Apr 23, 2015

The President America Deserves

via Radix

“It’s time” for Hillary, and who can disagree? It doesn’t matter that no one who isn’t being paid to say it sincerely believes she can lead the country. She is precisely what the American system is designed to produce.

Mencken said of American government:
“All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
But the “American Nietzsche” was too optimistic. Leaving aside the assumption that the weaker sex would never assume the mantle of chief magistrate, Hillary is something far worse than a downright moron. She is a successful functionary, an exemplar of the diversity nomenklatura that will dominate the state until the Republic receives its merciful final rest.

She is just smart enough to know how to game the System and remain relevant but retains the protective stupidity necessary to prevent career-destroying intellectual curiosity. Like Obama, our famously multicultural president, she speaks no other languages (even Bill can manage some casual German). She shows no evidence of a grounding in the Western Canon that a liberal like Robert Kennedy could boast, and has produced no speech or written work that has lasted beyond a news cycle. In short, she’s an effective schemer and nothing more.

But this is precisely what the culture demands, and no one should make the Republican mistake of confusing the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary’s candidacy with a lack of support. Rarely has a candidate so perfectly fit the times, as we witness the consolidation of a frankly anti-White, anti-male, and post-American political culture.

Madam President will represent the consolidation of Obama’s accomplishments. It seems almost absurd to remember that part of the messianic promise so many people saw in Barack Obama was his supposed aspiration of “not a red America or a blue America but a United States of America.” Of course, seemingly every week we receive new revelations about the resentful, brooding charlatan we have elected as our President. The “post-racial” America Obama was supposed to usher in faded by the 2010 midterms.

But what conservatives have never understood is that much of the country is now largely comfortable with abandoning “post-racial” illusions, so long the racial conversation focuses on white males as a unifying enemy for the coalition of the oppressed. After all, if you are a smart enough white man, you can escape the Eye falling on you by either leading the mob or claiming a new identity as an oppressed homosexual or a blue-eyed “Hispanic” leader.

Conservatives rage, accurately, that the “liberal media” never “vetted” Obama and still refuse to do so. It’s true that any random dudebro who makes a “sexist” joke on Twitter will have his history explored more thoroughly than the President, but it’s questionable whether even the most through media vetting would make a difference at this point.

Movement conservatives have largely been proven correct about Obama’s radical past, but liberals sensed Obama’s hostility towards what Peter Brimelow calls the “historic American nation” all along. That is why they voted for him, after all, as did most non-whites and especially most African-Americans.

Obama’s greatest accomplishment wasn’t healthcare reform or withdrawing from Iraq—it was breaking down the sense among leftists that there was any sense of limits. The President’s unilateral abolition of immigration laws has been met with indifference by the Beltway Right and even now, leading “conservatives” host Spanish language interviews conceding they will do nothing to reverse it. Opposition to gay marriage has gone from consensus to career ending within one presidential term. And while the President is only marginally responsible for driving these kinds of transformations, he is the first President to openly align with what can be called the anti-American Narrative.

The history of the United States is a shameful episode that must be redeemed by the eternal progression towards equality, the sole saving grace of the American Experiment. By rhetorically and financially aligning the federal government with “Social Justice Warriors,” the President has transformed the culture of critique into the governing ideology of the state.

Conservatives keep harping on our “anti-American” President, expecting the masses to rise in righteous fury and outraged patriotism. What they don’t understand is that many Americans, and certainly the most educated Americans, share this Narrative. America is something to be overcome.

As we saw in the 2008 campaign, Hillary will have some trouble navigating this new culture. As a Baby Boomer, her politics resemble that of her husband, who mastered the art of subtly winning over soccer moms and office drone dads who fussed about keeping taxes low, stock prices high, and violence out of the suburbs. Clintonian politics is about managing the economy while triangulating against a center-right culture. Both Hillary and Bill still act like they are trying to avoid the fate of Gene McCarthy even though we are in an age where separate gender bathrooms is practically a hate crime.

She’s already been tripped up by this before, notably in 2008 when she said she had more support among “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” than Obama, leading to sputtering fury among the chattering classes. For other politicians, it might even have been career ending.

Of course, Bill Clinton’s famous “Sister Soulja” moment, when he supposedly told off black radicalism, would be suicidal today. And the corporate liberalism and overt opportunism of the Clintons, devoid even of the rhetorical idealism of the Obama Presidency, makes it difficult for Hillary to channel the kind of passive aggressive posturing that passes for progressive campaigning. No “if I had a son” statements from the Clintons anytime soon.

But if there’s one political rule that applies to the Clintons, it’s that salvation lies in scandal. Just as Bill Clinton’s impeachment paradoxically ended up strengthening him, so have Benghazi, the email scandal, and perhaps even the foreign fundraising scandals actually added to Hillary’s reputation. When we don’t even bother with the pretense of idealism and the rhetoric of racial reconciliation has been replaced by frank anti-white hatred, someone who can con the System and stick it to the (conservative white) Man is worthy of respect and adulation by those who derive their American identity from a song by Rihanna.

It’s not that White progressives don’t know about Benghazi, or illegal immigration, or the collapse of the American military. It’s that they don’t care. America is a vehicle that allows the fulfillment of the egalitarian ideological agenda. The lives of its citizens, its traditional culture, and the integrity of its institutions have no inherent value. As Hillary herself put it, “What difference does it make?” That’s a far more relevant national motto than E Pluribus Unum or In God We Trust.

Naturally, Identitarians can’t afford to care about “America” either. This country has betrayed its patriots too many times. Post-Obama, it’s hard to regard those European-Americans who still sacrifice for a state that hates them as anything other than suckers who are tragically misguided at best, and positively harmful to their own people at worst. A growth in American prosperity or influence only leads to increased resources and ability for the American power structure (or, more accurately, those who govern the American power structure) to undertake new aggressions against European populations around the word.

But the predictions of “collapse” and the confident dream that Balkanization or secession will soon be upon us belies the reality that the United States of America is stronger today than it was even before Obama’s presidency. This is just going to keep going for a long, long time and the hard reality is that most people are just going to want to be allowed to make money. The rent seekers of the Parasite Class will continue to skim off the top, but the American economy generates so much wealth that even a population of millions of Zoe Quinns and tens of millions of Trayvons and Gentle Giants can be sustained for decades.

The test of democratic leadership is to create and manage grievances, use them to justify programs that build your political following, and somehow create enough economic growth that you can keep paying for all this. In the short term, you might actually help some of your constituents; in the long term, you’re running your society into the ground and creating a culture of dependents and weaklings. But what do you care? Democratic man doesn’t want warriors who win respect through bravery or leaders who call to the best within us; he (or more likely she) wants administrators who can keep the whole thing stumbling along.

One of the great truth of American politics is that on any given issue the Left is generally right on the specifics and the Right is correct on the larger picture. A specific government program will usually accomplish its goal of providing some kind of assistance to whatever group it is trying to help. It will also introduce more subtle cultural effects and incentive problems over the long term that will create even larger problems, thus requiring greater interventions. This is a systematic problem of democracy, leaving aside whatever your preferred explanation for “cultural distortion,” be it Jews, Protestants, Christianity, capitalism, or all of the above.

Those who receive concentrated benefits will always be able to organize and defeat those who pay diffuse costs. And as Plato warned us thousands of years ago, there’s no end to this cycle besides tyranny. It’s just that instead of Caesar (which would be welcome), we’ll get Anita Sarkeesian wielding Imperium.

The true danger is that technology may allow the Kali Yuga to be perpetuated indefinitely. The age of victories is over and Manifest Destiny is a thing of the past. We will conquer no new frontiers, accomplish no great deeds, and achieve no new destiny. We will simply redistribute the bounty our ancestors’ sacrifices have secured. Furthermore, we will denounce their accomplishments lest we too be called to sacrifice for something that doesn’t have a bar code.

It’s fitting that current American heroes, those soon to be honored on currency or with monuments, are no longer people who had agency or expanded the power of the nation, but were simply victims and mascots for whites who made a moral claim for resources that were to be provided by others.

What American democrats (small d) need is someone who won’t rock the boat and who will pay lip service to the anti-white and anti-Western ideas our society has largely internalized. At the same time, he or she will keep the corporate gravy train going, intervene around the world to preserve the global financial system (without getting Americans too riled up with uncontrollable feelings of nationalism or militarism), and administer the System competently enough to prevent any real disruptions.

That is why Hillary is the candidate of choice. She’s a “victim” who gets paid half a million every time she speaks. She’s a strong woman whose chief accomplishment is overlooking her husband’s infidelities. She’s a champion for the “American middle class” who has spent her entire life making sure it will no longer exist. She’ll outsource the running of the economy to the Fed more or less like her husband did. And even her own supporters don’t pretend otherwise.

Devoid of inspirational qualities, bereft of qualifications, utterly useless in any system or setting besides the 21st century First World managerial state, Hillary personifies our society like no other person before or since. If the Presidency is to be a kind of Affirmative Action monarchy which cycles between various tokens for different races, genders, and sexual orientations, let her have it. Let the triumph of an empty pantsuit stand witness to the failure of the great experiment in self-government.

Waking Up From the American Dream? As Hillary’s supporters would say, “It’s Time.”

White People Were Always a Minority -- So What?

via Alternative Right

The HuffPost is apparently cock-a-hoop about the fact that mass immigration and falling birthrates seem set to reduce Whites to a minority in the USA within a few decades. They also think it is a good laugh, coming out with a video entitled "So, You're About to Become a Minority." This is framed as a pretend public information film aimed at educating Whites about how to adjust to their future status. The video's message can be broken down into (a) Whites have treated minorities unfairly in the past, (b) the boot will soon be on the other foot, and (c) ha ha ha ha!

Of course both (a) and (b) are factually wrong, and (c) is only funny as an example of absurd liberal malice, stupidity, and self-destructiveness.

The idea that Whites have been particularly nasty to minorities is clearly false – the chief proof being the fact that Whites in the USA are now becoming a minority. This is obviously the result of White kindness and generosity to minorities, which has been on a level that would simply be impossible in any and all non-White societies.

Even slavery, on closer examination, will be found to have been an act of removing an excess population of Africans from a continent that could not possibly support them to one where they could flourish, and where they have long enjoyed a much higher standard of living than their fellows in Africa. Although the motivations clearly were not kind, the effects certainly were. African Americans should therefore have at least mixed feelings towards the White and Jewish slave traders, who literally saved their ancestors from the pot in many cases.

The idea that the boot will be on the other foot is also mostly wrong. While being a minority will suck in many ways, the suggestion that Whites will be pushed into the same lowly position as Blacks is obviously absurd. Even after they are reduced to less than 50% of the population, Whites in America will continue to be the biggest and most powerful minority, among several other minorities, for some time to come. In fact, it is difficult to see how any other group could come near to supplanting Whites in terms of ability, power, and influence. Groups with higher IQs, like Jews and North East Asians, will have smaller numbers, less fertility, and greater outbreeding, and groups with greater fertility and less outbreeding will have much lower IQs.

Also, if America survives the shock of these demographic changes, there is every possibility of a new kind of "White majority" arising out of a blending of Whites with elements of the Hispanic and even Asian communities.

Something like this seems to have happened in 19th-century and early 20th-century Argentina. In that country, the vast majority identify as "White" even though there seems to be a considerable admixture of Indian and even African blood in much of the population. In a similar way, America in the 22nd century may still have a majority population that identifies as "White" even if it is not quite as White as we understand it today. Indeed, depending on the admixture, it may even be shorn of some of its unfortunate ethnomasochist tendencies, and take quite a different attitude to what it sees as competing racial groups.

But does minority status mean impotence? Far from it. As far as World history is concerned, Whites have always been a minority, but that has never stopped us before. Whites were definitely a minority in 1521 in Mexico, when Hernando Cortes led a few hundred Whites in the overthrow of the Aztec Empire. Whites were also in the minority in 1838 when 470 Voortrekkers crushed an army of 20,000 Zulus at the Battle of Blood River, without losing a single man. Or how about the conquest of Bengal by Clive of India (he was actually from Shropshire)? Then there is the humbling of the Chinese Empire by a flotilla of the Royal Navy, and the opening of Japan by Commodore Perry's fleet in 1854.
Whites dealing with minority status in 1521.

In all these cases, Whites were firmly in the minority, as they were globally in 1969, when they first put a man on the Moon in token of the fact that only White societies have ever succeeded in physically transcending the brute determinism that has everywhere and always enslaved other societies and civilizations to the Malthusian Trap and cyclical decay.

The only thing that has ever held Whites back has been other Whites (that's what most of the 20th century has been about). Rather than signalling their destruction, becoming a minority in the USA is liable to help them put their perpetual squabbling and differences aside, and set the scene for them to conquer the world yet again. When that happens, those smug liberals at the HuffPost may need a little plastic surgery to help them laugh on the other side of their faces.

Explaining Authority, Influence, and Power

via Henry Dampier

Many men tend to erroneously conflate authority, influence, and power.

Authority is the right to use power, symbolized by the trappings of power — its symbols. The scepter, the orb, and the crown are all such symbols. The eagle is another such symbol. The CEO has formal authority over the company that he’s charged with. The President is commander-in-chief of the military. Authority is not itself power, but the right to use it. It’s the formal expression of who can use it legitimately.

Influence is the capacity to affect the thoughts and behavior of others. Influence can’t compel, but if it can compel reliably enough, it can lead to the gradual accumulation of power and authority.

Attempting to make a run at authority without accumulating sufficient influence before doing so is usually fatal or otherwise damaging, because people who have it are rarely eager to give it up. Influence without authority is temporarily toothless, but authority without influence is pathetic. Trying to grab authority without preparing the scene is either suicidal, revolutionary, or both — which tends to appeal to the left, but not so much to the pro-civilizational types.

Establishing authority is a consolidation and formalization of existing influence. For example, when two men start a company together, formalize their titles, and assign share ownership, they’re just formalizing in law their preexisting relationship with each other, and setting that down contractually to facilitate the venture.

Power is the capacity to act without interference — and can also mean violence or the capacity to use it for certain ends. The mugger uses power against his victim, but it’s illegitimate, and the reigning authority reserves the right to rectify the wrong using its own retaliatory force in order to preserve law and order. In the nonviolent realm, we would say that the boss with the authority to make purchases, sales, hire and fire people, has some form of local power over his environment. If I can terminate your employment contract, I have authority over you.

When people ambitious for influence and power go wrong, they tend to misunderstand how far their influence is likely to go, or whether or not their actual influence maps to their stated authorities. A manager in a corporation will lose prestige if he issues orders which his subordinates flout publicly. If his authority says that he’s in command over the department, but the reality is that it’s actually something else, that manager will become next to useless or worse.

Therefore, if you want to consolidate influence into authority, it’s best not to issue commands. The sergeant can command the private, but men together who have no formal rank don’t know who’s the superior to whom.

The authority to use power within the law confers a special influence all on its own, in the same way that a gun barrel pressing into a man’s back encourages his compliance. So, the lack of authority confers a special disadvantage in the competition of influence, but less so if you can provoke that authority to act in ways that oversteps its own real support.

There’s a particular progression to these developments which can’t be skipped. Putting on a crown and declaring yourself emperor makes yourself like Norton. Norton had no legitimacy, so he was a joke. Going through the antecedent steps makes you more like Napoleon, for better or worse. Napoleon had near universal support of the citizenry upon his coronation, at least so far as could be verified by referendum.

In America, authority matches fairly well with raw power, but it matches poorly to influence. Those with power have little influence, which makes it so that those with influence have a fairly easy time subverting the formal authority — including foreign powers and international capital. This creates an erratic, tyrannical, and unstable politics, especially as most of the serious European competitors have been successfully repressed.

Leaked Emails Reveal Hollywood Execs at Work for Israel

via Middle East Monitor

Hollywood has long been accused of being the
propaganda arm of organized Jewish interests
Top Hollywood bosses enjoy a strong relationship with the Israeli government and various pro-Israel lobbying groups across the United States, according to a cache of Sony internal emails leaked to Wikileaks and published for the first time last week.

The emails reveal a dinner between Sony executives and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; the presenter of American X-Factor chiding actress Natalie Portman aggressively for her views on Israel; meetings between top entertainment chiefs and the Israeli consulate-general; close ties between Sony’s Co-Chairperson and various pro-Israel lobbying groups; and film chiefs planning, in detail, a new documentary about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, about which the emails also reflect rising concern.

Amy Pascal, Co-Chairperson of Sony Pictures Entertainment from 2006 until 2015, was signed up to regular email updates on the security situation in Israel, from a right-wing pressure group called The Israel Project. The group was described by Jewish Daily Forward in 2010 as a Zionist group which, “Stokes Fear of Islam for Political Profit.” The Israel Project has been admonished by the more liberal pro-Israel lobby group J-Street for taking a pro-settler stance. The daily emails sent to Pascal by The Israel Project had subject lines like “Protect Israel from a Nuclear Iran”, “Fighting Anti-Israel Hate” and “Hamas Agrees to Ceasefire then Breaks It, Again”. Most of the emails, which were being sent as often as once a day, contained requests for financial donations.

Pascal also received an email from the Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism watchdog with close links to the Israeli government, thanking her personally for being amongst eighteen entertainment executives whose names were displayed prominently in an ADL advert in Variety, The Jewish Journal, and The Hollywood Reporter. The advert quoted Golda Meir from 1957: “We can forgive them [the Palestinians] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with them when they love their children more than they hate us.” The quote was prefaced with additional commentary from ADL: “As talk turns to the future of Gaza, these haunting words of Golda Meir are as current as today’s headlines. She could have been talking about Hamas.”

Another leaked email exchange shows Pascal, who has since left Sony, being invited to “an intimate salon style discussion” at a J-Street supporter’s home, in August 2014. The email emphasised that a special guest would be in attendance, J-Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. Pascal declined the invitation as she was on holiday in Vietnam, but responded, “I’m in for next steps and want to know how to get myself educated [sic].” J-Street bills itself as a “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” organisation and is regarded as the liberal element of the US pro-Israel lobby.

Another email that Pascal received and responded to shows an organisation called Creative Community for Peace, “a group of influential music execs… which battles the BDS movement… which tries to stop artists performing in Israel” reminding Pascal that they had taken her and her husband on a trip to Israel back in 2007.

“At that time,” wrote David Lonner, a top Hollywood executive and Advisory Board Member for CCP, “the war with Hezbollah had just ended and our community had exhibited a great deal of apathy and some ignorance on what Israel was up against.” Lonner added: “My hope in the end, was that if there was another crisis, we would not be silent. 7 years have passed since our trip and tragically we are in another crisis with Hamas.”

Lonner than claimed that CCP worked with Rihanna, Paul McCartney and Alicia Keys when international pressure nearly prevented them from playing concerts in Israel. The email asked for Pascal’s and her husband’s signatures on another appeal, this time to “support Israel” during the Toronto Film Festival. Pascal replied to the email, “Count on both us.” [sic]

Pascal and her husband Bernard Weintraub also received a personal invitation to attend a private event in September last year with the Israeli Consul-General, according to another email in the leaked archive. Held at the home of media lawyer and marketing tycoon Michael Kassan, the event was billed as “A Special Briefing on the Situation in Israel by David Siegel, Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles, and Jay Sanderson, President and CEO of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles.” The evening included “cocktails and hors d’oeuvres,” and guests were advised to wear “Business Casual Attire.”

Another top Sony executive, Michael Lynton, was also emailed by Israeli intelligence operative and veteran film producer Arnon Milchan, arranging for him to have an “intimate dinner” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The dinner was later held at Milchan’s private home in Malibu.

One of the most extraordinary exchanges in the leaked emails came as Hollywood executives discussed Ken Loach’s call for “a complete cultural boycott of Israel”. “Enough with this pathetic limousine liberals ignorant bs,” responded Ben Silverman, Executive Producer of hit shows like The Office, Ugly Betty and The Tudors.

Silverman then claimed that Gazans watching Loach’s films will “be lined up and shot in the street for doing so.” He asserted that anyone
“with a wife, daughter, mother or sister knows the evil anti woman rhetoric of the sharia Islamists and it is time to draw attention to the fact that you can have a voice and a choice in our democracies and you can have nothing but hate in their monarchies and dictatorships who thrive on censorship that would never allow their works to be shown. Let’s go gents. We can’t lie down. We must stand up.”
Hollywood star Natalie Portman is copied on the email. She complained that she doesn’t want her personal email address shared with a group of people she doesn’t know. Ryan Kavanaugh, a well-known producer, reported billionaire and Variety magazine’s 2011 “Showman of the Year,” then reproached her sarcastically.
“Sorry. You are right jews being slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important than your email address being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my deepest apologies.
I know that you don’t care so I’ll leave it alone, but I had lunch yesterday with Israel consulate general who brought J street up to me. He was so perplexed confused and concerned when he heard you supported them that he begged me to connect you two. I told him how you felt, you didn’t want to hear from or speak to anyone who disagrees with your position. Three times he said “buts she’s Jewish and smart.”
Just thought you should know”
In another round-robin email, Hollywood executives discussed making a documentary about the recent resurgence in anti-Semitism. The well-respected independent film producer and agent Cassian Elwes suggested,
“How about we all club together and make a documentary about the rise of new anti-Semitism in Europe I would be willing to contribute and put time into it if others here would do the same. Between all of us I’m sure we could figure out a way to distribute it and get it into places like Cannes so we could have a response to guys like Loach. Perhaps we try to use it to rally support from film communities in Europe to help us distribute it there.”
Copied in on the email are dozens of Hollywood names, including Natalie Portman and fellow actress Scarlett Johansson, executives at Lionsgate Productions, MGM and Fox, X-Factor presenter and producer of “Keeping up with the Kardashians” Ryan Seacrest, and several high profile actors’ agents. One unidentified executive called the proposed documentary “A brilliant idea.” Also copied is Amy Pascal of Sony, who writes “Me too,” in response.

Jason Binn, the owner of luxury shopping website Gilt, then offered to promote the film to its nine million members and the three million readers of his luxury magazine DuJour.

Glenn Feig, owner of the entertainment law firm Reder and Feig, offered pro bono legal services for the planned documentary, before copying in his client Ram Bergman, producer of the upcoming Star Wars Episode VIII and Star Wars Episode IX, and the thriller Looper, which starred A-Listers Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Also copied in on the email discussion about the upcoming film is Elliot Brandt, who was named in September 2014 as National Managing Director for the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying and political financing organisation. The emails reveal anxiety amongst the predominantly Jewish film executives regarding the rise of anti-Semitism.

One round-robin email, sent out by Bart Rosenblatt of Code Entertainment, is entitled “Too close to home.” It details a hate crime at Emory University in October 2014 in which swastikas were scrawled onto a Jewish fraternity house. Executives also emailed each other articles from The Guardian newspaper saying that anti-Semitism “was at its worse since the Nazis”, and an article claiming that Germany is now a no-go area for Jews.

Producer Ryan Kavanaugh wrote
“We can continue to be silent and pretend this isn’t happening because it is not in our country yet. We can ignore the anti-Semitism akin to pre ww2 Germany… now lining the streets of London, France, Germany and around the world. We all may think we’re protected here in the free US. We are not. It had now hit our doorstep and yet we remain silent?”
Another producer, Ron Rotholz, argued that
“many lines are being crossed … it’s a new reality for us. The tacit and subtle recognition of Hamas as a legitimate government with legitimate policies and a legitimate charter, by Western governments is a hate crime on a global scale”
Rotholz also called out the UK’s National Union of Students:
“In the UK as you well know there has been a shocking rise in anti-Israel and anti-Semitism on university campuses here, both in terms of faculty and students and student orgs such as the potent and powerful NUS ( Natl Union of Students which holds great weight within the natl. Labour Party ).
The NUS has a long history of anti-Israel leadership and policy and their rhetoric and policies have become much more aggressive in the last year or so … The intimidation of Jewish students, and those who support Israel in UK universities both by administrators, faculty and students is widespread, commonplace and alarming … it’s a dire situation and quite shocking in a nation which prides itself on tolerance and civility.”
Those working on the anti-Semitism documentary also discussed who should present the film. One producer said that the project would need “a really good director who on the face of it doesn’t seem completely biased, so that we can show something that gets the message across without making it seem like propaganda.”

Organisers also planned to lean heavily on European institutions to make the film, anticipating good support. One executive wrote,
“I think we will get full cooperation from the impt media in europe, the eu, the current conservative govt. in the uk, the current govt in france, angela merkel in germany, many academics ( def at Oxford, Cambridge, LSE ) and of course, major jewish orgs in the uk france germany and in most eu countries … This documentary is an essential tool for spreading our message.”

Black Student NAEP Scores in Boston and NYC Are Higher When the Teachers Are White Than When They Are Black

via The Audacious Epigone

Here are some data relevant to Steve Sailer's recent post entitled "NYT: Something Must be Done About All the Nice White Lady Teachers", where the paper singles out in turn Boston and New York City for having disproportionate shares of white teachers given the non-whiteness of their student bodies. Subject yourself to as much of that as you'd like to there with Steve's thoughts as a palliative.

Here, let's just look at the differences in 8th grade NAEP student performance in each of those cities by the race of teachers students had in their respective 8th grade math and reading classes. For ease of comprehension, NAEP scores are converted into IQ estimates. The scores for both tests are on a 500 point scale, with a standard deviation of 37 on the math assessment and 34 on the reading assessment. In the subsequent table, these are converted into IQ estimates with a mean of 98--corresponding to the national average NAEP scores of 283.62 for math and 266.02 for reading--and a standard deviation of 15. The math and reading scores are weighted equally.

The first table shows the mean IQ scores for students of all races who were instructed by either white or black teachers (sample sizes were too small for Hispanic teachers):

Teacher raceBostonNYC
White98.296.4
Black92.991.2

But that's because white teachers are more likely to get white students! Er, white privileged students, that is--the fact that their white per se has nothing to do with their elevated performance over the black students, er, underprivileged black youths that black teachers end up with.

To a large extent that is correct, but explicitly articulating as much is several shiv twists too many for a mealy-mouthed SWPL to stomach.

Yet if you'll permit me to continue trolling, there's more! The next table shows the mean IQ of black students only by whether their teachers were white or black:

Teacher raceBostonNYC
White92.592.1
Black90.889.9

If we want to deal in culturally marxist terms where we don't take the primary determining factor in student performance--the intelligence of the students themselves--it seems we are forced to conclude that white teachers are not only better instructors on the whole than black teachers are, but that white teachers even do a better job teaching black students than black teachers do. The data are so racist!

Stillness and the Cultivation of Wotan Within

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

In this world of constant hustle and bustle we must take the time to clear our minds of our petty and materialistic concerns and meditate and listen to the voice within, that part of our higher consciousness which most of the time we ignore, blinded by the illusions of Maya. As far as each of us can we must from time to time isolate ourselves from others or we cannot hear the voice within, the voice of our divine Self, the Wotan within.

Whether it be walking in the countryside, a forest or a park or just within the privacy of one's room we must find time each day to listen to Wotan within. I have often found inspiration from solitary walks which help to clear the cobwebs of the mind. Where I do not take out this time each day to meditate I can go for weeks without a single shred of inspiration or material to write about on these blogs. My recent absence from here is due to a recent house move which has occupied me physically and mentally so I have been unable to take this daily time out for several weeks.

There is much in our everyday lives that gets in the way of our walk with our divine Self. One aspect of modern life is constant noise, whether it be noisy music, children, motor engines or even natural occurences such as the weather. Most types of noise are artificially produced by humans and it never ceases to surprise me how uncomfortable most people are with periods of silence! Often people feel the need to break silence with unncessary and inane chatter about meaningless trivia. The reason why most people are uncomfortable with silence and/or isolation is that being quiet or isolated they are forced to look within themselves and for most this is a frightening experience. It reminds them that in the final analysis each one of us is alone. We come into this world alone and naked and we will exit it alone (but not necessarily naked!).

Inner strength and self-reliance can be fostered and strengthened through periods of isolation. To the mystically minded this is not a problem but for the masses, the herd of humanity there is little more terrifying than feelings of loneliness. The shallow nature of modern man is reflected in his need for constant noise and the desire to be always surrounded by others of like mind.
"And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." (Aphorism 146, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche)
Modern man, the supreme leveller, the ultimate materialist and Untermensch realises that beyond his own petty and selfish concerns there is nothing of substance within for he has left his inner life uncultivated. It is through the cultivation of the inner divine Self that we receive revelation, not from the dead words of a book. Stillness and its cultivation is an act, an act of the will, whilst not visible to others nevertheless can wrought changes in different realms of being or levels of consciousness.

A Response to Rev. Andy Hanson on Ethnonationalism, Part 2

via Faith & Heritage

In Part 2 of his response to my “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism,” Rev. Andy Hanson responds to my comments on racial pride, loyalty, and responsibility. He begins with my statement, “Even Christ demands that our loyalty to himself exceed our loyalty to our immediate families and spouses! It would be a severe mistake, however, to conclude that attributes such as ancestry or even marriage are meaningless!” Hanson assures his readers that he does not believe that ancestry is meaningless, but also asks if I am “accusing non-Kinists of taking the position that ancestry and marriage are meaningless,” while also accusing me of “setting up an appeal to extremes strawman.” While it might seem ridiculous to accuse anti-Kinists of believing that ancestry is meaningless, this is the position that many anti-Kinists take. An example of this can be found in the comments of prominent anti-Kinist Bojidar Marinov, who believes himself to be a charismatic prophet.

Marinov quite dishonestly asserts that the biblical word for nation has no relationship to ancestry at all:
In Biblical times and before that, the Greek word “ethnos” did not indicate genetic similarity. . . . Genetic similarity was incidental . . . therefore everyone born within the confines of a home was a member of that home, whether he was genetically part of that home or not. Most of the time the children born within the confines of a home were indeed genetic offspring of the head of the home, but this genetic relation meant nothing. . . . In the same way, in modern times, “nation” was originally meant not as genetic heritage, but “people born under the same jurisdiction.” . . . So when you say “ethno-linguistic” and then study the word in Biblical times, keep in mind that it never had the genetic meaning attached to it by the 19th century Romanticism.
Marinov asserts that the biblical understanding of national and even familial identity is and should be uncoupled from genetics and heredity. Marinov has gathered quite a following to himself and his false charismatic belief system. Consequently, there are many who have adopted his heretical views of the family and nation, and many of Marinov’s disciples echo his sentiments. My statement above is hardly an exaggeration or a strawman, but a response against a very real mistake of prominent anti-Kinists. Hanson’s contention that “nobody is arguing that race is insignificant” is manifestly false. I didn’t write the original article against anyone specific, so it might not apply equally to all anti-Kinists. I’m glad to hear that Hanson doesn’t believe that ancestry is meaningless, but I’d like him to flesh out his thoughts on exactly how ancestry is meaningful – specifically to nationhood. However, just two paragraphs after he insisted that he doesn’t believe that ancestry is meaningless, he states that a “theocentric reading of Romans 9” reveals that “in Christ blood lineage does not define who our ancestors are.” So evidently when Hanson insists that ancestry matters, he isn’t talking about physical ancestry. It is this kind of equivocation that requires Kinists to reiterate the veritable meaningfulness of our physical ancestry.

Hanson disagrees with my comments on Romans 9:3-5, which reads, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” I conclude that this is a clear and unashamed expression of racial pride and loyalty from the apostle Paul towards his people the Israelites, even as they are unbelievers. Hanson states that my racial-pride view is flawed in two ways. First, he insists that this is an expression of love as opposed to pride. Hanson believes that Paul’s love for his people is reasonable; after all, “They are the people he’s been close to his entire life. They share his language, customs, and history” (and, dare I say, ancestry?).

Hanson correctly states that in this passage, Paul notes that not all who are of Israel physically are Israel covenantally (Rom. 9:6), but he fails to notice that Paul had earlier identified all of physical Israel as his brethren, even though he later notes that they were cut off from the covenant because of their unbelief (Rom. 9:6-8; 11:17). Hanson is correct when he says that “love is not pride,” but neither is love opposed to pride. When Paul states that he wished to be “accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,” he is expressing a peculiar love for his own people, contrary to the assertions of Hanson, who insists that Paul didn’t love his fellow Israelites “more than any other group.” When Paul lists the gifts that God had given his people and the good that He had done through them, to wit, “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises…the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,” Paul is expressing a healthy pride in, and a particular love for, his people. This leads us to Hanson’s second objection.

Hanson complains that I attempt “to give Biblical warrant for sinful pride.” He lists a number of verses condemning sinful pride. I would direct Hanson and our readers to Nil Desperandum’s excellent article, “A Biblical Outlook on Pride,” as it is simply the final word on pride as it relates to the Bible. I would point out that what the Bible condemns as sinful pride falls under the first definition that Webster gives in his classic dictionary: “Inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable conceit of one’s own superiority in talents, beauty, wealth, accomplishments, rank or elevation in office, which manifests itself in lofty airs, distance, reserve, and often in contempt of others.1 There is no question that this kind of pride is rightly condemned in the Bible. When I endorse racial pride, I’m speaking along the lines of Webster’s third definition of pride: “Generous elation of heart; a noble self-esteem springing from a consciousness of worth.”2 The pride that I am describing is analogous to the pride a father feels for the accomplishments of his children. There is nothing wrong with this sense of esteem for the good gifts that God has given us, and our familial and ethnic identities are included in this. This is why I cannot support Hanson’s contention that I “should be condemning racial pride altogether as there is no Biblical warrant for it.” Romans 9:3-5 is a perfect example of the appropriate pride that we should have for our own people.

Finally, Hanson disputes my commentary on 1 Timothy 5:8, in which Paul teaches, “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Paul is teaching that we have concentric loyalties which radiate outward from our families to our own people. Hanson is concerned that I don’t include the church in our loyalties as Christians. The reason for this, frankly, is that it wasn’t relevant to the point that I was making at the time. In the context of 1 Timothy 5, Paul is stating that widows should be supported by their children or nephews (v. 4), and that the church should not be charged unless a widow lacks relatives to support her. On this basis, and in this sense, I would state that we actually have obligations to our extended relations before the church. I am certainly not opposed to the concept that Christians have obligations to the church, but I believe that the biblical model for the church corresponds to the concentric loyalties I mentioned earlier. Historically, local churches were ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous and reflected the local community at large. Likewise the national church was simply an extension of the nation itself. Within the context of concentric loyalties, I support Christians showing solidarity with other Christians worldwide. I support Christians in the Middle East who have been victimized by Zionist policies, as well as Christians who have been abandoned by secular Western nations to Muslim tyranny.

**********

In Part 3 of Hanson’s critique, he focuses on my comments on Babel in the context of national distinctions. My comments will be brief, since most of Hanson’s objections are addressed more completely in this recently published article in response to Brian Schwertley. Hanson contends that humanity was one nation prior to Babel, and so the problem that God is correcting must not have corresponded to any kind of racial or ethnic mixing. The claim that Noah’s descendants did not have any sense of distinct nationhood prior to the Flood is tenuous at best, but the critical issue isn’t the exact time in which the extended families of Genesis 10 became distinct nations. Kinists affirm that in the providence of God, it was His intent to form separate and distinct nations from the foundation of the world, since we see these same nations enduring throughout eternity. Regardless of when distinct nations came about, we should be able to agree that God purposefully divided Noah’s descendants into kinship-based nations in order to restrain evil. It was precisely the insistence of the Babel-builders to remain as one people and avoid being scattered over the earth that hindered distinct nationhood from naturally forming.

Hanson complains, “Kinism is very concerned with maintaining national distinctions based on race in part because of this text, but ignores language.” Hanson claims that Kinists are inconsistent because we don’t express reservations about people learning multiple languages. Again, I would direct Hanson as well as our other readers to my article responding to Schwertley above, but I will make a few brief comments. There are many good reasons to learn foreign languages, and foreign languages can be mastered without sinning. I am struck by how common it used to be for educated Europeans to know multiple languages in addition to their own native tongue. It was not uncommon for educated English-speakers to have a thorough knowledge of other European languages, including classical Greek and Latin. It was standard for clergy to know other languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic, in order to study the Bible. Non-European languages were also taught and studied at major European universities. It is certainly permissible, even admirable, to learn about foreign peoples and cultures, including their languages.

Nevertheless, distinct languages flourished among the peoples of Europe. There was not confusion over the language that should be commonly spoken among the people of a nation or region. Our ancestors would likely have been befuddled by the bilingual labels, signs, and directions that we encounter in contemporary American society. Spanish is promoted in contemporary America, not out of respect for the excellent European romance language that Spanish is, but rather to integrate foreign Hispanics into American society. This trend is destructive of America’s cultural homogeneity. Kinists are opposed to this kind of bilingualism for obvious reasons. As racial and ethnic integration become more commonplace, the number of languages is rapidly dying. As the English language has become more commonplace, it has lost its poetic and prosaic beauty that once characterized it only a number of decades ago. These trends should indicate to us that something is vastly wrong. High culture doesn’t arise from isolation from foreign language or culture, but it does depend upon a strong sense of loyalty to one’s native culture, including language first and foremost. God willing, the renewed Christian spirit in the West will one day resurrect dying languages, just as classical Latin and Greek would have died out without the painstaking preservation of European Christians.

Hanson concedes much of what is written about the goodness of national distinctions and boundaries. He writes, “Much of what Opperman affirms in this section I also affirm. God did sovereignly make many nations. He did so that people would seek him and reach out to him. The existence of many nations is a blessing to the world and it is a means by which the LORD sovereignly brings a people unto himself. I also affirm that many nations will be represented in the hereafter. We will see every nation and people.” The issue that Hanson takes is that I seem “to believe that all national boundaries are set in stone for all eternity.” Hanson contends that nations come and go, and their boundaries also expand and contract throughout history. This is true, but I contend that ethnic identity has remained relatively stable throughout history. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire are relics of the distant past, but the ethnic Roman people still endure, and this is true for many nations that were once great kingdoms or empires. Political boundaries do ebb and flow throughout history, and sometimes this even happens frequently during times of turbulence. There are even ethnic groups that persist without political homelands. None of this changes the fact that kinship-based nations can or should remain distinct; the non-fixedness of national boundaries does not entail that they carry with themselves no obligations. God commands us to observe boundaries, even though they can and do change (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Prov. 22:28; 23:10). Hanson seems to be confusing political boundaries with ethnic distinctions, though both of these are important.

Hanson states that the Kinist concern that miscegenation will put an end to white nations is misguided. He states,
Kinists would have us believe that miscegenation destroys the God-given diversity, but the only way this could happen would be through guided reproductive manipulation through many generations. Most people tend to be drawn to people of their own race. Culture and religion and social norms and language are all strong forces that tend to bring people of the same backgrounds together. Therefore, the appeal to the extreme of “one world of people colored light brown” is not something we should be concerned about.
I agree with Hanson that humanity will not ultimately “bleed into one” and create a mass of brown-skinned humanity. This is because God is judging white nations for their apostasy; once this judgment is complete and He brings our people to repentance, this problem will resolve. The current one-world, anti-Christian globalism that prevails is not sustainable, and it must eventually collapse. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should be unconcerned about miscegenation, mass migration, or declining white birth rates. These current trends, if they are not reversed in the near future, will result in the end of distinctly white and European nations. This isn’t irrational Kinist alarmism, but a very real danger. Kinists such as myself are long-term optimists, because we believe that God is sovereign and that righteousness will triumph in the end. But this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be open and realistic about the dire straits that our people are in today. This is a very real problem, and it is our Christian duty to fight against the demise of our nations and homelands.

Hanson also doesn’t believe that we ought to be concerned with miscegenation because “miscegenation tends to increase diversity. If a black man and a white woman have a child, diversity is increased. The baby is neither black nor white. If an Asian man and a black woman have a child, diversity is increased. The child is neither Asian nor black. Diversity can only increase outside of forced reproductive manipulation, so we do not have to be worried about a homogeneous humanity.” There is a superficial sense in which Hanson is correct, but this is only because every child is genetically unique from every other individual in human history. Even a child born to two blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes will still be genetically unique. A child that is racially-mixed will not have any more genes than someone with racially homogeneous ancestry, just different genes. This brings us to the reason that Hanson’s argument is false, and it requires a brief lesson in genetics.

The human genome contains about 24,000 genes, and we inherit a copy of each gene from each of our parents. The genes that we receive from our parents form our genotype, and the traits and characteristics that these genes express are called our phenotype. Certain genes code for traits like blonde hair, green eyes, fair skin, etc. Sometimes the two genes “match” and other times the two genes are different. If the two genes are different, then one of the genes tends to prevail over the other and it determines the phenotype. The gene that is expressed is called dominant, and the gene that is not expressed, unless it is paired with a “matching” gene, is called recessive.

This brings us to the question as to whether or not race-mixing increases phenotypic diversity. Race-mixing does not increase the diversity of phenotypes, or external characteristics, because certain ethnic characteristics are based upon recessive traits which require the pairing of a number of recessive genes. These characteristics include fair skin, light-colored hair, light-colored eyes, etc. In short, the traits that characterize white European people are generally recessive, and their continued presence depends upon whites reproducing with other whites. The reason for various rules, written and unwritten, like the “one-drop rule” in the United States, is that the offspring of racially-mixed couples tended to look black or at least non-white, even if the offspring married full-blooded whites for several generations. Therefore, while racially mixed individuals are genotypically unique (just as everyone is), they tend to phenotypically resemble their non-white ancestors. The continuation of distinct nations in general requires them to be homogeneous. This is especially true for white nations, because the maintenance of our people with our distinct traits and characteristics depends upon whites marrying and having children with other whites, since many of our traits are recessive.

Conclusion

Once again, I appreciate Rev. Hanson’s willingness to discuss this matter, given the general tendency of other anti-Kinists to casually dismiss ethnonationalism and vociferously rail against it. Though I disagree with his conclusions, I do also appreciate his irenic tone, especially given the circumstances from which he is writing. I eagerly await any future posts by Rev. Hanson on this important topic.

Footnotes

  1. Webster’s Dictionary, 1828. Definition of “Pride.”
  2. Ibid.

A Response to Rev. Andy Hanson on Ethnonationalism, Part 1

via Faith & Heritage

A Reformed pastor named Andy Hanson has written a rebuttal to my article, “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.” First, I would like to extend my gratitude to Rev. Hanson for undertaking this project. I have been expressing my desire for a while that anti-Kinists would interact directly with what Kinists say and write, and this article by Hanson is a good beginning to what I hope can be meaningful and fruitful dialogue. In his introduction, Hanson identifies himself as “half of an interracial couple, and the father of interracial boys.” This makes Hanson’s opposition to Kinism understandable, if not justifiable, given Kinism’s opposition to miscegenation. Hanson refers to race as “the latest idol in America’s pantheon of paganism.”

Race, like anything else, can become an idol, but this raises the question of what exactly constitutes racial idolatry. Race can still be considered as very important to our identity without devolving into idolatry, but as we read on, we see that Hanson considers national boundaries themselves, if they are enforced, to be idolatrous. Hanson laments with one of his sons that Martin Luther King didn’t fix everything during the so-called Civil Rights movement, and asserts that we “struggle with race” because of our fallen nature. Does Hanson believe that King was right on the issue of race? King was a theological, social, and political liberal, a plagiarist, and an adulterer, with known communist connections. Needless to say, Kinists believe that King and the movement he guided were dead wrong. This is a point that I believe that requires clarification from Hanson, since King is revered by our post-Christian society precisely for having overturned attitudes on race and identity that existed prior to the 1960s. Were the vast majority of our Christian forebears committing idolatry on the subject of race, only to be set straight by a radical leftist icon? I think not!

Predictably, Hanson calls Kinism a heresy that exaggerates the “otherness” of non-white races and seeks to “minimize the unity of the church in Christ.” Of course, it is neither my intention, nor any other Kinist’s, to exaggerate anything; rather, we seek to provide an accurate account of racial differences.1 Hanson states that the problem with Kinism is that our hermeneutical principle is ethnocentric as opposed to theocentric, which he explains in greater detail in his interpretation of Babel. Hanson spends a couple of paragraphs complaining about Kinist name-calling. I personally do what I can to avoid name-calling or hurling base insults during discussions, as it tends to shut down communication. However, it is a legitimate criticism to point out how the alienist view of racial apathy – that race is unimportant and should not be the locus of any kind of social obligations – is consistent with post-modern and anti-Christian Marxist thinking. Furthermore, I would also note that Kinists are far more often the victims of ad hominem attacks by their opponents. Kinists are often characterized as inbreeding rednecks who should be thrown out of the church and shunned for our supposed hatred and bigotry, all because we agree with the vast majority of our ancestors on the topic of race. Naturally, given how intense any discussion of race becomes in our milieu, both sides should be willing to forgive the other for understandable expressions of anger.

The Definition of “Nation” and Its Usage in the Bible

Hanson begins his critique with my definitions of ethnonationalism over against propositional nationalism. In brief, ethnonationalism is the belief that nations are defined by common heredity, whereas propositional nationalism is the belief that nations are defined by common ideas – i.e. that membership in a given nation can be achieved by assenting to a certain set of principles, irrespective of one’s ancestry. He complains that my definition of ethnonationalism is flawed, since I state that an ethnonationalist believes that “the foundations of a nation are based on common ancestry, language, culture, religion, and social customs.” In response, Hanson asks, “Isn’t religion a set of common ideas related to one’s belief in deity? Don’t these common ideas concerning the nature of God and proper worship result in culture and social customs? Doesn’t religion influence the formation and usage of our language?” These are fair questions. Let me clarify that as an ethnonationalist, I believe that nations are defined by their common ancestry, but the foundation for the shared identity is also derived from their common language, culture, religion, and social customs in addition to their ancestry. This is similar to how a particular (nuclear) family is fundamentally defined in an ancestral way – two parents united by marriage plus their offspring – even though the family identity can still be characterized by religious, cultural, social, and/or behavioral patterns. For example, a family can particularly identify itself as Protestant with talent in the culinary arts and a penchant for stubbornness. The blood-unit of the family provides the necessary basis for understanding how a family’s identity can involve other factors. It is the same issue with nations, which are not merely analogues but actual extensions of families.

The primary issue with the propositional vs. ethnic distinction is whether a necessary condition of nationhood involves some sufficient degree of ethnic homogeneity for the citizenry, or whether a set of sufficient conditions for nationhood can exclude ethnic considerations. Every nation, even those that are ethnically homogeneous, will have some cultural and religious propositions that are relevant to their identity. To understand the difference between the two contrasting views of national identity, we can contrast the current American naturalization policy, where ancestry is irrelevant and commitment to “American ideals” is sufficient, with the historic American policy, in which ancestry is quite relevant.

This means that there will be overlap between nations, especially between those who are closely related. There can be several nations that are Christian, for example, and consequently Christian nations will share many, though not all, characteristics of their respective cultures. Someone who believes in propositional nationalism believes that nations are defined by a shared set of ideas, such as a religion or a particular political ideology. Religion, in this conception, not only plays a foundational role in the nation’s culture, but defines the boundaries of the nation itself. Thus a consistent proponent of propositional nationalism would have to argue that there cannot be, or at least ought not to be, multiple Christian nations, since they would all have the same set of ideas that define who they are as a nation; hence any remaining political division would be a form of ungodly separation – exactly the charge made against ethnonationalism.

As an ethnonationalist, I am not arguing that religion is unimportant, but simply that it doesn’t define the members of a particular nation – again, just as is the case for a family. Israel was a nation grounded in shared ancestry (1 Chron. 9:1), and the Israelites were still Israelites whether they were obedient to God’s commandments or whether they happened to be in rebellion. Israelites were still Israelites whether they were pious or pagan. That doesn’t mean that Kinists believe that Christian orthodoxy is a matter of indifference, but simply that it doesn’t strictly constitute our national identity or determine who is a member of a particular nation. I believe Hanson confuses the issue when he states, “Religion, not ancestry, roots the language, culture, and social customs of a nation” immediately after speaking of “common ideas passed down through generations from parents to children, resulting in common ideas among members of a family group.” We cannot separate “generations from parents to children” or a “family group” from common ancestry; common ancestry is the baseline we use to mark out a particular family in the first place, on which basis we can describe them as having particular religious, linguistic, cultural, and other characteristics. Similarly, a nation is fundamentally constituted by common ancestry, even though non-ancestral factors also fill out a nation’s identity.

Hanson complains that I emphasize ethnicity to the exclusion of other sources of identity. He concedes that the Greek word ethnos includes the concept of common lineage: “There is no question that ethnicity is a component of how we should understand nations.” This is a major concession, and one that fellow anti-Kinists would do well to understand. However, after this brief concession, he recants and states that I go “off the rails” by defining nations primarily in terms of ancestry. So Kinists correctly identify the meaning of ethnos, but we are wrong for applying that very definition? This makes no sense. Even the definition that Hanson cites identifies a nation as “a body of persons united by kinship.” Hanson states, “Jesus dealt a fatal blow to the idea that blood ethnicity is preeminent when he said, ‘Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.’ (Luke 3:8).” Neither I nor any other Kinist teaches that race, ethnicity, or ancestry are “preeminent” above Christ or the personal righteousness that accompanies repentance through the Holy Spirit. What I did say, and what I do affirm, is that nations are defined by shared kinship and common ancestry, as even Hanson himself conceded.

Hanson’s superficial analysis of Kinism is easily dismantled when we probe more deeply into his assertions. In no way do Kinists downplay the importance of personal repentance; we easily understand that race is not the basis for our repentance, even while we believe it to be significant in other contexts. Hanson makes a number of ambiguous statements, such as, “Ethnic descent takes a back seat to the sovereign power of God.” Of course, ethnic descent doesn’t somehow limit the sovereignty of God. This doesn’t follow from the Kinist belief in ethnonationalism at all. Kinists believe that the nations are established by the sovereignty of God (Deut. 32:8-9, Acts 17:26-27). Hanson asks, “Are we to believe that those Gentile born descendants of Abraham should not in some way fit in with his blood born children?” What does Hanson mean when he says that Gentile converts should “fit in with” the physical descendants of Abraham? Kinists affirm transnational Christian unity among believers, but this doesn’t mean that national distinctions or boundaries aren’t important. We believe that all believers of all races “fit in with” the one spiritually unified church, but we deny that this entails the propriety of propositional nationhood or miscegenation. This is the same as saying that all believers “fit in with” the singular household of God (Gal. 6:10), even though it doesn’t follow that we can squat at our believing neighbor’s house at will.

Hanson fallaciously makes several category mistakes. (I deal with this issue in my series about Brian Schwertley’s sermon series on Kinism as well as in a forthcoming series on adoption.) For now, I will respond to Hanson’s statement that “Kinists cheapen the theology of adoption by making it a ghettoized adoption. Yes, the kinist says, you are a child of God, but don’t come into my house! May we never treat our brothers and sisters with such contempt.” Does Christian unity mean that nations aren’t allowed to restrict citizenship privileges to hereditary members of their own nation? Does it mean that they cannot or should not control the flow of people across their borders? If all Christians are all part of the same family in an unqualified sense, then isn’t it contempt for individual Christian families to live in separate households on separate property which is inherited by their own children? Hanson rejects the idea that adoption into the household of faith is a “merely spiritual adoption.” I’m not sure what it means to be “merely spiritual,” since I consider spiritual reality to be important. If adoption into the household of faith is not confined to spiritual reality, but somehow extends to be a physical reality as well, then Christians actually commit incest when they marry fellow Christians, since they are brothers and sisters in Christ. Hanson doesn’t take his own position to its logical conclusion, and all that is left are empty slogans. This is a perfect example of why it is essential to understand the differences between physical and spiritual reality.

Next, Hanson addresses my comments on the Tower of Babel incident. He complains that I approach the text with an ethnocentric bias, which causes me to incorrectly interpret the text. Hanson insists that I have “made ethnicity the focal point of the text and missed the point of the Babel narrative.” He assures his readers that the Babel narrative “is most certainly not about the importance of national boundaries” just in case anyone was confused. Yet Hanson makes another major concession to Kinism when he admits, “The LORD did establish the nations and their boundaries, and He did so that humanity may seek after Him” but insists that “that is not what He is communicating in this text.” Hanson is adamant that “it was not unity or homogeneity that the LORD objected to at Babel; rather, it was humanity’s idolatry.” If God was not concerned about unity or homogeneity, why does God specifically mention the oneness of the people as a cause for alarm (Gen. 11:6)? If God is indifferent about homogeneity, why divide the people along ethnic lines? If God was not concerned with the establishment of nations and their boundaries, then why is this text utilized in Genesis to explain the scattering of the nations, in accord with the original dominion mandate? Hanson claims to hold to a theocentric reading of the text, and he claims that such a reading clarifies that idolatry alone is in view. Most of what Hanson says in regards to idolatry is unobjectionable – Babel was indeed about idolatry – but is the Babel narrative really unrelated to the division of nations or the importance of national boundaries? Indeed, the idolatry of the Babelites was constituted precisely in their prideful disobedience to the divine mandate by which they were to scatter throughout the earth as separate nations. In my original article, I pointed out that the Babel narrative occurs within the broader context of the Table of Nations, in which we are given an enumeration of nations as they descend from Noah’s three sons after the Flood (Gen. 10:32). Does Hanson view the Table of Nations as unrelated to the Tower of Babel incident?

I’m interested to read in future posts what Hanson has to say about the division of the nations, seeing as he has admitted that God divided the nations and established national boundaries so that the nations would grope for Him and find Him (Deut. 32:8-9, Acts 17:26-27). For now, Hanson seems to believe that the division of nations at the Tower of Babel through the confusion of languages was a temporary solution until church unity would overcome the need for separate nations or national boundaries. Hanson writes, “At Pentecost, in righteousness, the LORD removed the language barrier between his people.” Actually, what God did is allow the gospel to be heard in several different languages. Pentecost represents the baptism and sanctification of national boundaries, not their removal – not in the least. In my original article, I quote Rev. Francis Nigel Lee, whose quotation bears repeating:
Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor – the cultural treasures – of the nations into it. . . . But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.2
Several other quotations from Reformed theologians could be cited to support the position that ethnic plurality persists in the church, and is not reversed by Pentecost. One of the best examples is John Calvin, who, in his commentary on Genesis 35:11, extends the Old Testament principle of ethnic nationalism to the New Testament people of God by describing the church is comprised of many nations corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel:
He then promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. When he speaks of “a nation,” he no doubt means that the offspring of Jacob should become sufficiently numerous to acquire the body and the name of one great people. But what follows concerning “nations” may appear absurd; for if we wish it to refer to the nations which, by gratuitous adoption, are inserted into the race of Abraham, the form of expression is improper: but if it be understood of sons by natural descent, then it would be a curse rather than a blessing, that the Church, the safety of which depends on its unity, should be divided into many distinct nations. But to me it appears that the Lord, in these words, comprehended both these benefits; for when, under Joshua, the people was apportioned into tribes, as if the seed of Abraham was propagated into so many distinct nations; yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished. The language also is not improperly extended to the Gentiles, who, having been before dispersed, are collected into one congregation by the bond of faith; and although they were not born of Jacob according to the flesh; yet, because faith was to them the commencement of a new birth, and the covenant of salvation, which is the seed of spiritual birth, flowed from Jacob, all believers are rightly reckoned among his sons, according to the declaration, “I have constituted thee a father of many nations.”3
The idea that Pentecost represents a reversal of Babel is a modern novelty and is not supported by traditional exegesis. It is also worth noting that many who are opposed to Kinism try to straddle the rhetorical fence between ethnonationalism and one-world globalism by saying that they believe that separate nations will still exist after the conversion of the nations to Christianity, but national boundaries will not play a major role in society. Essentially, this is saying that nations will continue to exist accidentally, but will not have any definite purpose. They will not necessarily be comprised of a major ethnic group, they will not restrict naturalized citizenship on the basis of ethnic or racial identity, they will not restrict permanent property ownership to natives, and they will not have any ethnic requirements established for civil authority. Essentially, nations will no longer play the role that they are given in the Scriptures, since this role is viewed as transitory in preparation for Christian unity under the gospel. It should be obvious that this view of nationhood is not essentially different from the one-world globalist mentality of secularism.

Secular humanists have no problem with the continued existence of the multiple nations, as long as they are stripped of their traditional role and authority and subjected to a global authority. The only functional difference is that the supposedly christened view of globalism believes that the focal point of unity will be the multiethnic church. I will soon review the second part of Hanson’s comments on my article defending ethnonationalism. For now, the reader should keep in mind the two concessions that Hanson has made. First, he has admitted that the biblical word for nation, ethnos, really does denote a people united by ancestry. Second, he has admitted that God separated the nations so that they might seek Him and find Him. This means that Hanson has conceded the major points that I was trying to make at the outset of my article, which is to demonstrate that nations are hereditary. I look forward to Hanson’s comments on the purpose of nationhood and on his eschatological vision concerning the nations.

Footnotes

  1. For more information on race realism, see “Ken Ham on Darwinism and Race, Part 2: Race Realism and Miscegenation” as well as Ehud Would’s excellent article, “The Reality of Race.”
  2. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. “Race, People, and Nationality.” 2/2/2005.
  3. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2, Chapter 14.

My European Listening Tour, Part 1

via Counter-Currents

Last September, I spoke at the London Forum en route to the National Policy Institute’s ill-fated Budapest conference. While in London, I met writers and activists from England and Wales but also from Italy, Sweden, Norway, and Poland.

It was an inspiring but also humbling experience, because I was deeply impressed by the intelligence, dedication, maturity, and professionalism of these individuals. I vowed to return to Europe as soon as possible, to meet as many European comrades as possible, and learn from them everything I could, with the hope of applying their insights and experiences in North America.

My pretext for going back was to speak, but my real purpose was to listen. And to assure that high quality people would attend from far and wide, I made sure that the programs contained speakers who are far more eminent than me.

The London Forum, April 11, 2015

On Saturday, April 11, 2015, I spoke for the second time at the London Forum, which has now established itself as one of the most important institutions in the British nationalist scene, particularly since the collapse of the British Nationalist Party and in the absence, as yet, of a clear leader among the various successor groups.

As veteran activist Richard Edmonds said to me, “Parties come and go, but the movement remains.” Groups like the London Forum are the institutional framework for that sort of movement continuity. The business of the London Forum is metapolitics as I define it: the propagation of ideas and the creation of community. The latter task is particularly difficult in the fractious nationalist scene, which the London Forum’s organizer, Jez Turner, skillfully navigates with diplomacy, charm, and infectious enthusiasm.

The recent London Forum meeting broke two records. First, with at least 113 people in attendance, it had the largest turnout to date. Second, with seven speakers, it was surely the longest and richest program ever.

The meeting began with young Canadian filmmaker Hugh MacDonald, who gave a rousing talk about how multicultural education is backfiring, giving birth to a whole generation of young European nationalists and providing us with intellectual weapons that will be turned against them. Long-time Canadian anti-immigration and free-speech activist Paul Fromm spoke next on the battle for free speech in Canada. (His speech is here.)

There were two prominent Spanish speakers as well. The first was Javier Nichols, chairman of the Spanish Wagner Society and Vice President of the Wagner Society of Madrid, who spoke on Richard Wagner’s visits to and cultural and political influence on England. (His speech is here.) The second Spanish speaker was Pedro Varela, the courageous Catalan author and bookseller, who spoke on revolutionary ethics in relation to art and religion. (His speech is here.)

There were three speakers from the United States. I gave a brief talk based on my essay “Lessing’s Ideal Conservative Freemasonry,” which you can read here and listen to here. I wrote a short talk to leave more time for other speakers, and I condensed it still further to allow for some Q&A.

Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review gave a tightly-argued, eloquent, and rousing talk on “The Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power” (here), which is the greatest impediment for whites regaining control of our destiny.

The high point of the day was Kevin MacDonald’s talk “Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession” (here). Kevin MacDonald is famous for his work on the role of the organized Jewish community in engineering white dispossession and preventing us from instituting necessary pro-white policies. But Jews would have no influence if whites turned a deaf ear and were not susceptible to such influence. Now Dr. MacDonald is focusing on understanding white susceptibility to Jewish manipulation, with the aim of learning how to resist its charms.

The London Forum meeting was a great success. I met a number of Counter-Currents readers, writers, and donors from the UK, Holland, and the Czech Republic. I also met with such veteran UK activists as John Bean, Martin Webster, Richard Edmonds, and Bill Baillie. I also had conversations with Nicholas Kollerstrom and Gilad Atzmon. I recorded interviews with Webster, Edmonds, and Atzmon, which will soon appear on Counter-Currents Radio. I plan to interview Bean, Kollerstrom, and others when I get back to the United States.

When I was in graduate school, one of my professors likened reading undergraduate papers to fever dreams, in which the events of the previous day return in garbled form. I was reminded of this when coverage of the London Forum meeting appeared in the Mail on Sunday of April 19, 2015 — a full eight days after the event. The headline says it all: “Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED: World’s top Holocaust deniers . . . filmed at secret race hate rally where Jews are referred to as the ‘enemy.’” As I said to Hugh MacDonald, “How could we be part of a Nazi invasion of London and not even know it?” We were rather galled that we were not even mentioned by name.

The article implied that the Mail had a mole in the meeting who “filmed” its shocking goings-on, which is in fact false. There was, however, a small security leak, as a photographer took pictures of people entering and leaving Victoria Station and the Grosvenor Hotel. Since these are busy public venues, however,  the only people who were shown are publicly-known nationalists, lest the Mail open itself up to a lawsuit by pillorying an innocent bystander as a Nazi invader. Furthermore, the London Forum’s organizers saw and photographed the enemy photographer, so — if he has any sense — his career of skulking around outside nationalist gatherings is probably over.

The Mail only learned what was said inside the meeting when the rest of the world did, i.e., when five videos and the audio of my speech went up on YouTube. (The event was “filmed” by the London Forum itself.)

What was really said at the meeting hardly mattered, though, as the article was probably substantially written before the YouTube videos were released. Indeed, as Margot Metroland remarked, some of it seems to have been written ten years ago, since the ages given for both Mark Weber and Kevin MacDonald were a decade too low.

The Mail decided that the event was about the Holocaust, even though it was the topic of none of the speeches. Indeed, I do not recall it being mentioned once. Mark Weber, of course, is the Director of the Institute for Historical Review. But Weber did not speak about the Holocaust, and in any case is not really a Holocaust “denier.”

I believe in freedom of the press, but that is no defense for outright lies. Frankly, if I could make laws for the UK, the authors of this article would be publicly flogged then suffer complete social and professional death. They should never be allowed to speak or write in public again. Freedom of the press is too important to allow public discourse to be corrupted by vulgar sensationalism and deliberate deception.

I want to thank Jez Turner, his fellow organizers at the London Forum, and everyone who attended for another exemplary event.