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.

Apologetics and Western Civilization

The Reconquista Initiative


Apologetics and Western Civilization

As a writer who wishes to support the West’s re-embrace of the cultural principles and social pillars that made traditional Western Civilization the best civilization that Man has ever been graced with, but as a writer who also spends a great deal of time writing on the topic of Christian apologetics, a number of legitimate and interesting questions can thus be asked of my work: namely, what do Christian apologetics have to do with helping to re-establish traditional Western Civilization? Indeed, why spend so much time arguing about things that seem only indirectly related to the issue of fighting for traditional Western Civilization when that time could, allegedly, be spent more productively? And why the focus, in large part, on apologetics against atheism and secularism?

Now, as stated, these are good and interesting questions, and they deserve an answer. And so, apart from the very obvious and very brief answer that one primarily argues for Christianity because one holds Christianity to be true, it can also be stated that the other brief answer to these questions is that the reason one engages in Christian apologetics is because Christian apologetics is integral to the survival of traditional Western Civilization. That is why, in a nut-shell, one argues for Christian apologetics. But as this short answer is likely to be unsatisfactory, let me provide some more detail concerning this matter.

First, traditional orthodox Christianity—in contradistinction to its modern progressive variety, which is essentially the undemanding spiritual secularism of this world—is one of the key pillars of traditional Western Civilization. Thus, no Christianity means no Western Civilization. Now supporting this assertion is not the point of this essay, and regardless, supporting such an assertion would require an essay of its own, but let me nevertheless offer a few points in its favor. Consider that human beings are religious and transcendence-seeking creatures, so they will always seek such transcendence; furthermore, civilizations, almost universally, are integrally linked to some kind of religious or “higher” ideology, and Western Civilization’s religious ideology has been traditionalist Christianity. Thus, arguing and reasoning for traditionalist Christianity, which is what apologetics does, is critical, especially since without a robust and intellectual form of Christianity being defended, Christianity will not survive. Indeed, for while rhetoric and emotions may move some people to embrace Christianity initially, a purely emotive and psychological style of Christianity will not be sufficient to sustain it for most people, and thus apologetics is a key component towards keeping Christianity viable as a worldview. At the same time, and alongside the point that Christianity is required for Western Civilization, a case can be made, in my view, that a culture build on liberalism, materialism, progressivism, secularism and practical atheism simply will not have the will to resist other cultures nor be robust enough to fight for itself—as evidenced, for example, by secular Europe’s present demographic winter and their weakness in the face of a migrant invasion—and so countering atheism and secularism is also critical to aiding Western Civilization. And since apologetics do indeed tackle atheism and secularism, then is this also why apologetics are highly important.

Second, another pillar of traditional Western Civilization is the use of reason and empiricism—something, if should be noted, which was practiced by Christian philosophers and the scholastics long before the Enlightenment—and since Christian apologetics is based on reason and empiricism, then engaging in Christian apologetics thereby supports this other pillar of Western Civilization.

Third, a man converted to traditionalist Christianity is a man who will quite naturally become a supporter of traditional Western Civilization, and since intellectual apologetics not only creates converts, but often creates very influential converts—think C.S. Lewis, for example—then apologetics offers not only indirect support for Western Civilization in this way, but can also be a force-multiplier through the potential creation of converts who eventually serve to aid Western Civilization to an even greater degree than anticipated.

And so the value of Christian apologetics, both in the obvious sense of arguing for that which is true, and in the sense of being a tool which supports traditional Western Civilization, cannot, in my view, be overstated.

Now, from a personal perspective, note that the reason I argue so much concerning apologetics is simply because I have an aptitude for it as well as a great interest in it. And indeed, not only do I have an abiding interest in this field, but I also believe that I have a number of unique and important contributions to make to it. For example—and these are just a very few brief examples—I believe that we all have an incorrect view of the issue of how the burden of proof is determined, and that atheism is a wholly irrational view which undermines itself, and that nearly all of the objections against Christianity can be quite easily answered in certain unanticipated ways. Furthermore, while I find that there are many good people arguing for Western Civilization from non-apologetic angles, and thus those other fields are saturated, I find that a great deal of modern Christian apologetics, though excellent, is nevertheless repetitive. And since I believe that I do indeed have some novel items to add to the field, this is why I write on the topic of Christian apologetics to the degree that I do.And so, the long and short of it is this:  engaging in Christian apologetics is vital to Western Civilization because Christianity is vital to Western Civilization, and apologetics are vital to the maintenance of a robust form of traditionalist Christianity. And from a personal point-of-view, I engage in apologetics because I believe that I have something unique to add to the discipline. Now, whether or not that is actually the case, is something for you to decide as you continue to engage with my work.

