Apr 16, 2015

The Toxicity of Truth: Honesty as a Handicap for White Nationalists

via The Occidental Observer

Natural deception: a cuckoo begs for food
For me, the most important question in the world is this: What is truth? The question underlies every attempt to understand the world and to act therein. In a biological sense, the problem of formulating true representations of the world existed long before humans and language. Animals seek accurate information about the world: what is edible, what is not; what is dangerous, what is not.

This means that deception also existed long before human beings. Animals are in competition and although they want accurate information for themselves, they often want to deny it to their competitors. Think of camouflage. The truth about a stick-insect is that it is good food for birds or lizards. It conceals that truth by its appearance. The truth about a cuckoo-chick in a reed warbler’s nest is that it is a parasitic interloper. It conceals that truth by its behaviour.

Wasps and monarch butterflies do the opposite: they broadcast the truth about themselves as clearly as possible. “We sting!” “We taste bad!” But their clear warnings can then be stolen by deceivers. Some harmless moths mimic wasps; some edible butterflies mimic monarchs. To understand biology, you have to investigate not just flows of energy, but also flows of information. When you do, it’s clear that control over information is an essential part of biological competition. Deception is a very common evolutionary strategy both between and within species.

These biological realities also apply to human beings, but there are extra layers in the human world. We have language, and our psychology is far more complex. However, this does not alter one essential fact: Truth is often toxic. Revealing it can be very harmful. It’s easy to see how this applies in personal life, but I want to examine how it applies in politics too. The naïve assumption might be that it is good for a political movement to have the truth on its side. But is it? For example, are White nationalists, who recognize the truth about racial differences, actually handicapped by being in the right?

I would suggest that they are. And I’m not simply referring to the hostile media, which celebrate charlatans like Stephen Jay Gould and persecute truthful men like James Watson. We have to ask: why has a strategy of lies and deceit been so successful in politics?
The fact is that it’s often more inspiring to have falsehood on your side. One advantage of falsehood is that it removes the problem of searching for the truth and of adapting the strength of one’s beliefs to the standard of proof and evidence one has. A politician travels much lighter without the truth. If Barack Obama and Tony Blair had had any concern for it, they would not have achieved such spectacular success. By discarding it, they could soar into the political empyrean on the gas of pure rhetoric. In a healthy society, overseen by truthful media, devious narcissists like Obama and Blair would not win political office.

But that again raises the question of why truth has so easily been defeated. Why are lies so successful? Why do we live under a pseudocracy, or government of liars?
The British neo-con Nick Cohen has provided a useful insight into the answer by pointing out that “the left looks for traitors, [while] the right looks for converts.” In other words, the left is concerned simply with winning power, the right with winning the argument. The left is travelling light: it doesn’t have to concern itself with evidence and logic. Persuading an opponent to accept your point of view is much more difficult and uncertain than simply imposing your point of view by censorship or punishing “traitors.”

Some of the left are conscious liars, others are deluded fantasists, but the strategy they employ is the same. They don’t have the truth on their side, so they work much harder to police their own ranks and censor their opponents. In the words of the late Joseph Sobran, The Hive thinks as one and stings as one. Here is the Anglo-American political commentator John Derbyshire putting some numbers on it:
I just went to the NumbersUSA website and looked up the immigration score cards for congresscritters from both parties. NumbersUSA gives every congressperson a grade, from A+ down to F-, on immigration issues. Among Republican House members, 69 percent — I’m going to work with percentages here, if you don’t mind — 69 percent of GOP Representatives got graded A or A+, while 28 percent were F or F-. Got that? 69 percent firm immigration patriots, 28 percent total open borders. That’s the House. Among Republican Senators, 59 percent were A or A+, eight percent were F or F-. See what I mean? Diversity!
Now the Democrats, once again in percentages. Democratic House members: A or A+, zero percent; F or F-, 99 percent. In fact it’s worse than that: two Representatives were not graded, having no voting record on immigration. Of the others, every single one was graded F-! For Democrat Senators the unity was even more solid: 100 percent, every single one, was graded F-.
Where congressional Democrats are concerned, we’re not even in the U.S.A. any more: this might as well be the Supreme Soviet. The President doesn’t have to work these guys; he just has to stroll into the House chamber once a year and bask in the applause. (Radio Derb – Transcript, 7th March 2015)
The Democratic party polices its own ranks and throws out traitors. The Republican party doesn’t police its own ranks, so it has a lot of traitors. But although the Republicans may have a majority of “immigration patriots” among both its ordinary voters and its officials, the Republican elite are traitors who want to open America’s borders to the world. The same is true of the so-called Conservative party in Britain.
The Tory leader David Cameron came to power loudly promising to slash “net immigration.” In fact, he’s done the reverse:
David Cameron will reject calls for the Conservatives to drop their target to cut net migration to below 100,000 a year even though it has soared to almost three times that level. The Prime Minister will go into the May election with his 2010 promise in tatters, official figures confirmed today. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced a net flow of 298,000 migrants to the UK in the 12 months to last September – up from 210,000 in the previous year. Net migration is now at its highest level for nine years and 54,000 higher than when the Coalition was formed.
In a further embarrassment for Mr Cameron and the Home Secretary Theresa May, the last immigration statistics before the election showed a rise in people coming from countries outside the EU, which ministers previously claimed to have got under control. The ONS said 624,000 people arrived in the year to September – up from 530,000 in the previous 12 months. The number of non-EU citizens went up by 49,000 to 292,000, and the number of EU citizens rose by 43,000 to 251,000. Around 327,000 people emigrated in the same period. Ministers admitted the figures were “disappointing” but argued that the UK’s strong economy made it a magnet for job-hunters. William Hague, the Commons Leader, described the statistics as “a problem of success.” (David Cameron: We can still cut immigration to below 100,000 a year, The Independent, 26th February 2015)
“Net immigration” is a deceitful concept in any case. If 1,000,000 British Whites had left Britain and 1,000,000 in-bred Muslims had entered, that would have counted as zero net immigration and a triumphant fulfilment of Cameron’s promise. Britain’s “strong economy” is based on more deceit. In fact, it’s a Ponzi scheme a lot like the one run by Bernie Madoff, but on a much bigger scale and destined for a much bigger smash.

Among those currently benefiting from the Ponzi scheme are the rich elite of the Tory party, like its chairmen Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps, who are both Jewish. Neither seems to be concerned at the complete failure of David Cameron to fulfil his promise on net immigration. But what if Cameron had failed to fulfil another pre-election promise: that he would be a staunch “Friend of Israel”? What if Cameron had taken action against Israel for its spying on Britain and its mistreatment of the Palestinians?

In that case, I think the two Tory chairmen would certainly have been concerned and would certainly have acted. Lavish funding would have ceased to flow to the Tories from the Jewish community of which Feldman and Shapps are such shining ornaments. But here’s an odd and interesting fact: their Jewish identity is not discussed in the mainstream British media.

It was quite different when the over-promoted non-entity Lady Warsi was Tory chairwoman alongside Feldman. Her identity as a Muslim woman was celebrated loudly by the Tories, until, with utter predictability, her appointment blew up in their faces.

Warsi resigned as chairwoman because she objected to the party’s support for Jewish Israel against the Muslim Palestinians. In short, when Muslim interests competed with Jewish interests in the Tory party, the Muslim interests lost completely.

But the Tories don’t acknowledge this Jewish dominance and don’t celebrate the way in which both of their chairman are drawn from a tiny ethnic minority. Lord Feldman is obviously Jewish in both name and appearance, so he keeps a “low profile” and avoids media exposure as much as possible.

For example, he didn’t seek the publicity he got when he was accused of condemning ordinary Tories as “swivel-eyed loons” for their opposition to gay marriage and membership of the European Union. Grant Shapps, who is not obviously Jewish, is quite different: he constantly appears in the media to spin the current Tory line. But he didn’t want the publicity he got recently for his business dealings:
The Guardian revealed on Monday that Mr Shapps was actively pursuing a second career in his early days as an MP after 2005, something he had repeatedly denied in very explicit terms. [H]e pursued that career under a false name, selling a product called Stinking Rich and boasting to clients that it offered them the prospect of “a ton of cash”. And … he insisted – and continued to insist even last month in an LBC interview – that he was not moonlighting as Michael Green when, as the Guardian has now shown, he clearly was, and on top of that used legal threats to force a constituent to take down an allegedly libellous post. His euphemistic admission that he had “over-firmly denied” the second job, and then his attempt to pass his denial off as a screw-up, just made it worse. (The Guardian view on Grant Shapps: a chancer chairman who should be fired, The Guardian, 16th March 2015)

Shapps-Shifter: Tory chairman Grant Shapps
Shapps-Shifter: Tory chairman Grant Shapps

Shapps’ guide to getting “Stinking Rich” involved what “sounds very much like a pyramid scheme,” according to the Independent (see here). The paper also said that he relied on mastery of disguise, trickery, plagiarism and testimonials from “people who seem not to exist.”

If he did behave like that, he is what old-fashioned British slang calls a “spiv,” or someone who makes a living by trickery and deceit. As I pointed out in “Bend It Like Bennett,” there was a vicious stereotype in Britain during World War II that spivs and black-marketeers were disproportionately Jewish.

But was the stereotype true? Like Shapps, two other prominent British politicians have recently had unwelcome publicity for their business dealings: Sir Malcolm Rifkind in the Conservatives and Jack Straw in Labour. Caught in a sting by the Daily Telegraph, they are accused of trying to sell influence for cash. Rifkind, who oversaw a key intelligence committee just like Diane Feinstein in the US, was recorded saying that he “could arrange ‘useful access’ to every British ambassador in the world because of his status” (see here). Straw, a former Home Secretary, was recorded saying that he had “operated ‘under the radar’ to use his influence to change European Union rules” and that he had “used ‘charm and menace’ to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm” (again here).

Guess what? Rifkind is fully Jewish and Straw is part Jewish. Because Straw trained as a lawyer, worked in the media and then entered politics, the Jewish Chronicle described him as following a “classic Jewish career path.” It also said that he “looks like a shul warden.”

Straw served in the New Labour government when Lord Levy was at the heart of a financial scandal. Levy is of course Jewish. So is the disgraced politician Shirley Porter. So was the mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell, whose daughter Ghislaine is currently accused of “procuring young girls” for the Jewish-American Jeffrey Epstein. So is Greville Janner, who is accused with the late Leon Brittan of being part of an establishment paedophile ring. Brittan was Jewish too.

Why do members of this tiny minority so often appear in scandals about the abuse of power? Anyone who asks this question immediately removes himself from respectable society. The patterns are obvious, but cannot be discussed. Lady Warsi’s Muslim identity was celebrated when she was chairwoman of the Tory party. Lord Feldman’s and Grant Shapps’ Jewish identity is treated like a state secret. Concealment and deception seem to be constant themes of Jewish behaviour.

But why should we expect the Jewish minority to regard “truth” in the same way as the majority community amongst which it lives? We shouldn’t. Do Jews care if mass immigration wrecks Britain or France or America? No, because they regard those countries as temporary bases, not as permanent homes. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated: “I want to tell every Jew in France and in Europe that Israel is your home.” There’s no nonsense about dual loyalty from Netanyahu: he clearly thinks that Jews outside Israel should be loyal only to Israel.

Many of them are exactly that. Israeli intelligence agencies like Mossad can rely on the aid of thousands of sayanim, or “helpers,” that is, Jews based outside Israel who work with Mossad against the interests of the nations of which they are ostensibly citizens. That is a huge advantage for Israel. Another huge advantage is related to flows of information. Mossad can easily recruit Jewish speakers of any important language on earth. How easily can non-Jewish intelligence agencies recruit speakers of Hebrew? It’s a specifically Jewish language written in a unique alphabet. This linguistic asymmetry means that Israel can spy far more effectively on, say, America, France and Russia than those countries can spy on Israel:
Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against US competitors. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion, to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 fighter. (Israel is no Ally, Philip Giraldi, The Unz Review, 13th March 2014)
In biological terms, Israel’s relation with America is parasitic, not symbiotic. Israel gains at America’s expense, harming an ally that the late Larry Auster correctly described as “the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world.”

But try pointing this out to the average American conservative. You will be handicapped by the truth, not helped by it. Rather than criticize Israel, it can be more effective to praise it. Point out the way in which it ruthlessly excludes “illegal infiltrators.” Israel doesn’t regard mass immigration by Blacks as “enriching” or a cause for “celebration.” No, it puts up massive fences to keep Blacks out:

Israeli border fence
Blacks? Not for Israel!

Jews in Israel scornfully reject the lie of human equality; Jews in America self-righteously enforce the lie of human equality. That lie is currently dominant across the Western world, justifying a vast system of parasitism and privilege for ethnic minorities and feminists. If truth is mighty, why doesn’t it prevail against the lie? Because politics is not mathematics or science. It is not a system designed to search for truth and refine our knowledge of reality. Instead, it is a competition between rival interests, akin to biological evolution. Deception and parasitism have flourished for millions of years in the natural world. They also flourish in the political world.

Look at Rotherham, where a Labour council has presided over decades of child-rape by in-bred Pakistani Muslims of low intelligence and high clannishness. But the group that has suffered, the White working-class, will continue to support a party that hates them and works tirelessly to harm their interests. The Labour council will remain firmly in control and Rotherham is guaranteed to return a Labour MP at the next election. Truth isn’t mighty in Rotherham, but Schiller’s words apply there perfectly: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens – “With stupidity the Gods themselves battle in vain.”

I therefore put my faith in a native English saying: “The burnt child fears the fire.” If you think about it, fire is a liar. It looks beautiful and seems harmless. How could something so insubstantial harm solid flesh? Easily, but no warning about fire is as effective as a direct encounter with its reality. If the Western world is a house, then that house is currently a serious fire-hazard. The lie of human equality has been stripping wires bare, disabling alarms, wedging fire-doors open and stockpiling cans of gasoline next to the stove. There’s already smoke in the air and a serious conflagration is on its way. Even stupid people, like Labour-voting Whites in Rotherham, are going to feel its bite in their flesh. Those who haven’t been persuaded by reason will have to be persuaded by pain. Equality is a lie.

Camus on Ideology vs. Blood

via Counter-Currents

Albert Camus
It is December 10, 1957, and a cold, dark day in Stockholm, Sweden. Inside the hall, however, it is bright and warm, with many of the world’s leading men assembled for the chance to hear directly from the bright young man about to be honored. His voice has rung out as a sign of hope and a challenge to tyrants and dictators, his work acclaimed and already achieving a place of honor in the curricula of the world’s universities.

The author has just turned 44 years of age, yet he has the ear of the world’s great and good, as well as the ears of many a common man. His life’s work as an author has led to today’s event, the awarding of the Nobel Prize, but he is more than that: a famous newspaper editor, a philosopher, a public intellectual, a dramatist, a playwright, a playboy whose Hollywood good-looks and fame ensure a dizzying succession of women. For a time, he was the voice of the French Resistance inside France itself—indeed, from the very heart of immortal Paris—both during and immediately after the war.

Yet, on this day, many find themselves wondering what this famous man will say. He has been uncommonly quiet for months now, a matter that has incited not a small amount of public comment. The author did rouse himself during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and helped rally world opinion in favor of that noble but doomed effort to remove the ancient and Christian nation of Hungary from under Soviet domination. Yet, he has remained silent in the face of a national crisis gripping his own homeland.

In Algeria, French troops are fighting a no-holds-barred war against Muslim forces seeking to evict France and all Frenchmen and Christians. In Paris, all men with an interest in public affairs have staked a position on what would eventually be known as the Algerian War, a matter so dire, so central to French life as to eventually cause not just the downfall of a government but the demise of the Fourth Republic itself.

And, so, the men in Stockholm that day were more than usually interested when the honored man, Albert Camus, took to the podium to give a short lecture. And so he began:
In receiving the distinction with which your free Academy has so generously honored me, my gratitude has been profound, particularly when I consider the extent to which this recompense has surpassed my personal merits. Every man, and for stronger reasons, every artist, wants to be recognized. So do I. But I have not been able to learn of your decision without comparing its repercussions to what I really am. A man almost young, rich only in his doubts and with his work still in progress, accustomed to living in the solitude of work or in the retreats of friendship: how would he not feel a kind of panic at hearing the decree that transports him all of a sudden, alone and reduced to himself, to the center of a glaring light? And with what feelings could he accept this honor at a time when other writers in Europe, among them the very greatest, are condemned to silence, and even at a time when the country of his birth is going through unending misery? (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1957/camus-speech.html)

The lecture matched the man: short yet grand, concise yet breath-taking in scope.
However, fate would have it that Camus’ speech would not be the most famous, or the most important, words he would utter that day. For a controversy dogged his every step in Sweden. A French Algerian writer, a celebrated man of the French Left, could not be allowed to say nothing about what his comrades considered a war of national liberation that demanded their full support. So after Camus’ remarks, an Algerian student rose and asked the newly-crowned laureate, how he could remain silent in the face of his people’s struggle for justice.

And, so, Camus responded. His response confounded his comrades and revealed the extent to which Camus prized the reality of our organic connections to family and community over mere political theory and rhetoric.
People are now planting bombs on the tramway of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother.
That simple remark turned a simmering controversy into a firestorm of condemnation, a condemnation so furious as to—temporarily, at least—besmirch his reputation and cause the removal of his works from mandatory reading lists well into the 1980s.

Those of us on the Right who are seeking both to describe the terminal problem of liberalism and to set forth a humane solution would do well to remember Camus’ point.

To be effective, to signal clearly that we are not haters and harmers, but people offering a just and humane solution to a very real, very human problem, we must remember that abstract political theories are outside of our political tradition. (They are not outside of France’s, hence, Camus’ heresy.) We must remain grounded. We must recognize why the Left writ large continues to attract souls like Camus, and we must offer an equally attractive alternative vision.

In short, let us appeal to family, not theory.

The Aryan Introducers of the Sun Cross into the British Isles

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

The Hittites, Mitanni and Kassites or Kharri were closely related Aryan peoples who at various times dominated Asia Minor with their influence extending to Egypt which in itself was a product of Aryan civilisation. The great mythologist Donald A. Mackenzie in his Myths of Babylonia and Assyria states:
"At a later period, when we come to know more about Mitanni from the letters of one of its kings to two Egyptian Pharaohs, and the Winckler tablets from Boghaz-Koi, it is found that its military aristocracy spoke an Indo-European language, as is shown by the names of their kings-Saushatar, Artatama, Sutarna, Artashshumara, Tushratta, and Mattiuza. They worshipped the following deities: Mi-it-ra, Uru-w-na, In-da-ra, and Na-sa-at-ti-ia-
"Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatyau (the 'Twin Aswins'=Castor and Pollux)-whose names have been deciphered by Winckler. These gods were also imported into India by the Vedic Aryans. The Mitanni tribe (the military aristocracy probably) was called 'Kharri', and some philologists are of opinion that it is identical with 'Arya', which was 'the normal designation in Vedic literature from the Rigveda onwards of an Aryan of the three upper classes'."
Mackenzie indicates that the Mitanni are possibly the ancestors of the modern Kurds. Recently the Kurds have been subject to hostilities from the lunatic worshipers of the semitic desert tribal god allah. One tribe in particular has especially suffered and they are the Yezidis, a largely heathen Aryan people who according to Dr Stephen Edred Flowers (Edred Thorsson) follow a Left-Hand spiritual path:
"Often the Yezidis, an ethnic group living in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, are thought to have a connection to left-hand-path ideas. It is just as likely as not that the original impetus and essence of that sect is Iranian (the Yezidis are Kurds, an Iranian people). (Lords of the Left-Hand Path).
According to Dr Flowers the name Yezidi may be derived from the Persian word yaz(a)d-, meaning supreme being. This points to a Zoroastrian origin. One cannot help but notice the Nordic features of this handsome and brave Aryan folk.

It is interesting that Mackenzie should draw attention to the link between the terms Kharri and Arya as this was also the subject of research by Professor L. Austine Waddell. According to Professor Wadell:
"'Kassi' (or 'Cassi') was the title used by the First Phoenician Dynasty about 3000 B.C.. as attested in their still extant inscriptions. It was the title adopted by the great dynasty of that name in Babylonia which ruled the Mesopotamian empire for about six centuries, from about 1800 B.C., and who are generally admitted to have been Aryans. And Kasi also occurs as a personal name of Phoenicians in inscriptions in Egypt.
"The Kasi title is thus now disclosed as the Phoenician source of the 'Cassi' title borne by the ruling Briton Catti kings of pre-Roman Britain down to Cassivellaunus (see later), who minted the 'Cas' coins bearing the Sun-horse and other solar symbols (see Fig. II).
"The Early Aryan Kasi are referred to in Vedic literature as offerers of the sacred Fire and the especial proteges of Indra. And in Babylonia the Kassi were ardent 'Sun-worshippers' with its Fire offering; and were devotees of the Sun Cross, which is very freely represented on their sacred seals and monuments, in the various forms of St. George's Cross, the Maltese Cross (see Figs., Chap. XX). This fact is well seen in the engraving on the sacred official seal-cylinder here reproduced (see Fig. 12). This shows the pious Aryan Cassis of Babylonia about 1350 B.C. ploughing and sowing under the Sign of the Cross, which, we shall find later, was their emblem of the Aryan Father-God of the Universe, as the Universal Victor." (The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons Discovered by Phoenician and Sumerian Inscriptions in Britain by Pre-Roman Briton Coins).
Professor Waddell points out that the Cross is a frequent symbol found in conjunction with other solar symbols in prehistoric Britain. He also argues that the red cross as depicted on the flag of England represents the original fiery Aryan Sun Cross of the Goths, Hittites and Phoenicians.

South African Whites Training for the Race War

via The Daily Stormer

White people want rights?

Oh the horror. The sheer terror of it all.

How could this have happened in this modern enlightened age of futuristic drones and cell phones?

Daily Mail:
Deep in rural South Africa, a terrifying white supremacist movement is brainwashing teenagers to rise up in defiance of Nelson Mandela’s hard-fought dream of a Rainbow Nation.
The far-right Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) is training thousands of youths in military-style bootcamps northwest of Johannesburg to fight for a separate white state.
By day, they are pushed to their physical limits with assault courses and self-defence lessons, all the while being told of the danger from ‘the millions of blacks trying to kill you’.
Then by night, they are subjected to vile racist indoctrination which many hoped had disappeared from South Africa for good.
For Dion Bernard, a 15-year-old boy enrolled on the latest camp, the seeds of old hatred are already cemented in his mind.
‘In the Bible it says black people must live with black people and white people must live with white people,’ he says.
‘You cannot mix nations. I don’t have black friends. If they come to my side and ask to speak to me, I will say no. Or I will turn my back on them and walk away.’
Dion comes from a deeply religious family, part of a small but determined minority of Afrikaner people who still yearn for apartheid-era politics.
He is one more than 2,000 teenagers who have attend Kommando core, an AWB ‘endurance’ camp for white youngsters, over the last two years.
The camp is run by Colonel Jooste, a veteran of the South African apartheid era.
‘South Africa is bleeding,’ he tells Journeyman.TV. ‘And this is why we have to train our people to be prepared.
‘There’s millions and millions of blacks around you, smothering you… and killing you.
‘So you have to implement certain systems to survive and that’s why we say the only system we can go now for is not apartheid. That’s second prize. First prize is freedom.’
“First prize is freedom.”

Because we are terrifying and vile for wanting to exist.

This is the new meme.

TYN Goes to the Movies: Review of 'The Wind Rises'

via TradYouth

Some weeks ago I did a review on Hiyao Miyazaki’Spirited Away (2001) and found that it was generally well received. Well, all except for a handful who called me a basement-dwelling sperg.  Anime, animation broadly, is only incidental to Miyazaki’s way of telling stories and if you can get around that it’s some of the best storytelling out there.  I’ve described Miyazaki’s movies as lighthearted and whimsical, but The Wind Rises (2015) is not one of them.  Its message is probably the most mature and serious one that he has yet given.

The Wind Rises is a story about airplane engineer Jiro Horikoshi in pre-WWII Japan who designed the Mitsubishi A5M, and its successor the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.  As the movie’s story tells, Jiro wanted only to make airplanes and was reluctant to work for the government because he knew his planes would be used for making war. During the pre-WWII years Japan was, like many of the Axis states, seeking colonial expansion; they wanted more land and greater political strength.  Jiro’s planes would be an instrumental tool in Japan’s aerial prowess, thus the muscle behind Japan’s political decisions.  This movie is fundamentally a story about Japan’s quest for political power and the person who was largely responsible for making it possible.  Of course, we already know this story ends with Japan signing an unconditional surrender after having its only two Christian cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) nuked into scorched earth (but that’s besides the point of this review).

There are distinct nationalist tones throughout the movie, but it’s more like a civic nationalist tone with a slight ethnic nationalist aftertaste.  One of the reasons for this is because of Japan’s incredibly high patriotic sense pre-WWII.  Happening concurrently was Japan’s manipulative trade practices that they used to bolster their faltering economy.  This is important to note because Japan needed economic independence and stability were it to shake Western influences and demands.  Japan’s quest for political power is so central to this movie that the bulk of interpretation will come from Francis Parker Yockey‘s Imperium

Miyazaki’s movies are fun because his characters are never “just characters.”  The character roles are themselves representations of values, morals, and other well known people from real life.  Not even the main character, Jiro, is “just Jiro Horikoshi.”  Jiro is, of course, the airplane engineer who dreamed his whole life long about building airplanes.  To make matters worse, not even the airplane is “just an airplane.”  The airplanes in the movie are a representation of culture and society.  Some of the planes fly, some of the planes crash, and only a few are capable of flying military operations.  With this interpretation, Jiro is part of the Culture-Bearing stratum.  He is not so much an airplane engineer as he is a cultural and social engineer in this movie’s interpretation.  Not just airplanes, but trains, too, figure prominently in the movie.  Yep– you guess it.  The trains aren’t “just trains” either.  The trains are some manner of representation of a nation’s movement through society and culture, but are not to be taken as an analogous representation of society or culture in the way we’re treating airplanes here.  There a lot of moving things in The Wind Rises, so keep your eyes open and pay attention to all of it.  There is absolutely nothing in this movie that does not have some significance or meaning.  Before going on, a bit from Yockey about what the Culture-Bearing stratum is,
“What is the physical articulation of the body of the Culture? The more exacting the nature of the Cultural task, the higher the type of humanity required for its performance. There is in all Cultures a spiritual level of the entire population called the Culture-bearing stratum. It is this articulation of Culture-populations alone which makes the expression of a High Culture possible. It is the technic of living, the habitus of the Culture. The Culture-bearing stratum is the custodian of the wealth of expression forms of the Culture. To it belong all the creators in the domains of religion, philosophy, science, music, literature, 254 the arts of form, mathematics, politics, technics, and war, as well as the noncreators who fully understand and themselves experience the developments in this higher world, the appreciators.” (Imperium, pp253 – 254)
Building planes is a dream that Jiro carried from his childhood.  In fact, the movie opens with one such dream sequence where then-young Jiro is flying a small airplane about his village.  A dreamy and easy flight bout his village is ruined when he tries to investigate a large floating black blimp with dozens and dozens of foreboding smaller ships in tow.  This menacing dark airship and the smaller ones following are supposed to be pre-WWII Germany.  Jiro fits some aviator goggles over his own eyeglasses and tries to fly up to investigate.  The second he puts on the aviation glasses his sight goes cross-eyed, and then his own plane is destroyed in flight after one of the smaller black ships suddenly drops out of the air and collides with his own.  A second dream sequence follows shortly in which Jiro meets famed Italian aircraft designer Giovanni Battista Caproni.  But, this time, Jiro is not in his own dream world, rather he’s in Caproni’s dream world.  The two share the same dream.  Jiro and Caproni never meet in real life, and neither do they ever see each other’s planes outside of dream sequences or pictures.  The reason that the two are able to communicate with each other through dream sequences are because they both are members of that higher Culture-Bearing stratum.  The other thing that the two had in common was they feared their planes would be abused by the state for political ends via militaristic means, but they built the planes regardless.  Yockey spells it out for us again:
“If two individuals, widely separated geographically, and in no contact with one another, develop similar inventions, similar philosophies, chose the same subject matter for drama or lyric — this is not “influence” nor “coincidence,” but a reflection of the development of the Culture to which both belong. From the higher Cultural standpoint the arguments about who was the first to invent this or that device, who originated this or that idea, are quite barren. These questions are not on any higher plane than the legal, at best. If the development in question is one of superpersonal force, and not a mere personal amusement, it is the development of the Culture, and the fact that it was expressed simultaneously by more than one person only testifies to its Destiny-quality.” (Imperium, p248)
Jiro and Caproni are two men cut from the same cloth, both agents of a higher cultural dream.  Neither particularly cared for war, they only wanted to make great airplanes, or to guide their people to a High Culture and development wherein their people would be happy, productive, and well taken care of.  However, it’s wishful thinking to hope that their tools and creations wouldn’t be used for war (though it’s only bound to happen…)  As a state becomes more powerful and aggressive it will invariably come to a conflict in which its culture is forced to fight for the state.

So, Jiro dedicates himself to making “beautiful airplanes.”  He was worried that he can’t design planes because he can’t fly planes, but Caproni tells him in a dream sequence that he himself has never flown a plane.  Airplane engineers (read: culture engineers) don’t need to fly planes to design them, they only need the vision and the dream to design.  There’s a sharp time-jump after this point, where we’re taken to a view of Jiro riding a train through the Japanese countryside.  He is now, presumably, in his late teens or early 20s.  The train is something of a representation of the Japanese nation moving and growing as a society, and it’s here that he first meets Nahoko and discovers that the both of them know a certain French poem, Graveyard by the Sea.  Even at this early part the two of them are “speaking the same language.”  It’s also at this time that the Great Kantō earthquake strikes.  This earthquake is significant because of how badly it crippled the Japanese state.  In the movie, you can hear the conductor telling people “Get away! The boiler’s going to blow!”  Jiro isn’t worried in the slightest, he knows the boiler isn’t going to blow.  Again, the train is a representation of then-current Japanese society, and it was stopped dead on the tracks after the earthquake struck.

After the wreck Jiro escorts Nahoko and her nannie, Kinu, to a safe place among a temple.  Nahoko and Kinu are reunited with their family, Jiro quietly and humbly excuses himself to attend college, and all is right with the world for the time being.  There’s another time-jump at this point, and Jiro is recounting the experience (now two years past) to his sister, Kayo.  He says he tried to revisit the family (Nahoko and Kinu) but couldn’t find them because of how all the homes were destroyed in the wide-spread fires following the quake.  My position is that this is supposed to represent how the death of thousands and thousands of people in the earthquake separated and created a vast gulf between Jiro’s generation and the world of Tradition.  The death of thousands on thousands of Japanese in the earthquake did either kill or stop a significant portion of Japan’s culture bearing stratum, but it was only momentary.  Yockey explains how the culture bearing stratum is a spiritual force that will express itself through those that remain.
“The process of replenishment is continually going on, for the Culture-bearing stratum is not hereditary in any strict sense. The Culture-bearing stratum is a purely spiritual level of the populace of the Culture. It has no economic, political, social, or other hallmark. Some of its most luminous creators have lived and died in want, e.g., Beethoven and Schubert. Other souls, equally creative, but less rugged, have been strangled by poverty — Chatterton. Many of its creative members go through their lives entirely unnoticed — Mendel, Kierkegaard, Copernicus. Others are mistaken for mere talents — Shakespeare, Rembrandt.” (Imperium, 254)
Thus, life goes on, and so did Jiro’s studies.  After proving himself to be a talented engineer from among many working towards the same goal, Jiro’s boss, Mr. Kurokawa, chooses Jiro as the lead architect on a new project, what would become the A5M.  One of the tropes that Miyazaki uses in his movies (like clockwork, really…) is that people nourish their soul with the food and customs of their culture and their people.  We see this happening shortly after Jiro arrives at the Mitsubishi airfield.  He is out for lunch at a diner with Honjo.  Jiro has the smoked herring with sauce, and Honjo has . . . something else.    Honjo pokes fun at Jiro for never getting bored with the herring, but Jiro is fascinated with the curve of the herring bone and later finds that the bone has the same cross section as that of an airplane’s wing.  Jiro learns something about airplane design, but only by literally in the film and figuratively by analysis nourishing himself on Tradition and Identity.

Small series of events like the herring bone discovery are something that sets Jiro apart from Honjo as a genius.  Both Honjo and Jiro were talented engineers, and they both were surrounded by other brilliant engineers at the Mitsubishi design plant.  It was Jiro’s dedication and commitment to the spirit of Tradition that allowed him to be a dynamic and powerful designer with plans for the future.  Jiro’s character is exactly what Yockey would describe as a Genius.  Yes, a genius after the sense of high intelligence, but also in another sense that Yockey defines.
“What is Genius in politics? How does it manifest itself in this realm? In one thing simply: it represents the Idea of the Future. If one were to state the relation to the Present of the masses, a Tradition, and Genius, he would say that the masses are always behind the Present, the Tradition is alert at each moment adjusting to the Future, but the Genius represents the Promethean thrusting into the Future with unleashed force. Genius is dependent for its actualization on the appreciation of the Culture-bearing stratum, or nation-bearing stratum. Talent can understand anything that Genius can imagine or create, once it is actualized, but Genius always impresses at first as fantastic. Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Cromwell, Napoleon, the Hero of this age, all impressed most people at the beginning of their careers, as being unworldly, out of touch with Reality. There was some justification for this, for they were in touch with a new world, the next Reality.” (Imperium, 267)

Jiro is too far-sighted to see the stars, but he can clearly see beyond stars and plan for the future.
Jiro is too far-sighted to see the stars, but he can clearly see beyond stars and plan for the future.

This takes us right back to Jiro’s “vision problem” we talked about earlier.  He couldn’t do anything right when he was trying to wear aviator’s goggles, and he was even less capable without his coke-bottle thick seeing glasses.  As the story presents it, Jiro is exceptionally far-sighted.  In one scene depicting his childhood struggles, he is on the roof of his parents’ home trying to correct his vision by intently focusing on the stars.  He is joined by his younger sister in this scene.  His sister can see dozens of shooting stars. Jiro? Not a one.  While his sister can see and enjoy the shooting stars, Jiro sees beyond the stars, he sees what lies beyond the stars: Caproni’s airplanes gliding through the air inspiring him to his own greatness.

But, back to the story: Jiro thinks the structural failures of then-conventional canvas-skinned body and wings (used under the failed Falcon project) could be fixed by using a metal-skinned body and canvas-skinned wings.  He’s trying to mix the old canvas-winged designs and new metal-skinned body designs.  This design, a mix of old and new in one, fails, too. After this second failure Jiro’s employer sends him on a vacation at a mountain resort so as to rest before restarting work on the new plane design.  It is here that Jiro realizes he cannot create a metal-bodied and canvas-winged plane.  He cannot mix the two technologies, old and new; he cannot simply augment the past with the fantastic new technology of the present.  He comes to the realization that a new synthesis is required, and that it must be totally Japanese in spirit.  It is also here at this mountain resort where he meets the girl from the train, Nahoko, who is now a grown woman.  He also meets a shadowy character, Hans Castorp (based on Richard Sorge, and voiced by Werner Herzog!).  There are another dozen or so inception levels to Hans’s back story, but you would have to understand the entirety of the character by the same name in Thomas Mann‘s 1924 novel The Magic Mountain if we’re going to to really appreciate the deep and highly developed nuances that Miyazaki is making here.

Jiro watches Nahoko painting while staying at a mountain resort.
Jiro watches Nahoko painting while staying at a mountain resort

Just like with everything else in this movie, Nahoko is more than just her person and character.  She represents the romantic and idealized past, she is the the very essence of what it means to be Japanese.  It is only through her that Jiro is able to conceive of a plane capable of adequately fighting the present and future war.  However, it’s not so simple as that (but, nothing in this movie is exactly easy, is it?).

Jiro’s first encounter with Nahoko in which the two are able to speak (now having both grown to adults) is when he meets her by a fount’s well on the mountain resort.  Nahoko says she was praying for the wind to bring him to her, and so it happened.  Jiro’s work did not bring him to her, it only allowed the possibility for the forces of destiny to bring him to Nahoko who would choose him as a suitor.  Recall here that Jiro was only one among many design engineers at Mitsubishi.  While reflecting on the failures of a wood and metal plane he arrives at a radical solution: an all metal plane with a wing and fuselage design entirely unlike anything he had worked with previously.  Enter the inverted gull wing design.  So, he makes a paper scale model and tests it outside his balcony.  Not only does it fly, but it flies marvelously well, practically effortlessly!  On one flight the plane is caught by another resort resident (Hans Castorp, who Jiro met after arriving in the resort) who happens to be walking by.  He snatches it out of the air ham-handedly and crushes it.  Jiro’s dream plane is powerful enough to carry the future of an entire nation, but so fragile that it will break and fail for anyone else who tries to handle it.  The plane only works for Jiro and Nahoko, it fails the moment that it is touched by anyone else.  Jiro has to “romance” Nahoko with his dream before she buys into his idea.  Recall here that Nahoko is a representation of the romantic and idealized Japan and its very essence.  Jiro had to win Nahoko’s affection to convince her that his dream was worth investing in.  And, so it goes.  The two propose in the presence of Nahoko’s father and are thereafter inseparable.

The best of Jiro’s work happens during their extended pre-marriage period, but it’s also when his work becomes the most dangerous.  Jiro happened to meet Hans Castorp, who in real life was a Soviet military intelligence officer and informed against the Germans.  Hans’s character is loosely based on Richard Sorge who was a Soviet military intelligence officer and sympathized with Japan.  He calls Nazi Germany a gang of thugs and hoodlums, and this is inline with Miyazaki’s unfavorable representation of Nazi Germany in the opening scene of the movie.  The only thing I can think of that would place Japan at odds with Hitler’s Germany but not Mussolini’s Italy is that Hitler doubled down on the Myth of Nation while Mussolini doubled down on Myth of State.  This is also inline with the fact that Traditionalism (and Radical Traditionalism by extension) explicitly rejects the notion of race supremacy.  Yockey’s Imperium does the same in the introduction by explaining how a Civilization or High Culture can develop on several lines through several cultures at a time.  I say that Jiro’s work became dangerous during this period because of his association with Castorp, a spy and informant.  After Jiro returns to work he is being sought after by the secret police, presumably for being a political dissident with ties to the Soviets and pro-German interests (re: Castorp).  Following the Kantō earthquake there was great political and economic instability, and under the guise of maintaining order the Japanese government arrested and purged political dissidents en masse.  Jiro’s happenstance association with Castrop was sufficient to put him on the thought police’s radar.  Jiro’s employers Mr. Hattori and Mr. Kurokawa (both high level managers at Mitsubishi) cover for Jiro and hide him until matters could be smoothed over.

Jiro’s progress on the fighter plane is mirrored by that of his co-worker, Honjo, who is working on converting a German transport plane (the Junkers G.38) into a bomber plane (designated the Ki-20).  As seen in the movie, the Ki-20 was a failure in real life, too.  The plane “worked” so long as there was no opposition, and it could do the most basic of tasks: It flies and drop bombs, but only barely.  Only a couple of shots from an enemy fighter plane and it blows to pieces, which is exactly what happens.  Jiro sees the same in a dream sequence.  He dreams of a train stalled on its track in the middle of the night while the converted Ki-20 was burning and falling out of the sky before spectacularly crashing.  Take a literal reading of this:  This is one of several moments in the film that Jiro learns why the new plane must be an entirely Japanese synthesis.  To put it more plainly, you can’t take a German airplane and expect it to carry Japanese cargo– it won’t work.  This is also the same reason that I’m not a wild-eyed Russophile.  I have no expectation that a Russian or Eurasian model of identity will carry American identity in a sustainable manner.  It is not to say that we can’t learn something valuable from the Eurasian model of lifestyles and beliefs, but it is to say that what we make for ourselves must come from ourselves and from our own traditions.

By the time that Jiro’s A5M plane makes its test flight Nahoko is deathly ill and about to succumb to tuberculosis.  By this point she had left the sanitorium to join Jiro in the city.  Her health is only getting worse, Jiro and Nahoko both know it.  As the plane nears completion Nahoko’s health plummets.  Nahoko decides to pack up and return to the sanitorium to die in peace and dignity.  Leading up to this, Nahoko was living under the Kurokawa’s roof with Jiro while he worked on the A5M.  Nahoko quietly excused her self from the house with a lie about how she was feeling so much better and wanted to take a walk.  Mrs. Kurokawa was the only one with any brains because she had to stop Jiro’s sister from chasing her down and bringing her back to the house.  Mrs. Kurokawa insisted that Nahoko be allowed to go away so that her memory not be tarnished by the ignominious wasting death of consumptive tuberculosis.  What’s important to recognize here is that we never actually see Nahoko die.  It is presumed that she died after returning to the sanitorium.  Miyazaki is telling us that we get many valuable things from Tradition and respect of our past, but we must know when to let it go and to let it die.  In fact, I wrote about a similar topic more than a year ago in “Death to ‘muh culture.’

A screen-shot from the closing scene of The Wind Rises at top, and Caspar David Friedrich's Sea of Ice is at bottom.
A screen-shot from the closing scene of The Wind Rises at top, and Caspar David Friedrich’s Sea of Ice is at bottom.

Miyazaki’s movies are not impossible to make sense of, but a viewer needs to make due diligence in research and evaluation to understand it properly.  Miyazaki is also an absolute Romanticist. He frequently puts recreations of Caspar David Friedrich’s works into his films. If you really want to know Miyazaki, then you have to understand Romanticism at the very least.  Take the painting, Sea of Ice, by Caspar David Friedrich, and then compare to the closing scene of Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises where Jiro is wandering among a sea of wrecked Japanese airplanes littering the ground.

A short interpretation of Sea of Ice:
“This painting may be understood as a sort of programmatic statement and resume of Friedrich’s aims and intentions. A source of inspiration for the painting was the polar expedition mounted by William Edward Parry from 1819 to 1820 in search of the North-west Passage. The painting’s icy palette corresponds to the Arctic setting. It is undoubtedly one of the artist’s masterpieces, yet the radical nature of its composition and subject was greeted in its own day with incomprehension and rejection. The picture remained unsold right up to Friedrich’s death in 1840.
In the painting, now often called The Wreck of the Hope, the painter imbued the subject with unsurpassable dramatic intensity. The particular feature of this work is that the drama has already happened. The huge towering pinnacles are the slowly moving icebergs that have long become fixed here. The bold attempt by man to burst the bounds of his allotted sphere ends in death.”
Miyazaki has been caught in controversy more than once over his staunch anti-war positions, and he is also invoking an opposition to colonialism by recreating Caspar David Friedrich’s Sea of Ice.  There’s no denying that Miyazaki wants us all to live in our own lands and to peacefully co-exist, his warning being that we can bring about our own ruin by exceeding our bounds and impinging on others’ bounds.  However, he’s also realistic enough to know the political state’s aggressive nature and greed for expansion.  The growth and development of a High Culture will force a conflict with other nations, but in spite of this danger it’s no reason to cling to the past and to not seek the development and growth of our own culture.

Conservatives and Family Formation

via Henry Dampier

Some conservatives are actually quite good at perpetuating their own lines. If you come from a liberal city, like I do, you might be under the impression that the sort of happy, intact, and numerous families might be next to nonexistent. Especially these days, having more than one vanity child in one of the big cities tends to appear to be a fashion faux pas at the best, and a sign of moral turpitude at the worst.

Just thinking about numbers here, the side that actually focuses on making and raising healthy, happy children will overwhelm the one that focuses on overstimulating a small number of neurotic, unhealthy kids who fail to mature into self-sufficient adults.

For all of their problems in red-state-landia, on the other hand, once you leave those enclaves, it’s actually somewhat common, if less so than it used to be, to find healthy-looking parents with bunches of healthy-looking kids. A sign of success is a room covered in photographs upon photographs of all the various children with the conventional markers of bourgeois happiness, without many traces of the over-educated neuroticism which has become the common language elsewhere.

You just walk into the washing machine room, or whatever, and there are photos posted up of all six kids, at baseball practice, choir, in the graduation cap, all that kitschy stuff that sophisticates like to sneer at. While as a method of interior decoration, it could use some improvement, and one might wonder of the theological implications of making shrines to one’s children, but the phenomenon there symbolized by the photos is worth encouraging.

I should think that any sort of right-leaning cultural thought should focus on making more of the former type of person, and fewer of the inwardly-focused neurotics. This is one of Steve Sailer’s hobbyhorses, but for whatever reason, the mainstream right tends not to emphasize this simple, wholesome message. Partially because America’s political structure is fundamentally ill at ease with the same social and economic dynamics which make families stronger relative to corporate-democratic structures.

It tends to be difficult to maintain a conservative attitude towards family while living in a liberal area, even for work, just because the culture that supports family isn’t present. If it’s socially awkward to get married and have kids, it’s just not going to happen, except during some onset or another of baby rabies. If it’s socially normal to get married and have kids, it tends to happen more often, even among average yokels who own pickup trucks, a good portion of whom have more money than the typical city neurotic, anyway.

It’s not just about ‘affordable family formation.’ It also has to do with shared attitudes towards religion, life, and work.

Falling on Deaf Ears

via Radix

We're all told that we should love equality, yet it's clear some love it more than others. That’s an obvious fact for most observers, but the real question is then: who are the real egalitarians?

Could it be those who view all men as one and the same, all just individuals living here on God’s green earth, all created by the maker in his own image?

If we’re all endowed with a soul at birth, shouldn’t we strive for equality in life?

This is the question that might be guiding the Southern Baptist Convention’s new thinking on race. The SBC, as I previously noted, is now working for something called “race reconciliation” and The Atlantic just published an in-depth look into this new church policy. What race reconciliation essentially means is that White Southern Baptists need to come to grips with their racial prejudice and repent for their ancestors’ past injustices in order to bring non-whites into the faithful fold. The SBC was, in fact, founded over a dispute about slavery among Baptists. . .with the Southerners taking the pro-slavery position.

The SBC’s apology for slavery in 1995 is what prompted Sam Francis to quote Spengler and declare “Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” But that apology was orchestrated by the supposed "arch-conservative" Richard Land, who headed up the church’s policy arm. Land spent most of his time in this position boostering social conservatism and palling around with the Bush Administration. After pointing out the inconvenient truth that Blacks are more likely to commit crime in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, he was pressured to step down in 2012 and in his place came Russell Moore.

Moore is in a close race with University of Oklahoma President David Boren for winning the award for “Most Contemptible White Man in America.” Though Moore, unlike Boren, probably genuinely believes his own bullshit. What makes Moore worse is that more people are susceptible to his message of racial surrender. The new SBC policy chief is a powerful figure within a denomination that holds immense sway in several parts of flyover America. Many of the church’s members are good-natured conservatives who are worried by immigration, the country’s rapidly changing demographics, cultural degeneracy, and the breakdown of community. They go to church because that’s what their parents did, that’s what their peers do, and that’s what they want their children to do when they become of age.

There’s something inherently healthy in the average church-goer, in their respect for tradition and the desire for order. Most attendees (or at least the male ones) probably can’t articulate the substance of the sermons they hear every Sunday or what message the national denomination is currently pushing—they simply go for the ritual and the solace it brings. Which is why there’s such a large gulf between pastors and laymen on issues like immigration. But while there is a presence of a major divide in political opinion and the message of pulpit pundit often falls on deaf ears, there’s still an insidious danger to men like Moore.

For it’s how Moore packages his message of race reconciliation that makes him a threat. He articulates it as one of individual responsibility, a part of man’s sinful nature that we all have, and it all comes wrapped in a southern accent from a man that would cut the model figure for a stereotypical conservative.

The conservative folk who frequent church aren’t going to listen to this message if it’s delivered by a blue-haired lesbian showing off her bulldyke wife. They will listen to it if it is given by a man they see as one of their own.

That message might be catching on within the ranks and might already have a prevalence among the preaching class of the SBC.

Here’s how one Latino pastor expressed his thoughts on race and Christianity:
When I spoke with pastors and church leaders in Nashville, many cited passages in scripture as justifications for opposing racism. Juan Sanchez, a pastor from Texas, started with the book of Genesis, in which man was created in the image of God. Trillia Newbell, the director of outreach for the Convention, pointed to Revelations 5 and 7 for a vision of equality in the kingdom to come. And in his opening address to the conference, Moore cited verses in Ephesians 3: “Through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” . . .
But if Southern Baptists in 1860 believed the scriptures justified a system of slavery based on race, and Southern Baptists in 2015 believe the scriptures justify total opposition to racial discrimination, did one group err?
Sanchez, the pastor from Texas, thinks so. “The people who used the Bible, for example, to argue for slavery—they were using the argument for evangelizing the heathen,” he said. “I would argue that they were flat out wrong—they were teaching contrary to our Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings.”
To Sanchez and other contemporary Southern Baptists, racial equality is the logical extension of Christianity. “What I find hopeful and encouraging [is that] throughout the history of the church, there have always been people who misinterpreted what the Bible thought for their own purposes,” Sanchez said. This is hopeful in the sense that there’s historical precedent for internal shifts on theology within a denomination that believes in biblical inerrancy.
The view of Southern Baptists on racism is essentially the colorblind message that has resonated with conservatives for several years. We’re all children of God and we shouldn’t be judged by our race—just by the “content of our character.” It’s very individualistic; and very egalitarian. The equality of souls—or at least this view of it—implies both a sameness and an individuality that negates the power of human collectives and human identities.

But while White Southern Baptists might eat this up, Black Baptists aren’t too inclined to adopt it.

They prefer seeing themselves as intertwined group, with interests as a group and unified as a collective.
“Most of my white brothers and sisters place a great emphasis on individualism and meritocracy,” said Thabiti Anyabwile, a black pastor who heads a church in southeast D.C. “Most of my African American brothers and sisters, we've had a group experience. Our experience in this country has been defined first and foremost by this pigment that we share. So when we have these conversations about how to make progress, African Americans go to group experience pretty quickly. We speak in ‘we.’ And white Americans go pretty quickly to individual and speak of ‘I.’”
And this is why the SBC’s attempt at racial reconciliation will fail. It imagines that America’s race problem is that we see race, when we should just look at individual souls. This view was oddly confirmed by a viral video of a Black man discussing police racism. After being pulled over by a White cop, this Black man thinks that “world really needs to stop putting labels on people and things and see them as who they are. People.” As this young man reminds us, “God doesn’t see color. Why should we?”

While this colorblind vision is appealing to conservative Whites, non-whites still want to see race—because racialism is to their benefit. It means millions poured into their communities. It means easier access to education and jobs thanks to racial quotas. Most importantly, it means moral superiority over Whites. There’s power in racialism, and these minorities are not going to willing to give it up in favor of marginalization.

Just like how the Republican Party hopes to win over Blacks and Hispanics with the message that we’re all Americans, the Southern Baptist message that we’re all children of God will fall on the same deaf ears. All people—except for deracinated Whites—want to retain their identity and be a part of a unique community. Deriding this as “identity politics” or “identity religion” reveals a failure to understand the nature of man and what he wants. Even if we are all “equal” in the eyes of God (whichever way you interpret that), we are not all equal in the flesh. More importantly, we are not all the same—human biodiversity is as much a fact of life as death.

Taking this message of hyperindividualism, equality, and universal homogeneity outside the confines of a church is ultimately futile. All it does is reveal how much the SBC is as much a part of the degenerate culture its leaders despise. It won’t bring any people into the faithful fold, and it will not integrate Southern Baptist parishes. All it will it do is further alienate the decent White folk who attend church to find solace in Sunday’s ritual. Blacks want a religion that reinforces their racial solidarity, not undermine it by saying there’s no such thing as Black people. The only audience for such a message riddled with nonsense are the devout church ladies who eat up anything their preacher says, but they’ll likely do nothing more than entertain these ideas in private conversation.

If these denominations want to avoid further irrelevance and decline, it’s time for them to remove themselves from the public square—where they seem to only promote harmful policies—and focus on the personal salvation of its members. That’s what White people want in a world increasingly devoid of meaning and chaotic in nature. They don’t want to be browbeaten about slavery or police brutality; they just want to be a part of something more than their individual existence.

If church leaders still want to reconcile the races, then leave it to the Big Man in the Sky. For if man is inherently flawed, then isn’t God the only one with the power to do such a thing?

Emperor Constantine VII on Nations and Intermarriage

via Faith & Heritage

Constantine VII pictured being
crowned by Christ
Constantine VII was a tenth-century Byzantine emperor (AD 905 – 959). He was a member of the Macedonian dynasty, a line of very competent emperors who stabilized and expanded the Byzantine Empire, giving it its second wind after three centuries of shrinking borders following the conquests of Justinian the Great. Constantine VII was the fourth emperor in the Macedonian dynasty, and due to the fact that he spent much of his reign as co-emperor, he was not a particularly strong executive. He was, however, a very skilled administrator and is often referred to as a “scholar emperor” due to his collecting and writing of books and sponsorship of the arts.1 One of his biggest legacies is his book De Administrando Imperio (“On the Administration of the Empire”), written with the intention of giving his son a guide on how to run the empire both internally and externally. After a long section outlining the history of many of the nations surrounding the Byzantine Empire, Constantine VII went on to highlight the bad ends and soiled legacies of those emperors who violated secular and religious law and custom in their dealings with foreigners.

According to Constantine VII, there were three cardinal sins a Byzantine emperor could commit in regards to foreign peoples.
  • Misappropriation of the Patriarch’s vestments and jewels, such as giving them away as war concessions or the secular use of them to impress foreigners
  • Giving away the secret of Greek fire or allowing it to be manufactured in any city which was not Christian
  • Marrying or having your son or daughter marry a foreigner, excepting the Franks, particularly the northern pagans or eastern Muslims
For each point, Constantine VII talks about an emperor who violated these laws and how he came to a bad end with a soiled legacy. What’s really interesting is that he explicitly connects #3 with #1. Constantine VII claims that Leo IV married a Khazar, while secular sources say that his father married a Khazar, making Leo IV half-Khazar. Either way, the Khazar influence led Leo IV to seize one of the Patriarch’s jewels from the Hagia Sophia without permission and set it upon his forehead as a crown, at which point he was struck down with an illness that eventually killed him. Constantine VII makes the application clear: foreign mixture leads to religious sin. Note that in either case the Khazar princess was said to have been baptized, but this changed nothing. Constantine VII considered this “a sufficient warning to restrain anyone who is minded to emulate his evil deeds.”

To summarize this principle, Constantine VII writes:
For each nation has different customs and divergent laws and institutions, and should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and develop out of the same nation the associations for the fusion of its life. For just as each animal mates with its own tribe, so it is right that each nation should marry and cohabit not with those of other race and tongue but of the same tribe and speech. For hence arise naturally harmony of thought and intercourse among one another and friendly converse and living together; but alien customs and divergent laws are likely on the contrary to engender enmities and quarrels and hatreds and broils, which tend to beget not friendship and association but spite and division.

Myopic Partisanship

via Alternative Right

Vladimir Putin, recalling his KGB days?
I have, in various contexts, remarked upon the tendency for alt-rightists of various stripes to fall for the propensity to needlessly align themselves with a “side” in some geopolitical struggle. Obama’s America sure ain’t groovy, so Putin’s Russia must therefore be the bee’s knees. Ukraine’s struggle for political independence is backed by George Soros and the CIA, so the legitimacy of the Kremlin-ordered invasion of the Crimea (and  apparent push, via proxy forces, to expand his dominion further inland) ought not be questioned in any way, and if you insist upon questioning it, you’re probably just an Obamabot shill who really needs to down a piping-hot cup of STFU. Bolshevism was a monstrous blight threatening the future of the Aryan race, so National Socialism had the proper duty to chop the heads off a bunch of morally sensitive college students who had the unforgivable temerity to hand out anti-government pamphlets urging passive resistance to tyranny. Dresden certainly wasn’t da bomb, so Belsen must therefore have been a gasEt cetera and so forth.
Another variation of this theme reached my ears recently when I listened to author Joshua Blakeney’s interview with our old friend Henrick Palmgren on Red Ice Radio. What made Blakeney’s rhetorical flanking for the Empire of Nippan (and concomitant glossing over of that regime’s numerous war crimes) somewhat interesting is that it hasn’t been heard as much as the far more common revisionist reconfiguration of Nazi Germany as the put-upon true “good guys” of that Manichean conflict to end all Manichean conflicts; still, it fits together with that overall mindset that the Axis powers have in general gotten a bad rap and ought to be praised to the heavens… because, uh, well, Dresden! and Hiroshima! and the nefarious Morgenthau plan! and the disproportionate strain of contemptible Jewry within Bolshevism! and the obscene, never-ending parade of contemporary cultural Marxist miasmic malodorous monstrosities! and the forever Third World invasion! And feral black criminals raping, rampaging, and running amok! and the ongoing white genocide!!! And smirking hook-nosed Hollywood billionaire Jews!!! Etc. 
In general, it is through such a piecemeal, vaguely impressionistic, borderline-hysterical recitation of horrors of the contemporary West that a case for the supposedly virtuous nature of the Axis powers is made. The revisionist rhetorician attempts this rather shoddily shored-together argument by pointing out a couple of undeniable truths, from which he concocts a patently false corollary:
  1. The revisionist correctly points out that the Allied powers did terrible things during the war (while he ignores or attempts to dismiss similar crimes committed by the Axis powers, of course).
  2. The revisionist accurately observes that things pretty well suck in the Western world today, seven decades after the defeat of the Axis and the triumph of the Allies. Yet from this fact, he inexplicably asserts the highly dubious conclusion that the supremacy of malignantly repugnant contemporary ideologies such as radical feminism, anti-whitism, homophilia, xenophilia, et al. directly trace back to the destruction of Nazism in Europe, as if such an outcome were simply an inevitable matter of historical course following the poor misunderstood Fuhrer’s ignominious Berlin bunker bust in April 1945, as if anyone in 1945 could even have envisioned, much less actively striven to bring about, the ghastly era of totalitarian hypersensitivity, lurid depravity, and mandatory degeneracy in which we now find ourselves.
Then again, certain alt-rightists take their cue from the dictates of an entirely different sort of orthodoxy. For some Orthodox Russophiles, the Soviet Union under Stalin, far from being an inhuman and unholy terror, was actually a force for good in the world! Why? Because our noble brother Tsar Joseph led Mother Russia to glorious victory, that’s why!… And one must never ever speak ill of Mother Russia—nyet, nyet, nyetnot if you know what’s good for you, little man!!! (Never mind the Communist persecution of the churches, including the Russian Orthodox church, and never mind the endemic oppression, torture and murder of the Soviet regime during the entirety of its seven decade-long, blood-soaked tenure. It is Mother Russia, right or wrong, da! And don’t you DARE ever mention the rapaciously raping Red Army and how it ravaged the German population in the waning months of the Second World War, or by God, comrade, we’ll drag you to the Lubyanka and apply certain persuasive techniques to get you to show some respect for the ways of the noble Ivan warrior!!!) And on it goes.
The same goes for others under the alt-right umbrella. Certain contemporary partisans of the Southern Confederate American cause, for example, appear to think that nothing beneficent could ever take root north of the Mason-Dixon line, and hold a obstreperously prissy, patently humorless, and slightly neurotic disdain for that fearsome race of subhuman savages known as…“Yankees.” Numerous other myopically-inclined nationalist groups see their national heritage in a similarly narcissistic light; to promote their cause, they will countenance or even endorse a vast array of wicked deeds, provided that such deeds are undertaken with an eye towards uplifting their national glory and bringing low their enemies.
In each of these cases of the intractable partisanbe he pro-Nazi, pro-Russian, pro-Confederate, or pro-otherwise in orientationwe see an instance this unfortunate proclivity to take a “side” and feel oneself thereby to be righteous, and one’s cause to be just. But this habit isn’t unique to the dissident right; instead, it is a trait that reflects man’s essentially tribal nature. We often feel less than complete if we don’t feel ourselves to “belong” somewhere, or otherwise consider ourselves to be “a part of something.”
We are, it seems, prone to adopting what is often called the “us versus them” mentality, whereby, in the words of a certain rousing New World sports anthem, we “root, root, root for the home team”… then lustily boo on cue when we witness those decked out in the garb of the acknowledged enemy. What makes it somewhat ironic, of course, is that alt-righters are the quickest to see “no difference” between, say, Democrats and Republicans, or between Tories and Labourites, or between other center-right/center-left parties of the mainstream, since both mainstream factions readily accept certain liberal propositions held to be anathema by the right-dissidents—the most glaring of these being “equality.” 
Yet this propensity to haughtily dismiss the squabbles that make for FOX News fodder, while generally healthy, at times leads us badly astray. Take Radix editor Richard Spencer’s latest column, which in effect pours equal scorn upon the totalitarian homo-mafia as it does upon Christian conservative business owners who merely wish to resist such bullying from their would-be rulers. (Spencer’s assertion that the new religious liberty law in Indiana “hardly goes far enough” in promoting freedom of association may be true, but his blithe dismissal of the concerns of those who feel they oughtn’t be coerced into endorsing gay nuptials is obtuse, to say the least.)
This kinda stuff is only taking place cuz the Nazis lost the war...
 As evidenced by Spencer’s piece, the alt-right tends to disdain the tribalism borne of the largely manufactured “culture war,” and in general, rightly so. Yet most alt-rightists cannot escape the lure of tribal affiliation when it comes to other, similarly manufactured ideological dichotomies.
Precious but few are the ranks of those who would truly stand athwart history yelling, “Stop!” blocking the tanks of “progress” wherever they come from, whichever shifty-eyed, fanatical tyrant it is that sends them. Instead, nearly everyone only wants to get their rah-rah on, so that their side may ascend to glory. But the only meaningful opposition is a refusal to participate in this useless shell game, and to refuse allegiance to anyone save the eternal Good, whose mandates transcend ideology and whose ultimate reward is not an earthly one.