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.

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

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

Embrace Leftist Lunacy, then Amplify It

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

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

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