Think apologetics is important, then please help and support my efforts at  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 17

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

Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

The Reconquista Initiative


Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

In these politically-correct times, where women are, from time-to-time, privileged and promoted at the expense of men, one of the most fascinating truths that is still sub-consciously understood by most people, yet spoken of by nearly no one, is the fact that women, in essence, are entirely dependent on men, and they very likely always will be. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest irony of the entire feminist movement that, in-principle, that very movement—which is allegedly meant to empower women and make them equal to men—is, at the most fundamental level, a movement that is totally at the mercy of the very patriarchy that feminism despises. And to make the irony even greater, a solid case can be made that the female dependence of men can never, in-principle, be erased. And so, all the women in Western society demanding equality, protesting about sexism, and screaming about the patriarchy, are only able to do so because of the very patriarchy that they rail against. And the fact that they do not realize that this is the case simply goes to show how utterly blind and/or obtuse they are to this fundamental fact.

Now, having alleged that women, even today, are utterly dependent on men, let me explain what I mean. First, note the obvious fact that men are naturally, and thus on average, stronger, more aggressive, and more capable of serious violence than women. And lest you disagree, note that prisons are filled with a hell-of-a-lot more men than women, and also that, for example, an average male UFC fighter could easily beat even the very best female fighter, so the fact that men are more physically capable in the realm of violence and war is not really in dispute. So that is the first point to note. But also note, as a second point, that while we in the West talk quaintly about human rights, the fact is that while ‘might does not make right’, might does, in fact, make the rules. And indeed, human “rights” only remain rights because men with guns stand ready with might to enforce those rights. But without those men, it would take no more than a moment for those rights to be suppressed by whoever had the might to do so. And so again, the reality is that, ultimately, in this life, might does indeed make the rules.

And so all this brings us back to the key point of this article, which is that, since, on average, men have substantially more might than women do, it is thus men who have made the rules in the past, and they could do so again if desired. Thus, the freedom, and “rights”, and so-called equality that women in the West enjoy today only exist because Western men—who are not equal to women in might but superior to them in this respect—have permitted Western women to have these things. So without the permission of men, whether that permission is granted tacitly or overtly, women would, in practice, have none of the freedoms and rights that they currently enjoy.

Now, even in today’s modern society, where the disparity in might between the sexes has somewhat diminished due to the advent of technological equalizers, the fact is that men—for good and obvious reasons—still make up the majority of the so-called “might” professions, such as the police and the military. And so, for example, when some strapping 250-pound man starts beating his wife, the only thing, in the end, that will stop him is either another man or a women with a weapon most likely invented by a man. So again, women, in this respect, are dependent on men. And indeed, just to make the matter even more acute and ironic for today’s feminists, note that, as mentioned in the last example, even when women can defend themselves today via technology, the fact is that the very technologies that women today use to give themselves physical parity with men were nevertheless still largely invented by men, meaning that even in this respect, women are still dependent on men and still have a debt to pay to them. So even the technology that women can use to escape the need for men still show their ultimate and historical need and dependence on men.

