It IS About Attacking Christianity

The Reconquista Initiative


It IS About Attacking Christianity

In our modern era, it has now become quite clear that the attacks that traditional Christians in the West face from both liberal leftist “Christians” and secular progressives against common-sense Christian morality and orthodox Christian ethical views are not, primarily, done for the purpose of seeking equality, or fighting against discrimination, or seeking tolerance, for what these attacks are primarily targeted at is traditional Christianity itself. In fact, these attacks against Christianity are meant to be insidiously and purposely couched in pleasant language about toleration and diversity in order to lull Christians to sleep while the enemy strikes. And while it is not contended that this is necessarily some type of concerted or coordinated or conspiratorial effort on the part of the opponents of the Christianity, it is nevertheless still true that these are attacks specifically against orthodox Christian theism. And the way that we can know this to be true is quite simple, for consider the following facts:

  1. First, we see liberal progressive leftists actively seek out and target Christian bakers, or florists, or whatnot in an effort to be able to bring cultural and societal sanctions against these people, but we do not see one iota of effort from the same people in seeking out Muslim or Orthodox Jewish businesses that would refuse the same services as the Christian parties do.

  1. Second, after every Muslim terror attack, we hear calls from the left not to be ‘Islamophobic’, and that ‘not all Muslims are like that’, and that, most likely, the attack was “somehow” caused by the far-right, and that the worse thing would be an anti-Muslim backlash, and yet when some Catholic priests are convicted of sexual abuse, there is no cry to avoid ‘Catholicophobia’, and no calls not to paint all priests as abusers, and no attempts at making excuses, but rather, the progressives actively and joyously use the sexual abuse crisis as a stick with which to beat the Catholic Church as a whole, something that they would never do with Muslims or other “protected” groups.

  1. Third, and linked to the last point, it is also the case that when a Muslim causes an attack or commits a horrible crime, the progressive media tries to avoid mentioning the Muslim’s religion for as long as possible, but if a “Christian” or a “right-winger” causes an attack, it is almost the first thing mentioned, and it is repeated over and over and over again, even if the link between the attacker and Christianity is tenuous at best. Furthermore, when a “right-winger” causes an attack, the event is often reported in a way that creates blanket condemnation of the whole right-side of the political spectrum rather than recognizing that many right-wing groups are separate entities who want nothing to do with each other; but when some group allied to the leftist-progressives causes an attack, distinctions are immediately made and nuance is introduced to deflect the blame onto a small sub-set of the left-wing.

  1. Fourth, progressive feminists, who, under the law, enjoy full equality in the formerly Christian West, spend inordinate amounts of time whining and complaining about the most idiotic and minor things that happen in Western societies while not only ignoring the horrors against women that occur elsewhere in the world, such as in Muslim countries, but even tacitly covering up for crimes committed against women when the crimes are committed by members of a “protected” group.

  1. Fifth, history and facts are utterly distorted by leftist progressives in order to make what was formerly Christendom and Western Civilization seem abhorrent and horrendous, when, in reality, the West’s sins were absolutely no greater than those of any other culture, and were arguably much less so, and were also readily offset by the great cultural and political benefits that the West brought to the rest of the world which no other culture did; but this latter fact is almost never mentioned, of course.

  1. Sixth, we see leftist progressive politicians and businesses in the West condemn and refuse to do business in areas and states that enact laws to protect Christians from secular progressive discrimination, and yet, all the while, these politicians and businesses are happy to do business in countries that are actively hostile to both progressive ideas as well as to Christian worship (countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iran, etc.) and so it certainly seems that so long as Christians are somehow receiving the lash—both literally and figuratively—then these progressive politicians and businesses are happy.

  1. Seventh, while secular progressives are happy to attack crosses in public spaces or prayer in schools due to the need for the ‘separation of church and state’, they dutifully ignore Muslim segregation of girls and boys in schools while Muslims are literally praying in school cafeterias and they ignore the chanting from minarets across all public spaces, just to name a few issues of this sort.

  1. Eighth, while Christians are routinely harassed and stopped and punished under hate speech laws enacted and enforced by progressives in the West, these laws, strangely, never seem to be used by progressives against Muslim hate-preachers or secular bigots, but mainly against orthodox Christians.

  1. Ninth, while progressives will claim that criticism of Islam or other non-Western religions is racist—a claim which is nonsensical to begin with given that a religion is not a race—they would laugh if you called their criticism of Christianity racist or discriminatory.

  1. Finally, tenth, while we see leftist progressives talk about aiding the needy and helping the destitute, we almost never hear them speak about the fact that the most persecuted victim group in the world are ‘Christians’, for Christians the world over are harmed and killed by their non-Christian country-men more so than any other religious group, and yet about this, you will rarely hear the left make a sound.

And so, the long and short of it is this: it is for reasons like those mentioned above, and for others as well, that we can reasonably come to believe that the progressive left is not aiming to use their social tools and cultural strength for the creation of a “better” world, but rather, they use their power to seek a world without traditional Christianity; but of course, to the progressive left, those two things are synonymous, and so the sooner that Christians recognize this threat, and the sooner they take firm action to counter it, the better.

If you wish, then please show your support here, because any amount of support counts towards keeping this original content coming:

Anno Domini 2017 02 27

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

A Call for Christian Pride

The Reconquista Initiative


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!


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:

Anno Domini 2017 02 15

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

Microaggressions are about Power and Control

The Reconquista Initiative


Microaggressions are about Power & Control

In recent years, the idea of a “microaggression” has eked into the mainstream of society, while at the same time, this idea has flooded many of the college campuses from which it originated. Now a microaggression is, allegedly, defined as a small and even unconscious bias or prejudice that one person—of course, nearly always a white heterosexual Christian and/or Western male—makes against another person in his speech or behavior. So it is, essentially, a word or action that is so innocuous that it would not appear biased or prejudiced to most normal people, and yet it actually is. Now that latter point is a red flag in and of itself, but what is particularly suspicious about microaggressions is that quite often—or so the proponents of microaggessions tell us—neither the individual causing the microaggression nor the individual being microaggressed actually know that they are involved in a microaggressing interaction, and thus only an outside observer (an “expert” in microaggressions, if you will) can see the microaggression in action. Consequently, to the proponents of microaggressions, though neither party directly involved in the alleged interaction felt “aggressed” in any way, a outside third party could still allege that a microaggression occurred and take action against the offending party based on that allegation.

Now, though many decent but ignorant people may think, merely upon hearing the term “microaggression”, that stopping such a thing is a good and noble task, for stopping any type of unnecessary aggression is a good, it must be absolutely clear that the ultimate intent of this idea is not about minimizing aggression, but rather, it is about power. Indeed, the dark truth concerning microaggressions is that they are fundamentally about power and control over individuals who disagreed with the left.  And to understand why this is the case, consider these five factors that are linked to the idea of microaggressions:

  • First, note that to the proponents of microaggressions, such aggressions, though “micro” in nature, are still counted as aggressions, which to such people are the equivalent of actual violence or threats, and thus require policing of some type in order to stop;
  • Second, a person might be committing a “microaggression” and yet have absolutely no idea that he is committing it;
  • Third, the receiver of an alleged microaggression might not even know or realize that he is receiving such an aggression;
  • Fourth, microaggressions often require third parties to “advise” people of their microaggressions;
  • And finally fifth, the term microaggression is itself so vague, amorphous, and flexible that essentially anything could be construed as a microaggression to someone.

Thus, when you have an idea which is composed of the five points above, you suddenly have, in principle, a recipe where the creation of microaggression commissars can be justified—after all, is it not a moral good to curb aggression if that aggression is deemed to be the equivalent of violence and threats. At the same time, you also have a situation where such microaggression commissars can suddenly bear down on almost anything a person says or does that is culturally or socially relevant, for anything even remotely controversial can be construed as a microaggression in some way. And, in fact, we are seeing this very type of action occurring on some college campuses today, with right-wing and conservative speakers being shouted down due to their words and ideas, as well as their mere presence, allegedly being “hate-speech” which could “trigger” someone!

And so, in this way, the proponents of microaggressions could use this idea to control a person’s speech and behavior by simply claiming that the person is committing an unconscious microaggression which that person needs to cease committing. Furthermore, for some people, the fear of microaggressing—for those who let themselves fear such a thing—will eventually cause such people to self-censor not only their own speech but even their very way of thinking, for the moment that they think an allegedly incorrect thought, they will stop themselves both out of an ill-placed guilt for thinking such things and out of caution for what could happen if their incorrect thoughts became public. Thus, for people in circumstances where allegations of microaggressions are common, and for people who might have something to lose if they are accused of a microaggression—such as college professors—we can thus see how such people could slowly but surely concede their power and autonomy to the new political priestly caste of microaggression perceivers. And they will have done so not through their own reason, but through the subtle coercion of social and cultural pressures that make many weaker men bend the knee to the sins of their times.

Finally, not only can we see how microaggressions are a tool for control, but we can also understand how they are a tool for control in a specific direction: namely, a tool for control of the right and traditionalists by the left and by progressives. But how do we know this? Because you are a fool if you think that any socio-cultural critique or insult made against the right or traditionalism or against white Western males would ever be considered a microaggression; and yet, by contrast, any socio-cultural critique or insult made by the right or traditionalists or by white Western males against their opponents would always be considered microaggression worthy. And so it is the double-standard that the champions of microaggressions employ which gives the game away as being one where the left is always a victim of microaggressions, and the right is always the aggressor.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  the core purpose of the idea of microaggressions is as a tool to allow others to exercise power over you, and to do so in a way that literally makes you and your mind begin to shape itself into the very intellectual and political mold that the modern day Social Justice Warrior desires…and there could be no hell worse than that. As such, fight this idea of microaggressions at every turn, and if someone tells you that you have committed a microaggression, then feel free to commit a second one by telling that person to *%^# off!

Support this original content on Patreon:

Anno Domini 2016 12 02

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

The Strategy for Christian Secession

The Reconquista Initiative


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 ‘’ 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 ‘’ blog; in his comment to that post, Jacques wrote the following:


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. (


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

Stop Alt-Rightophobia!

The Reconquista Initiative


Stop Alt-Rightophobia!

Dear Liberals, Progressives, SJWs, and Leftists of all Stripes,

Today, I want to talk to you about something important; something that is, in a word, problematic. In the last few months, and especially with the victory of Donald Trump, the Western world has seen the rise of a movement sometimes referred to as the ‘Alternative Right’, or ‘Alt-Right’. Now, before you recoil in a micro-aggressive spasm at the sound of this word and then retreat to a safe space to play with some play-doh, I really want you to pause for a moment and reflect upon the systemic and institutional bigotry—of which you are likely a part—that has marginalized this group of people for years. Indeed, the fact is that both the overt and internalized bigotry that has been displayed against this downtrodden minority group has risen to the point where we now have to call this prejudice for what it truly is:  alt-rightophobia.

Now I know that progressives and liberals may not want to hear these hard words, but being a group of individuals who embrace tolerance, champion multiculturalism, and celebrate diversity like no one else, I know that you, my progressive friends, will no doubt extend that boundless tolerance to a group of people as politically marginalized but culturally unique as the alt-right. After all, if you are happy to extend a near boundless tolerance to even radical Muslim terrorists and Islamists—even making excuses for them by seeking for the ‘root causes’ of their disenfranchisement and alienation in Western society or by blaming conservative Christians in their stead—then I have no doubt that you can extend that same courtesy to those on the alt-right, especially since the alt-right has not even caused a fraction of the death and mayhem that Islamists have over the last twenty-odd years.

Furthermore, I just have to say that the left’s current lack of tolerance for the alt-right—the very lack of tolerance which flames the fires of alt-rightophobia and creates a hostile environment which furthers the oppression of the alt-right—has a racist taint to it, especially given that the majority of those on the alt-right are Caucasian. Now, I know, I know. You will say that an ideology or political movement is usually composed of people from numerous different races and ethnicities, and so it is obviously not “racist” to criticize a mere ideology or set of ideas. But that is exactly what we on the right said when we tried to bring up legitimate criticisms of Islam, and yet you called us racists anyway. So, quite frankly, we have seen the progressive light and we now truly understand that criticism of the alt-right is indeed a most egregious form of racism. And don’t try to claim that criticism of the alt-right is not racist because racism requires prejudice combined with institutional power and oppression, for given the way in which the left holds sway in universities, and in a great portion of the mainstream media, and in Hollywood and television, and even in many businesses, it is clear that there is a great deal of institutional power oppressing the marginalized alt-right at every turn. So check your god-damn privilege!

And, in fact, with the recent outbreak of violence and assaults against Trump supporters after his victory, we see this prejudice and racism manifest itself in physical violence against victims who did nothing more than support Donald Trump. This has to stop! After all, as you progressives have always told us, not only should we not, in any way, blame the victims for what occurs to them, but we need to believe these victims as well. Well, we believe the victims of anti-Trump and anti-alt-right violence! We believe them so much that we have to say: “Alt-Right lives matter!”

Still, I can hear you grumbling that you have clear arguments against those on the alt-right and that you have rational reasons to oppose them. And I understand your claim, I really do. But when we on the right made that same claim concerning our arguments and reasons against homosexual marriage, for example, you progressives still called us ‘homophobes’ and ‘bigots’ anyway. So again, we’ve now learned, and so we ask that you stop trying to hide your alt-rightophobia and political bigotry behind spurious appeals to allegedly rational arguments and evidence. Furthermore, as you, my progressive comrades, well know, we all have a human right not to be offended or triggered, and so your claims to speak the truth about the alt-right, whether factual or not, still hurts us and triggers us in ways that you cannot possibly imagine, especially given our historic oppression at the hands of the left. So your so-called truth claims need to just plain stop. Stop them right now! There is no room in modern society for alt-rightophobes!

But no doubt you will say that we on the alt-right have unrepentant racists in our group, and we even have some members who literally believe that they are a superior species of human being in comparison to other humans—they literally believe that they are some type of “super-humans”! Now I grant you that even I thought this claim by some members of the alt-right was ridiculous. After all, while we all have different traits and capacities, we are all still members of the same human species, and objective reality does not bend to our desires. Or so I thought. But then the progressive transgender movement enlightened me! After all, if a man can magically become a woman or a little girl simply because he feels that way and declares himself to be female, then surely there is no principled objection that can be mounted against a person who feels like he is of a superior species based on his mere feeling and his declaration that it is so. And so even here you progressives have opened my eyes to the wonders that come with embracing the ‘belief-equals-reality’ point-of-view, for it has allowed me to embrace the truth that those on the alt-right who feel like they are literally a superior species of human being in comparison to the rest of us really are superior! It’s like a glorious form of magic! And even if this reasoning does not convince you, and even if you still continue to really dislike certain segments of the alt-right, remember that a few bad apples do not spoil the bunch. That is, once again, what leftists say again, and again, and again, about Islam. Besides, in reality, the alt-right is just a ‘Movement of Peace’, with only a few extremists in our midst who hijack and distort our ideas.

Finally, I just want to mention that as we move forward in our quest for social justice for the very alt-rightists that have been shunned in universities and everywhere else that the left maintains a grip on power, we need to watch our language. For example, the term ‘far right’ needs to stop being used not only because this term is just a social construct meant to oppress and marginalize those on the alt-right, but also because the word ‘far’ implies that we, as a group, are distant and disconnected from society and from other people; but such an idea is radically harmful to our sense of self-worth and our personal positivity—not to mention being horribly offensive—and so use of this psychologically-damaging term needs to cease immediately. Remember: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to spread hate!

Look, the fact is that alt-rightophobia is the civil rights issue of our time. You might scoff at this ‘phobia’ and claim that it is utter nonsense, but it is every bit as legitimate as all the other ‘phobias’ that the left has thrown at the right for years. And you might shake your head in disgust at the blatant irrationalities that have been offered in this letter to you, but note that in our fight for equality for the alt-right, we have only emulated you progressives and liberals as best as we could. Now of course you could disregard all the reasoning and points that we have put forward here, the very same reasoning and points that you progressives have used for years, but we would never be so crass as to believe that progressives and liberals are just a bunch of inconsistent hypocrites who have only been using these tactics as a means to gain more and more political power against the right through the twisting of language, the use of emotive persuasion, and through social shaming. Indeed, we would never believe that the left, both culturally and politically, might attack the right in the West while still happily and thus hypocritically dealing with other non-Western nations and groups that are exponentially worse than any right-wing group in the West is. No, we would never believe any of that. And so, knowing the intellectual consistency that rests in the very bones of every progressive leftist, we eagerly await your alliance in this great social struggle of our time; the social struggle to eradicate alt-rightophobia. It is, after all, 2016.


A Hard-Rightist

P.S. – Obviously, this is a parody. The fact is that the alt-right, and the Hard-Right, do not care what you think of us, what you call us, or what you label us as. But the fact that this entire letter is composed of modern leftist talking points, and yet is simultaneously absurd, should make any sane liberal wake-up and wonder what the hell happened to the political left over the last few years.

Why Women Should Stay Out of the Abortion Debate

The Reconquista Initiative


Why Women Should Stay Out of the Abortion Debate

It has been sometimes said that men, being men, and thus being unable to get pregnant, should not have a say concerning the issue of abortion for the very reason that since they are not directly affected by it, and since they do not suffer the direct consequences of it, then they should keep their mouths shut about the whole matter—and just google this general theme to find several articles from feminists and others which argues for this point-of-view. However, in this essay, what I wish to argue is that far from men needing to be silent about assessing the morality and legality of abortion, it is, in fact, women who should butt out of the abortion debate, at least in an official or formal capacity. Indeed, if anyone should be ignored concerning the issue of abortion and concerning the assessed strength of the arguments for or against it, it is women, not men. And while such an idea, given the times that we live in, might seem radical, there is actually a very good reason for it.

Now, to understand the reason why women, rather than men, should stay out of the debate about the moral and/or legal permissibility of abortion, consider the matter of jury selection during a criminal or civil trial, specifically noting the fact that a jury’s goal and purpose is to seek the truth and follow the evidence in the most objective and fair manner possible. So, with all this in mind, imagine that we have a criminal trial where a male defendant has been accused of raping a woman. Now, in such a situation, and given that, as mentioned, the goal of a jury is to seek the truth as objectively as possible, we all understand that it would be unsound, unjust, and irrational to allow a woman on the jury for that particular trial if the woman in question had also previously been raped by a man in the same way that is alleged to have happened in the trial presently under consideration. And we know that this would be a bad and irrational idea precisely because the potential female juror who had been previously raped, due to her past history, would, understandably, not be as objective and impartial as would be required to serve on a jury where the goal is to seek the truth and to assess evidence and arguments in the most fair and objective way possible. Indeed, we all understand that the woman’s emotional and psychological proximity to the type of trial under consideration would cloud her objectivity and render her a partial, rather than an impartial, jury member. Furthermore, we all understand why this is the case, for an emotionally and psychologically clouded mind is a mind that is more susceptible to motivated reasoning and cognitive biases. In fact, the same even holds true for a trial judge, who must recuse himself if he has a conflict of interest with a case under consideration. And lest you would object to these claims, I dare say that were you or I ever accused of a crime, neither one of us would want someone on our jury, or a judge, who had suffered from the crime that we had been accused of committing for the very reason that we both realize that there would simply be too much of a chance that that person would not be fair in their assessment of the evidence at our trial.

But the examples do not end there, for we also understand that, for example, a jury member would not be allowed to be a family member of an accused individual given that no one would expect or could sufficiently guarantee that a family member would be objective in their assessment of the evidence against their relative. Or, for a different type of example, consider that we all understand that, on average, we would be quite rational to trust the assessment of a genuine political independent concerning a highly politicized and volatile topic more so than we would trust the  assessment of a lifelong partisan hack concerning the same matter; we realize that the latter’s emotional attachment, psychological investment, and direct personal consequences to the issue at hand makes his opinion less immediately trustworthy than the opinion of a person who is not so closely connected or invested in the political issue under consideration. Indeed, we understand that the political partisan, given his greater personal connection to the issue under consideration, makes him more susceptible to cognitive bias and motivated reasoning, thereby very likely making his assessment of the issue under consideration less objective than that of a more neutral party. And so we can see, via these examples, how a person’s emotional and psychological proximity to a certain situation or event actually renders them less objective about the evidence or arguments that they are considering, and it actually gives us a solid reason to be more leery of their assessment of a certain matter rather than being more trusting of their assessment.

Note as well that social science also supports the above examples. For example, in his book Righteous Minds, and specifically in his chapter “Vote for Me (Here’s Why)”, popular social psychologist Johnathan Haidt notes that when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play, people are very good at finding evidence which supports a position that they already hold, most likely for intuitive reasons. What this means is that when self-interest is involved, as well as when discussing emotionally charged topics, people are very good at confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Now, with the above points from Haidt in mind, and with the earlier examples in mind as well, the connection with the abortion issue should be clear. In the debate over abortion, we are seeking to objectively and fairly assess the status of the unborn human being, both in a moral and a legal sense. We are also seeking to assess, as objectively as possible, whether abortion is murder, thus establishing whether it is permissible or not. We are even assessing whether abortion is a social and cultural good or not. So these are damn serious issues, and so we should all wish that the individuals assessing these topics concerning abortion are as objective as possible. But, in all these debates, a woman is like the compromised juror who would be rejected as a jury member in a trial precisely because the juror could not be counted on to be as objective as possible about the evidence under consideration, for it is the woman’s very emotional, psychological, and self-interested proximity to these issues which makes her assessment of them less trustworthy rather than more trustworthy. And this is precisely because there would be a very good chance that a woman would be suffering from serious cognitive bias in her assessment of the evidence concerning abortion and the status of the unborn. After all, women themselves admit that they are the ones who are directly influenced by the emotional, psychological, and physical effects of pregnancy and abortion, and so, whether knowingly or not, they themselves are the ones who are tacitly acknowledging that they would have an increased susceptibility to cognitive bias and motivated reasoning concerning this topic.

By contrast to women, men are not directly affected by the issue of abortion, and they are most definitely less emotionally, psychologically, and personally invested in it, as many women themselves admit; after all, that is often why women argue that men should have no say about abortion to begin with. But because of all this, a very strong case can be made that men are actually more objective evidence assessors concerning the issue of abortion and its potential morality or immorality than women are. Indeed, men, given their ability to remain more detached about the issue of abortion, can actually be more trusted to give an impartial assessment of the evidence concerning the humanity of the unborn, and thus men can give a fairer assessment of whether abortion is murder or not. So again, far from a women’s proximity and direct personal contact with the abortion issue being an asset, it is actually the very thing which gives us a sound reason to be more skeptical concerning what women say about abortion given that their emotional and psychological investment in the issue increases their cognitive biases and motivated reasoning.

Now women will no doubt scream contemptuously concerning this argument, and they will no doubt object to the idea that they should not be listened to about the issue of abortion. And, in fact, they should be listened to. But here is the key point: if we are going to listen to women about abortion and take their arguments seriously, then men should be listened to as well. In fact, men should be listened to as much or even more so than women are! Indeed, if we are going to consider the views of a group, namely women, who we have good reason to believe are more compromised in terms of their objectivity than men are when it comes to assessing the arguments for or against abortion, then we have no rational reason to deny men the grounds to weigh in on the abortion issue as well.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  although men are sometimes told that their views about abortion should not count because they are not directly affected by it, it is actually a woman’s very emotional and psychological proximity to the issue of abortion which makes her cognitive-bias-prone opinion about abortion less objective and less trustworthy than that of a man. And so, if anyone should be ignored concerning the matter of abortion, it is women; but if they are to be listened to, as they should be, then no one should dare say that the arguments from men should not be listened to as well.

Anno Domini 2016 11 17

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