8 debate in the 00s, in which Californians ultimately voted to ban same-sex marriage. What a different world that was! With this most recent statement, it appears that the church has switched from defending the traditional definition of marriage to pushing instead for protections on religious freedom.

How are we supposed to square this with paragraph 9 of the Family Proclamation? That was the question that Greg Matsen asked on the most recent episode of the Cwic Media podcast. For reference, here is paragraph 9 in its entirety:

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

When you read the rest of the Family Proclamation, which is a line-by-line, point-by-point refutation of many of the radical gender theories currently taking over our society (which is remarkable, since the proclamation was issued in the 90s, long before any of these radical ideologies had hit the cultural mainstream), it certainly seems to be at odds with the church’s recent statement, which supports “preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters” and “the rights of LGBTQ individuals.”

But what if those two documents aren’t at odds at all? What if the best way to “preserve and maintain” traditional marriage in our current cultural climate is also to preserve LGBTQ rights? In other words, what if the church isn’t capitulating or retreating from the marriage issue, but making a strategic retreat in anticipation of a new front opening up in the culture wars—a battle which will make strange bedfellows of same-sex marriage proponents and the defenders of traditional marriage?

In an ideal world, the church would want to foster a society in which the laws of the land are in harmony with the laws of the restored gospel—in other words, a society that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously, we don’t live in that society (at least, not here in the United States). So what are our options instead?

On the one hand, we can accept that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, and seek to promote laws that strengthen both the traditional family and the families of same-sex couples together. On the other hand, we can push for the libertarian approach of “getting the government out of the marriage business altogether,” removing the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage and making the state totally agnostic to marriage and families.

Which of those two paths is more likely to “maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society”? Which of those paths is more likely to lead to a society where marriage is considered to be obsolete and unnecessary?

Which brings us to the next major front in the culture wars, which I believe is going to be between those who view marriage and family as a social goods, and those who view the family as a “system of oppression” and want to deconstruct and abolish it altogether. We got a sneak peak of this in 2020, when the Black Lives Matter movement posted the following statement on their website:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

At the time, this statement created some controversy, and the organization ultimately took it down. If you search online for information about it, you get a bunch of articles “debunking” that BLM ever advocated destroying the traditional family. But the radical left’s modus operandi is first to hide and deny what they’re doing, then to accuse you of doing what they’re actually doing, then to ridicule you for pointing out what they’re doing, and finally to attack you for opposing it at all. We’re already well into the first phase of that process.

Black Lives Matter isn’t the only faction in the radical left that would love to destroy or abolish the nuclear family. Those who are pushing to normalize pedophilia would love to see such a cultural shift too. Same with those who are pushing the Cloward-Piven strategy of making us all more dependent on the state. Same with the Malthusian climate change alarmists who are pushing the depopulation agenda.

If this is the next big front in the culture wars, then conservatives might play right into the hand of the enemy by continuing to push a losing cultural battle for the traditional definition of marriage. After all, what better way to “get the government out of the marriage business” than to point out that we can’t even agree on the definition of marriage in the first place? And once the state becomes agnostic to marriage, we’re well on the slippery slope to a society that views the family itself as obsolete and unnecessary.

I would love to live in a society that recognizes the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that vigorously promotes measures to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. Unfortunately, at this point it’s going to take a generational struggle to get us to that society—perhaps even a multi-generational struggle—and we’re not going to win that struggle by fighting the last generation’s war.

So has the restored church capitulated on the issue of traditional marriage? Has it surrendered to the spirit of the age? Hardly. If anything, I think the brethren are just as far-sighted and inspired as they were when they gave us the Family Proclamation. Be prepared to make some very strange bedfellows in the coming years.

Is politics the problem?

Steve Deace made an interesting point on his show today. They were talking about the tendency for some people to vote purely along cultural lines, even when they disagree with almost everything that “their” candidate stands for—or in other words, people who vote Democrat “because we are Democrats” or Republican “because we are Republicans.” In that context, he posed the question: in the Fetterman-Oz race, where Fetterman clearly is not mentally fit for the job, would he and his co-hosts have voted for the Fetterman candidate if the R and the D were reversed?

They all admitted that yes, they would have plugged their nose and pulled the lever for the incompetent candidate over the one from the party that is, in their words, advancing a demonic agenda. In other words, when you’re in the midst of a “cold civil war” (I don’t really like that term, but it is gaining traction for a reason), the most important thing is to close ranks and defeat the other side, no matter how bad your own guys may be.