However, in contradistinction to the main thrust of this essay, a women might object that a man is utterly dependent on a women in the sense that only a woman can give birth to a man and give him life. And in this respect, women are correct. But even here, the value of women is dependent on the kindness of men. For make no mistake, if men, as a collective, wished to do so—and, obviously, no one is condoning this, but the point is to make clear that it could, in theory, be done—men could enslave all women in such a manner that they could do nothing but give birth at the whim of men. Indeed, a society where reproduction was achieved through total female subjugation would be an absolutely abhorrent one, but the fact is that such a society could survive and even thrive to some degree, as it does in Afghanistan, for example. And so this is precisely the point: might makes the rules, and so the only reason that such an absolute female oppressing society has not been created—although certain areas in the Muslim world, as mentioned, come relatively close to doing so—is because men do not allow it, not because women could stop it.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  at present, the only reason that women enjoy any rights is because, ultimately, men, in one way or another, have allowed women to enjoy those rights, and this truism is not bound to change any time soon. And while certain men allow women to have these rights because doing so grants the men greater might and power in other areas, the fact remains that, in the end, and at a fundamental level, the gains of Western feminism exist, and only continue to exist, because Western men have granted permission, whether tacitly or otherwise, for those gains to exist; for indeed, if all men, collectively, decided to completely change their minds about feminism tomorrow, and remove all the rights from women on a whim, there is, in fact, little that women could do to stop them. And women should not forget these facts. Nor should they forget that their existence in the West is arguably the best that they could ask for, and that to push men too far may lead to a backlash that they might rather not wish to experience.

Support this original content on Patreon:  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 06

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

Europeans are Required for Western Civilization

The Reconquista Initiative


 Europeans are Required for Western Civilization

Consider this quote:


Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values.(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html)


That quote was from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, a quote which he made in a 23rd of November 2016 interview with Mike Pesca for Slate Magazine in an article titled “The Alt-Right Is Using Trump.” Now Shapiro has been a strong critic of all facets of the Alt-Right movement, but regardless of this, and even regardless of any other issues surrounding the Alt-Right and the Alt-West, Shapiro’s quote raises an interesting question:  Is European ethnicity necessary for, and inseparable from, Western Civilization? Indeed, are Europeans required for the preservation of Western Civilization? These are fascinating questions, but more importantly, they are vital ones for any proponent of Western Civilization, for their answer will dictate what is required for the survival and continuation of that civilization. So, is Shapiro right? Can Western Civilization be maintained without Europeans? Can it survive even if the European ancestry that originally made it is significantly diluted by other ethnic groups?  Or rather, is Shapiro wrong, and can it thus be shown both that Western Civilization really is inseparable from Europeans and that European ethnicity is a necessary component for the continued existence of Western Civilization?

Now, before we seek to answer the aforementioned questions, let us clear the air that has been tainted by Shapiro’s use of the word ‘racist’, which he uses to label the position that European ethnicity is needed for Western Civilization. In response to Shapiro’s use of this term, and thus in response to his attempt to essentially poison the well by its use, let us consider the following. First, the term ‘racist’ is so overused in our society, and it is so often used in place of an argument, that we should be leery and skeptical of anyone who uses it today; essentially, its use should serve as a sort of red flag that warns us that someone might be trying to avoid addressing an opposing point-of-view by simply making that point-of-view appear unpalatable and shameful, rather than arguing that it is actually wrong, which is what Shapiro could be doing here. So an attitude of caution is in order. However, and more importantly, the second point to note about this matter is that—as Shapiro likes to say—facts don’t care about your feelings, and facts don’t care about charges of racism either, and so even if it was racist to claim that Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, that accusation would be entirely irrelevant to the actual truth of the claim under discussion. Consequently, the issue of racism is quite immaterial to the issue of whether the claim is true or not. And since truth is to be valued above all else, then who gives a damn if a truth is deemed racist or not by those who are too afraid to deal with it. Third, even if, for the sake of argument, we consider the racism charge to be sufficiently important as to merit countering, note that Shapiro may actually be incorrect in his accusation of racism. Why? Because—and I say this as someone with Eastern European ancestry—a case could be made that it is not just European ancestry that is required for Western Civilization, but more specifically Western European ancestry; thus, Eastern Europeans, on their own, would not have been able to create and maintain what we consider to be Western Civilization. But if this is the case, then the racism charge is seriously diluted, for while Western and Eastern Europeans may have certain differences, they are all of the same race, and so to label as ‘racist’ the idea that Western Civilization requires Europeans is simply making too broad of a claim. And so, even if the racism charge is worthy of a response—and it’s really not—a case could be made that that charge is actually wrong.

