The Strategy for Christian Secession

The Reconquista Initiative


The Strategy for Christian Secession

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anno Domini 2016 11 24

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

The Case for Christian Secession

The Reconquista Initiative


The Case for Christian Secession

No matter what happens during America’s 2016 Presidential election, and regardless of whether Trump or Clinton become the next president of the United States, what this election has done is clearly display not only the deep divisions which separate the people of the United States, but it has also truly shown the contempt with which large swaths of the American population view each other. One side of the political spectrum calls great chunks of the other side “deplorable” and labels them with every “ism” that there is; at the same time, the other side views its political opponents as corrupt, godless, and often degenerate. So, in light of this animosity, how can such a national relationship continue? Indeed, consider that if a husband viewed his wife as a degenerate, and the wife viewed her husband as a deplorable racist and sexist, then how long would such a marriage last? More importantly, why the hell should it last at all if it did not need too? Indeed, when huge portions of the populace truly despise each other, and when they each view the other side as irrational, and when they also each seek political power to force their views on large groups of people who completely oppose those views, then why should such a population stay together, especially if they do not have to?

The fact is that the people of the United States are no longer united by one large and overarching moral worldview with mere political differences at the edges of their ethical landscape. Rather, now, the separations that exist occur at the very core of their different worldviews. For example, one side views abortion as abhorrent, the other side finds any restriction of abortion as abhorrent. One side views bigger government and more restrictions on firearms as desirable, while the other side views more government and a restriction on firearms as the beginnings of a tyranny against their liberties which they will not be able to defend against. One side sees prayer in school as the start of a theocracy, and the other side sees a lack of prayer in school as the imposition of secularism where it never belonged. And these are, of course, just a few examples of the issues that divide Americans. But such examples illustrate that the divisions that now exist between people in the United States exist at such a fundamental level, that reconciliation is simply not possible, for each side views the other as irrational, and the worldviews of each side are so disparate that each side looks at the world in a fundamentally different way. The United States is, in a way, a country filled with different nations. It is no longer one nation under God. And note that when we speak of a division in the country, we are not speaking of something like a theological difference, which, though important, nevertheless still allows different groups to be bound together by the core moral belief that they are, say, all creatures of God; rather, this is the type of division between a socially liberal progressive group that thinks that God either does not exist, or is unimportant, or that He accepts all currently fashionable progressive behaviors, and a socially conservative group that thinks that God should be at the center of a nation’s spirit and also views many of the aforementioned progressive behaviors as wrong, immoral, and even absurd.

Thus, at this point, with such deep divisions, the only thing that will maintain country-wide unity is either force, distracting past-times, or the mass conversion of one side or the other. And while mass conversion will not happen to either side, and while distracting past-times are at best a mere smoke-screen that solves nothing, the fact is that force, via the state, is the only option left to one side or the other. But as things become more heated between the two large groups in the United States, the use of state-sponsored force, whether by one side or the other, may soon cause the beginnings of civil disobedience and/or outright violence when one group feels that it has been pushed too far, as has occurred so often in the past when countries with different ethnic and ideological groups become so bitterly divided that co-existence is no longer possible. In fact, the American Civil War is a clear example of this point in action. Yet even if you think that such problems will not happen in America, or that they are still a long way off, consider that the divisions that divide the United States have already caused moral and political damage, for they have already made the people sacrifice their principles and ideals in clear ways. For example, many conservatives Christians realize that Donald Trump is a flawed candidate who they would rather not vote for given their principles and ideals. However, those same Christians fear a Clinton presidency so much, because of her potential policies and Supreme Court appointments, that these Christians quite rationally calculate that it is very likely only a Donald Trump presidency that will give them even a slim chance of achieving the political goals and objectives that they have. Now, on the other side, many liberals and progressives would rather elect someone other than Clinton, but they themselves fear a Trump presidency to such a degree that they feel the need to vote for Clinton, even though they may not want to. And so when this occurs, and when each side is willing to bend their own principles to an unheard-of degree simply because each side fears the other side so much, and when this division is almost fifty-fifty across the country, then you most definitely do not have a healthy nation. In fact, as stated earlier, you don’t have a nation; you just have a landmass with borders and with two separate groups of people inside it who fear what will happen if their opposing group gains power. But then the question must be asked: Who the hell would want to live like this? And furthermore, how is it even just or moral that one group should yield power over the other group if neither group wants this to occur?

This is why conservative American Christians, and any right-leaning traditionalist proponents of Western Civilization in the United States, must seriously consider the idea of a peaceful and mutually-agreed upon secession from the groups that oppose them, regardless of whether this secession is official or a de facto arrangement where Christians can govern themselves as a separate state within the larger borders of the United States. Indeed, only in this way can Christians, and others who share in a Christian-like worldview, finally stop having to sacrifice their principles to seek victories in elections, or worry about state courts imposing state rules and regulations which are contrary to orthodox Christian values and beliefs. At the same time, why should leftists and progressives, as well as progressive Christians, be forced to live under a government that favors conservative ideals if such an existence is unnecessary given the fact that secession, like all things political, is possible so long as there is a will to achieve it. Indeed, would it not be best for progressives to have politicians to choose from who are all fundamentally progressive, but who differ in minor policy details? Would this not be a better and more sustainable way of having a democracy, where policy items can actually be discussed, rather than neglecting policy, principles, and everything else simply in order to ensure that your hated opponent is not elected. It seems to me that such a democracy, where the fundamentals are agreed upon but the details are disputed, would be much better than a democracy where the fundamentals are wholly different, the details don’t matter, and only your fear and hatred of your opponent is driving you to vote your candidate.

And so the long and short of it is this:  the divisions between conservatives and liberals in the United States are too vast and too substantive to overcome naturally or rationally, for each side views the other as fundamentally wrong and even immoral, and so what this means is that undesirable consequences will follow as these divisions continue to develop and become more pronounced. However, a peaceful and natural secession—something done in numerous countries before now—would ease the tension and let each side go their own desired way. And this, in turn, might be the only way to prevent less desirable types of separation from occurring in the United States in the future. At the very least, it is something that all Americans should consider.

Anno Domini 2016 11 08

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