Destroying the Use of Progressive Statistics

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

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: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2017 03 04

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

It IS About Attacking Christianity

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

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: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

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

Presents…

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: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2017 02 21

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

What is Alt-Christianity

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

What is Alt-Christianity

Note:  In the Previous Essay about Alt-Christianity, I spoke about an essay that I had written on the subject back in june 2016. This is that essay, unedited from that time.

In recent years, and especially with the arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene, a movement broadly describing itself as the ‘Alternative Right’, or ‘Alt-Right’, has risen to some prominence in the West’s social, cultural, and political arenas. This is a movement that many individuals involved in politics—both those on the left and those on the ‘retreating right’—associate with the more unsavory elements of the political right-wing. And so, the alt-right is often vilified and misrepresented both by its enemies and by its alleged political allies. Now, while exaggerated and propagandistic attacks from the left are a standard phenomenon that should shock no one, it is also by no means surprising that individuals on the right with the strongest hold on power and political influence would try to discourage, disparage, and denigrate a movement that threatens their political and cultural capital. And while there are indeed some less than pleasant elements in the alt-right, as is the case with nearly all movements, one cannot help but suspect that a great deal of the reason for the dislike and sheer vitriol directed at the alt-right is due to the fact that many of those on the alt-right are willing to speak with a clear tongue, rather than with a politically-correct one, and they are willing to pursue the truth as they see it even if that pursuit takes them to impolite places, places that too many people in the last few generations are unwilling to enter. Those labelling themselves as alt-right are unapologetic, loud, and aggressive when pressed, and unlike the retreating-right all too often does, those on the alt-right are not willing to attack their actual allies on the right with more fervor than they attack those on the left. The alt-right is not willing to bow and scrap in order to be accepted by the cultural elite and the East-Coast ‘intellectuals’. And instead of merely standing athwart the progressive’s path yelling stop, but still getting pushed down that path regardless, only at a slightly slower pace, the alt-right is not a rear-guard action but an offensive vanguard; a vanguard to return civilization, and specifically Western Civilization, to a time when the follies of the present age were seen for the follies that they truly are.

The Alt-Christian

In much the same way as with the alt-right, ‘Alternative Christianity’, and thus the Alt-Christian, is also tired of being on the defensive, as he has been for at least the last ten years. And so the Alt-Christian seeks to move to the attack to reclaim the intellectual and cultural ground that he has lost. Though not necessarily sharing all the same political or social goals as the alt-right, the Alt-Christian shares the latter’s same desire to speak forcefully and unapologetically for what he believes in. In this vein, the Alt-Christian is thus a man who does not call Christianity a faith, nor merely one faith among many, but rather, he proudly calls it the truth. The Alt-Christian does not seek emotive post-modern dialogue; instead he seeks rational argumentation, truthful rhetoric, and effective evangelism. The Alt-Christian is deeply concerned about the salvation of souls, but not at the expense of Christian truth; furthermore, the Alt-Christian realizes that it is precisely the truth, spoken boldly and forcefully rather than weakly and nicely, that will lead to a greater salvation of souls. Thus, the Alt-Christian does indeed seek the conversion of those from other religions, but he will not kiss the Koran, or white-wash history, or engage in religious equivalency for the sake of ecumenism. And while the Alt-Christian is not vile—for speaking the truth is never vile—the Alt-Christian does not give a rat’s ass to be falsely labelled as such if speaking the truth leads to such an outcome. At the same time, the Alt-Christian laughs in the face of non-Christians who try to pressure and shame him by labelling him as ‘not very Christ-like’. The Alt-Christian, furthermore, is not afraid to directly say that Christianity is indeed the most rational, and arguably the only rational, reasonable, consistent, non-ad-hoc, satisfying and reality-reflecting worldview that Man can believe in.

Spiritually, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who remembers that Christ was indeed gentle with repentant sinners, but that Christ was also the same man who was not afraid to violently clear out the money-changers with a self-made whip. The Alt-Christian knows that Christ was kind, but he also realizes that Christ was an alpha-male who spoke His mind and achieved His mission above all else. And the Alt-Christian appreciates that Christ always spoke the truth, but he also notes that Christ was more than willing to speak that truth with a harsh and biting tongue if the situation warranted it. Furthermore, the Alt-Christian accepts the beauty and complementariness of men and women, but he also accepts the headship of the man in all familial relationships and stresses the man’s acceptance of that role. The Alt-Christian accepts the existence of different denominational sects, but notes that if you are morally and socially on the right, and if you believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and if you hold to Christianity’s foundational creeds, then you are to be counted as a Christian ally in the struggle for civilization regardless of your denominational affiliation. Relatedly, the Alt-Christian also realizes that though ‘Alternative Christianity’ thus embraces members from a wide range of different denominational affiliations, it is a fact that, in the world today, traditionalists and orthodox-believers across all denominations have more in common with each other than do liberal and orthodox members of the same denomination, and so an alliance along orthodox / traditionalist creedal lines is arguably more important than denominational ones in today’s day and age. Finally, the Alt-Christian takes seriously the danger of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and he realizes that Christianity is in as much danger from internal enemies as it is from ideologies and individuals who are exterior to it.

The Alt-Christian, furthermore, is not ashamed or embarrassed of being a Christian, nor does he feel some undue guilt at what Christian civilization has done in the world. Thus, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who does not hide his cross behind his shirt, but rather wears a shirt with a cross on it. Indeed, the Alt-Christian is proud of the fact that, though flawed in many ways, traditional Western Civilization, borne from the bosom of Christianity as one of its major forces, is the best civilization that the world has ever seen. And while the Alt-Christian knows that a return to the past is neither possible nor even desirable, he does note that a departure—whether physical or moral—from the absurdities of the present age is needed if any sort of traditionally moral civilization is to be maintained in the future. In essence, the Alt-Christian is first and foremost a Christian, but he is unapologetically and overtly Christian in ways that many Christians today are not.

Why the Prefix ‘Alt’

Now, one question that can be asked of the Alt-Christian is why choose the prefix ‘alt’? Indeed, why create a name which identities one as an ‘alternate’ Christian specifically, especially when there exist any number of other such prefixes that could have been used? In fact, why use a prefix at all? Well, there are a number of different reasons for why calling one’s self an ‘Alt-Christian’ is a solid choice of term given the current state of Christianity in the West.

First, and as mentioned earlier, the Alt-Christian shares many of the same goals as the alt-right does, and the Alt-Christian also aims to be intellectually uncompromising like many on the alt-right are, and so using this particular prefix demonstrates the loose ideological and strategic connection that exists between these two movements. Furthermore, the Alt-Christian is culturally and socially on the right of the political spectrum, and since the ‘alt’ prefix, at least today, belongs almost exclusively to the alt-right, then the Alt-Christian, in calling himself an Alt-Christian, is also demonstrating his commitment to the right side of the culture wars.

Second, the word ‘alternative’ brings to mind the idea of possibility and choice. Thus, to be an Alt-Christian is to imply that unlike many merely cultural Christians, the Alt-Christian has consciously and deliberately chosen Christianity as his alternative out of the many worldview alternatives that exist today. The Alt-Christian is not merely a Christian in the sense that some people are ‘pro-democracy’, and yet have no real knowledge of the benefits or drawbacks of democratic rule, nor do they know the arguments for or against their position; rather, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who knows what he believes and why he believes it. And in knowing what he knows, the Alt-Christian thus makes it clear that his alternative is indeed Christianity, and everything else is secondary.

