Women Skip Work…and Teach Us How Important Men Are

This post was originally published at ‘Return of Kings’ and can be found HERE.

On the 8th of March, 2017, a large number of Western women played hookie; indeed, in connection with the protests that were taken by women against President Donald Trump in January of 2017, the organizers of those protests called on women to skip work on the 8th of March in order to show their strength and influence in society. And so, the 8th of March came, and passed, and do you know what happened? Nothing. Or at least nothing significant. Indeed, Donald Trump stayed President, businesses kept running, and the United States still exists. Now, it is granted that, in all likelihood, relatively few women participated in this joke-of-a-protest, because a decent number of women are—thank God!—still intelligent enough to see through such a farce. Nevertheless, this whole event is still instructive as it offers us a chance to reflect on what would really happen if such an event were taken seriously.

Imagine, for a moment, that all women in the Western world really did take a day off work; all they did was stay home and watch their children (if they had any). What would happen? Oh, there would be major disruptions no doubt. Young children might lack some of their teachers. Doctors might have to take blood for the absent nurses and jerry-rig a few operations. The one lone male in human resources might get overwhelmed. And a number of men might have to get called in for some overtime. Ironically, a lot of women might also find out that they are happier in the home rather than being a corporate drone. But nevertheless, on this imaginary ‘women-less’ day, civilization would continue moving forward; a few people would seriously suffer here and there, but society as we know it would continue chugging along. Food would still be in the fridge. Traffic and deliveries would continue. And life would go on. In fact, if we knew in advance when this “Day Without Women” would be, then men could largely mitigate the effects that this would have on society. So there would be pain, but this pain would be temporary, and soon things would be back to normal.

But now imagine, just for a second, that society experienced a “Day Without Men”. Indeed, imagine that all the men in the Western world, all at the same time, truly decided not to work for a day no matter what happened. All men stopped working for one full day. And imagine that this was known in advance. You know what would happen? Well, think of what has happened in the past when the police—a largely male profession, especially on the front lines—went on strike. There would be riots, civil unrest, looting, and a serious increase in criminality. People would die in fires and car accidents due to the lack of firefighters; in fact, fires that might normally get contained would spread and cause much more devastation than normal. Deliveries of food and essentially services would cease to a trickle. Power outages and other major mechanical and electrical concerns would have almost no one to address them. Terrorist attacks would likely sky-rocket given the lack of any serious armed response to the terrorist threat. And worst of all, the Western world would likely be invaded and destroyed. Seriously! If the enemies of the West knew that men—who comprise the bulk of all fighting forces for Western militaries—were taking the day off, would they not seize the opportunity to strike. After all, who would be manning the guns on the gates of a military camp or on an aircraft carrier? Who would be piloting the fighters to repel an enemy air attack? Who would be guarding our embassies and responding to any threats? Who would be manning the command posts to launch our nuclear arsenal in case of an attack? Would not, for example, North Korea sweep through the South if it knew for sure that all the men in South Korea and Japan had taken the day off? Of course it would! Now, for sure, there are women in the military, and many of them would no doubt do a fine job trying to compensate for the lack of men, but a female soldier in a support trade is no front-line marine, and in nearly all military contests, a group of well-trained men will defeat a group of well-trained women any day of the week. So the fact remains that without men for a day, the West would be vulnerable in a potentially civilization-ending way.

So, what do these little thought-experiments show us? Well, they give us a glimpse of reality; a reality that cannot be concealed no matter how much modern feminists wish to hide it. And that reality is the following: in terms of their immediate importance, women are not indispensable to society, for everything that a woman does outside the home, a man can do as well. A man can be a nurse; he can be a teacher; he can be a day-care worker. On the other hand, men—given their greater physical strength and aggression—fill most of the roles that are needed to maintain the stability and protection of society on a day-to-day basis, and so men are indispensable to society in an immediate sense. Indeed, society could relatively easily survive a day without women, but it might not survive a day without men, for whereas the former situation would be like getting kicked in the balls, the latter would be like getting shot—you might survive, but you might also die.

