The world of Indie Publishing is one of the only mediums in which self-identified Christians and right-leaning thinkers still have a voice and an opportunity to express their ideas. It’s the last outpost in the entertainment industry for ideological mavericks. However, these mavericks are committed to nothing as fanatically as they are to noble defeat.

They prefer to surrender rather than contend for their faith or conserve anything of value from our way of life. Their version of Christianity, for instance, believes that gender roles (assuming they still admit there are only two genders) should be the opposite of what the Bible teaches and what biology indicates. Were one of these typical mavericks to attempt explaining the concept of sin, they would likely list “homophobia” at the top of God’s list of unforgivable crimes. They disagree with the devil only by degrees–not in principle. They are most angered by Christians who fight; who rebel against the god of this world; who call out evildoers and hypocrites the way Jesus did; who don’t conform to the Terms and Conditions of Churchianity (as dictated by the enemies of Christ).

The “Christians” and “conservatives” who have the most clout, the loudest voices, and the best-defended platforms, are the most likely to cuck; the most likely to shrink in the face of evil; and the most likely to condemn those who don’t make the same compromises.

With allies like this, who needs enemies? But we have them, in spades, and their advantages are considerable. It can be very lonely when you refuse to bend your knee to Baal.

I’ve learned all this the hard way, via experience.

Virtual Pulp remains small because I’ve been very selective in who I allow to sport our brand. I used to dream of having a huge stable of authors, and enjoying literary success (to the extent it’s possible in the 21st Century); but it may be likely that there’s never more than a small handful of authors who want anything to do with me and my narrow-minded, puritanical vision. I piss people off and step on toes pretty much everywhere I go–not because I “can’t play nice with others;” but because I want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

But solutions are sexist. And homophobic. And Islamaphobic. And, of course, racist/Nazi/white nationalist/blah blah blah fear blah blah blah hate.

Paul Hair joined the small team of bloggers at Virtual Pulp a while back after I failed to scare him away with my puritanical hateful hot hate, and I saw evidence that he doesn’t want to be part of the problem. He has contributed some articles and fiction here at VP that has added quality to the site. I’ve just finished an interview with him that covers a range of topics of interest to Virtual Pulp readers, and here is Part One:

 

HANK: Let’s start at the beginning: childhood, formative years…what were the most important influences on you, looking back? What did you like to read? Why did you like to read?

PAUL: I was born and raised in a rural life. Like any kid, I didn’t realize the full extent of my childhood until I was an adult. So I didn’t realize how rural my life was until I grew up. As a child, I knew I was “country,” but I didn’t realize how much so. For instance, I thought going to the Big City was going to a small city that was 15 miles away. (And it was something we rarely did, so much so that it was at times viewed as a vacation.) The city (then and now) doesn’t even have any true skyscrapers. It’s small geographically and by population too. Less than 50,000 people to this day, I believe.

On top of this, my family didn’t have any next-door neighbors. The closest neighbors were a tenth of a mile or so away. No neighbors across the road (just thick woods) and no neighbors behind us (a gigantic farmer’s field). And then there was a buffer of field and woods on both sides of the family property.

HANK: So you’re a country boy, like me. I didn’t appreciate my rustic upbringing at the time, but now I sure do.

There are exceptions to everything, of course, but I’ve noticed a definite correlation between stacking multitudes of people on top of each other, and moral implosion. It could be argued that talented people tend to be drawn to huge population centers (for whatever reason). It could also be argued that an individual is much more likely to be handed over to a reprobate mind after living in a city for a lengthy time period. Lot in Sodom (for all his failures) would qualify as an exception to this rule, but his wife and daughters were poster children for it. Have you noticed this same correlation? If so, why do you suppose it works this way?

PAUL: I would add the Tower of Babel and even the prophesied Babylon in addition to Sodom. As far as if I’ve noticed the correlation between urban areas and moral implosion…I’ll leave it at I’ve certainly been thinking about it a lot lately. I won’t say what I’ve concluded because I want urban and rural readers alike to purchase and read my books.

But so as to not entirely weasel out of the question (even as I go in a slightly different direction), I’ll say this: urban versus rural is an interesting topic, and definitely one that is very important to our times. It’s becoming increasingly relevant to political and cultural life. The Journalist-Democratic Party (which is now transparently communist) has taken over every institution of America. It runs everything in the nation. And this is particularly true in urban areas. That saturation of power in urban areas has become a focus for the communists, who are now frothing at the mouth about abolishing the Electoral College so that their urban centers can determine every future presidential election—so that they can prevent we “hicks” from ever having any say in anything significant in the nation again.

