Let Europe Burn: The Murder of Alfie Evans

The more I look at Europe, the more I think it would look pretty whilst on fire.

For the past twenty years, I've watched Europe fall apart. I saw the EU throw their entire Christian history under the bus in the vain hope of some bright sparkling secularist future. I've seen Europe disrespect their elders to death. I've seen them disrespect the dead by either turning them to fertilizer or just keeping them on ice while the family went on vacation. I've watched Muslims drive Jews out of Europe and have their own pogrom of gays.

I figured that there was always some measure of hope for them. It's not like they were going to murder people, right? There were no boxcars.

Then there's Alfie Evans.

At the time of this post (4/25/18, 9:30AM Eastern) Alfie is only 23 months old. He entered the hospital in December 2016 due to a chest infection that caused chronic seizures, eventually leaving him reliant on a ventilator. The UK doctors can't be bothered to give him a real diagnosis, but his doctors say he suffers from a rare and incurable degenerative neurological condition.

The UK doctors just gave up on him. They wanted to pull his feeding tube and pull the plug on his life support.

Meanwhile, Italy and the Vatican have offered to continue his treatment and try to save him. They offered to pay for the costs. They offered to grant the family citizenship. They offered everything you'd think that a caring parent would offer, only this time it was to a total stranger.

The UK courts said that Alfie couldn't be taken out of the country. It was in the child's best interest that he simply die. At least one decision said that Alfie couldn't even be allowed to go home with his parents, because the parents were a flight risk, and might DARE to do something as simple and as straightforward as GETTING THEIR SON TREATMENT SO HE CAN LIVE.

But nope, the UK has gone full statist. Any rights the little people have are granted to them by the state, and can be taken away at any time, for any whim.

As of the writing of this post, Alfie has been taken off of life support, but he's a stubborn child, and is breathing on his own. He will not go quietly. So, the UK doctors have, in their wisdom, decreed that he will not be fed, nor given anything to drink, and will starve him to death.

I'm afraid that if Alfie lives too much longer on his own, without support from the UK doctors, they will simply go in and smother him with a pillow. No, this is not hyperbole on my part. I expect them to straight out murder him if he doesn't die quickly enough on his own.

Meanwhile, the Leftist douchebags in America, who constantly point to Britain's National Health Service with praise, declaring it THE model for nationalized health care, are dead silent. After all, why should they say anything? They're hoping that little Alfie will die quietly, the news story will slip away, and everyone will forget he even existed.

Don't worry, Lefties, Alfie has already gone into my current book project. You'll be seeing him again.

I'm certain that someone out there will consider this an anomaly, that it's not important for the future. That this isn't worrisome at all.

Please keep in mind the real world incident of the "children's summer camp" for the disabled and the handicapped, the retarded / autistic / et al. Over time, they would be euthanized, their bodies cremated, and there would be a letter sent back to their parents, explaining that their child had contracted a form of meningitis, and the body had to be burned for health reasons. The letters of condolences would be staggered, so that it didn't look too suspicious. Eventually, a Cardinal became suspicious because too many families had this happen to them. Him and his secretary looked into this summer camp, and they didn't come back. They had disappeared both of them.

If you're thinking that this story is "obviously about Nazis," you'd be wrong. This did take place in Germany, but not under Hitler. No, this took place in the 1920s, during the Weimar Republic, about a decade before Hitler came to power. It was under Weimar's eugenics program. For the good of the state, the children were put down, and anyone who looked too closely were treated like criminals.

For the good of the state, Alfie Evans was sentenced to die, and his parents treated like criminals.

But this is the world that Europeans created. This is the world that they've voted to build. It is a world where the state owns them, and they live and die depending on what the state ALLOWS them to have. Which is funny, England used to be part of the "free world." Now they're barring law abiding citizens from leaving for the continent, lest their precious nationalized, single-payer health program be shown up for the freak show that it is.

They voted to give their rights away, and now, they're reaping the consequences.

No, I do not see Europe learning from this. I don't see them changing their ways. I see the laws that murder Alfie Evans be codified and locked into place. Then I see the lawmakers double down on these laws, making it illegal for parents in Alfie's position to even sue the doctors or NHS -- perhaps just skip straight to denying all medical services to anyone who doesn't recover from a condition X-serious in Y-weeks.

This is the world that they built. Barring a miracle, it will not change. While I believe in miracles, I'm not certain about the efficacy of a miracle like this if no one would accept it.

This is what the people of Europe wanted. It will eventually kill them. By the time they figure it out, it'll be too late.


(UPDATED 10:36 AM, EASTERN, 4/25/18: Alfie's doctors, after trying to starve him to death for nearly 28 hours, have deigned to resume feeding him. I would congratulate these butchers on doing something as strange and as outlandish as FEEDING A HUNGRY CHILD, but Alfie's father had talked to the press about how "they wouldn't do this to an animal." I admit that this child, who isn't even two years old yet, has lasted so long without life support, food and water. Alfie may yet live out of pure stubbornness. Assuming the UK doctor's don't murder him in his sleep, when no one is watching.)