Third, since the Alt-Christian is different from what many people would consider a Christian to be today, by thus calling himself an Alt-Christian, the Alt-Christian makes it clear that he is indeed different from other modern ‘Christians’. The Alt-Christian, for example, is not a progressive-Christian, nor a social justice Christian, nor a Christian-in-name-only. And while the label ‘Alt-Christian’ would be unnecessary in any other day and age—for what an Alt-Christian is, is largely what a regular Christian should be—given that today many people call themselves ‘Christians’ who are not so even in the most fundamental sense, and given the way many ‘Christian’ churches have sold their souls for the sake of worldly approval, then it is the case that something like the term ‘Alt-Christian’ is required to distinguish between the vast ‘Churchianity’ of the present age and the true Christianity that supported science, build universities, created cathedrals, developed natural law and human rights, repelled Islamic aggression, employed precise reason, and did so many of the things that have ennobled the life of Man.

The Alt-Christian’s Aims

Fundamentally, the Alt-Christian has three main aims. The first is to support the universal spread of a culturally robust, socially potent, and morally orthodox creedal Christianity both in the West and globally, as commanded by Christ Himself. Second is the resurgence of this form of Christianity in the West, which the Alt-Christian believes is the key to the renewal of Western Civilization. And finally third, the Alt-Christian aims to support ethno-ideological nationalism—essentially, ethnic groups, in their own nation-states, who are bound together not only by ethnicity but also by a common ideology, culture, and moral code—which he believes is critical to preserving orthodox Christian nations that can serve to promote Christianity worldwide.

To achieve these aims, the Alt-Christian, although unapologetically Christian, is willing to strategically ally himself with anyone on the side of traditional Western Civilization. Tactically, the Alt-Christian believes in offensive action, not defensive reaction. He seeks to take the initiative, not respond to his opponent’s manoeuvres. The Alt-Christian wants a secure base to operate from, but he also wants to then move out and take the intellectual fight to the enemy. The Alt-Christian wants a re-conquest of the cultural terrain, and he knows that the only way to do this is to actually go out and conquer the intellectual and cultural enemies that oppose him!

Conclusion

Though there are already many Christians who should be counted as Alt-Christians, and who would count themselves as such even though they have not labeled themselves in this way, Alt-Christian.com is meant to be a bastion where such individuals can congregate, converse, and learn. Furthermore, this website is meant to serve as a support for the Alt-Christian, thereby giving him the confidence to know that if speaks out about a certain Christian topic, and if he loses his job or is somehow harmed or punished for doing so, then someone will be there to assist him, support him, and back him until he can regain his footing. And if enough Alt-Christians do this, and if a large enough fund is created, then perhaps Christians in the West will feel less threatened and less reluctant to speak out in favor of Christian truth even though the very world may seem to be against them when they do so.

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 01 27

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

Vox Day, the 16 Points, and Alt-Christianity

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

Vox Day, the 16 Points, and Alt-Christianity

Back in 2016, when the Alt-Right started to become more mainstream, but before Vox Day released his “16 Points” concerning the Alt-Right, I began to think that modern Christianity needed something like Alt-Christianity. In fact, in June of that year, I wrote an essay on “Alt-Christianity” and I had even created a website called “Alt-Christian.com” to discuss the intersection of Christianity and the Alt-Right, but, for various reasons, I put a halt on that project. Then, in August of 2016, Vox Day released his “16 Points” on the Alt-Right; since that time, I have been thinking more and more about the concept of Alt-Christianity. And so, while still in embryo form, and largely inspired by Day’s own 16 Points on the Alt-Right—often even directly paralleling some of them—I have decided to create “The 16 Points of Alt-Christianity”, thereby explaining what I take to be Alt-Christianity, and also partially explaining the reason for why something like Alt-Christianity is needed today. So, without further commentary, here are the 16 Points of Alt-Christianity:

  1. Alt-Christianity is traditionalist and “right-leaning” in both its theology and its morals, but is focused on morality and mere-Christianity more than on denominational differences in theology. However, Progressive-Christianity, Liberal-Christianity, Feminist-Christianity, and Cultural-Christianity are not Alt-Christianity.
  1. Alt-Christianity is an alternative to the mainstream Christian conservative movement in the West which has, whether wittingly or not, been largely infected with strains of progressivism, feminism, SJWism, over-ecumenism, and Churchianism. Alt-Christianity has seen the results of this infection on the Christian faith and thus actively fights against it, unlike many modern Christian movements.
  1. Alt-Christianity is not a defensive attitude and rejects the elevation of “niceness” and likeability over Christian truth. It holds an “initiative-maintaining” mindset and believes in victory through persistence, sacrifice, and remaining in harmony with objective reality, historical truths, and psychological facts. Additionally, Alt-Christianity believes in the use of reason as well as, if necessary, polemics and rhetoric to make its points.
  1. Alt-Christianity believes Western Civilization is the best civilization that Man has ever created, and also that traditional Christianity is a key pillar of that civilization; as such, the Alt-Christian supports the roots of traditionalist Christianity: namely, the traditional family, patriarchy and “red-pill” knowledge, Christian education, and apologetics in the full and broad sense. Additionally, the Alt-Christian wishes to see Western Civilization maintained, and is open to whatever political system shows itself best suited to the maintenance of that civilization.
  1. Alt-Christianity is nationalistic and anti-pacifist. It supports the right of all distinct ethno-ideological/religious groups to exist as distinct groups, and to defend their existence. Alt-Christianity is also anti-globalist in the political sense, but believes in unity amongst nations through a shared Christian faith. Ultimately, the Alt-Christian remembers the lesson of the Tower of Babel and realizes that ethno-states are a lesser threat to Christianity than a global political entity is.
  1. Alt-Christianity recognizes that all men are made in the image of God and that all men will be judged, but beyond this, Alt-Christianity rejects the idea of earthly equality for all practical purposes given the observable lack of anything like natural equality existing amongst men. For the same reason, the Alt-Christian denies human perfectibility and earthly utopianism.
  1. Alt-Christianity see no conflict between science and Christianity, but it is not naïve enough to ignore the fact that there is a difference between certain scientific claims and the interpretation of scientists—many of them actively anti-Christian—concerning those claims. Thus, the Alt-Christian takes an attitude of tentative acceptance, coupled with skepticism, concerning the findings of modern science.
  1. Alt-Christianity believes that identity—both in the ethnic and the religious sense—is the catalyst for culture, which is itself more important than politics.
  1. Alt-Christianity is opposed to the rule, domination, or excessive influence (by any means) of any ethnic and/or religious group or Christian denomination by another; as such, Alt-Christianity supports the right of de facto or de jure self-determination / segregation for ethnic and/or religious reasons.
  1. Alt-Christianity is opposed to the separation of church and secular state in an absolute sense, for the Alt-Christian understands that the absolute separation of church and secular state always leads to the state undermining the church and pushing its influence out of the state.
  1. Alt-Christianity is more interested in the approval of God than of men; it knows that the Prince of this World is its enemy and that, as Jesus warned, the world will hate it. Alt-Christianity is also more interested in the faith than in earthly charity.
  1. Alt-Christianity is pro-capitalism in terms of policy, but pro-socialist in terms of personal charity; it holds that a man who freely does not work, but can, shall not eat, but a man who wishes to work but cannot, shall not be hungry.
  1. Alt-Christianity believes that we must secure the existence of Christians in general, but that we must also specifically secure the existence of Christians in countries of European heritage and ancestry, for as Belloc said: “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe”.
  1. Alt-Christianity believes that Christianity is true, but it also sees truth and value in other religions. As such, while holding Christianity as the best and most complete faith, and boldly proclaiming it as such, Alt-Christianity does not, in principle, ignore or reject the insights and wisdom of non-Christian religious / cultural traditions.
  1. Alt-Christianity believes in evangelism. At the same time, the Alt-Christian remembers to wipe the dust off his feet from those who, in full knowledge and Godly-freedom, reject Christianity. Thus, the Alt-Christian rejects the non-evangelism of the liberal-Christian as well as any imperialist attempts at the imposition of Christianity by force or coercion.
  1. Alt-Christianity values personal strength, masculinity, and the Christ who overturned tables. Indeed, the Alt-Christian realizes that Christ was not followed because He allowed Himself to die, but rather because Christ was the ultimate alpha who conquered Man’s greatest enemy: namely, death.