So, having addressed Shapiro’s accusation of ‘racism’, and having shown that it is ultimately irrelevant and even potentially wrong, let us now address the main issue at hand: Does Western Civilization require Europeans? Now, in order to answer this question, consider first the Likelihood Principle, also sometimes called the Expectation Principle. The Likelihood Principle states that if some observation or piece of data is more likely or more expected on Hypothesis 1 rather than on Hypothesis 2, then that observation or piece of data is evidence for Hypothesis 1 over Hypothesis 2 (so long as the hypotheses are not ‘ad hoc’ creations, which they are not in this case). So, in the context of our discussion, if some observation was more expected on the hypothesis that Europeans are indeed required for Western Civilization, then that observation would count as evidence in favor of that hypothesis. Thus, we can use the Likelihood Principle to determine which hypothesis—namely, whether Europeans are or are not needed for the maintenance of Western Civilization—is supported by the observations and data that we have.

Consider, first off, that if Europeans were not needed for the existence and maintenance of Western Civilization, then, on such a hypothesis, we would quite reasonably expect that other groups of people would have created something very much akin to Western Civilization in other parts of the world. Indeed, given that Europeans were able to do so, there is nothing that would have precluded other ethnic groups from doing so if they could. And this is precisely what would be expected if non-Europeans were able to create and sustain something akin to Western Civilization without a European influence. The problem for this hypothesis however, is that history shows that this is not the case. Indeed, while other ethnic groups were able to create other types of civilizations, only Europeans and their descendants were able to create what we call Western Civilization. And this historical observation is precisely what we would expect if Europeans were required for the creation and maintenance of Western Civilization. And the strength of this observation is made even more acute when we consider the fact that, as mentioned, other ethnic groups were able to create other civilizations, and thus were quite capable of being civilized in certain respects, but they were not able to create civilization akin to Western Civilization. Indeed, these other groups were civilized, and so they had nothing that stopped them from being civilized, and yet, even though they were civilized in their own manner, they did not create anything like Western Civilization.

Furthermore, the above observation that only Europeans created Western Civilization, and that this observation serves as evidence in favor of the idea that European ethnicity is required for Western Civilization, is also supported by the fact that Europeans were and are able to export and maintain Western Civilization wherever they go, such as to places like Canada, Australia, and so on. And this occurred regardless of the climate or environment that Europeans migrated to; by contrast, other cultures in those exact same locations and climates were unable to create something akin to Western Civilization in them even though they had more than enough time to do so. At the same time, some countries—like Haiti or countries in Africa—that had Western Civilization when they had Europeans in charge of them, but then lost the Europeans, also lost their ability to maintain Western Civilization after the Europeans had left. And again, these types of observations are what would be expected if European ancestry was a necessary component of Western Civilization.

Also note the fact that when other ethnic groups enter the areas of Western Civilization and are thus introduced to what that civilization entails, these other ethnic groups, if they remain as an ethnic group rather than separating and existing as disparate individuals, often do not adopt and reflect the ideals of Western Civilization; and indeed, numerous ethnic enclaves within Europe and North America that are, internally, more reflective of traditionally Middle Eastern or African or Asian society than they are of Western Civilization are an example of this point in action. And again, this is what would be expected if European ethnicity was required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. At the same time, and in contrast to the earlier point, enclaves of Europeans in non-European countries create microcosms of Western Civilization when in those locales, which, again, is what would be expected if European ethnicity was needed for Western Civilization.

So, given the Likelihood Principle, a strong case can be made that all these observations do indeed serve as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that European ethnicity is necessary for the maintenance of Western Civilization. How strong this evidence is, is a different question, but it is nevertheless still evidence in favor of the aforementioned hypothesis.