We’ll never see this change in our lifetime either. Urban areas are, by their nature, places where there will always be more government involvement. It’s inevitable. A larger amount of people means a larger amount of conflicts. And who do people expect to solve conflicts? Government. And when it comes to larger government, who is better at convincing people to put them in charge of it? Who is better at manipulating it to favor them and their agenda—better at manipulating it to crush their enemies? The communists or the GOP / conservatives—their ostensible opponents? The communists, of course. So the communists’ center of power in urban areas is only going to grow. As that occurs, of course, their power in the cities and nationally will grow. Big government is never going to go away. It literally can’t because of the nature of America in the 21st century. As soon as big cities became a thing, the country changed for good. Communists control it now. And it’s pretty easy to see where things go from here.

So urban versus rural is an important topic for contemporary times, and anyone who is interested in how things are going should be paying attention to it and thinking about it.

Conflict between American urban and rural has been brewing for a long time too. In the 1970s, there was the Rural Purge on TV. The powers that be (whether TV execs, advertisers, a combination of both, or other parties) wanted to get away from appealing to “ignorant country folk” in favor of urban viewers. Perhaps the conflict goes back even further.

(By the way, this conflict between urban and rural provides an opportunity for authors to explore it. How can the urban versus rural conflict factor into themes and motifs? Settings? Into entire plots? I can think of a few good ways to use it.)

I’ll conclude my answer on this subject by going back to where I started on it. I won’t answer on if I believe there is a correlation between moral implosion and urban areas because I want readers from both types of places. But I also don’t want to answer because I don’t want people who live in urban areas to think that they’d be better off in rural areas. One of the big reasons I like rural areas is because there are fewer people there, and if I convince people who reside in urban areas to move to rural areas, those rural areas cease to exist and instead become urban areas. So for all those who live in an urban area, I support you living there. I’ve lived in urban areas and I understand your reasons for doing so. I hope you’re happy and live a fruitful life. (And I write that with all sincerity.)

HANK: I lived in urban areas for many years, which is how I came to formulate my theory. I’m also thankful I had that anchor from a childhood spent mostly outside the high-population moral cesspools.

PAUL: I’m extremely happy I had this childhood, by the way. It’s something I look back on fondly. And it influenced me; helped shape who I became.

My parents were the single most influential people in my life. That is, I had a father and mother. Who were married to each other. And who had never been married to anyone else. Strange times, they were. But I digress. They influenced me by being certain that I was taught about God and the Gospel for my entire childhood. Again, I thought it was very normal during my childhood and even into my early adulthood. Now I know that’s not true. We went to Sunday school and church on Sundays (often listening to sermons by James Montgomery Boice during the car trip), had Sunday evening “house church,” went to Wednesday night services, prayed before meals and incorporated prayer into our lives, regularly read the Bible, read devotionals, and so forth. My father also worked at a Christian business. We weren’t allowed to swear, weren’t allowed to listen to secular music (until we were about 15 or 16), and weren’t allowed to watch crude or disrespectful TV shows. (They didn’t even allow us to watch much of “The Dukes of Hazzard” because of how it portrayed police—not cops—in a disrespectful manner.)

HANK: So this brings up something else I give a lot of thought. It sounds like you were sheltered—very sheltered, by non-Amish standards. (In fact, your parents might have been charged with child abuse in some jurisdictions for the care they took in raising you.) They eased up a bit in your teen years, but I’m guessing the culture shock was heavy when you did venture out on your own eventually. Was that youthful sheltering an advantage, or disadvantage, ultimately? In retrospect, would you prefer they had let you see reality in all its ugly horror at an earlier age, while using it as a perpetual teaching opportunity about right and wrong? Assuming you have kids of your own some day (if you don’t already), would you follow your parents’ model?

PAUL: I don’t necessarily believe I was sheltered. For one, going to church meant I knew about suffering and evil. It’s in the Bible. But the Great Commission also means that Christians go out into the world. And that’s often realized as missionaries. So I heard plenty of accounts of suffering and evil across the world by way of hearing the stories (firsthand or otherwise) of missionaries. There were also the stories of Christian converts with whom I ran across by way of attending church. My parents also had done mission work (youth work) on Long Island in the 1960s and early 1970s. I heard some of their stories. So I knew evil existed by way of being a Christian; I wasn’t shocked in that sense. There was only one major shock about the world that was sort of connected to my Christianity. More on that in a bit. First, though, here is another reason I don’t believe I was sheltered: I attended public school.

TO BE CONTINUED…