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 01 24

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

 

Microaggressions are about Power and Control

The Reconquista Initiative

Present…

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:  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 02

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

Trump, Clinton, and Presuppositional Apologetics

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

Trump, Clinton, and Presuppositional Apologetics

One of the most interesting insights provided by the proponents of so-called ‘Presuppositional Apologetics’ is that neutrality concerning the question of God’s existence is a myth, and that, ultimately, when it comes to a topic that is as fundamental as the question of God’s existence or the truth of Christianity, no one is neutral concerning these matters, and thus no one is an objective assessor of the evidence concerning these issues given the serious emotional, psychological, and behavioral consequences that on the line. Consequently, and due to the very motivated reasoning which exasperates different cognitive biases, everyone is pulled in one direction or the other, and this taints and colors the way that they see the evidence for God and how they react to it. And this insight concerning Man’s inability to be neutral about the God-question then leads to a further insight which comes from the presuppositionalists; and that is that when it comes to fundamental matters like a person’s core worldview, it is often useless to try to convince someone of the falsity of their worldview by adopting a neutral and agreed-upon foundation with them and then simply arguing about the evidence for and against a certain position, because the person’s worldview presuppositions color their perspective to such a degree that they view the exact same evidence as you do from a totally different angle. Thus, any direct approach to arguing about the evidence is doomed to failure because the person’s presuppositions literally change the way that he perceives and interprets the same data that you do, and that different perception and interpretation is so strong that it will simply overcome any evidence against the person’s position through the modification of how the evidence is perceived. And so this is why presuppositionalists often recommend an indirect approach to apologetics, where evidence is indeed discussed, but the focus is more on demonstrating that the opponent’s worldview is incoherent, ad hoc, and inconsistent with itself, thus prompting the opponent to re-evaluate his worldview from within. It is, in essence, an apologetic approach that seeks to break the opponent’s worldview from the inside out, rather than trying to smash it from the outside in by bombing it with evidence. Finally, note as well that presuppositionalism also claims that, in many cases, people can be self-deceived; thus, at a fundamental level, a person might know the truth of a certain claim, but he suppresses that truth for fear of the consequences that might follow if he admits it to be the case. And in the case of presuppositionalism, the truth that it claims that people suppress is the truth that God exists, and people suppress this truth in order to freely engage in immoral behavior without a guilty conscience.

Now, with all these points about presuppositionalism in mind, let us move to politics. During the course of this year, 2016, two of the most interesting things to have been observed in the recent American presidential election is both how wrong numerous experts were about the election as well as the unique reactions of many politic participants both before and after the election itself. And the reason that these things are mentioned in the context of this short essay on presuppositionalism is because for many people—especially people on the left—politics have become a surrogate religion (or at the very least the most fundamental part of their worldview), and so this year’s political cycle brought forth reactions and behaviors of such a type and magnitude that they were a strong example of presuppositionalism’s ideas in action. And so this is why this essay wishes to link politics with presuppositionalism.

First, consider the issue of neutrality: for many individuals on both the right and the left, there was no neutrality in this election, nor was there any possibility of weighing the evidence objectively or dispassionately. For example, for some Donald Trump supporters, their support of Trump was set in stone no matter what, thus showing a lack of interest in actually weighing the evidence for and against that particular candidate. By contrast, some non-Trump supporters had such a tainted view of Trump that no matter what he did, they would never support him; at the same time, they would endlessly support Hillary Clinton regardless of her past or future faults. In essence, the emotional and psychological investment for many people on both sides of the political spectrum was just so extreme that a dispassionate view of the facts was impossible. In many ways, this reminds us Christian apologists of certain naturalists who readily admit that even if Jesus’s resurrection was shown, to their satisfaction, to have occurred, or even if the stars themselves moved and spelled out the Apostle’s Creed, these naturalists would merely accept a far-fetched naturalistic explanation—such as a mass hallucination—for these events rather than admit that a supernatural event occurred. For them, the evidence would always be superseded by their presuppositions, as was the case for many Trump and Clinton supporters during the 2016 election.

Next, consider the way political presuppositions colored people’s interpretation of the evidence. For example, given that many people on the left already had a presupposition which viewed Republicans, conservatives, and anyone to the right of them to be morally suspect, the moment that Trump said certain controversial, but not insane things—such as the need to secure the country’s border with a physical wall or the need to seriously vet people from countries prone to creating terrorists—people on the left, given their presuppositions, turned these points into evidence that Trump was an utter racist, bigot, and was “literally Hitler”. At the same time, many on the left perceived that Trump supporters could only be driven by bigotry and racism, not by the entirely rational and/or pragmatic considerations that motivated many of them to support Trump. So, in essence, the evidence itself, though present, was magnified out of all proportion once it was filtered through the left’s presuppositions, thereby allowing the evidence to fit the left’s narrative rather than changing the narrative to fit the evidence. Indeed, rather than matching their outrage to the extent demanded by the evidence, they magnified the evidence to the extent demanded by their outrage. Additionally, the left would perceive the tiniest scrap of questionable evidence as proof that Trump was, say, a white nationalist or an opponent of homosexuality, but they would ignore the evidence immediately in front of them—like Trump waving the homosexual flag at his convention, or Trump having a homosexual man speak at his convention, or Trump saying in an interview that homosexual marriage was already decided by the courts. At the same time, the left would minimize evidence of Clinton’s major problems. And note that, in many cases, the same thing was evident on the right side of the political spectrum as well. And again, this is often what apologists see, where a non-believer, when presented with a plethora of evidence for, say, miracles, will use selective hyper-skepticism and selective evidence assessment as a means to escape the inference that the evidence points to.

Finally, we can also note how wrong so many pundits and commentators were about the election, with some leftist organizations even assessing that Clinton’s chances of winning the election were in the high nineties. Now, granted, in many cases, these individuals were following the polls, but the point is that nearly everyone—the commentators, experts, pollsters, and so on—were wrong about the election. And what this smacks of is self-deception, were an overwhelming desire to have Clinton win, combined with some evidence that supported that conclusion, blinded them to the very real possibility that Trump could win. And thus they were all dumbfounded and shocked, even physically so, when that possibility came true. They deceived themselves about important evidence—the silent Trump voter, the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, the non-existent repudiation of Trump by minorities, the size of Trump’s rallies and the enthusiasm for him, the “outlier” polls, and so on—in order to maintain the conclusion that they desired. And this, once again, brings us back to the idea that no one is neutral when it comes to matters that they hold as fundamental, and they will even deceive themselves, in many cases, to hold fast to what they wish to be true.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  from an apologetic perspective, the reason that the 2016 election has been so interesting is that it has shown that some of the ideas behind presuppositional apologetics can manifest themselves in other areas, such as politics. And lest we think that the same issues cannot arise concerning religion, note that if the animosity, disdain, and emotional reaction that people had to Trump existed in part because of some of his more conservative-type claims, then how much more animosity, disdain, and emotional reaction would there be to a God who commands people to act in a way that they object to? Obviously, if there was a pull to skew the evidence in the former case, the pull to do so in the latter case would be just as strong, if not substantially stronger. And this is why, in many cases, the presuppositionalists are right that an indirect approach to apologetics is required, and that mere evidence is insufficient to sway people out of their worldview; and the 2016 American presidential election is an imperfect but nevertheless still good example of this point in action within the political realm.

Anno Domini 2016 11 30

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