GOOD TO THE LAST DROP Roundup

The Epic Conclusion to my Dragon Award nominated series is LIVE... on Kindle, but it's live.

The paperback is already here, but will take a while to merge with the Kindle page.

It has been one heck of a ride. If you wouldn't mind, I would ask everyone who has a social media account, blog, that sort of thing, to please spread the word that the book is up? If you wouldn't mind.

The sale link is here: amzn.to/2whihhz

The flap copy for the book is, of course, at Amazon, but I'd rather keep you here as long as possible.

The description is...

Ahem....

The final war is about to begin, in this conclusion to the Dragon Award Nominated series

Merle Kraft, Marco Catalano and Amanda Colt have battled against the mythical Council, a supernatural conspiracy that monsters fear. This war has brought them up against vampires, minions, and demons from Hell.. Along the way, they have accumulated allies among the police, the military, the mafia, college students, lowly street gangs, and even other vampires.

Marco and Amanda have overcome their biggest terror -- their passion for each other.

But now, they face the final threat, one that is the culmination of every threat before them. This creature from Hell has powers beyond anything they’ve ever seen before, and has allies of his own: including SpecOps minions, an army of vampires, and packs of werewolves.

And that was before Marco got bit.

Right here is a round up of all of the various and sundry posts I've made about and around Good to the Last Drop since the announcement. including the announcement. So if anything here is of interest for spreading around the universe, by all means, enjoy.

Pre-Order Conclusion to the Dragon Award Nominated Series

This is the original announcement. Funny enough, it has an unfortunate reference to Joss Whedon.

A History of Vatican Ninjas

With Great Power comes great artillery. Also, a The Shadow / The Saint Crossover in my head.

Playlist for "Good To the Last Drop"

A music post that's a lot of Within Temptation and a lot of Cruxshadows, with some nightwish tossed in.

Why Catholic Vampires?

By "Traditional Vampires that integrate free will," I mean "Catholic Vampires." Though, as one person replied: Weren't Vampires always Catholic? Sort of

Building Lycanthropy Lore

First I played with Vampires. Then I mess with werewolves.

A Short Biography of a Catholic Vampire

I posted this last week. It's already one of my most popular posts--it's in the TOP FIVE. Of all time. Who knew?

Good to the Last Drop, Chapter 1: A Little B&E Between Friends

As the title reads, Chapter one. Some catch up on the ones who have been left behind.

Good to the Last Drop, Chapter 2: Many Happy Returns

Going straight back to Hell. Or San Francisco

Good to the Last Drop, Chapter 3: Recruitment

Getting some new friends. Sort of

And now, if you haven't, it's time to give in to the Dragon Award Nominated series.

Love at First Bite.

Why Catholic Vampires?

Love at First Bite is my My Dragon Award Nominated series. Usually, my elevator pitch is "Traditional Vampires that integrate free will into the mythology, resulting in a unique end result."

What I don't say is that by "Traditional Vampires that integrate free will," I mean "Catholic Vampires."

This is in part because, as one person replied: Weren't Vampires always Catholic?

There's a point there. In the original mythology that I can recall, Vampires weren't repelled by a cross, but to the crucifix. They reacted to a consecrated host.

But they were also automatically evil. And that was the part I drew the line at. How did that make any sense?

In Dracula, the novel, Vlad Tempes was never considered a nice guy. And I'm certain that Stoker's history wasn't exactly half as detailed as ours would be today. For Stoker, Dracula was probably evil even before he was a vampire. When Lucy was turned, she could be little more than a feral dog, overwhelmed by urges and appetites she'd never had before. All easily explained.

But after a while, once you get into other vampires, why would all of them in fiction become automatically evil? Doesn't that subvert free will? Unless you go for the Buffy solution, which was that all vampires were soulless, and the soul was replaced with a carbon copy of a demon. Basically, people were the skin suits that a demon wore. They drank blood as a perverted mockery of the Eucharist, and that's that.

But otherwise, it's generally unexplained. I don't even remember Larry's Monster Hunter International series addressing it, really. It was just "Vampires are evil, they don't sparkle, just kill the f**kers." (Though if anyone has a better recollection, let me know.)

My vampires at the very least needed to address free will.

Which becomes a problem. How can I have people become vampires, and then automatically afflicted by holy artifacts? Unless I go the "demon wearing a skin suit" route, it doesn't make much sense.

But what if vampires, like people, are formed by their actions?

Catholic theology states that a resurrected body is a body that is perfectly controlled by the soul. So, the more actions one makes, the more the vampire is formed, and the closer body and soul comes together. The more evil actions one commit, the vampire becomes more powerful, but is also more afflicted by religious artifacts.

Anyone who is "good" is something different.

Here's yet another tenant of Catholicism that ended up in the novel: Aristotle. Yes, the vampires are based around Catholic philosophy because the Church still uses Aristotle. "Actions form the person" is straight out of his Ethics. RPGs also use a similar system (the one I'm familiar with is Knights of the Old Republic).

Now, even under this model, I would not, and will not argue for being just "people with fangs." I submit that when you take a person, remove all sense of personal consequences from their life, and give them the powers of a vampire, then they are not "people with fangs," it's a grave temptation to become a serial killer with fangs. One monster or another, there's very little difference except in scale and scope.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "people are naturally evil." I'd say at least half of my vampires are just folk who would like to survive and move along. Wearing a cross is gonna hurt, unless they go to frequent confessions, because even venial sins are going to mount up after a while.

And yes, I want redemption to be a possibility. Why? In part because I sometimes write bad guys that I like enough to want to redeem. They're not pure evil, they just try to be. Also, hell, if you're still on the planet Earth, and not in Hell, I'm fully convinced that Heaven continue to try to catch sinners until the last possible moment. When you consider the number of Catholic saints who used to be schmucks, redemption will sneak into my series eventually.

Keep in mind, this still circles back to the "actions maketh the man" aspect. Evil people can still do good things -- it's rare, but it happens. Granted, some of the most evil pricks on Earth have ironic "virtues" that are comedically small in comparison to their crimes, but some don't even have that much. I don't recall anyone trying to spin Stalin as having a single quality that made him look like anything less than a total prick, while Hitler was a vegetarian who painted flowers.

Granted, the levels of evil I'm dealing with ... well, let's just say that their isn't a LOT of redemption from the antagonists. I may have redeemed two vampire antagonists over the course of the series.

But then again, look at my protagonists, will you? There's Marco ... who's his own type of dark. There's Amanda, who had to participate in things that she still thinks about sometimes. Let's not even discuss Rory, shall we?

Okay, I know what you're thinking: That's all very nice, but how do I do this as a "neutral" thing? How do I leave Free Will while having an obviously supernatural problem? Well, vampirism is transmitted by blood-to-blood contact, so it's a blood born virus. We know the vector.

Obviously, it must be a supernatural virus, transmitted from human / supernatural contact.

In Honor at Stake, I suggested Nephilim were the origin, but I've kept it vague, if only because I don't have any vampires that old to confirm it, nor is there anyone kicking around who has that much history.

If I ever continue the world, I'm going to have to dive into the virology more. After all, vampires have worked with governments -- Nazis, Soviets-- so we know there were experiments. I'm just never going to do those stories, because I suspect it's going to look like Wolfenstein or Hellboy if I do that.

One of the few things I've spelled out is one of the quirks of viruses: most of them try to not kill the host. In fact, if I treat vampirism as being a disease, it's actually a symbiotic relationship, as it keeps the host alive. Which means it would act like it. There are some viruses that actually aid the host by providing food (for example, one real life avian virus that encourages bugs to climb to higher altitude, making it easy for the birds to eat them).

And finally, the best reason I have for doing Catholic vampires ...

I'm Catholic.

Duh.

See if anyone else gets redeemed in the climactic conclusion to the series, with Good to the Last Drop. Or, if you're new here and haven't read the series yet,  click here to get the entire Love at First Bite cycle.

The Last Crusade: In the Kingdom of Witches

John C Wright posted an article called The Last Crusade: In the Kingdom of Witches, part of his series on what's wrong with Western Civ.

The only takeaway from this that the usual crowd had was "JOHN C WRIGHT BELIEVES IN WITCHES TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD."

They have, once again, missed the point.

I have taken it upon myself to translate a great essay into small words, to be understood by small people. I hope I am stupid enough to live down to the task.

The following, believe it or not, contains spoilers for Love at First Bite.

Leftism as it stands today has always been a religion. Don't believe me? Modern Leftism bases most of their beliefs in your basic, boilerplate socialism of the Russian kind. And, since the Russian revolution took  a lot from the French revolution, there is a lot of blood as part of the Leftist faith, and a lot of anti-theist secularism.

Leftism has kept up this tradition, perhaps even better than the Soviet Union ever did. Communism killed a hundred million people in the last century, over the course of 70 years.

Just to highlight this one more time. That's a hundred million. 100,000,000 dead.

In the United States, we're up to, what, fifty million aborted children and counting?  Over the course of less than fifty years? We keep that up, abortion will have wiped out more people than Communism along the same amount of time.

What what do you want to consider a group of people who are hip deep in blood and want to dive in some more? I think witches is a good summary, don't you?

But JCW wants to go deeper.

But the essential nature of a witch, as she was portrayed in fairy tales (which contain a good deal more sense than newspapers) was of a withered, childless spinster: a woman with nothing to offer the community, but whom age and curiosity had opened the secret properties of plants and stars and other things easily turned to venom.

Welcome to Leftism. Nothing can be good and pure and simple. 

Maleficent cannot be an evil psychotic killer who will take deadly retribution over minor slights; she must be rewritten over a backstory where she's actually the heroine. 

Gaston and his henchman cannot be Alpha and lackey, but there must be a homosexual component to it. We don't even go into how many people tried to make Samwise and Frodo's relationship as gay. Or Holmes and Watson. Or Archie Goodwin and Nero Wolfe. Because good pure and simple friendships can't exist in their world, it must be sexual, because sex is everything, right?

Do we even want to get into the freaks that have been on parade? I refuse to call any of them protesters, or people who marched for Civil Rights, because, sorry, that's Martin Luther King Jr leading a parade of people down the street wearing their Sunday finest, because they all just wanted to join the main stream. I don't care if you look at the Occupy rioters living like animals and defecating on the streets and businesses of New York City, or if you want to look at the "womyn" in gynecological garb wandering around a few weeks ago, these are people who very clearly don't want to be maintstream. They want the mainstream to accept THEM, condone, bless, and accept whatever the BS du jour is -- and no, I don't mean "tolerate," as toleration means to put up with something that is abhorrent to you. "I don't care" is not allowed -- you will be made to care. You will be made to accept it and bless it, and kneel before whatever bull is being force fed you, the culture, and whatever else they can get their hands on.

And no, their isn't a mystical, black-helicopter "they." They're in plain sight, after all. Marching in the circus garb they call "a statement," when it's really more like a thousand clowns.

Witches subvert. Witches turn things that are good and pure into poison. THey turn children into child sacrifice. They turn the feminism of Susan B Anthony into genitalia on parade. They turn Christian Charity into entitlement programs to buy votes. They promise a great society and deliver a broken culture and destroyed family. 

Leftism has its own altars in the abortion clinic, and its own sacrifices called children. They have their own public displays of faith called riots, only disguised as "protests."

Leftism. Witchcraft. Subversion. Alinsky. Same Stuff, Different Decade.

And if you want more application of faith brought into a world like this, check out the Love At First Bite Series

The Catholic Geek: Science Fiction and Philosophy 08/14

The Catholic Geek: Science Fiction and Philosophy 08/14 by We Built That Network | Culture Podcasts:




Jason Rennie of Sci Phi Journal comes on the Catholic Geek to discuss Scifi, philosophy, and perhaps, some awards.

Jason Rennie is a software engineer by day and by night edits Sci Phi Journal and helps run the website Superversive SF. He is also in the process of launching Superversive Press. He lives in Australia with his wife and a menagerie of pets.

 I will now suggest to you that you go out and purchase the DRAGON AWARD NOMINATED NOVEL FOR BEST HORROR, HONOR AT STAKE!

TONIGHT on The Catholic Geek: Ayn Rand and Marvel films

The Catholic Geek: Ayn Rand and Marvel films 06/12 by We Built That Network | Politics Conservative Podcasts:

Author Marina Fontaine returns to explain Objectivism to host Declan Finn, and how it has merged with the biggest movie franchise in Hollywood -- hopefully, she will explain it using very small words, so Declan can follow along.

Marina Fontaine is a Russian by birth, an American by choice, and an unrepentant book addict. Because of her background, Marina has always appreciated an opportunity to discover, share and support pro-freedom literature. She runs Small Government Book Fan Club on Goodreads, Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance group on Facebook, and a personal commentary/review blog, Marina's Musings. In addition, she is a part of the Creators' Team at Liberty Island website, where she contributes book reviews and occasional creative work. In December 2013, she entered a Liberty Island flash fiction contest with a story that became an inspiration for Chasing Freedom, her first novel. Marina lives in New Jersey with her very supportive husband, three children and four guinea pigs, working as an accountant by day and a writer by night. Her other interests include hard rock music, action movies and travel.

TONIGHT ON THE CATHOLIC GEEK: I won't be there

Yup. That's right.  After 22 Episodes, I am going to take this Sunday off.

After last week's schedule SNAFU that left me on the air by myself for the better part of the first hour, and the fact that I have no guest this Sunday?  

Yeah, I think it's best that I take off this round.

However, we've got a treat tonight, we've got the Novel Ninja, Matthew Bowman, showing up as the guest host for the evening.

You may know Matt Bowman from his personal website. You may even know him from his job as an editor.  You might, at the end of the day, know him from an entry of Sad Puppies Bite Back.

Tonight, he has the head of the local Royal Manticorian Navy, and a priest to discuss the synod, hence the title: Synods and Starships

The Catholic Geek: Synods and Starships 11/08 by We Built That Network | Culture Podcasts

Catholicism in novels

I was recently asked to write about Catholicism in my novels. Going through Honor at Stake, one might pick up on the fact that I'm Catholic. It's only in about a quarter of the novel, after all. I built my vampires around Catholic metaphysics. Whether or not they're adversely effected by religious icons or not revolved around free will.  Vampires are possibly connected to the nephilim ... okay, that part isn't so original.

Even my romance segments are Catholic -- because unlike most romance novels, my characters don't jump into bed with each other during an adventure that lasts a week, or a month at the outside.

Why so Catholic?

Um ... because I'm Catholic?

Though I must admit, even the reviews I've gotten from atheists liked the way religion was handled.  It's strange.

But the answer still stands, and it's simple: Catholicism informs my view of reality, mostly through Thomas Aquinas.  Why? Because I have degrees in history and philosophy.  Yes, I'm a nerd of many colors.  But still, it really does inform me on reality.

Now, obviously, I'm not using Thomas Aquinas to explain science to me. But Aquinas does come in handy to go the next few steps beyond what science tells us. And, for the most part, Aquinas still works (I say "For the most part" to cover my backside on this, I haven't read every last word Aquinas has ever written).

But then again, I'm strange.  I don't really have faith that God is real. I Know He's there. Don't ask for the details, but let's just say that I view it as common sense. (Am I dissing atheists? No, just the ones who throw insults at me -- I'm looking at you, Dawkins.)  There's no other way for the world to work, really.  Though my brain's kinda funny.  Does this make me super-Catholic? No. Because I'm still human. And my preferred deadly sin is wrath -- so much so I'm relatively certain that I might be a spree killer if I wasn't religious.

Being Catholic really does just inform my worldview.  This goes from how the world works to Vatican Ninjas.  Yes, Honor at Stake has Vatican Ninjas.

So yeah, my head works funny.

REVIEWS ARE IN FOR HONOR AT STAKE!!!!

So, being slightly over prepared, I sent out a few advanced copies of Honor at Stake.

Most of these were either for the sake of blurbs, or for reviews. So some I can link to, some I can't, since they were sent to me directly.

This one -- not official, was a personal contact, but dang it was fun -- was

"OM... you did NOT do that! You did NOT just leave it at that! I think I hate you! Gaaaaahhhh!!! I still can't believe you did that!! *thud* I was just sitting here, into the home stretch, telling my husband, "You know, I don't like vampire stories much, but this one is so different... the action, the theology even, and the romance is so... so... NOOOOOO!!!!" Can't wait for the sequel and I'm highly recommending it when it's released!"

I honestly think that's one of my favorite reviews this far. I believe I now know how Jim Butcher feels when he wants to make the audience suffer. MUAHAHAHAHAH

Anyway...

Other review, from Karina Fabian, who I think is getting back at me for something...okay, she's not, she sort of does puns on a reflex.

"When Vampires try to take a bite out of the Big Apple, they'd better watch out. From street gangs to the Mafia to Vatican ninjas, the best and the worst of humanity bond together to save their city. Finn is a master of the fight scene and nonstop action - Honor at Stake will leave you feeling sucked dry."

A good review that hurts at the same time. That takes skill. :D

From Lori, one of my cobloggers at The Catholic Geek.  As of this minute, the full review is on Amazon.

"Honor At Stake is what happens when a monster-killing action flick meets a solid romance and a compelling character study in a world where "good vampires" actually make sense.  It is thoroughly enjoyable, and I can't wait for another installment."

It's strange when people actually tell me they WANT another book. Huh.

Remember Dawn Witzke? The Guest Puppy?

She did a whole review.   But, some highlights?

• Declan uses a good mix of show and tell to create a unique voice and awesome story.
• He does an impeccable job of balancing the action, suspense and romance. Usually, you get one with a side of the others, but not in this book. All three are served up in equal shares.
• The “rules” for vampires are consistent. Declan does stray from the original vampire lore, but not so much that it’s not believable, unlike a book with sparkley vampires.
• There are Vatican ninjas involved and they have cool toys.
• The romantic scenes are very well done. Declan has a rare gift to be able to write romance scenes that women actually want to read. Men usually fall short in that area.
• There are hooks throughout that force you to keep reading because you just have to know what happens next.
• Did I mention there are ninjas? Oh, and fencing and krav maga and explosions and loads of other fun stuff.

And finally, there is a review from Margot St. Aubin, who read several versions of the book before I submitted it anywhere.

"The closest thing you could describe me as in high school was a Goth .... 

then there was Twilight. Sure, an enthused friend handed them to me. She did a fine job of convincing me they were awesome.

They weren't. Then Declan Finn comes out with Honor at Stake. Dammit, I thought I was over this. I'm even hauling out my Rasputina and Black Tape for a Blue Girl thanks to his guy. He already knows he's responsible for all the Cruxshadows appearing in my playlist. And, he's not sorry at all. That's a good thing. It will be all his fault if I start wearing black lipstick again, I swear. Okay, I'm joking about that last part. No, seriously, this guy writes about... ahem, real vampires, not the sparkly fucked up Jar Jar Binks of the vampire world. They are deadly hunters, with vestiges of humanity that make them more frightening.""

I love my job.

Building Catholic Vampire Lore (Honor At Stake)

Yesterday, I mentioned how I made Honor At Stake a book out of Buffy-inspired fan fiction. But how does one do that?

In the beginning ... get the vampire lore down.  How does it work?

Step one: I want my Dracula back.

And I mean the original Bram Stoker Dracula. Something that made sense.

In the Buffy verse, those who turn into vampires (while they MIGHT have the personality and characteristics of the people they were when they were alive), are basically possessed by a carbon copy of a demon.  This is one way to make the original Dracula story make sense, especially with Lucy being pure and virtuous when alive, and a killing machine when she develops fangs.

Heck, someone in the comments section of one of my last posts insists that's exactly what Bram Stoker had written.

But do I want to do that? Seriously, that seems very quick and easy, doesn't it? Instant killing machine? I don't want to use something that could be a cheap knockoff.

Though on the other hand, I want crucifixes and holy water to work on these creatures of the night.  Why? Because I am sick and tired of these secularized vampires in my vampire fiction. Even Fred Saberhagen, whose Dracula novels I loved, ejected religion almost entirely.

I want that back. Yes, I had no problem with Saberhagen doing that, but he was the first in my experience to do that ... about twenty or thirty years ago.

Another reason I wanted  religious artifacts to work on vampires?  Logically, if left unchecked, the forces of darkness would easily overrun everybody if they so desired. And if there are demons from Hell, there is going to be a God in Heaven. And He will do something to cover our asses. Thank you. Period. The end.

... In which case, then what?  No, seriously, if I'm not going for instant killing machine, just drink blood, how do I make vampires affected by holy items?

Because here's the most important question: How am I going to circumvent free will?

Oh, well, duh, that's the easy part: I incorporate free will.

One of the things people may not be aware of with me is that I play video games.  Yes, I've blogged about it before, but it's been a while.

One of the more important parts of many role-playing video games is Aristotle's ethics: character is shaped by one's actions, motivations, and even words and thoughts.  What we do is who we are. We're formed by actions.

And what if it's the same for vampires?  The more evil or virtuous they are, the more powerful they become.  Day to day people, who just want to get home and take a nap after a long day at work, will probably be generally unaffected by holy artifacts, but they won't be very powerful either.  The vicious have problems being within line of sight of a church.  The virtuous have no problems.

.... How does that work though?

If you look through the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, he created an outline of the abilities of a post-resurrection body. This would include the ability to rearrange the atoms of one's body to slip between the spaces of the atoms in a wall -- because a post-resurrection body would be something the owner would have complete control over, because the soul would be so bound up with the body.

Well, if that's the case, why can't we expand this list into a this hypothetical extension that includes shape-shifting? Like into a bat or something?

In this case, that would make vampirism an imperfect resurrection -- or an imperfect death. If it was perfect, they wouldn't need blood.  Heh.  And the actions that form the vampire would join the body and soul tighter together, and thus increase the vampire's control over their own body, and then can do dang near ANYTHING. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Ahem...

So, this might be the start of something big. I'd be able to keep crucifixes vs. vampires. I could have good vampires, evil vampires, and all of the Dracula-esque superpowers.

Hmm... does that mean my vampires are walking corpses with fangs and a personality? Or are they alive?  Answer: perfect control means they don't need to breathe or eat, but they can if they want to. And let's face it, if they keep their body processes going, they create blood by eating regular food.

We won't even go into blood from the chalice. Heh heh heh.

The next step, of course, is to add vampires to our history.

Were vampires part of the French revolution as part of the nobles being beheaded, or were they part of the peasant rushing forward to catch blood with their bread?

Do I have Nazi vampires? Commie vampires?

Why not both? After all, why else would they have death camps?

Of course, this would require some vampire spies, right?

Ooh, a Cold War with vampires, isn't that fun?

Obviously, this can go on for a very, very, very long time.

And I'm a historian by training, so guess what? I have more background than I have wanted for creating vampire biographies.

This was all so much fun. Enjoy Honor at Stake.

Flashback Blog: Politics of The Pius Trilogy

This came up many, MANY moons ago. Now that I find myself hip-deep in politics all the time, I figure it's time to have this conversation again.




Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp -- now, also coming soon from Damnation Books).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel.

Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics? It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side.

Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.

Getting published; Situation Normal

So, I got a call from my agent last Wednesday.  He called at 9pm, and we started talking.

At the moment, it looks a  lot like it's Situation Normal.   And, for those who do not know military acronyms, Situation Normal are the first two words of SNAFU.

On the one hand, my agent is having a grand old time selling projects. As long as they're nonfiction.

And, as you might recall, while A Pius Man has historical elements all over the darned place, it's contained within a framework of a thriller. Which puts me in a new acronym: SOL.

However, my agent suggested I try writing something in nonfiction. Maybe even Young Adult nonfiction.  Maybe something in Ethics, or Religion, or something like that. Something that parents would want their kids to read.  And, after all, I have been spending large parts of my time writing religion articles for Examiner.com.

So ... any thoughts?

Seriously, you folks are the most non-partisan observers I know. Do you think I should write more articles on Catholicism, only make it into a non-fiction book? I can call it Snarky Theology, 101.

There's also the wonderful world of IRA songs. I had an entire thesis in graduate school around Irish rebel songs. Between the text and the appendix, that was almost 150 pages. I would only need about 90 more pages to have a full book ready.

And, there's philosophy. Yes, philosophy. I can literally rewrite philosophy for the basic consumption of the general population. I am snarky by nature, after all.

For those of you who think I should be writing a nonfiction book on Pius XII .... no. Because I'd rather write a novel that people would read than be lost in the shuffle of the two dozen books on the subject.

So, what do you think I should try? Irish rebel songs? Snarky theology? Philosophy? Ethics? Something else all together?  Give me a comment with your thoughts on the matter.

Father's Day

I love my father ...

Alec Baldwin

When they were filming It's Complicated at St. John's University, where my father teaches philosophy, Alec Baldwin crossed paths with my father. My father gave him a big broad smile, and said, "You know, Adam is my favorite Baldwin brother."

Adam Baldwin on
the right... again.

Alec Baldwin sighed and said "Yeah, I get that alot."

Adam Baldwin has nothing to do with the tribe of the Baldwin brothers, and is actually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from said family of left-wingers.

My father can be just a bit of a troublemaker.

"Atheists are Right." or: Jesus Freaks Scare Me.

Atheists have a point … or some of them do, anyway.

When originally looking at Marx, or Nietzsche, I figured that they had no idea what they were talking about. I do not use my Deity as a drug. I don't hold onto an image of someone being tortured to death on a set of 2x4s because I'm afraid of the dark. I don't use my faith as an excuse to not think, in fact, just the opposite.

I can give you reasons for my beliefs. I could tell you I think there's a God because of this thing called causality (IE: cause and effect … what's the cause of the Big Bang?). I can tell you I believe in an historical figure called Jesus, because there are records from that time period. There is more evidence for a carpenter named Jesus from Nazareth than there is for Hannibal of Carthage waging war against the Roman Empire (Hannibal was only written about a hundred years later, Jesus from the same generation, and was noted by Roman authorities).

I can give a bunch of reasons why I believe different elements of my faith, but as I've said before, I'm not here to convert one single person. Educate, sure, convert, no.

I'm relatively certain that I would not change one element of my life if I were an atheist. So, Marx, Nietzsche, sorry if I've disabused you 19th century pinheads of any fantasies you have.

Unfortunately, as I'm exposed to more of the world, I have to admit that atheists have a few points.

The flame war is postponed ....

For those of you who follow such things, we have our first flame war on the page.  It's over in the FAQs of Lent comments section.

However, I ran across this on Facebook.  My friend Matt's Facebook page.  As you know, Matt's an atheist, and likes shredding the dumber side of religion.... okay, he thinks every side is dumb, but he tolerates me, and I'm not the easiest person to get along with.

Now, you don't have to view this video. In fact, I hope it gets taken off of YouTube before any human being gets to see this ... I really don't count.  But, I took a glance at it, and it prompted me to write my first ever blog that I want to post at three in the morning, EST. 

I think I'm about to have a banner moment, here.

A Bruce Banner moment. 

What Do You Mean There's Philosophy in A Pius Man?

I'm a simple fellow. Simpleminded, at times. Which is why there are a lot of people who know me and say, “I can't really believe you have a degree in philosophy. You don't spout out gibberish about how the table isn't a table..”

Hegel never looked
this good.

I understand that. I do, really. Try to read Hegel, and you get stuff about consciousness-- which is the key turning point of his entire philosophy-- and you basically get gibberish, since his terms are undefined. (If you are a science fiction fan, look up Minbari theology on Babylon 5, Hegel is the same babble, only without the reincarnation bit). Read Descartes, who basically said that you had to look at every little thing with a highly skeptical eye, and start with what you know for absolute certainty, concluding that the only thing you can ever really know for certain is that “I exist,” the rest is negotiable. (Popularly known as “I think therefore I am.” Does not cover instances of drivers during rush hour, who obviously don't think, but are real enough to get you killed.)

I'm sorry, Mr. Descartes, I'm slow and stupid. If I get hit in the head with a rock, I'm going to think that the rock is real. And that someone threw it at me. And that I will have to hurt someone.

Which is why I am a Thomist.

At which point the audience asks, “A what now?”

Philosophy, Religion, and Sex.

Dear Pope Benedict, I've been a fan of your career since you worked under John Paul II.  The press hated you because you were hostile to them, and for that I applaud you.  But you have to stop having statements come out so close together, it messes up my schedule.

Last week, I explained why the Catholic Church wanted to hire exorcists.

This week, because no one in the Vatican can shut up, I'm going to try explaining something else that was recently in the news.

The New York Times recently reported that, "Yippie, the Pope is giving in and endorsing condom use."

The old gray hag of The New York Times has, once again, gotten it wrong.  One day, they may actually try to get a theologian to explain theology to them.  Unfortunately, given most theologians, that may not help much.

Let's start at the beginning: Why does the Catholic Church have an issue with condom use?  Or any contraceptives?

It basically involves philosophy ... bare with me a minute, I'll keep it short and comprehensible ... and what is the function of "a thing."  In the case of sex, the mechanism of sex is "insert tab A into slot B."  The "function" of sex is procreation, and a darn good time, if you're doing it correctly.

Contraceptions mess with the natural function of sex by removing elements that are inherent to the act -- procreation comes with sex.  The Vatican position is, that if you mess around with it and start taking out elements, then you are messing around with things that are not yours to mess with.

If you are pondering what the Catholic church's advice is on STD prevention when you have sex with your boy/girlfriend, the Church's position is that you should be having sex with your spouse, only with your spouse, have a nice day, thank you.  Under this rubrick, STDs are not a problem, since if you only ever insert one tab A into one tab B, STDs are not an issue; pregnancy remains in effect, but in the Catholic church, marriage is a contract to have sex, have kids, and spread the spawn around the globe, carrying the faith with it.

You are currently up on previously held positions.


The NY Times said, on November 21st .....

“Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS . . . .”

However, George Wiegel, papal biographer and general Vatican busybody, corrected the Times report.  You can find the full text online, but since that will take forever for you to read, I'm going to translate it for you, gentle reader, into something easily comprehensible.

The pope's actual statement, in context, was during an interview.  The pope mentioned how the Catholic Church runs more AIDS hospitals, and stresses "prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment."  IE: The pope pointed out that, unlike pontificating reporters, the Church actually does something,

The pope even stressed that "we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease."

The pope continued:

.... people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality .... the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Short version: sex is important, has an effect on a person, and is also for the purpose of expressing love.  Throw in a condom, and you just make it another way to drug yourself into a stupor.

The part where the NYTimes gets confused is probably in the following section:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

When asked if "the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"  Pope Benedict XVI answered that "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

Short version: If it's someone infected with AIDS, yes, the Church would rather that they NOT KILL PEOPLE by infecting them further.

Basically, it's like robbing a bank -- if you rob a bank, the Church would rather have someone use an empty gun; it'll lessen the risk of someone getting their head blown off.

So, despite news reports, the Catholic Church's position hasn't changed.

With luck, we can all move on to something important now.

The Politics of A Pius Man.

Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel. Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics. It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side. Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.



In New York I'm a right-wing, blood-thirsty maniac because ... I think a blanket gay marriage license is a bad idea. Mainly because, in the first wave issued in the Northeast, there were a large segment that took the newly issued licenses, and went to their local church and demanded to be married –whether or not the church in question allowed gay marriage.

In the South, I'm a blood-thirsty left wing psychotic because … I think “marriage” is a religious term. Atheists go to a justice of the peace and enter into civil unions, NOT marriages. A civil union is a state function. Issue licenses for civil unions to BOTH atheists and gays, then the latter group can take it to a church that allows gay marriage, and they can all live happily every after and leave my church the hell alone. I'm not interested in burning gays at the stake, and I don't care if one is gay, straight or “flaming,” have a nice day.



In New York, I'm an evil righty because … I supported G.W. Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general.

In REALLY red states I'm an evil Leftist because … I would have supported Clinton going into Iraq. And I wanted someone to go into the Sudan before Darfur became a buzz word. And I hated almost everything else President Bush ever did.



In New York, I am conservative because … I think abortion and contraceptives are generally a Bad Idea.

In Pat Robertson's district, I am a bleeding heart Liberal …. because I'm not going to say “You had an abortion, therefore you are immediately going to Hell! MUAHAHAHA”


In New York, I am a psychotic Conservative … because I think the government should get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.

In the more bleeding red states, I am an evil Liberal … because I'd want a Republican government to get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.



My politics boils down to, “There are things I don't like, wouldn't recommend, but I'm not issuing automatic condemnations.”  Politically, I'm somewhere in the middle. Which, in politics, means I'm in the middle of the crossfire.

So, what does this mean about A Pius Man? Don't be mistaken, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious basic on the facts I have researched. However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.

And the politics of the characters in A Pius Man?



Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I'm happy.”

Scott “Mossad” Murphy. He works for Israel, usually among Palestinians. Moved from America to join the Mossad after 9-11. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I'd sooner talk terrorists to death. It's more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they're willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.”

Giovanni Figlia. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world's population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”

Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn't be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”

Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I'm a Jesuit who is trying to transfer into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”

Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I'm too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”

Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”

Hashim Abasi: Oxford Educated in global politics. Egyptian police officer. His name translates into “Stern Crusher of Evil.” His father died while tinkering with a vest for a suicide bomber. He mentions having a wife, but it sounds like she was stoned to death. No one asks what his politics are.



The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be... interesting.