Now, perhaps it could be argued that since non-European ethnic groups in non-Western countries—for example, Koreans in South Korea or the Japanese in Japan—have, in the present era, seemed able to adopt what could be called Western Civilization could thus serve as an example that Western Civilization does not require Europeans for its continuation. Indeed, it seems reasonable, at first blush, to suppose that if non-European ethnic groups can adopt Western Civilization, then the existence of Europeans is not required for the maintenance of such a civilization. But there is a serious problem with this contention: namely, not only did Western Civilization exist in Europe and its direct colonies prior to these other non-European groups adopting something similar to Western Civilization, but it also largely due to both the superior example and direct influence of Europeans that these other ethnic groups adopted something akin to Western Civilization for themselves. And what this means is that there is no way of knowing that these other ethnic groups who have embraced Western Civilization could or would have done so without both the direct and indirect influence of Europeans. For example, had Europeans not shown the superiority of Western Civilization—such as by, for example, defeating the Japanese in World War 2 or beating back the North Koreans during the Korea War—and had Europeans not had a direct political, economic, and social impact on the countries that have now approximated Western Civilization within themselves, then it is questionable whether or not anything like Western Civilization would have developed amongst these other ethnic groups without such a European influence. At the same time, without the continuation of the example of the superiority of Western Civilization by Europeans and their North American descendants, and without the direct influence that Europeans have on the countries in question, there is no way of knowing whether or not these non-European countries or ethnic groups could maintain Western Civilization or whether they would revert to a different form of civilization, such as one that they might have embraced in the past. So the fact that some non-European ethnic groups are able to maintain something very close to Western Civilization at this point in history is not a clear indication that Western Civilization can continue without Europeans, for the European influence, even if only indirect, might still be indispensable to the maintenance of Western Civilization amongst these other ethnic groups. And indeed, another way of looking at the above point is the following: while it is true that non-Western ethnic groups can easily adapt to the use of Western technology and Western institutions, this does not necessarily mean that they would be able to invent those technologies or those institutions, nor maintain those technologies and institutions in existence without continued European influence and guidance, even if that influence and guidance is only indirect. Thus, while non-European ethnic groups might be able to adapt to Western Civilization, they might only be able to do so, so long as Europeans also remain in existence to refine, and support, and set the example of what Western Civilization is. Consequently, the fact that non-Europeans can adapt and exploit the benefits and tools of Western Civilization at present is not evidence, or at least by no means clear evidence, that Europeans are not needed to sustain that type of civilization in the future.

And so, given the fact that we have certain observations which count as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, and given that any objections to this hypothesis and the evidence for it are by no means conclusive, I contend that it is thus reasonable to believe that European ethnicity is indeed required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. This does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable to believe the opposite, but it does mean that, at the very least, both positions are reasonable. And note, once again, that whether or not the belief that Europeans are needed for Western Civilization is deemed racist is entirely immaterial to the reasonableness of that belief.

Now, at the same time that it can be said that the belief that European ethnicity is needed for the maintenance of Western Civilization is a reasonable one, an even more forceful support for holding to this idea can be made. And to understand what this is, consider, first, the fact that the arguments and points made against the claim that European ethnicity is required for the continuation of Western Civilization are, as stated, by no means certain. Next, note that even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that both the hypothesis that European ethnicity is required for the maintenance of Western Civilization is reasonable, and so is the hypothesis that it is not, the fact remains that, throughout recorded history, only Europeans, or ethnic groups that Europeans have been directly involved with, have been able to create and maintain Western Civilization. But now, in light of these latter points, and keeping in mind the immense value that maintaining Western Civilization offers to humanity, it is thus pragmatically sound, at this point, to act as if Europeans are required for the maintenance of Western Civilization, and to continue acting in such a manner until and unless conclusive evidence shows that that hypothesis is incorrect. In essence, because the loss of Western Civilization would be so detrimental, and because the one thing that we do indisputability know is that Western Civilization only arose amongst Europeans and their descendants, and it has only been maintained by Europeans and those that they have had direct contact with, then we should place the burden of proof on those disputing the inseparability of European ethnicity from Western Civilization rather than on those who affirm it; indeed, the loss of Western Civilization is too great a price to pay to act otherwise, especially if we do so without sufficient evidence to guarantee, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are not wrong in that assessment.