Now, does all this mean that women are not indispensable to Western civilization? Of course not. Women, being supremely well-suited to the birthing and nurturing of children, are indispensable to civilization, for children—meaning future citizens—are the fuel that keeps a civilization running. And since, without women, there would be no children, and hence no future civilization, then obviously, women are critical to the maintenance and survival of a civilization. However, unlike men, and unlike the message that the organizers of the “Day Without Women” want to convey, women are indispensable in the long-term sense, whereas men are indispensable in the short-term. And so this is the key point: men and women are both indispensable to society, but they are indispensable in complementary ways, not in the same way. So feminists need to stop trying to pretend that women are men or that women are vital to a civilization in the same way that men are. They are not, and that is just reality. And the sooner that we accept that reality, the better it will be for all of us.

Jesus was a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch

The Reconquista Initiative


Jesus was a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch

One of the great travesties of modern feel-good femininized Christianity—and a travesty which alienates a lot of non-Christian men—is the fact that Jesus Christ is so often portrayed as an individual who is utterly meek, mild, and submissive—as if Christ were some type of go-along-to-get-along hippie who just wanted peace, tolerance, and “love”, man! But nothing could be further from the truth, for the fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ was one tough son-of-a-bitch, and his strength and grit manifested itself in a number of ways. In fact, in many respects, Jesus Christ is a model of male toughness, and if you don’t believe me, well then just consider the following three points.

Physical Grit

First, there is the physical form of fortitude, which is a type of toughness that Jesus clearly demonstrated, for not only are there good grounds to believe that Jesus was a builder of some type (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3), and thus that he had the natural physical strength that comes from working in manual labor, but there was also another incident that clearly showed Jesus’s physical prowess:  namely, the clearing of the temple.

In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:14-15, ESV)

So here we have Jesus literally making himself a weapon and then using that weapon to clear out a temple full of merchants and animals. And although we are not told the exact number of people who were in the temple at the time, it nevertheless takes some serious balls to single-handed bitch-slap a room full of dudes and chase them away from their money and their live-stock. Indeed, regardless of whether you think that Jesus was right or wrong in what he did, the fact is that there are few men alive today who would have the intestinal fortitude to man-up and clear out a group of men with nothing but their hands, a bit of cord, and some righteous fury.

Intellectual, Emotional, and Social Fortitude

Now, while the above example demonstrates Christ’s physical toughness, the fact is that Christ was also intellectually, socially, and emotionally tough. What do I mean by this? I mean that in his words and actions, Christ did not bow to the politically-correct platitudes of his day, nor did he sacrifice the truth for niceness, nor did he care about the approval of his followers if doing so meant sacrificing his integrity. And indeed, when you call out a group of people as being sons of the Devil (John 8:39-47), and when you boldly preach the truth in a manner that leads to those who hear you wanting to kill you afterwards (Luke 4:16-30, John 8:58-59), and when you hold fast to a teaching regardless of the fact that it leads to large numbers of your followers abandoning you (John 6:60-71), you know that Christ had intellectual and emotional strength. In fact, Christ was strong enough to even call out his close friend when it was required (Matthew 16:22-23). And this is not even to mention the iron mental will it would take to fast for forty days and forty nights (Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:1-2)! And so we see the strength of Christ manifest itself not only physically, but only intellectually and socially. This was a man who was emotionally and mentally tough. He had a mission, and he would let no man—neither friend nor foe—stop him from achieving it.

Mission-Oriented Toughness

Finally, we can note that Christ had the type of fortitude that men admire most:  a self-sacrificial mission-oriented grit that few men exhibit in their lives. Indeed, in his final days, Christ—in order to fulfil his mission of redemption against the forces of evil that control this Earth (John 12:31, 2 Corinthians 4:4)—allowed himself to be whipped, beaten, and hung on a cross. Now many people might consider such an outcome to be a sign of weakness. After all, Jesus did nothing to defend himself from his attackers and oppressors, and so his apparent submission to a painful death seems pathetic, not bold or strong. But this has the issue entirely backwards, for true strength and toughness is demonstrated via the endurance of pain and suffering to accomplish a mission, not necessarily through the specific way in which that mission is accomplished. Think, for example, of the platoon commander whose cowering platoon is pinned down by enemy fire and blocked from advancing due to a barbed wire barrier; in order to save his men and ensure that his mission is completed, the platoon commander charges the wire under heavy enemy fire and throws himself upon it, thereby allowing his platoon to break through and complete their mission. Is this platoon commander a coward? Is he weak? Is the soldier who throws himself on top of a grenade to save his friends and ensure their survival pathetic? Of course not! Was Arnold Winkelried gutless when, in 1386 at the Battle of Sempach, he sacrificially threw himself against a spear wall in order to make the critical opening for his Swiss comrades to break the Austrian lines and ultimately gain their freedom? Obviously not! And so, such men as those just mentioned are not weak, but rather, they have the biggest balls of all, for they willingly and freely take on the pain and suffering from countless foes in order to save their friends and ultimately accomplish their mission by doing so. And the same is true for Christ: he freely and willingly endured unbearable pain to ensure the completion of his mission, which was the salvation of mankind. In fact, when looked at from a theological perspective, Christ’s sacrifice can be seen as being even more awesome, for a plausible understanding of the crucifixion holds that Christ literally experienced and endured the punishment for all the sins of all mankind during his death, an experience which would create a level of pain that would be utterly unimaginable to us. And yet he took on that pain freely, a deed that few others—if any—would ever do!

And so, the long and short of it is this: while Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, was without a doubt kind and gentle with many individuals, he was also incredibly tough, and his fortitude showed itself in many different ways. Consequently, it always needs to be remembered that Christ was not a weak man, but was, in fact, one of the toughest—if not the toughest—SOBs to have ever lived. He was a man’s man, and we need to remember him as such.

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

Anno Domini 2017 02 13

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


The Three Indefensible Targets

The Reconquista Initiative


Triple ‘A’ Self-Defense (Awareness, Avoidance, Aggression):

The Three Indefensible Targets

Just as every man needs to know how to fight, every man needs to know how to fight as if his life depended on it, for one day, it just might. Indeed, for while every man should know the basics of “bar-room brawling”, much more importantly, every man should also know the basics of ‘my-bloodly-life-is-on-the-line-and-I-will-win-no-matter-what-the-cost’ combat as well. And when it comes to life-or-death combat, a critical aspect of such a struggle is not only knowing which targets to aim for on a human body, and it is not only about knowing which targets to aim for first, but it is also about knowing which targets are literally indefensible no matter who your opponent is. And it is precisely these latter types of targets which this article will address.

Now, in providing you with this information, the onus is obviously on you to know how local self-defense laws apply to your situation. So, let’s be clear: I am just providing you with some knowledge, but you are responsible for how you use it. At the same time, I want it to be understood that these tactics should never be used except when you are under threat of death or serious bodily harm.

So, having said the above, let us now address the three indefensible targets that every man should know about. And in saying that these bodily targets are indefensible, what is meant is not that an opponent cannot actively protect these areas, but rather that no matter what a person’s bodily composition is—fat, skinny, muscular, etc.—there is almost nothing that a person can do to passively defend these areas. Whereas, for example, throwing a rib shot at an obese man or a trained Muay Thai fighter would be largely ineffective due to the passive armor that these two individuals possess—layers of fat in the former case and hardened ribs in the latter case—with the three targets under discussion, no such passive protection is possible. So what then are these targets? Well, they can be remembered with the acronym ‘ETC’, which stands for ‘Eyes, Throat, and Crotch’. Now, let’s look at each of these in order.

E is for Eyes

In most life-or-death conflicts that a civilian might find himself in, the ultimate goal is to survive and escape. Indeed, the goal is to break contact with the attacker and get away as quickly as possible. And with this point in mind, it is key to remember that any attacker who cannot see you, cannot chase you. Not only this, but in nearly all cases, any attacker who cannot see you, cannot coherently attack you either. And to add to all this, an attacker’s eyes are also one of the areas that he cannot passively defend no matter what he does and no matter how muscled or fat he is. As such, an attacker’s eyes are a prime target for attack in a life-or-death situation. Now when I imply that you should attack an opponent’s eyes, I am not talking about some minor eye fleck or eye scratch—although such moves have a place in less dire circumstances—but rather, in the life-or-death struggle, I am talking about driving your thumbs into an opponent’s eye sockets and literally ripping his eyeballs out. This is brutal, I know. But in a serious struggle, when it is your life or his, it must be your life, and so you must do whatever is necessary to survive, even if that means putting your fingers so far into a man’s skull that you start tickling his grey matter!

T is for Throat

If a man’s eyes are the first body part to aim for given that this target is easy to get to, and does not do fatal damage, and also allows you a chance to escape, then this second target is no less important, for this target can be used when gouging the eyes is no longer an option and escape has been taken off the table. Indeed, when that happens, target the throat. Now notice that I did not say the neck, for the neck, though an excellent target, is nevertheless one which can still be reinforced and strengthened, thereby making it difficult to attack in some people. Thus the throat is the target, and it is the target in two ways. First, target the fleshy part under the Adam’s Apple where the trachea lies underneath the skin. Grab the neck like a vice grip, then drive the thumbs inwards until they are literally touching the attacker’s spine; with the trachea between your thumbs and the spine, bad things happen to your attacker! And the second way to attack this target is to grab the Adam’s Apple in a compact vice grip—just the Adam’s Apple, not the whole neck—and then squeeze until your hand forms back into a fist, thereby crushing the throat. Again, this is only to be used in a life-or-death self-defense struggle, but if you are in such a struggle, there are few moves more effective than this one.

C is for Crotch

Although targeting the crotch is applicable to both males and females, for obvious reasons, it is used mainly in the case of males. But since a male will most likely be your opponent in a life-threatening encounter, then this limitation does not pose too much of a problem. Now, although the groin is not a fatal target, if attacked properly, it is a horrendously painful one, and one which will stop a person in their tracks. But again, I am not talking about some “snap-kick” to the crotch or a groin “strike”; rather, I am talking about grabbing the opponent’s junk, twisting it, then crushing it, and then pulling it off. Either that, or stomping and/or kneeing it into oblivion. That is what I mean.

Bonus E is for Ears

Finally, as a bonus, I would also invite you to consider the ears. They are a non-lethal target but, like the three targets above, they are also a target which cannot be passively strengthened or protected. At the same time, a good number of individuals wear earrings, which make grabbing the ear and tearing it that much easier (or at least tearing out the earring itself). And so the ears present another target which can be readily grasped in a firm crawl-like fist, and then, with adrenaline flowing, pulled and ripped off.

And so, the long and short of it is this: real blood combat is an ugly business, and one which you want to avoid at all costs. But if violence is pushed onto you, the only answer is to respond with the aggression of a tiger and the brutality of a sociopath. Show no mercy until the threat is gone. And so, know the areas to target first—the eyes, the throat, the crotch, and sometimes the ears—and target them ferociously. Remembering this might very well mean the difference between life and death if you ever find yourself faced with that choice.

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

Anno Domini 2017 02 04

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  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 30

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

How to Deal with a Police Investigation

The Reconquista Initiative


How to Deal with a Police Investigation

It is undeniable that today, men in the West stand a non-negligible chance of being falsely accused of a criminal offence, especially given the ease with which jaded and jilted ex-girlfriends or spouses can make false accusations about rape or domestic violence without suffering any major repercussions for doing so. Indeed, many men might find that the police coming to knock at your door to ask you a “few questions” is not as rare of an occurrence as it once was, even for men of good standing. As such, it is incumbent on every man to know how to deal with a modern police investigation or else one day he suddenly might find himself in the back of a police car with no idea what to do. And having been on the police side of the equation, I think that I have some valuable knowledge to share about this matter. So here are a few tips to know about the police process if you are an innocent man who has been falsely accused of a crime.

1.Know Your Rights:

The first thing that you should do is to know your rights under the law. Know the laws that exist in your specific jurisdiction and know the laws that exist in any country that you will be visiting.  After all, knowledge is power, and so knowledge of your legal rights will help you greatly if you ever have to deal with the local police.  I cannot stress this enough.  Know your rights, for doing so will give you some level of power, control, and leverage as you go through the investigative process. And know that even a fraction of power, control, and leverage might be enough to save you from making a disastrous mistake during that process.

2.Not Every Cop is Out to Get You:

Look, it is undeniable that police officers, being human, might fixate on you as a suspect and try to bring you down no matter what the truth is. Indeed, it is undeniable that there have been cases of police corruption in the past where innocent people have been wrongfully charged and convicted. Sometimes, the police are really out to get you, and you need to be aware of that and realize when that is happening.  At the same time, however, you must also realize that not every cop is out to get you; in fact, most aren’t. For example, cops know better than anyone else the bullshit that is so-called modern “rape culture”, and they know this due to the countless hours they spend investigating unsubstantiated and even outright false reports. So don’t think that every cop wants to sink you. Many cops are interested in the truth, and so know that speaking to the police and giving your side of the story will often provide the police with the best possible picture of what occurred in a given situation. And so, while a natural form of caution concerning the police is healthy when dealing with them, do not let this turn into an irrational paranoia, for that could then back-fire on you quite severely.

3.Know that Cooperation is a Major “Tell”:

In keeping with the last point, realize that if you are falsely accused of a ‘he-said, she-said’ crime, then cooperating with the police is often the very thing that will exonerate you. For example, I remember a number of cases where the accuser’s testimony was imperfect, but it was still sufficient to form the grounds necessary to arrest the suspect. Yet it was the suspect’s own voluntary testimony which was of such strength and credibly that it was easy for us to believe the suspect over the person making the complaint. And so we dropped the charges. So your statement, if given to the police, can be powerful evidence in your favor.

In fact, just your willing cooperation is powerful testimony of your innocence.  Indeed, myself and my fellow officers used to joke that if a man came into the police station to voluntarily give a statement after being accused of a ‘he-said, she-said’ crime, and if the first thing that he told us was that he was willing to give us a statement, and answer all our questions, and allow us to take his DNA, and allow us to search his property, and if he was even willing to freely take a lie-detector test, then this was a very good indication that the man was innocent, because only a criminal genius or an innocent man would freely volunteer to do all that, and most people are not criminal geniuses. So don’t always be afraid to cooperate.

And at the same time, realize that if you do not give your statement to the police, then often all the police have to go on is the statement of your accuser. And if that statement is credible enough, and if you will not testify to counteract that statement, then the police will make a decision based on the evidence that they have, and thus arrest you, and then interrogate you anyway; so it is often in your best interest to take the initiative and speak to the police before they are forced to choose what to do without taking your side of the story into consideration.

4.Give the Police Something:

If you are reluctant to give an in-person statement to the police—and in some cases I can understand why this would be so—then, at the very least, give the police something. What I suggest is a written statement which is completed with a lawyer, and obviously vetted by him, and then presented to the police by your lawyer. At least this way you are cooperating with the police, but you are not exposing yourself too much.

5.Know the Difference Between an Interview and an Interrogation:

If you do decide to speak to the police, then you must know the difference between an interview and an interrogation. If you are invited into an interview room, and the police officer asks you some fact-finding questions, but you are doing most of the talking, then you are in an interview, and all is well.  If, by contrast, the police officer suddenly starts to do most of the talking, and if the police officer is making accusations at you and is asking you why you committed the crime, then you are in an interrogation, and the police think that you are guilty (or they are testing you). You need to realize this distinction in order to know how to reaction properly.

However, note as well that even in an interrogation the p0lice cannot abuse you or intimate you (at least not in most Western countries). Any interrogation that even has a hint of intimidation or ‘tit-for-tat’ promise-making will be thrown out of court if properly argued.  So even an interrogation is not as deadly as it seems. Knowing this can help give you the strength and wherewithal to get through one.

6.Keep Your Head Down and Shut Up:

If you are being interrogated, but you have not yet been arrested or detained, then immediately state that you wish the meeting with the police to cease. Ask for legal counsel if you have not already done so. Be polite but firm, and extract yourself from the room as quickly as possible.

If you are already under arrest and thus you must remain to be interrogated under police control, then prepare yourself mentally for that fact, and then, once the interrogation starts, immediately put your head on the table or between your knees (so you do not look at the police officer), place your hands over your ears (so you cannot hear what they say), and just politely repeat that you are invoking your right to silence and that you would like to be returned to your cell.  Again, be polite but be firm. This is the best way to get through a hostile interrogation without exposing yourself in some way.

7.The Consequences of Not Reporting:

Finally, realize the consequences of not speaking to the police when falsely accused of a crime.  While they may charge you regardless, even if they do not, your name will always be in a police databank as a suspect of some offense or other. And while this is not the end of the world, it is not ideal either.  So if you are innocent of the crime in question, it often is in your best interests to get the matter investigated and resolved in your favor. And trust me, incidents being resolved in the favor of falsely accused men does happen, and often more often than we think.

So these are just a few of the hints that should help you deal with the police.  And although they are not applicable to every jurisdiction, these tips are general enough that they should help you survive an investigation by most Western police forces.  But hopefully it never comes to that.

Hey, I just potentially saved you thousands of dollars in legal fees with this article (sarcasm, of course), so please give a dollar, if you can, through Paypal or Patreon at  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 14

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

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