With the way our politics are trending, I think there are a lot of people on Team Red and Team Blue who see it that way. I also think there are a lot of people on Team Don’t-Talk-To-Me-About-Politics who despise that, and are deliberately voting against the partisan firebrands because they are such firebrands. And that’s laying aside the question of voter fraud, which is really starting to piss me off. Seriously, if Arizona were a developing country, our State Department and half the NGOs in Washington would be crying foul right now and declaring that Arizona is no longer a democratic nation capable of holding free and fair elections. But I digress.

The discussion made me think about something my wife said about the abortion debate, how the deeper problem is that we only ever frame it in terms of what is legal, not in terms of what is good. By focusing on the law and on what is or should be permissible we overlook things like the rape victim who decides not to get an abortion, but put the child up for adoption instead, or the struggling young mother who doesn’t want to get an abortion, but doesn’t feel like she has any other option.

This tendency that have to make everything about politics, or everything about the law, is very convenient for those agendas that are seeking to subvert our individual liberty and sovereignty, and turn us from citizens into mere subjects and wards of the state. Under these circumstances, the more we look for a political solution, or turn to a political savior, the more we play into the factions with the anti-freedom agenda.

In other words, we don’t just have a political problem in this country: politics is the problem. If our families were strong, our culture were wholesome and uplifting, our churches (or mosques, or temples) were full, and our money were based on honest value, our politics would not be so toxic and divisive, because we wouldn’t feel like we needed our politicians to save us.

Of course, if this is true, it means that the partisan divide is merely symptomatic of a much deeper political problem. Even if one side got their savior, be it Trump, or Desantis, or Bernie Sanders—or dare I say, Barack Obama—the underlying issue would remain. And what is that issue? I suspect it has to do with our transformation from a nation of citizens into a nation of subjects, or of debt-serfs subjugated to a fundamentally dishonest fiat money system.

At the end of the day, we get the politicians that we deserve and are willing to put up with. Even the most totalitarian dictator only rules because of the will of the people. When enough people are willing to risk everything to stand up to him, that is the day that he falls. Likewise, it’s not our “sacred democracy” that makes us free. God made us free. The state cannot grant us the freedom that God has already given us; it can only take our freedom away.

Is this the worst possible election result?

As I write this, it’s the morning after the US 2022 midterm elections. The results aren’t totally in yet, but it appears that the Republicans are going to have a slight majority in the House, while the Senate is poised on the edge of a knife and could go either way.

Republicans had convinced themselves that a massive “red wave” was coming, and the fact that it didn’t materialize has left many of them believing that the judgments of God hang over this country. Meanwhile, the Democrats had worked themselves into a frenzy over the abortion issue, and the fact that the Republicans gained ground is probably making many of them fear that a Handmaid’s Tale future is not far off for us.

Those who believe that the 2020 elections were rigged by the Democrats have ample reason to believe that the 2022 were rigged as well, with some very suspicious anomalies happening in key Democrat strongholds. Meanwhile, those who fear that “election deniers” are a threat to “our democracy” have ample ammunition to support their views too, as the final results weren’t that far off from the polls.

The divided government is likely to give us two long years of gridlock, which wouldn’t be a bad thing under normal circumstances, but with inflation being what it is, the (manufactured) energy crisis crushing us, and the war in Ukraine getting messier by the day, we’re likely to see all of those things get worse, not better. The stock market might see a slight reprive, but the real economy is going to be a slaughterhouse for the next two years—and each side will try to pin the blame on the other.

Meanwhile, I doubt there’s going to be any real accountability for the criminals who gave us the pandemic lockdowns and the jab mandates, at least in the next two years. And the Biden administration is likely to get even more aggressive with their weaponization of the DOJ and other government agencies, since they won’t be able to get their agenda through congress.

In short, this election provided zero clarity, no firm direction, and is bound to reinforce everyone’s pre-existing biases, making the partisan divide even wider and the crazies on both sides even crazier. If we were on the path to a civil war before these elections, we are even more locked into that path right now.

Inflation and book pricing

So with inflation being what it is, one of the questions on my mind these last few months has been whether I should raise my book prices to keep up with the increased cost of living. We’re definitely feeling it every time we go to the gas station or the grocery store, and I’m sure that all of you are feeling it too—and those of you overseas are probably feeling it much worse than we are.

Short answer: No, I do not plan to raise my prices in the immediate future. In fact, I’ve actually lowered some of my prices. When I do raise prices, it will be because Amazon and the other retailers have changed their printing costs and/or royalty structure.

Long answer: My books are currently priced according to the following schedule (all prices in USD):

  • Free or 99¢: Short-term sales and permafree books.
  • $2.99: Ebooks only, typically novellas.
  • $4.99: Ebooks only, typically novels and collections.
  • $8.99: Audiobooks only, where the ebook is $2.99.
  • $9.99: Ebook bundles and some paperbacks.
  • $14.99: Paperbacks.
  • $16.99: Audiobooks only, where the ebook is $4.99.

Every year, I conduct a reader survey around October-November. A couple of weeks ago, I got the results back from this year’s survey, and the answers to the pricing questions are largely unchanged. If anything, it seems like readers are more price conscious than they were last year.

And that makes sense, when you consider that books—especially genre fiction books—are a luxury item for most people. When the budget is being squeezed by the increasing price of food and gas, it makes sense that readers would cut back on their book buying habits. After all, paperbacks have very little nutritional value—ebooks and audiobooks even less so—and burning them is a very expensive way to keep warm.

All joking aside, though, I don’t think that now is the time to raise my prices. From a business perspective, the data just doesn’t support it, but also from a human perspective it just seems like a bad thing to do. I like my readers. I don’t want to put the screws to their wallets just because everyone else is, too.

(In fact, the data indicates that I’ve been making a mistake by pricing all the first books in my trilogies at $4.99. One of the questions on my survey was “from which of my series have you read at least one book?” and none of my series received more than a 45% response. This tells me that there isn’t enough series crossover happening, and that I need to treat the first book in every series as a potential entry point into my catalog. So I’ve decided to drop my ebook prices to $2.99 for every first book in a trilogy, even where I haven’t finished the trilogy yet.)

The other side of that, of course, is that my own wallet is getting screwed. Jeff Bezos famously said that “your margin is my opportunity,” and as much as we indies may love Amazon, Amazon is definitely not our friend. But so far, the screwing has not been much of a problem, at least as far as inflation is concerned.

When Amazon essentially created the indie ebook market, they did it on an agency model, where publishers set the prices and receive a percentage from the sale in royalties. For the last decade, that royalty structure has not changed: ebooks priced between $2.99 and $9.99 get a 70% royalty rate, and everything else gets 35%.

Things are a little different on the print side of things, which follows a wholesale model and delivers a physical product. Printing costs are definitely creeping up, though so far it’s only been by a few cents. At $14.99, I’ve got a fair amount of wiggle room, but if per-unit print costs go up by a couple of dollars, I will have to raise my prices.

Same thing with the digital products. If inflation continues to accelerate, or even if it continues at its current pace for a sustained period of time, there is a very good chance that Amazon will change their royalty structure for ebooks, and all of the other platforms will likely follow suit. If/when that happens, it really will put the screws on us indie authors, and you’ll probably see most of us raise our prices as a result.

I don’t know how I’ll respond when that happens, but I’ve decided that until it happens, it will be better to keep my prices where they are. So until the increasing print costs or changes to the ebook royalty structure force me to increase my book prices, I plan to keep them where they are.

Reading Resolution Update: After Action Report

My 2022 reading resolution: Read or DNF every novel that has won a Hugo or a Nebula award, and acquire all the good ones.

Earlier this month, I finished my last Hugo/Nebula book and ordered the last two ones that I hadn’t yet acquired. The first of those (Powers by Ursula K. Le Guin) arrived just this morning, and the other one (Way Station by Clifford D. Simak) is supposed to arrive next week, so I think that now is a good time to do a retrospective and share some of my thoughts.

There were 104 books in total, including the most recent award winners (I decided not to count the retro-Hugos midway through the year). Of those, I’ve read 35 through from start to finish, and decided that 24 were worth keeping. The rest of them (69, or almost exactly two thirds) I DNFed.

Finishing one in three books is actually about on par for me. I’ve found that if I don’t allow myself to DNF books early and often, I just don’t read. Also, it doesn’t really surprise me that nearly one third of the books I read all the way through didn’t really impress me. What can I say—I’ve a very opinionated man.

Of the 28 books that have won both a Hugo and a Nebula, I finished 12 (or about two-fifths) and found that eight (or a little over a quarter) were worth keeping. So not much different than the overall totals.

Of the 45 books that won only a Hugo, I finished 18 (exactly two-fifths) and found that 14 (about a third) were worth keeping. So my personal taste seems to be tilted more toward the Hugo than the Nebula. The difference becomes even more stark when you take out the 20 books that were nominated for (but did not win) a Nebula, a whopping 16 of which I DNFed. Excluding those, we’re left with 25 books, 14 (or more than half) of which I finished, and 11 (or just under half) I thought were worth keeping.

The contrast becomes even sharper when we look at the Nebula-only winners. Out of the 31 books that didn’t win a Hugo but did win the Nebula, I finished only five (less than one-sixth) and found that only two were worth keeping. Both of those were books that weren’t even nominated for the Hugo. When we look at the 16 Nebula-winners that were nominated for a Hugo but didn’t win, I finished only two of them (one-eight) and didn’t think that any of them were worth keeping.

So the best predictor that I wouldn’t like a book is if it won a Nebula and was nominated for a Hugo, but didn’t win. In other words, if the SFWA crowd (which is mostly authors) said “this is the best novel published this year!” and the denizens of Worldcon said “yeah… no,” that almost guaranteed I would hate it. In fact, just getting nominated for a Nebula is enough to make a book suspect.

This is why, earlier in the year, I posited the theory that SFWA has done more to ruin science fiction than any other organization. I saw this trend coming all the way back in the spring, when I was only halfway through the reading list. In the early years, SFWA was all about politicizing science fiction, and in the last few years, it’s basically turned into a nasty bunch of mean girls all trying to get a Nebula for themselves.

I tracked a few other awards just to see if there were any correlations. For the 18 books that placed in any category in the Goodreads Awards, there were only four books that I finished and two that I thought were worth keeping. Network Effect by Martha Wells received 22,971 votes in the Science Fiction category in 2020, which came to 9.69%. Blackout by Connie Willis gained only 337 votes in 2010, but that was 9.19% back then. Both of those books were keepers. The only other book that got a higher percentage for its year was Redshirts by John Scalzi, with 4,618 votes at 10.82%, but I DNFed that one. Most Hugo/Nebula winning books didn’t even clear the 5% threshold in the Goodreads Choice Awards, and in my experience anything under 10% that doesn’t immediately jump out to me probably isn’t worth reading.

Of the six Hugo/Nebula books that were nominated for a Dragon Award, the only one I even really finished was Network Effect by Martha Wells. But that makes sense, since it’s no great secret that the Hugo/Nebula crowd is trying to sabotage the Dragons by pulling exactly the same shenanigans that they accused the Sad Puppies of doing. Accusation is projection is confession, after all. As of 2022, there has never been a Hugo/Nebula winning book that has also won a Dragon, and while part of me hopes that it stays that way, another part of me is very curious to read the first book that does.

Almost all of the 104 Hugo/Nebula winning books placed somewhere in the various Locus recommended reading lists, which isn’t surprising since those lists are generally regarded as feeders for the Hugos and Nebulas (and used to get more people voting in them, too). Of the seven books that weren’t on a Locus list, the only one I finished was They’d Rather Be Right by Mark Clifton and Frank Riley, which also has the distinction of being the most difficult book to find.

(A lot of people think They’d Rather Be Right was the worst book to ever win a Hugo, but I actually enjoyed it. Unlike most Hugo/Nebula books, it was remarkably anti-Malthusian, which is probably why it’s so hated. As for the worst book to ever win a Hugo, I personally grant that distinction to Dreamsnake by Vonda N. McIntyre.)

There were only ten Hugo/Nebula books that won or were nominated for a World Fantasy Award, and I only finished two of them (and didn’t think either were worth keeping). Perhaps that means that makes it the actual best predictor that I’ll hate a book, but ten is a pretty small sample size, so I’m holding off judgment for now.

The best two decades for me were the 50s (7 books, 4 keepers) and the 00s (16 books, 6 keepers), though the 80s came in close with five keepers out of sixteen books—and let’s be honest, Blackout and All Clear by Connie Willis are basically two halves of the same book. In contrast, the worst two decades were the 70s (only one keeper out of 13 total books) and the most recent decade, the 10s (15 books, 2 keepers).

So far, the 20s aren’t shaping up to be much better. In fact, I think it’s entirely fair to say that given the state of fandom since the election of President Trump (and the general state of insanity in this post-Trump era), a Hugo or a Nebula should count as a mark against a book, rather than for it. That is, the primary value of these awards is to tell you which books to avoid. Perhaps this will change at some point in the future, like it did after the madness of the 70s or the malaise of the 90s (not a good decade for science fiction, apart from books published by Baen), but I’m not holding my breath.

So that was my reading resolution for 2022. If I hadn’t allowed myself to DNF, I can guarantee that I never would have accomplished it. As it stands, though, I’m pretty satisfied with how it turned out.

What sort of reading resolution should I set for 2023?