Finally, two additional points need to be noted. First, even though this essay reached the conclusion that it is indeed reasonable to believe that Europeans are required for the survival of Western Civilization, and that, pragmatically-speaking, we have good reason to act as if that conclusion is the case even if the evidence for it is not certain, note that this fact does not mean that European ethnicity is the only thing that is required for the maintenance of Western Civilization. For example, this essay could also argue that Christianity, or at least a worldview strongly colored by Christianity, is also inseparable from Western Civilization; in fact, the arguments included in this essay concerning why we are both reasonable to believe and to act as if European ethnicity is inseparable from Western Civilization could also be made in the case of Christianity. But nevertheless, the point here is to note that while we are reasonable to believe and act as if European ethnicity is a necessary condition for Western Civilization, that should not be mistaken for a claim that European ethnicity is a sufficient condition for the existence and maintenance of Western Civilization. It is necessary condition, but it is not, in and of itself, a sufficient one. And the second point to note is that the reason for why Europeans are, to the best of our knowledge and current evidence, unique in their ability to create and sustain Western Civilization is also largely irrelevant to the present point that it is currently reasonable to belief that they are unique in this respect. So even if, for the sake of argument, it is admitted that European civilizational uniqueness is primarily due to past environmental and cultural factors that only Europeans experienced, rather than being due to innate European traits, this fact does not necessarily negate the claim that European ethnicity and identity is inseparable from Western Civilization, for the case might be that these environmental factors are not reproducible again, and so, as such, only Europeans, who have already experienced these factors, now have the ability to maintain the Western Civilization that they first created. And so it needs to be understood that there is no necessary connection between why only Europeans were able to develop Western Civilization and the claim that European ethnicity is inseparable from Western Civilization.

And so, the long and short of it is: it is reasonable to believe that actual Europeans are required for the continued survival of Western Civilization. At the same time, given the lack of conclusive evidence against this reasonable belief, and given the known fact that only Europeans have created and maintained Western Civilization, and finally given the value of Western Civilization to all of humanity, we thus have strong pragmatic reasons to act as if Europeans are indispensable to Western Civilization until and unless conclusively shown otherwise.

Anno Domini 2016 11 28

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

Sexual Morality & the Prescience of the Patriarchy

The  Reconquista Initiative


Sexual Morality & the Prescience of the Patriarchy

During the last century, one of the most controversial moral documents ever written was “Humanae Vitae”, a 1968 Catholic encyclical which banned the use of contraception among faithful Catholics and reinforced the practice of orthodox Catholic sexual ethics in an increasingly secular world. Of course, at the time it was written—meaning the sexually libertine sixties—the document was widely mocked and disdained, causing a great furor against it from both within and without the Catholic Church. And while opposition to the document was not unexpected, what was unexpected, and what is particularly interesting, is just how prescient the document was in its assessment of what would follow from the widespread acceptance of contraception in Western society. Indeed, consider this quote directly from the document itself:


Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue [namely, banning contraception] if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.



Now, reading that quote, it truly is fascinating just how correct and how prescient the old Catholic patriarchs who wrote Humanae Vitae were. Indeed, in just a little more than one generation, this document, and the conclusions contained therein, has been thoroughly vindicated.

First, note how marital infidelity has publicly exploded since the advent of contraception and contraceptive abortion, evidenced by no less than the creation of popular websites literally devoted to spreading and supporting marital infidelity, sexual swinging, and spouse swapping. Frivolous divorce has greatly increased as well. And many an average woman now publicly dons the uniform of a whore and often openly acts like a stripper. Furthermore, even general moral standards concerning sexuality—at least when compared to the traditionally Christian standard of sex being bound to the confines of a faithful marriage—have sunk to a very low state of debauchery and depravity. Now you might like the fact that these standards have been lowered in this manner, but that is not the point; the point is that Humanae Vitae—a document written by a religious institution which many progressives regard as the epitome of the patriarchy—was entirely correct that the standards would lower from the Catholic norm when contraception, and last-ditch contraceptive abortion, became widespread.

Second, notice how correct the Catholic Church was when it charged that a man who becomes accustomed to the use of contraception will begin seeing women as little more than pieces of sexual meat for his use. For example, today, with “liberated” women, we have rappers and musicians acting as if the women in their videos are little more than sex toys. Furthermore, the porn industry—where “empowered” women are made to physically pleasure multiple men for the visual pleasure of multiple men—has exploded in ways readily predicted by the writers of Humanae Vitae. And women such as these are so “free” that they allow men to treat them like filth, even though they do not necessarily need to allow this to occur; but, of course, some men are quite happy to treat women in this way given that these women now readily allow men to do so. And yet these issues are not restricted to pornography, for many men now see women as little more than objects for male sexual gratification.

And note that even if someone objects that such treatment of women occurred in the past in the West, the fact is that such behavior was, at that time, understood to be morally repugnant and wrong, even if it was still practiced; indeed, the less savory sexual practices and immoralities were, in the past, done in the shadows and with shame, not proudly done in the open, as it is today. Furthermore, at least in the past, the vileness of some men was checked by the drive to be chivalrous, the unavoidable life-creating consequences of sex, and by the chastity of many women, thereby forcing men to treat women as reality dictated: namely, as the physically weaker sex, but as the sex that bears life and needs to be revered for this sacred act. But today, where many in Western society scorn the culture of life, women are still tacitly treated as the physically weaker sex—for they are—and yet they receive little of the chivalry or reverence that was previously given to them. And this is the consequence of contraception, for it has removed the consequence of sex from the man and has erased the fear in women that she might become pregnant if she has sex outside of marriage; and so now men use women as masturbatory toys and women, who think they are liberated, actually become emotionally and psychologically broken from being used in this way.

Finally, notice as well how the writers of the encyclical were also right about governments being more than willing to push, as well as force, contraceptive methods on the populace once they became accepted in society at large. A person need only think of China’s one-child policy to see the use of this force in effect. And the use of such tactics were employed by other governments as well, whether coercively or through the use of propaganda.

So the claim that Humanae Vitae was a prescient document is hard to dispute. And yet, even given all this prescience, the question might still be asked: So what? So what that some old men were right about what would happen when contraception became widespread in the culture? Well, the ‘so what’ that is important is this: if the patriarchal Catholic Church was right about the consequences that would arise from the social acceptance of contraception, especially given the ridicule that it endured for its position, then this fact gives us some grounds to trust the Church when it tells us about the potential consequences that will arise from other major social and cultural changes, such as the acceptance of so-called homosexual marriage or the decoupling of gender from biological sex. Now, while for some individuals, the degradation of our moral culture in the way that the Church warned about is exactly what they wanted to have happen, and so such people are happy that the Church was right in its prediction. But for those of us who did not wish these changes to occur, and yet who did not listen to the patriarchs in the Catholic Church, maybe, in the future, we should take the pronouncements of wise old Catholic men a little bit more seriously when they warn us of the calamities that will follow once we make a major change to the way that our culture operates.

And so, the long and short of it is this: the Catholic Church, in its encyclical Humanae Vitae, was right in its description of what would follow in the West once the contraceptive mindset permeated our culture, and the fact that such a patriarchal institution was correct should make us think twice before we dismiss the Church’s preaching on other cultural matters. And it should also make us think twice before accepting the prognostications of the academics and intellectuals who oppose the Church concerning the moral slide that our culture will endure once it drops the last vestiges of Christian morality.

Anno Domini 2016 11 16

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

The Traditional West is Man’s Best Civilization

The Reconquista Initiative 


The Traditional West is Man’s Best Civilization

Today, in some corners of our modern society, denigrating and diminishing the glories of traditional Western Civilization has almost become a cultural past-time. Indeed, in academia, the media, and the entertainment industry, traditional Western Civilization and its history are now routinely portrayed as being something uniquely evil and as being something which Western people should feel overwhelmingly guilty about. But the fact is, the West, its culture, its traditions, and its civilization, is, from a perspective of human achievement and flourishing, the very best civilization that has ever existed in the history of Man. And there is one easy argument that can be made to show that this is the case. So what then is this argument that purports to show that traditional Western culture and civilization—a culture born out of Greco-Roman traditions and institutions, moulded by Christian philosophy and morality, and hardened by humanist ideas—is the best that the world has seen to date?

The argument, ultimately, is as simple as it is common. In fact, we use the reasoning inherent in this argument all the time, such as when we pick the best politician from an undesirable lot or when we choose the best alternative from a group of options. And so the argument is simply this:  for every type of sin that the West is allegedly guilty of—racism, colonialism, war, oppression, and so on—and for every vile act that Western society has committed, every single other culture, both past and present, has done the very same things, and often to a worse degree, as the West has done; and yet, at the same time, no other culture, overall, has given humanity the benefits and gifts that traditional Western civilization has given it.  Therefore, when a relative cultural and civilizational comparison is made as to which culture has been best at the promotion and advancement of general human flourishing in the wide swath of human fields—such as medicine, law, philosophy, technology, economics, liberty, governance, and so on—traditional Western culture is undeniably the best culture that this world has ever been graced with.

After all, and as stated earlier, the fact is that every relatively large non-Western socio-cultural group, regardless of whether it was just a small tribe or a large nation, has historically engaged in brutality, war, discrimination, slavery, racism, murder, exploitation, violence, oppression, and so on, at a scale that was commensurate with its level of sophistication and technological advancement. For example, slave-traders on the African coast received black slaves for purchase from other black Africans. And Arabs and other Middle-Easterners had a thriving slave-trade as bad or worse than that of the West, and there is still on-going de facto slavery in parts of the Middle East today. Or consider that the brutal Mongol hordes that swept over Asia had a world war going on, as well as a colonizing empire of epic proportions, well before the West had started its own imperial march across the globe. And note that the Turkish Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest colonizers and invaders of the past few hundred years, and Turkey still occupies Cyprus to this day. Furthermore, Japanese atrocities against other Asians before and during World War 2 were as horrid as anything that the West had perpetrated, but even the Japanese were matched by the horrors committed by Chinese communists against both their own people and other cultures. Or note that the Indian caste system was and is the height of discrimination and oppression. And never forget that the Indians of the Americas were killing themselves and taking each other as captives long before any European ever arrived on their shores.

Thus, we see that everything deplorable that the West has done, other cultures have done as well. Indeed, the West bears no greater guilt in terms of committing immoral acts than any other culture bears. And so it is utterly clear that the West has absolutely no monopoly on civilizational evil. Furthermore, it also needs to be considered that several of the supposed crimes of the West—such as some of the Crusades or the Reconquista—were, in fact, quite justified strategically defensive actions against centuries of aggression and attack from other cultures and civilizations, and so it is hard to blame the West for them.

But now consider that while the West has done nothing worse than what every other civilization has done, it is also disproportionally traditional Western and European culture that the entire world has to thank for the rise of empiricism and science, the deep use of reason and philosophical reflection in thinking, technological and medicinal achievements that no other culture can match, ethical and humanistic reflections that gave rise to the idea of universal human rights and universal human standards of conduct, the creation and spread of universities and other centers of learning and knowledge, beautiful art and literature, profound saints and mystics, a humanitarian impulse to help other groups and other cultures, the boon that was capitalism, strong and relatively just legal systems and courts, powerful forms of government that protect individual liberties and which created the world’s most prosperous societies, more respect and rights for women and minorities than other cultures, a culture that is self-reflective and self-critical—in fact, overly self-critical—and so on and so forth. This is what the West has given to the whole world! And so, as stated, while the West has given the world no more evil than any other civilization or culture has, it has actually given the world much more than other cultures and civilizations have, at least in terms of human flourishing, independence, and social advancement.

Now we can debate the reason for why all these good things largely came from the West, and we can debate whether the West of today, as it becomes loosened from the traditional foundation that held it aloft, and as its culture becomes infected regressive progressives, will still be a leader in all the aforementioned areas in the years to come, but what we cannot deny is that when it comes to creating a society and a culture that has maximized human flourishing to a level that no other culture has, the West, quite simply, is the best.

Finally, note that I am not saying that Western Civilization could not be improved or that it is somehow perfect. Rather, I am making the perfectly obvious and sensible point that since cultures can be objectively compared as to how they promote general human flourishing, their overall civilizational achievements, their technological advancement, as well as numerous other concrete considerations, then a best culture, as measured by these factors, can emerge, and the West is that culture. Furthermore, note that even if a culture is not great in an ultimate sense—and this is a key point that is all too often missed—it can still be the best overall culture when compared against its cultural rivals, just like an average quarter-back can still be the best one from a poor selection pool. And so the simple fact is that a person can still consider the West to be the best culture that has ever existed even if that same person does not think that the West is necessarily a great culture, or even a good one. For indeed, a culture that is best in comparison to its rivals does not necessarily require that culture to be considered a good one—although I think that it is easy to show that, on balance, the West has been a force for great good in the world.

And so the long and short of it is this:  the traditional West is the best because by almost any objective metric related to human flourishing, human achievement, and moral behavior, traditional Western culture and civilization fares no worse than any other culture, and yet it is, in many respects, substantially better than other cultures. That is why the West is the best, and that is a fact that is hard to dispute. But now let us just hope and pray that the West can right its present regressive course of the last few generations in order to stay the best, for if it does not, then the world will soon become a much darker place.

Anno Domini 2016 11 10

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