A Call for Christian Pride

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

A Call for Christian Pride

My Dear White European Christian Brothers,

The era of shame is over. The time for guilt has passed. Now is the dawn of a new day, a day where we hold our heads high and stand proud of the incredible heritage that we have bequeathed mankind. In fact, now is the time to realize that we, as white European Christian males, are, in a very real sense, a gift to mankind. For are we not the ones who have graced the world with some of its greatest music, art, theatre, and prose? Are we not the ones who formed awesome centers of learning and produced some of the world’s greatest philosophers and thinkers? Are we not the ones who nurtured science, solidified it, and birthed some of humanity’s most formidable doctors, researchers, astronomers, and experts? And are we not the ones who have created some of the world’s most awe-inspiring architecture and sublime sculptures? Are we not also the ones who have helped to formulate political and moral philosophies which have shaped economics and social development in a way that has made Man progressively more prosperous and free? Furthermore, are we not the ones who have built hospitals, founded charities, and travelled the world caring for the sick and destitute; and are we not also the ones who have held fast to a faith that bound traditional Western Civilization together, sustained it, and made it a civilizational beacon for the rest of the world? Finally, are we not the ones who have, for millennia, laid down our lives to defend our homeland and our kin from invasions, incursions, and civilizational threats?

Of course we are the ones who did all these things, and we should be fiercely proud of such immense feats done for the glory of God and the betterment of Man!

And yet, many will no doubt try to shame us for our sins, as if this has not been done over and over again for generations. But here is the two-fold secret about our transgressions that few will repeat. First, for all the evils that we have done, we have done no worse than any other culture, nation, or group, and in many civilizational respects, we have given mankind much more than any other group has; in the end, we have been no worse than anyone else, but in many respects, we have been much better than anyone else. And this is a fact that should not be forgotten! Second, it is rarely mentioned that many of our so-called sins are actually distortions of the truth; they are, in fact, lies. Like the lie that the Crusades were an unprovoked offensive action rather than an ultimately defensive response to centuries of Muslim aggression and expansion. Or the lie that the Spanish Inquisition was some type of unique evil in the history of this world, when, instead, the need for its existence was understandable and its entire centuries-long history of judicial killings has a body count that is less than the amount of people that Chinese communists killed in a week or Aztec tribes sacrificed in a year. Or the modern lie that Christians, over the centuries, burned millions upon millions of innocent women as witches, when this number is only in the thousands. Or the lie that Christians burned or threatened men for their scientific views, even though such incidents had more to do with theological disputes or with political and honor related issues than with science. Or the lie that Christians ushered in a centuries-long period of darkness in Europe rather than realizing that Byzantine Christians had a fascinating civilization at the time of the so-called Dark Ages and that Western Christians were busily occupied with defending themselves from Muslim and pagan attacks, all while still preserving the very knowledge and customs that would soon birth the greatest civilization that Man has ever known. Or the lie of omission that heaps scorn on us for slavery, and yet forgets to mention that all other cultures had slavery as well, and also neglects to point out that white men, many of them Christian, were the only ones to fight to end large-scale slavery in the world. Or the lie that Western imperialism was particularly brutal, when it was no more brutal than non-Western imperialism, and often improved the countries that had been colonized. Or the other modern lie that Christians are responsible for instigating most of the horrors of the last century, when, in fact, the Communist leadership was largely atheist, the Nazi leadership was largely pagan, the non-Christian Japanese were as brutal as both groups combined, and that it was Christian men who fought and died to end Nazism, subdue Imperial Japan, and defeat the scourge of atheistic communism.

So, in the end, although we, as white European Christian men, have indeed added some darkness to this world, the fact is that without us, the world would arguably be a much darker place. And while this does not excuse our sins, it does cast them in a much different light!

And so, my brothers, to you I say this:  be proud of your heritage; be proud of the legacy that has been handed down to you. Stop tarnishing the memory of your ancestors by failing to defend them and their glories. Stop wallowing in endless guilt, for you have much less to be sorry for than many other nations do. You are a light onto the world; a light that is not as bright as it could be, but a light nonetheless. And the brightest light that there is! Take your place as the rightful heirs of traditional Western Civilization. Take your place as the rightful heirs of Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, and the Reconquista! Remember that you are the off-spring of great and noble men! Embrace your heritage! Grid your lions! And start defending the very civilization that is a beacon for this world!

Sincerely,

A Man of the West

If you wish, then please show your support here, because any amount of support counts towards keeping this original content coming: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2017 02 15

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Apologetics and Western Civilization

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

Apologetics and Western Civilization

As a writer who wishes to support the West’s re-embrace of the cultural principles and social pillars that made traditional Western Civilization the best civilization that Man has ever been graced with, but as a writer who also spends a great deal of time writing on the topic of Christian apologetics, a number of legitimate and interesting questions can thus be asked of my work: namely, what do Christian apologetics have to do with helping to re-establish traditional Western Civilization? Indeed, why spend so much time arguing about things that seem only indirectly related to the issue of fighting for traditional Western Civilization when that time could, allegedly, be spent more productively? And why the focus, in large part, on apologetics against atheism and secularism?

Now, as stated, these are good and interesting questions, and they deserve an answer. And so, apart from the very obvious and very brief answer that one primarily argues for Christianity because one holds Christianity to be true, it can also be stated that the other brief answer to these questions is that the reason one engages in Christian apologetics is because Christian apologetics is integral to the survival of traditional Western Civilization. That is why, in a nut-shell, one argues for Christian apologetics. But as this short answer is likely to be unsatisfactory, let me provide some more detail concerning this matter.

First, traditional orthodox Christianity—in contradistinction to its modern progressive variety, which is essentially the undemanding spiritual secularism of this world—is one of the key pillars of traditional Western Civilization. Thus, no Christianity means no Western Civilization. Now supporting this assertion is not the point of this essay, and regardless, supporting such an assertion would require an essay of its own, but let me nevertheless offer a few points in its favor. Consider that human beings are religious and transcendence-seeking creatures, so they will always seek such transcendence; furthermore, civilizations, almost universally, are integrally linked to some kind of religious or “higher” ideology, and Western Civilization’s religious ideology has been traditionalist Christianity. Thus, arguing and reasoning for traditionalist Christianity, which is what apologetics does, is critical, especially since without a robust and intellectual form of Christianity being defended, Christianity will not survive. Indeed, for while rhetoric and emotions may move some people to embrace Christianity initially, a purely emotive and psychological style of Christianity will not be sufficient to sustain it for most people, and thus apologetics is a key component towards keeping Christianity viable as a worldview. At the same time, and alongside the point that Christianity is required for Western Civilization, a case can be made, in my view, that a culture build on liberalism, materialism, progressivism, secularism and practical atheism simply will not have the will to resist other cultures nor be robust enough to fight for itself—as evidenced, for example, by secular Europe’s present demographic winter and their weakness in the face of a migrant invasion—and so countering atheism and secularism is also critical to aiding Western Civilization. And since apologetics do indeed tackle atheism and secularism, then is this also why apologetics are highly important.

Second, another pillar of traditional Western Civilization is the use of reason and empiricism—something, if should be noted, which was practiced by Christian philosophers and the scholastics long before the Enlightenment—and since Christian apologetics is based on reason and empiricism, then engaging in Christian apologetics thereby supports this other pillar of Western Civilization.

Third, a man converted to traditionalist Christianity is a man who will quite naturally become a supporter of traditional Western Civilization, and since intellectual apologetics not only creates converts, but often creates very influential converts—think C.S. Lewis, for example—then apologetics offers not only indirect support for Western Civilization in this way, but can also be a force-multiplier through the potential creation of converts who eventually serve to aid Western Civilization to an even greater degree than anticipated.

And so the value of Christian apologetics, both in the obvious sense of arguing for that which is true, and in the sense of being a tool which supports traditional Western Civilization, cannot, in my view, be overstated.

Now, from a personal perspective, note that the reason I argue so much concerning apologetics is simply because I have an aptitude for it as well as a great interest in it. And indeed, not only do I have an abiding interest in this field, but I also believe that I have a number of unique and important contributions to make to it. For example—and these are just a very few brief examples—I believe that we all have an incorrect view of the issue of how the burden of proof is determined, and that atheism is a wholly irrational view which undermines itself, and that nearly all of the objections against Christianity can be quite easily answered in certain unanticipated ways. Furthermore, while I find that there are many good people arguing for Western Civilization from non-apologetic angles, and thus those other fields are saturated, I find that a great deal of modern Christian apologetics, though excellent, is nevertheless repetitive. And since I believe that I do indeed have some novel items to add to the field, this is why I write on the topic of Christian apologetics to the degree that I do.And so, the long and short of it is this:  engaging in Christian apologetics is vital to Western Civilization because Christianity is vital to Western Civilization, and apologetics are vital to the maintenance of a robust form of traditionalist Christianity. And from a personal point-of-view, I engage in apologetics because I believe that I have something unique to add to the discipline. Now, whether or not that is actually the case, is something for you to decide as you continue to engage with my work.

Think apologetics is important, then please help and support my efforts at  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 17

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

The Reconquista Initiative

 Presents…

Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

In these politically-correct times, where women are, from time-to-time, privileged and promoted at the expense of men, one of the most fascinating truths that is still sub-consciously understood by most people, yet spoken of by nearly no one, is the fact that women, in essence, are entirely dependent on men, and they very likely always will be. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest irony of the entire feminist movement that, in-principle, that very movement—which is allegedly meant to empower women and make them equal to men—is, at the most fundamental level, a movement that is totally at the mercy of the very patriarchy that feminism despises. And to make the irony even greater, a solid case can be made that the female dependence of men can never, in-principle, be erased. And so, all the women in Western society demanding equality, protesting about sexism, and screaming about the patriarchy, are only able to do so because of the very patriarchy that they rail against. And the fact that they do not realize that this is the case simply goes to show how utterly blind and/or obtuse they are to this fundamental fact.

Now, having alleged that women, even today, are utterly dependent on men, let me explain what I mean. First, note the obvious fact that men are naturally, and thus on average, stronger, more aggressive, and more capable of serious violence than women. And lest you disagree, note that prisons are filled with a hell-of-a-lot more men than women, and also that, for example, an average male UFC fighter could easily beat even the very best female fighter, so the fact that men are more physically capable in the realm of violence and war is not really in dispute. So that is the first point to note. But also note, as a second point, that while we in the West talk quaintly about human rights, the fact is that while ‘might does not make right’, might does, in fact, make the rules. And indeed, human “rights” only remain rights because men with guns stand ready with might to enforce those rights. But without those men, it would take no more than a moment for those rights to be suppressed by whoever had the might to do so. And so again, the reality is that, ultimately, in this life, might does indeed make the rules.

And so all this brings us back to the key point of this article, which is that, since, on average, men have substantially more might than women do, it is thus men who have made the rules in the past, and they could do so again if desired. Thus, the freedom, and “rights”, and so-called equality that women in the West enjoy today only exist because Western men—who are not equal to women in might but superior to them in this respect—have permitted Western women to have these things. So without the permission of men, whether that permission is granted tacitly or overtly, women would, in practice, have none of the freedoms and rights that they currently enjoy.

Now, even in today’s modern society, where the disparity in might between the sexes has somewhat diminished due to the advent of technological equalizers, the fact is that men—for good and obvious reasons—still make up the majority of the so-called “might” professions, such as the police and the military. And so, for example, when some strapping 250-pound man starts beating his wife, the only thing, in the end, that will stop him is either another man or a women with a weapon most likely invented by a man. So again, women, in this respect, are dependent on men. And indeed, just to make the matter even more acute and ironic for today’s feminists, note that, as mentioned in the last example, even when women can defend themselves today via technology, the fact is that the very technologies that women today use to give themselves physical parity with men were nevertheless still largely invented by men, meaning that even in this respect, women are still dependent on men and still have a debt to pay to them. So even the technology that women can use to escape the need for men still show their ultimate and historical need and dependence on men.

However, in contradistinction to the main thrust of this essay, a women might object that a man is utterly dependent on a women in the sense that only a woman can give birth to a man and give him life. And in this respect, women are correct. But even here, the value of women is dependent on the kindness of men. For make no mistake, if men, as a collective, wished to do so—and, obviously, no one is condoning this, but the point is to make clear that it could, in theory, be done—men could enslave all women in such a manner that they could do nothing but give birth at the whim of men. Indeed, a society where reproduction was achieved through total female subjugation would be an absolutely abhorrent one, but the fact is that such a society could survive and even thrive to some degree, as it does in Afghanistan, for example. And so this is precisely the point: might makes the rules, and so the only reason that such an absolute female oppressing society has not been created—although certain areas in the Muslim world, as mentioned, come relatively close to doing so—is because men do not allow it, not because women could stop it.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  at present, the only reason that women enjoy any rights is because, ultimately, men, in one way or another, have allowed women to enjoy those rights, and this truism is not bound to change any time soon. And while certain men allow women to have these rights because doing so grants the men greater might and power in other areas, the fact remains that, in the end, and at a fundamental level, the gains of Western feminism exist, and only continue to exist, because Western men have granted permission, whether tacitly or otherwise, for those gains to exist; for indeed, if all men, collectively, decided to completely change their minds about feminism tomorrow, and remove all the rights from women on a whim, there is, in fact, little that women could do to stop them. And women should not forget these facts. Nor should they forget that their existence in the West is arguably the best that they could ask for, and that to push men too far may lead to a backlash that they might rather not wish to experience.

Support this original content on Patreon:  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 06

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Europeans are Required for Western Civilization

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

 Europeans are Required for Western Civilization

Consider this quote:

–QUOTE–

Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values.(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html)

–UNQUOTE–

That quote was from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, a quote which he made in a 23rd of November 2016 interview with Mike Pesca for Slate Magazine in an article titled “The Alt-Right Is Using Trump.” Now Shapiro has been a strong critic of all facets of the Alt-Right movement, but regardless of this, and even regardless of any other issues surrounding the Alt-Right and the Alt-West, Shapiro’s quote raises an interesting question:  Is European ethnicity necessary for, and inseparable from, Western Civilization? Indeed, are Europeans required for the preservation of Western Civilization? These are fascinating questions, but more importantly, they are vital ones for any proponent of Western Civilization, for their answer will dictate what is required for the survival and continuation of that civilization. So, is Shapiro right? Can Western Civilization be maintained without Europeans? Can it survive even if the European ancestry that originally made it is significantly diluted by other ethnic groups?  Or rather, is Shapiro wrong, and can it thus be shown both that Western Civilization really is inseparable from Europeans and that European ethnicity is a necessary component for the continued existence of Western Civilization?

Now, before we seek to answer the aforementioned questions, let us clear the air that has been tainted by Shapiro’s use of the word ‘racist’, which he uses to label the position that European ethnicity is needed for Western Civilization. In response to Shapiro’s use of this term, and thus in response to his attempt to essentially poison the well by its use, let us consider the following. First, the term ‘racist’ is so overused in our society, and it is so often used in place of an argument, that we should be leery and skeptical of anyone who uses it today; essentially, its use should serve as a sort of red flag that warns us that someone might be trying to avoid addressing an opposing point-of-view by simply making that point-of-view appear unpalatable and shameful, rather than arguing that it is actually wrong, which is what Shapiro could be doing here. So an attitude of caution is in order. However, and more importantly, the second point to note about this matter is that—as Shapiro likes to say—facts don’t care about your feelings, and facts don’t care about charges of racism either, and so even if it was racist to claim that Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, that accusation would be entirely irrelevant to the actual truth of the claim under discussion. Consequently, the issue of racism is quite immaterial to the issue of whether the claim is true or not. And since truth is to be valued above all else, then who gives a damn if a truth is deemed racist or not by those who are too afraid to deal with it. Third, even if, for the sake of argument, we consider the racism charge to be sufficiently important as to merit countering, note that Shapiro may actually be incorrect in his accusation of racism. Why? Because—and I say this as someone with Eastern European ancestry—a case could be made that it is not just European ancestry that is required for Western Civilization, but more specifically Western European ancestry; thus, Eastern Europeans, on their own, would not have been able to create and maintain what we consider to be Western Civilization. But if this is the case, then the racism charge is seriously diluted, for while Western and Eastern Europeans may have certain differences, they are all of the same race, and so to label as ‘racist’ the idea that Western Civilization requires Europeans is simply making too broad of a claim. And so, even if the racism charge is worthy of a response—and it’s really not—a case could be made that that charge is actually wrong.

So, having addressed Shapiro’s accusation of ‘racism’, and having shown that it is ultimately irrelevant and even potentially wrong, let us now address the main issue at hand: Does Western Civilization require Europeans? Now, in order to answer this question, consider first the Likelihood Principle, also sometimes called the Expectation Principle. The Likelihood Principle states that if some observation or piece of data is more likely or more expected on Hypothesis 1 rather than on Hypothesis 2, then that observation or piece of data is evidence for Hypothesis 1 over Hypothesis 2 (so long as the hypotheses are not ‘ad hoc’ creations, which they are not in this case). So, in the context of our discussion, if some observation was more expected on the hypothesis that Europeans are indeed required for Western Civilization, then that observation would count as evidence in favor of that hypothesis. Thus, we can use the Likelihood Principle to determine which hypothesis—namely, whether Europeans are or are not needed for the maintenance of Western Civilization—is supported by the observations and data that we have.

Consider, first off, that if Europeans were not needed for the existence and maintenance of Western Civilization, then, on such a hypothesis, we would quite reasonably expect that other groups of people would have created something very much akin to Western Civilization in other parts of the world. Indeed, given that Europeans were able to do so, there is nothing that would have precluded other ethnic groups from doing so if they could. And this is precisely what would be expected if non-Europeans were able to create and sustain something akin to Western Civilization without a European influence. The problem for this hypothesis however, is that history shows that this is not the case. Indeed, while other ethnic groups were able to create other types of civilizations, only Europeans and their descendants were able to create what we call Western Civilization. And this historical observation is precisely what we would expect if Europeans were required for the creation and maintenance of Western Civilization. And the strength of this observation is made even more acute when we consider the fact that, as mentioned, other ethnic groups were able to create other civilizations, and thus were quite capable of being civilized in certain respects, but they were not able to create civilization akin to Western Civilization. Indeed, these other groups were civilized, and so they had nothing that stopped them from being civilized, and yet, even though they were civilized in their own manner, they did not create anything like Western Civilization.

Furthermore, the above observation that only Europeans created Western Civilization, and that this observation serves as evidence in favor of the idea that European ethnicity is required for Western Civilization, is also supported by the fact that Europeans were and are able to export and maintain Western Civilization wherever they go, such as to places like Canada, Australia, and so on. And this occurred regardless of the climate or environment that Europeans migrated to; by contrast, other cultures in those exact same locations and climates were unable to create something akin to Western Civilization in them even though they had more than enough time to do so. At the same time, some countries—like Haiti or countries in Africa—that had Western Civilization when they had Europeans in charge of them, but then lost the Europeans, also lost their ability to maintain Western Civilization after the Europeans had left. And again, these types of observations are what would be expected if European ancestry was a necessary component of Western Civilization.

Also note the fact that when other ethnic groups enter the areas of Western Civilization and are thus introduced to what that civilization entails, these other ethnic groups, if they remain as an ethnic group rather than separating and existing as disparate individuals, often do not adopt and reflect the ideals of Western Civilization; and indeed, numerous ethnic enclaves within Europe and North America that are, internally, more reflective of traditionally Middle Eastern or African or Asian society than they are of Western Civilization are an example of this point in action. And again, this is what would be expected if European ethnicity was required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. At the same time, and in contrast to the earlier point, enclaves of Europeans in non-European countries create microcosms of Western Civilization when in those locales, which, again, is what would be expected if European ethnicity was needed for Western Civilization.

So, given the Likelihood Principle, a strong case can be made that all these observations do indeed serve as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that European ethnicity is necessary for the maintenance of Western Civilization. How strong this evidence is, is a different question, but it is nevertheless still evidence in favor of the aforementioned hypothesis.

Now, perhaps it could be argued that since non-European ethnic groups in non-Western countries—for example, Koreans in South Korea or the Japanese in Japan—have, in the present era, seemed able to adopt what could be called Western Civilization could thus serve as an example that Western Civilization does not require Europeans for its continuation. Indeed, it seems reasonable, at first blush, to suppose that if non-European ethnic groups can adopt Western Civilization, then the existence of Europeans is not required for the maintenance of such a civilization. But there is a serious problem with this contention: namely, not only did Western Civilization exist in Europe and its direct colonies prior to these other non-European groups adopting something similar to Western Civilization, but it also largely due to both the superior example and direct influence of Europeans that these other ethnic groups adopted something akin to Western Civilization for themselves. And what this means is that there is no way of knowing that these other ethnic groups who have embraced Western Civilization could or would have done so without both the direct and indirect influence of Europeans. For example, had Europeans not shown the superiority of Western Civilization—such as by, for example, defeating the Japanese in World War 2 or beating back the North Koreans during the Korea War—and had Europeans not had a direct political, economic, and social impact on the countries that have now approximated Western Civilization within themselves, then it is questionable whether or not anything like Western Civilization would have developed amongst these other ethnic groups without such a European influence. At the same time, without the continuation of the example of the superiority of Western Civilization by Europeans and their North American descendants, and without the direct influence that Europeans have on the countries in question, there is no way of knowing whether or not these non-European countries or ethnic groups could maintain Western Civilization or whether they would revert to a different form of civilization, such as one that they might have embraced in the past. So the fact that some non-European ethnic groups are able to maintain something very close to Western Civilization at this point in history is not a clear indication that Western Civilization can continue without Europeans, for the European influence, even if only indirect, might still be indispensable to the maintenance of Western Civilization amongst these other ethnic groups. And indeed, another way of looking at the above point is the following: while it is true that non-Western ethnic groups can easily adapt to the use of Western technology and Western institutions, this does not necessarily mean that they would be able to invent those technologies or those institutions, nor maintain those technologies and institutions in existence without continued European influence and guidance, even if that influence and guidance is only indirect. Thus, while non-European ethnic groups might be able to adapt to Western Civilization, they might only be able to do so, so long as Europeans also remain in existence to refine, and support, and set the example of what Western Civilization is. Consequently, the fact that non-Europeans can adapt and exploit the benefits and tools of Western Civilization at present is not evidence, or at least by no means clear evidence, that Europeans are not needed to sustain that type of civilization in the future.

And so, given the fact that we have certain observations which count as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, and given that any objections to this hypothesis and the evidence for it are by no means conclusive, I contend that it is thus reasonable to believe that European ethnicity is indeed required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. This does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable to believe the opposite, but it does mean that, at the very least, both positions are reasonable. And note, once again, that whether or not the belief that Europeans are needed for Western Civilization is deemed racist is entirely immaterial to the reasonableness of that belief.

Now, at the same time that it can be said that the belief that European ethnicity is needed for the maintenance of Western Civilization is a reasonable one, an even more forceful support for holding to this idea can be made. And to understand what this is, consider, first, the fact that the arguments and points made against the claim that European ethnicity is required for the continuation of Western Civilization are, as stated, by no means certain. Next, note that even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that both the hypothesis that European ethnicity is required for the maintenance of Western Civilization is reasonable, and so is the hypothesis that it is not, the fact remains that, throughout recorded history, only Europeans, or ethnic groups that Europeans have been directly involved with, have been able to create and maintain Western Civilization. But now, in light of these latter points, and keeping in mind the immense value that maintaining Western Civilization offers to humanity, it is thus pragmatically sound, at this point, to act as if Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, and to continue acting in such a manner until and unless conclusive evidence shows that that hypothesis is incorrect. In essence, because the loss of Western Civilization would be so detrimental, and because the one thing that we do indisputability know is that Western Civilization only arose amongst Europeans and their descendants, and it has only been maintained by Europeans and those that they have had direct contact with, then we should place the burden of proof on those disputing the inseparability of European ethnicity from Western Civilization rather than on those who affirm it; indeed, the loss of Western Civilization is too great a price to pay to act otherwise, especially if we do so without sufficient evidence to guarantee, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are not wrong in that assessment.

Finally, two additional points need to be noted. First, even though this essay reached the conclusion that it is indeed reasonable to believe that Europeans are required for the survival of Western Civilization, and that, pragmatically-speaking, we have good reason to act as if that conclusion is the case even if the evidence for it is not certain, note that this fact does not mean that European ethnicity is the only thing that is required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. For example, this essay could also argue that Christianity, or at least a worldview strongly colored by Christianity, is also inseparable from Western Civilization; in fact, the arguments included in this essay concerning why we are both reasonable to believe and to act as if European ethnicity is inseparable from Western Civilization could also be made in the case of Christianity. But nevertheless, the point here is to note that while we are reasonable to believe and act as if European ethnicity is a necessary condition for Western Civilization, that should not be mistaken for a claim that European ethnicity is a sufficient condition for the existence and maintenance of Western Civilization. It is necessary condition, but it is not, in and of itself, a sufficient one. And the second point to note is that the reason for why Europeans are, to the best of our knowledge and current evidence, unique in their ability to create and sustain Western Civilization is also largely irrelevant to the present point that it is currently reasonable to belief that they are unique in this respect. So even if, for the sake of argument, it is admitted that European civilizational uniqueness is primarily due to past environmental and cultural factors that only Europeans experienced, rather than being due to innate European traits, this fact does not necessarily negate the claim that European ethnicity and identity is inseparable from Western Civilization, for the case might be that these environmental factors are not reproducible again, and so, as such, only Europeans, who have already experienced these factors, now have the ability to maintain the Western Civilization that they first created. And so it needs to be understood that there is no necessary connection between why only Europeans were able to develop Western Civilization and the claim that European ethnicity is inseparable from Western Civilization.

And so, the long and short of it is: it is reasonable to believe that actual Europeans are required for the continued survival of Western Civilization. At the same time, given the lack of conclusive evidence against this reasonable belief, and given the known fact that only Europeans have created and maintained Western Civilization, and finally given the value of Western Civilization to all of humanity, we thus have strong pragmatic reasons to act as if Europeans are indispensable to Western Civilization until and unless conclusively shown otherwise.

Anno Domini 2016 11 28

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

The Strategy for Christian Secession

The Reconquista Initiative

Present…

The Strategy for Christian Secession

As I argued in my previous essay “The Case for Christian Secession”, a mutually-agreed upon and peaceful de facto or formal secession of Christians and Western traditionalists from the liberal-wing of the United States is arguably the best course-of-action for both sides of the political spectrum in America, especially since today, both the left and the right view each other as irreconcilable cultural and social enemies. And so, as argued, an amicable separation—much like a friendly divorce—is the overall ideal solution for all parties involved in the experiment that was the United States. However, one major problem for the idea of a peaceful and relatively civil secession, at least when viewed from the traditionalist right, is that it is questionable whether the left side of the political spectrum would ever really wish to let the right go. Indeed, the fact is that even though they hold right-wingers in disdain, it is very likely that the left would not really wish for the right-wing to be cut away from them. So the idea of Christian secession faces the very real problem that such a movement might ultimately be opposed by the very people who hold orthodox Christians and Western traditionalists in contempt. But why would this be so, especially given the amount of disdain that progressives and leftists usually have for the right-wing? Indeed, why would leftists want to impede the secession of traditionalists from their society? Well, from the perspective of an individual of the right, there are a number of reasons why the left might not wish to let elements of the right-wing secede from their society (and please note that I am indebted to two commentators on the ‘RightlyConsidered.org’ blog, namely Criticus Ferox and Jacques, for some of the thoughts that follow).

Consider that one of the reasons for why the left might want to impede Christian secession stems from the fact that the left is inherently parasitical. As such, in order to survive, the left needs to feed on a mass of normal, decent, and commonsensical people who have not completely succumbed to leftist ideas, but who are relatively docile to the left’s progressive advances, and who can thus be taxed, used, and kept for the functioning of a leftist welfare state. Thus, such people maintain the society within which the left operates and has power, but they offer no real resistance to leftism’s ideas even though they do not fully agree with the left’s agenda. The left needs such people to survive. And indeed, for an extreme example of this, think of the former Soviet Union and other former communist countries like Poland, where many of the average citizens did not truly or deeply embrace the ideals of leftism communism but those citizens were nevertheless absolutely needed to ensure the continuation of the communist regimes; regimes which could not have survived for as long as they did without the relatively apathetic common-sense man continuing his work and supporting the society, all while simply seeking to avoid the secret police and get on with his life. Or, for a slightly different example on an international scale, think of the fact that many countries in Europe which have leaned leftward towards socialistic welfare-state policies over the last few generations have in large part only been able to do so because they have parasitically fed off the protective power of the United States; indeed, had these European countries been required to bear the brunt of the Soviet threat without the massive capitalist counter-weight called the United States, it is doubtful that Europe could have afforded to be so progressive and socialist in its culture practices and policies. Or think of all the welfare policies and other leftist programs which require the existence and financial exploitation of non-welfare using taxpayers in order to survive and be sustained; without the very taxpayers who make little-to-no use of such programs, the programs and welfare benefits would immediately dry up and collapse. Or, to take one more example, consider that a leftist “gender studies” professor could not garner anywhere near the amount of money or prestige that she receives today at a liberal university without being subsidized and supported by the very deplorable tax-payers that she despises. Indeed, many power centers on the left, such as universities or “the arts” or government diversity programs, require subsidization from the very people that they rail against. And so here again we can see how leftism is like a leech that needs a host to survive, and if the leech is detached from the host, it will soon go hungry and die. Consequently, their own survival and use of the right could very well be one of the reasons that the left would not want the right to secede.

At the same time, it also needs to be understood that the left not only needs the right in a financial sense to keep a society functioning, but they also need the right as a means of pushing back against left-wing absurdities given that it is questionable whether any form of leftism, when implemented consistently, could actually keep a civilization alive. And so the left needs the right to keep a society sufficiently in contact with reality so that it can continue to survive and thrive, but still with enough latitude to allow the left into positions of power and authority. And to understand what is meant by this, consider this 12th of November 2016 comment by Jacques on a blog post titled “Attack Until We Crack” from the ‘rightlyconsidered.org’ blog; in his comment to that post, Jacques wrote the following:

–QUOTE–

One problem with getting the left to separate from us [the right] is that leftism is intrinsically parasitical. They never really want their own country because they need a mass of normal, productive, decent people who don’t live according to leftist principles in order to tax them, conscript them, run real institutions competently, etc. More abstractly, any society that actually implements leftist ideals such as diversity and equality in a consistent way—as consistent as this mass of confusion could be—–would immediately destroy itself. The economic disasters of applied Marxism are just one instance of this broader thing. Imagine if the US were actually run top-to-bottom along the lines of racial socialism proposed by BLM [Black Lives Matter] or [the] cranks in whiteness studies. Imagine if a real country actually applied the principle that “no one is illegal” in setting immigration policy. Imagine if we applied affirmative action nonsense when hiring brain surgeons. So what they really want, though they may not admit it even to themselves, is a situation where most people and institutions are not leftist, and the leftist elite get to exploit these non-leftist people and cultures and institutions forever. By contrast, normal people don’t need the left. If they disappeared tomorrow society would be no worse off in any way. (http://rightlyconsidered.org/2016/11/11/attack-until-we-crack/)

–UNQUOTE–

And so it does seem that a case can be made that the left, or at least leftist elites, know that they need the right to continue supporting the leftist welfare system and the various benefits and centers of power that the left possesses, both financially and by acting as a counter-weight to the full implementation of leftist ideas. Furthermore, the right acts as an easy target for the left to blame and to use to conduct its own virtue-signaling, and the sanctimonious feeling that the left receives from being “better than” the right is not an easy feeling to give up. And since the left ultimately realizes all this, this is arguably why, for the left, the goal is not necessarily separation from the right, but rather the use of political correctness and the suppression of speech as a means to stifle opposition and make cowering self-censoring servants of the people that the left needs to keep society going. And this, for example, is why the left is, in many ways, fine with individual Christians or traditionalists privately believing that, say, homosexually is immoral or that abortion is wrong while in their churches on Sundays, but the moment any person or organization expresses such views in public or publicly supports such causes, the left will suddenly and mercilessly shame, ban, and try to publicly and socially crucify them. Essentially, the left wants Christians and other traditionalists to keep working and paying taxes for the welfare state just as they have done for generations, but they want Christians and other traditionalists to do so while offering little more than token and ever-crumpling resistance to the main goals of leftism when in the public square, thereby tempering the fringe edges of leftism—and thinking themselves victorious in doing so—but not really impeding the slow advance of the main leftist agenda in any major way, and all while serving as a ready scape-goat for the left to point at and blame come what may.

Finally, note as well that the left might not wish to let the right go simply because the left seeks to publicly dominate traditionalists, and its gets pleasure from doing so. And again, such an assessment is not so far-fetched given that we routinely see the left pushing their agenda to a greater and greater extent, all the while seeking not merely tolerance for their views, but rather an affirmation of them. This is why, for example, the left does not merely want those on the right to co-exist with, say, transsexuals or with the idea that gender is merely a social construct, but rather they want to force the right to publicly affirm leftist ideas, such as the use of gender-neutral or self-chosen pronouns, when it comes to these issues. And this, once again, comes back to the point of the left being a type of parasite in that they demand affirmation of their agenda in public while allowing, and knowing, that many people disagree with them in private. But nevertheless, the point is that the left’s desire to control the right and publicly subjugate it may also be a factor in why the left does not wish to let the right separate. After all, there is pleasure in victory, be it a political or military victory, and leftists, being human beings, are not immune to this type of a base pleasure no matter how much they might think that they are.

Now, having pointed out some of the possible reasons for why the left might not wish to allow the right to secede, please note that it is quite conceivable that I am wrong in my above assessment. In fact, it is even possible that a person on the left would fundamentally disagree with me and claim that it is actually the right that is a parasite on the left. But regardless, from this point forward, we will operate as if the above issues are indeed a problem that Christians and Western traditionalists will need to address in order to make secession viable at all. And so, with this now accepted problem in mind, the further question is: What can the right do to overcome this issue? Indeed, how can the right defeat the left’s lack of desire to allow for a peaceful secession between the left and the right? And what should the right’s overall strategy be to solve this problem?

In essence, I suggest a five-step course-of-action to overcoming the aforementioned problem and thereby helping to convince the left that peaceful separation from the right is desirable for all parties involved.

The first step is to observe and report on the left’s ever greater slide away from traditionalism and orthodox Christianity. Point out the major differences that exist between the left and the right in America, and point out that these differences are fundamentally incompatible, because the truth is that they really are incompatible at this moment. This should awaken both those on the left and those on the traditionalist right to the ultimately irreconcilable nature of these differences, thereby leading a number of people, on their own, to start coming to see that secession might be the only answer to the cultural and social wars existing in America.

Second, the traditionalist right needs to stop the left’s progressive advance in any manner and in any area that it can, thereby causing the left to no longer believe that their progressive march is inevitable. The left needs to realize that, barring secession, they will have to live with the right and that the right is not about to acquiesce to the left. This should begin to demoralize parts of the left and make them start to think that secession might be a good idea after all. And note that in 2016 we have seen a real example of this with the election of Donald Trump, for after Trump’s election, an initiative promoting secession was started in California, one of the most liberal states in the US.

Then, after halting the left’s advance, the third step is to begin counter-attacking against the left, thereby making them see that, if they stay wed to the right, they will actually start losing much of the “progress” that they had previously achieved. These losses will really cause many on the left to fall into distress and look for a way to prevent such losses from occurring in the future.

Fourth, when both halting the advance of the progressives and when counter-attacking against their policies, the right needs to begin to spread the idea that the only way to make the battle stop, and the only way for the left to stopping losing or potentially losing their progressive gains, is via secession between traditionalists and progressives. At the same time, the right should also play on the vanity, ego, and virtue-signaling of the left by telling them that “of course” the left can survive without the deplorable and despised right; they are the left after all, and so they are all about science, facts, and rationality, unlike the racist and sexist right, so they will obviously and easily survive without the right and it is in their best interests to do so. The right needs to spread this idea far and wide so that the grass-roots on the left come to believe it, accept it, and then push for it themselves. In essence, the right needs to push the idea of secession to the point that those on the left come to see it as the best course-of-action for the left to achieve its own aims.

Finally, fifth, the right should promote and encourage the election of a leftist populist leader who will respond to the desire of the grass-roots left to secede, as doing this would undermine the ability of any higher leftists to stop the leftist secession from happening. In essence, the traditionalist right should create a Trump-like figure on the left, but have his main issue be secession from the right. And so, in this way, both the right and left will be mutually seeking to secede from each other.

This, therefore, is the overall strategy that the right can use to overcome the problem of the left not wishing to secede from the right. And it should be noted that Trump’s election has arguably already helped to achieve the first three steps in this process, for many progressives and leftists already feel like they are about to lose a number of the agenda items which they have previously pushed for.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  the best way to defeat the problem of leftists not wishing to allow Western traditionalists to secede is to not only attack and block the left to the point that they find existence with the right unbearable, but also to make the left believe that they can survive without the right. This way, it will allow them to think that secession is in their best interests, thus motivating them to leave on their own, fully believing that they can easily survive without the traditionalists in their society. And finally, it is also important to note that should secession ever occur, the traditionalist nation that would be created as part of that secession would need to institute deep political and culture defenses to prevent the left from ever being able to regain the cultural hegemony that it has in America today. And this is a point that cannot be forgotten.

Anno Domini 2016 11 24

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam