The Reconquista Initiative
Why the ‘Reconquista Initiative’
The ‘Reconquista Initiative’. Without a doubt a rather strange and unusual name, even in a milieu like the internet, where unorthodox names abound. But given that this name was obviously chosen for a reason, it is thus sensible to ask what the name is meant to convey.
Historically, the Reconquista—when taken in its totality—was a time when Christianity was under severe siege in ancient Spain due to the invasion of that region by Islam. Christians not only lost their lands, but a large part of their cultural and social influence as well. Indeed, both culturally and politically, Christianity was attacked, pushed back, and rendered weak in most of Spain for centuries. For all intents and purposes, Christians who survived the Islamic onslaught in Spain were living in a type of ‘post-Christian’ land, and they did so for many years. And yet, small pockets of Christians remained. And not only did these Christians start to push back against their invaders, but they began to win. And through strategic alliances—sometimes with former enemies as well as with those who did not share their ideological views—and also through the possession of a long and patient view of history, Christians in Spain slowly retook what was once theirs. They reconquered Spain and made it Christian again. And though at the start of the Reconquista things may have looked dire, and though the Christians fighting at the beginning of that military movement knew that they would never live to see the total fruits of their labors, nor would their children or their children’s children, they fought on nonetheless, and in doing so, they ensured, that piece by piece, Christianity was returned to Spain. And though doing so took many centuries of time, it eventually happened, and a post-Christian Spain became Christian Spain once again.
Now, given this broad overview of the Reconquista, it should thus be clear that there are numerous interesting parallels to our present time. The West is, in large part, culturally and socially post-Christian. Indeed, for though the West’s moral and social order are still parasitically running on the last fumes of the broad Christian worldview, the West, in general, can no longer be considered wholly Christian in any meaningful or orthodox sense. And yet, just as it was in Spain, pockets of Christian cultural resistance remain. Poland, for example, is quite strongly Christian, as are areas of the United States. Leaders in Hungry and other European countries have also started to publicly acknowledge Europe’s Christian roots. And even in the most secular of countries, strong Christian sub-communities remain. So, while the Faith in the West has been pushed back and is on its heels, it is by no means defeated, and it still has the vigor to fight back culturally, socially, and intellectually. It can, in essence, make the West Christian again. Indeed, individual Christians, each supporting one another and each being willing to sacrifice for Christian Truth, can bring the Faith back to the West. And though such a thought may appear to be the dream of a fool or madman, the fact remains that the same would have been said of the Christians in Spain at the start of their Reconquista, for though they may have indeed seemed to be fools and knaves, they nevertheless embarked on their mission, and many centuries later, what was once thought to be little more than a hopeless dream was transformed into reality. And so, this is why the Reconquista is invoked at present, for it puts us modern Christians and traditionalists in the proper mindset and frame-of-reference for the task that has been laid before us: namely, the cultural reconquering of the West for the Faith. Furthermore, it provides us with a precedent which demonstrates that though our quest for Christian cultural reconquest may seem like a fool’s errand today, it can be reality tomorrow, regardless of what naysayers and non-Christians say. And so, to be a Christian in the West today is to be a Christian with a ‘Reconquista’ mindset: it is to accept that our goal will not be achieved in our lifetime, and it is to accept that we may have to ally ourselves with people that we might otherwise not wish to be friends with, and it is even to accept that on the long road ahead we will have to deal with setbacks and internal enemies, but it is also to realize that we are the first step in the cultural reconquest of the West.
At the same time, the use of the term ‘initiative’, a term which indicates being proactive and in control, is meant to instill in us a certain mindset for the battle to come; a mindset aimed towards realizing that in this cultural and social Reconquista, Christians must maintain the initiative in the struggle against their intellectual opponents, for it is, in large part, by maintaining the initiative and making your opponent react to you, rather than the opposite, that battles are won. And while maintaining the initiative can be combined with either offensive or defensive action—for you can still maintain the initiative on the defensive so long as your opponent is reacting the way that you want him to—it is critical to always be striving to make your opponent battle on your terms, not on his. And what this means in practical terms is that we Christian and traditional Men of the West need to stop accepting and using the terms and conditions of our cultural opponents, but rather stand strong until they use our terms. We also need to stop seeking false commonalities with our opponents just to appear nice and tolerant. Nor should we accept our opponents’ presuppositions when arguing with them. And we should stand firm to the truth no matter how unpopular or offensive it is. In essence, we need to be firm, stand our ground, and then punch back against our opponents, both in the cultural and the intellectual sense, until they are reduced to little more than an unconscious heap at our feet.
Now, this website, called the ‘Reconquista Initiative’, seeks to do all of the above in a way that stays true with what this author believes are his strengths: namely, cultural and philosophical apologetics. But unlike some other apologetics sites which argue and defend already well-known apologetic arguments—both in the cultural and philosophical arenas—what this site seeks to do is provide a sizeable portion of unique apologetic content which will, if successful, literally change the way the debate between Christian theism and other worldviews is conducted. And while it is realized that not many individuals are immediately convinced by purely intellectual arguments, the fact remains that philosophical argumentation does indeed have a great effect on a society, but that effect is usually only felt many years after the new philosophical ideas are articulated. Yet since it has already been made clear that this site understands itself to be part of a cultural and intellectual Reconquista for Christian theism, and thus it understands that the fruits of its labors will not be seen for many years (if at all), then there is little worry if the apologetic shift that this site seeks to accomplish tarries a while, as that is precisely what is expected. And lest all these efforts result in failure, then better to have fought and lost, then never fought at all.
And so, the long and short of it is this: this site is called the Reconquista Initiative because it not only seeks to be part of the cultural and intellectual Reconquista of the West, but also because it seeks to remind Christians and traditionalists in the West that we are indeed in a Reconquista, and so not only must we plan for a long struggle, but we must also strive to continuously maintain the initiative during the cultural and intellectual battles which will soon be upon us. And so, God willing, let us join together and start the cultural and intellectual Reconquista today.
If you wish, then please support this work here: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative
Anno Domini 2017 01 10
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
The Reconquista Initiative
Embrace Leftist Lunacy, then Amplify It
Let’s be honest: it is, quite simply, a fact that Western leftists, progressives, and SJWs harbor a particular hatred towards orthodox Christian believers as well as other traditionalists. Furthermore, such leftists consider orthodox believers and members of the hard political right to be their enemy, and they are, in fact, correct in this regard, for traditionalists are indeed a political threat to them and their ideology. It is, therefore, without a doubt the case that such leftists are a threat to traditionalists in the West, and so this threat is one which traditionalists must deal with if they are to survive in any significant way in the Western world. And so, in light of these points, it behooves traditionalists to have powerful rhetorical and political tactics at their disposal with which to fight against the left. And one of these tactics is to take leftist lunacy, and then amplify it a hundred-fold; indeed, it is the strategy of embracing the left’s absurdities and then magnifying them to the point where the absurdity is made plain for all to see. It is, in essence, a reductio ad absurdum in rhetorical format. And note that this is a tactic which is, at least in part, inspired by Rule 4 and 5 of Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, which argues that a radical should make the enemy live up to their own rulebook and also that ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Now, to see what is meant by this tactic of ‘Embrace, then Amplify’, let us consider the newest item that SJWs and progressives are pushing in the West: namely, the idea that everyone must call individuals by the gender pronoun or designation that the person in question feels that they are, not by the pronoun which relates to their biological sex and objective reality. Indeed, this is the newest push on the progressive front, and it is obvious why they are pushing for it: controlling language, and being able to potentially convict people for “hate speech”, gives leftists and progressives immense power and control over the general populace. In fact, for many on the left, this ‘pronoun’ issue is not even about the so-called transgendered people that they are claiming to care about, but rather it is about having one more state-sponsored cudgel available to beat traditionalists with. And so it is clear why this whole topic is a major concern. Thus, the key question becomes: How can the right embrace and then amplify this particular issue? Well, here are three ways to do so (and note that these three ways can also obviously be used for other subjects as well).
Embrace, maintain, then amplify in frequency
The first method of embracing leftist absurdity and then amplifying it to the point of ridicule is to maintain whatever idea the left is offering, but then amplify it in frequency. So, for example, some leftists and progressives claim that there are upwards of fifty to a hundred different genders, which, remember, a person can be simply by feeling that he is that gender. Well, why only fifty genders? Why not fifteen hundred? Or five thousand? Surely there are many more genders than we currently think there are, so take the options that we presently have and amplify them exponentially. At the same time, since all that is required to be a certain gender is to feel that way, then why cannot you feel like you are a different gender every day, or even every hour? Indeed, perhaps you need to create a schedule to inform your leftist friends what gender pronoun they should call you on Monday morning, Monday afternoon, Monday evening, and so on and so forth. In fact, maybe you should tell your leftist friends to check-in with you after every conversation just so that they can be sure that they are referring to you with the proper gender pronoun that you feel like you are at that particular moment. Anyway, you get the idea: embrace the leftist lunacy, maintain it in its current form, but then amplify it in frequency, duration, and so on.
Embrace, shift, then amplify the shift
The second method of ‘embrace, then amplify’ is to embrace the absurdity, but then slightly shift the focus of it in a direction that the leftist will not accept. So, for example, if the leftist asks you what gender pronoun you wish him to use for you, recoil in disgust at the fact that the leftist would assume to use a human pronoun for you; after all, that is showing human favoritism, and you actually feel like you are a cat. Or maybe you feel like an alien, and need to be referred to by your alien designation. Or maybe you feel divine, and thus feel the need to be called ‘O Divine One’. Or maybe you feel like you are of a different race, or age, or height, or whatever. In essence, use the leftist’s own ideals against him by forcing him to call you something which even he knows you are not, but which he cannot object to given his own principles. And if the leftist objects to doing so, then immediately start firing out the standard leftist epithets of ‘racist, bigot, hater, etc.’ Either way, the leftist loses, at least in the rhetorical sense.
Embrace, reverse, then amplify the reversal
The final method to consider is one where the leftist’s own principles are used against him directly. So, for example, the next time a leftist demands that you address him through the gender pronoun of his choice, simply tell him that you cannot. When he asks why, advise him that your gender is as a child of God which necessarily only recognizes two genders, and so it would be a betrayal of your gender to call him by his chosen gender. And again, remember to be immediately ready to play the ‘bigot’ and/or ‘intolerant hater’ card against the leftist the minute that he tries to denigrate your chosen gender. So embrace the left’s ideas, but then reverse them on the leftist in a way that the leftist cannot object to without blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency.
And so the long and short of it is this: embracing and amplifying leftist absurdities are an excellent tactic to counter progressives and SJWs, and three of the ways to embrace and amplify are through increasing the frequency of the embraced absurdity, shifting it slightly to something the leftist finds unacceptable, and/or reversing it on the leftist. Now, will this tactic work on the leftists themselves? Likely not, for their worldview can only survive on incoherence and absurdity, and so they are used to it—although, in fairness, you may convince the odd leftist to change his mind. However, convincing leftists and progressives is not the point. Rather, the point is to rhetorically neuter the leftists while at the same time helping to sway the fence-sitters to be against the leftists, not for them. And for the purposes of achieving that particular objective, embracing then amplifying leftist absurdities is a good tactic to use.
Please help and support my efforts at www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative
Anno Domini 2016 12 30
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam