Destroying the Use of Progressive Statistics

The Reconquista Initiative


Destroying the Use of Progressive Statistics

While sitting on the toilet one day, I had an epiphany: all the statistics that modern feminists, SJWs, progressives, and other leftists use as rhetorical tools against their opponents are utterly unreliable. Now, I do not mean that they are unreliable in the rather obvious sense that they have been refuted by countless other experts, but rather, I mean that, in a very ironic twist, the reliability of the statistics that progressive leftists love to use are actually undermined by their very own ideas and principles!

So, what do I mean by this? Well, consider that today, the progressive left tells us that gender is a social construct; as such, a man can thus allegedly become a woman, and a woman can allegedly become a man, all on the basis of how these men and women feel inside. In fact, the left tells us that there are a great number of different “genders”. For example, there are gender “fluids”, where a woman might decide to be a man one day and a woman the next, all depending on how her confused little heart feels once the sun rises.

So what is clear from all this is that the natural and commonsensical delineation between men and women is something which does not exist for the progressive left given their embrace of multiple gender categories. At the same time, it is evident that the left also endorses the idea that people are able to switch their gender categories on a relatively regular basis—if they desire to do so—all depending on how they subjectively feel rather than on any objective criteria. Furthermore, anyone who fails to take into account a person’s self-identity, and anyone who purposely or knowingly misidentifies the self-selected gender identity of a person is considered a bigot by the left.

Now, the interesting aspect of this whole situation arises when it is realized that in addition to all of the above, the progressive left also loves to use questionable statistics as a means of pushing their agenda. I mean, how often do we hear that women make less than men for the same work. And how often do we here that a “rape culture” exists, with men apparently sexually assaulted countless women on college campuses. Indeed, these kinds of statistics are used all the time by progressive feminists and others to bolster their narrative. And while many of these leftist statistics have been debunked using other, more accurate statistics, my point is that no other data or arguments are needed to undermine these leftist stats. Rather, all that is needed is to parrot the left’s talking points back to them. And when this is done, their appeal to statistics and data implodes.

Consider the following: if gender is fluid and changeable on a whim, and if there are dozens upon dozens of genders, and if society must treat these gender self-selections as real, then any statistics about the inequality in pay between men and women, or the sexual assault rates between men and women, or any other such statistics, are, by definition, unreliable. For if men can become women merely by feeling it, and if women can become men in the same way, then how do we actually know, for example, what the so-called pay-gap is between men and women? After all, at the time that the statistics were taken, did anyone ask the people what gender they self-identified with? Were enough gender options provided? Did anyone conduct a further study to see if the respondent’s self-identity has changed since the initial report was done? And the same questions could be asked about the alleged “rape culture” stats. At the time that the sexual assaults occurred, did anyone ask the aggressors what their gender identity was at the exact time of the alleged attack? Perhaps certain male aggressors identified as “womyn” at the time. Or perhaps they identified as gender fluid. In that case, perhaps we have an alleged lesbian “rape culture” on our hands rather than a supposed male one.

Furthermore, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the statistics that were previously gathered were accurate at that time, there is nothing to say that they are accurate now. Gender is fluid after all. People may have changed their gender identity since the last time the statistics were taken. Perhaps now we have a “rape culture” were self-identified “women” are regularly assaulting men. Hell, even if the statistics were re-taken today, by tomorrow, we could, on leftist principles, reasonably doubt their accuracy and reliability, for again, if gender is fluid, then we have no idea whether the statistics are still accurate or not.

So, by their very own lights, leftists and progressives provide us with the means to undermine their own narrative. They tell us gender is fluid, and we say “OK, but that means that all the stats that you use to talk about gender discrimination and alleged misogyny are unreliable and uncertain, for how do you know what gender these people were when the stats were taken and how do you know that the stats are still accurate now.” And if the progressive left then screams that we are being unfair, or “unscientific”, then we can just call them bigots. After all, they are using statistics which almost certainly did not let people choose one of the five dozen or so different genders out there at the time that the stats were taken; and that means that those statistics were created in a bigoted “cis-normative” bubble!

So the SJW progressives are stuck in a bit of a dilemma: either they admit that the statistics that they love to use are ultimately unreliable given their own principles and ideas, or else they renege on those principles and ideas by continuing to use the statistics in question, and thus they become the very cis-normative bigots that they allegedly despise. Essentially, the progressive is between a rock and a hard place. However, for those of us who loath SJW ideas, we should exploit this dilemma at every opportunity. Indeed, when an SJW gives you his favorite stat about sexism, just lay into him as a bigot for using such cis-normative statistics, and then tell him that his statistics are unreliable anyway.

Now, will this strategy change the minds of anyone on the progressive left? Of course not! After all, embracing absurdity and double-standards is an essential part of being an SJW, so absorbing one more absurdity will have no effect on them; at the same time, the progressive embrace of these absurd ideas is mainly about gaining more power over their ideological opponents rather than about truth, and so as long as they are gaining power in some way, the progressives do not care that their position is logically absurd. However, what pointing out these absurdities on the left does is move more normal people away from them. And the less that normal people support them, the fewer allies that they have. And that is the goal of pointing out leftist absurdities for all to see.

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

Anno Domini 2017 03 04

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

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

The Left’s Appeal is Easy Virtue

The Reconquista Initiative


The Left’s Appeal is Easy Virtue

One of the things which has always struck me about modern progressive leftism is that, as opposed to the relatively harder morality wed to traditionalism, it seems to me that a great deal of the appeal of embracing a leftist progressive political persuasion comes from the incredibly easy and external “virtue” and “morality” that such a vision provides to people. And so, people are drawn towards this point-of-view precisely because it is an easy and relatively cost-free way of achieving a great and vast feeling of moral righteousness and superiority.

After all, consider, for example, that it is asininely easy to “embrace” all types of sexual activities and orientations and deviances (progressive leftism), yet it is astronomically harder—especially in this day and age—to stay chaste until you have a heterosexual marriage and then remain faithful to that marriage for life (traditionalism). It is also easy to vote once every few years for a re-distributive socialist to have the government take money from other people to “help” the poor (progressive leftism), but it is much hard to actually donate 10% of your own monthly wages (or your time) on a regular self-giving basis to help the homeless bastard down the street (traditionalism). And it is no doubt also easy to be for “woman’s reproductive health” (progressive leftism), but it is actually hard to accept the consequences of your bad decisions and spend decades dealing them (traditionalism). Additionally, it is rather easy to embrace “safe spaces” and microaggressions and hate speech codes and so on, given the mental protection that these things offer to your psyche (progressive leftism), but it is rather difficult to be open to truly free speech and free association given that such openness can expose you to uncomfortable ideas and thoughts (traditionalism). It is also rather easy to have an amorphous love for “humanity” in some theoretical sense (progressive leftism), but it is much harder to be the individual who actually engages in the hard personal charity of, say, cleaning and washing a disabled person or an invalid. And it is easy to embrace “body positivity” even though you are fat and unhealthy (progressive leftism), but it is much harder to stay fit and healthy (traditionalism). And finally, consider that it is easy to embrace an ethic of ‘I’m OK, you’re OK, and everything’s OK so long as no one else is harmed’ (progressive leftism), but it is hard to embrace a morality that forces you to, say, personally oppose and strive against the seven deadly sins within your own sould. Consequently, with just these few examples in mind, I think that the point is made.

And so, the long and short of it is this: I truly believe that one reason for the modern appeal of progressive leftism, and one of the main reasons that it is so readily embraced today, is because what it deems to be virtuous is both easy and external, for it requires little pain, patience, or sacrifice. Indeed, under his moral system, the progressive leftist need not change himself—which is actually hard—for the moral philosophy that he embraces actually sanctifies all the consensual activities that he engages in; consequently, the progressive leftist has a system where he feels no guilt for his personal sins and vices, while he simultaneously receives the feeling of being virtuous through the easy and external moral system that he embraces. Indeed, the progressive leftist turns his vices into virtues, and then simply embraces other people’s vices as well, all while couching this lax morality in the sweet-sounding words of a faux “tolerance” and “love for diversity”. So progressive leftist is a moral dream: change your vices into virtues, and then try to have everyone agree that those vices are virtues. It is a trick as old as Adam, and it is why many fallen humans embrace such an easy moral system as the one that progressive leftism presents.

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

Anno Domini 2017 02 21

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

Embrace Leftist Lunacy, then Amplify It

The Reconquista Initiative


Embrace Leftist Lunacy, then Amplify It

Let’s be honest: it is, quite simply, a fact that Western leftists, progressives, and SJWs harbor a particular hatred towards orthodox Christian believers as well as other traditionalists. Furthermore, such leftists consider orthodox believers and members of the hard political right to be their enemy, and they are, in fact, correct in this regard, for traditionalists are indeed a political threat to them and their ideology. It is, therefore, without a doubt the case that such leftists are a threat to traditionalists in the West, and so this threat is one which traditionalists must deal with if they are to survive in any significant way in the Western world. And so, in light of these points, it behooves traditionalists to have powerful rhetorical and political tactics at their disposal with which to fight against the left. And one of these tactics is to take leftist lunacy, and then amplify it a hundred-fold; indeed, it is the strategy of embracing the left’s absurdities and then magnifying them to the point where the absurdity is made plain for all to see. It is, in essence, a reductio ad absurdum in rhetorical format. And note that this is a tactic which is, at least in part, inspired by Rule 4 and 5 of Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, which argues  that a radical should make the enemy live up to their own rulebook and also that ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

Now, to see what is meant by this tactic of ‘Embrace, then Amplify’, let us consider the newest item that SJWs and progressives are pushing in the West: namely, the idea that everyone must call individuals by the gender pronoun or designation that the person in question feels that they are, not by the pronoun which relates to their biological sex and objective reality. Indeed, this is the newest push on the progressive front, and it is obvious why they are pushing for it: controlling language, and being able to potentially convict people for “hate speech”, gives leftists and progressives immense power and control over the general populace. In fact, for many on the left, this ‘pronoun’ issue is not even about the so-called transgendered people that they are claiming to care about, but rather it is about having one more state-sponsored cudgel available to beat traditionalists with. And so it is clear why this whole topic is a major concern. Thus, the key question becomes:  How can the right embrace and then amplify this particular issue? Well, here are three ways to do so (and note that these three ways can also obviously be used for other subjects as well).

Embrace, maintain, then amplify in frequency  

The first method of embracing leftist absurdity and then amplifying it to the point of ridicule is to maintain whatever idea the left is offering, but then amplify it in frequency. So, for example, some leftists and progressives claim that there are upwards of fifty to a hundred different genders, which, remember, a person can be simply by feeling that he is that gender. Well, why only fifty genders? Why not fifteen hundred? Or five thousand? Surely there are many more genders than we currently think there are, so take the options that we presently have and amplify them exponentially. At the same time, since all that is required to be a certain gender is to feel that way, then why cannot you feel like you are a different gender every day, or even every hour? Indeed, perhaps you need to create a schedule to inform your leftist friends what gender pronoun they should call you on Monday morning, Monday afternoon, Monday evening, and so on and so forth. In fact, maybe you should tell your leftist friends to check-in with you after every conversation just so that they can be sure that they are referring to you with the proper gender pronoun that you feel like you are at that particular moment. Anyway, you get the idea: embrace the leftist lunacy, maintain it in its current form, but then amplify it in frequency, duration, and so on.

Embrace, shift, then amplify the shift

The second method of ‘embrace, then amplify’ is to embrace the absurdity, but then slightly shift the focus of it in a direction that the leftist will not accept. So, for example, if the leftist asks you what gender pronoun you wish him to use for you, recoil in disgust at the fact that the leftist would assume to use a human pronoun for you; after all, that is showing human favoritism, and you actually feel like you are a cat. Or maybe you feel like an alien, and need to be referred to by your alien designation. Or maybe you feel divine, and thus feel the need to be called ‘O Divine One’. Or maybe you feel like you are of a different race, or age, or height, or whatever. In essence, use the leftist’s own ideals against him by forcing him to call you something which even he knows you are not, but which he cannot object to given his own principles. And if the leftist objects to doing so, then immediately start firing out the standard leftist epithets of ‘racist, bigot, hater, etc.’ Either way, the leftist loses, at least in the rhetorical sense.

Embrace, reverse, then amplify the reversal

The final method to consider is one where the leftist’s own principles are used against him directly. So, for example, the next time a leftist demands that you address him through the gender pronoun of his choice, simply tell him that you cannot. When he asks why, advise him that your gender is as a child of God which necessarily only recognizes two genders, and so it would be a betrayal of your gender to call him by his chosen gender. And again, remember to be immediately ready to play the ‘bigot’ and/or ‘intolerant hater’ card against the leftist the minute that he tries to denigrate your chosen gender. So embrace the left’s ideas, but then reverse them on the leftist in a way that the leftist cannot object to without blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency.

And so the long and short of it is this:  embracing and amplifying leftist absurdities are an excellent tactic to counter progressives and SJWs, and three of the ways to embrace and amplify are through increasing the frequency of the embraced absurdity, shifting it slightly to something the leftist finds unacceptable, and/or reversing it on the leftist. Now, will this tactic work on the leftists themselves? Likely not, for their worldview can only survive on incoherence and absurdity, and so they are used to it—although, in fairness, you may convince the odd leftist to change his mind. However, convincing leftists and progressives is not the point. Rather, the point is to rhetorically neuter the leftists while at the same time helping to sway the fence-sitters to be against the leftists, not for them. And for the purposes of achieving that particular objective, embracing then amplifying leftist absurdities is a good tactic to use.

Please help and support my efforts at

Anno Domini 2016 12 30

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