Dec 24, 2014

Laying the Blame Where it Belongs

via Koinen's Corner

Good report about who is really to blame for the ambush killing of two NYPD cops.  It seems odd, though, that there are no references to the 'Jew-controlled media,' or the 'Jewish press.'  Oh, well, that's Jared Taylor for you.

Oh yeah, one other thing -- let's not get carried away here -- we shouldn't forget to lay at least some of the blame on the savage Negro perp, should we?  And maybe some of the blame should go to the 'unarmed' black lawbreakers who started all this by forcing police to use lethal force on them.  And to the idiotic and uncivilized black mobs who have been rioting and protesting, and demanding that law enforcement ignore their criminality, and that our civilized legal-justice system and time-honored procedures not be applied to them.  Seems like there is plenty of blame to go around.

Update:  Here is a more enlightening report on the situation -- this one names the Jews.

Merry Christmas Movies . . . NOT!, Part 2: Anti-Christmas Movies

via The Occidental Observer

Earlier this week, in Part One of this column about the War on Christmas, I wrote that “the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently made it official. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews.” I’ve written on this theme extensively in The Occidental Quarterly (here, here, and TOQ Spring 2008). Or you could read Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, based on the surprise hit play by Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson. Or you could listen to  David Mamet: “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone argued that “whoever controls the media controls the culture.” And a lynchpin of that media is Hollywood and its associated TV studios and networks.

Why does it matter that Jews control Hollywood? In essence, it matters because it represents the loss of power of one group—majority white Christians—to a group with a long history of hostility toward the people and culture of the West. Jewish control of Hollywood has been a crucial means for dispossessing majority whites from their place in the country they built. As some have argued, the twentieth century was “a Jewish century,” and much of this was because Jews controlled the image factory known as Hollywood.

Again, what Kevin MacDonald demonstrates in The Culture of Critique, cannot be repeated too often: “The Judaization of the West means that the peoples who created the culture and traditions of the West have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history — surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and as a people.” And, as I argued earlier, the treatment of Christmas shows how Jews “have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios.”

Today I’ll talk about how that has affected the kind of Hollywood films we get with respect to Christmas. In essence, it means that in the last forty or so years, the Christian aspect of the holiday has vanished on screen. The best we can hope for is a positive, feel-good portrayal of the season, such as we had in Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause (1994) or Tom Hanks’ The Polar Express ten years later.

Too often, however, films have associated the Christmas season with negative or even horrific stories. Perhaps the best example of this is Silent Night, Deadly Night. This is a 1984 slasher film that begins with a young boy named Billy  witnessing the murder of his parents by a man dressed as Santa Claus. Billy ends up at St. Mary’s Orphanage, where he is beaten by Mother Superior. Later, morphing memories of his punishment at her hands with images of Santa, Billy grows up to become a killer teenage Santa. At work, for example, he strangles a co-worker with Christmas lights and then dispatches the girl with whom the co-worker was having sex.

After a string of other Santa murders, Billy returns to the orphanage, with the police hot in pursuit. Tragically, they shoot and kill Father O’Brien, a deaf priest dressed as Santa. Sneaking into the orphanage, Billy, dressed as Santa, swings his ax at Mother Superior, but a policeman shoots him down. Imparting his central message, Billy assures viewers, “You’re safe now… Santa Claus… is gone.” Not exactly a happy message at Christmastime.

In 1984, such imagery was still able to rile the population. Siskel and Ebert condemned the film, going “so far as to read the film’s production credits on air, saying ‘shame, shame’ after each one.” Angry mothers protested the movie around the nation, and TriStars Pictures, its distributor, quickly ceased advertising the film.

Silent Night, Deadly Night did have antecedents. Black Christmas was a 1974 movie set in a sorority house during Christmas break. A maniac is making calls from within the house, killing the coeds one by one. The movie also takes every opportunity to pair beloved Christmas songs with chilling scenes, a phenomenon that was later repeated in Gremlins, as we will see. Another, Christmas Evil (1980), features a delusional Santa stand-in who murders three church-goers in front of a church. (He stabbed one man in the eye with a toy.) Later, while wearing a ragged Santa outfit and being chased by an angry mob, our main character drives his van off a bridge, imagining himself to be Santa in his flying sleigh.


As Austin Pearl, a Jewish reviewer, approvingly wrote, “Christmas Evil ruins Christmas unlike any other movie.” In particular, this reviewer liked “all the vividly disturbing images of Santa sprinkled throughout the movie.”

It’s no surprise that Pearl also liked the 2003 Billy Bob Thorton film Bad Santa, which was a concerted ethnic effort to trash Christmas. Jewish director Terry Zwigoff made the film under producers Ethan and Joel Coen for the Disney subsidiary Miramax, run by two more Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Billy Bob Thornton stars as the bad Santa of the title, going about his life boozing and swearing with abandon. At one point he has anal sex with an overweight woman in a changing room, while elsewhere he goes to a mall drunk and destroys a reindeer display in a drunken rage. Ho ho ho.

Near the end of this dark film, he is shot by a group of policemen but survives. Despite his obvious guilt in numerous crimes, he is pardoned because “the Phoenix police department shooting an unarmed Santa Claus in front of children was more fucked up than Rodney King.”

According to Wikipedia, critics described it as an “evil twin” of Miracle on 34th Street, the inspirational Christmas classic.  No wonder Austin Pearl wrote glowingly that “Bad Santa is perhaps the most subversive, offensive Christmas movie ever made—with Thornton as a truly despicable character who, for once, does not receive a total personality transplant by the movie’s end.”

Director Zwigoff intended this film for impressionable teenagers, the vast majority of whom are, one would assume, Christians. When asked if he thought the film would do well, Zwigoff answered, “I think it might. Every teenager in America is dying to see this film. Though they won’t be able to get in unless they have a very open-minded parent.” Clearly he was aware of the film’s subversive content.

Two years later came another Jewish-directed anti-Christmas movie. The Ice Harvest, Harold Ramis’s “grisly black comedy/film-noir,” sees Billy Bob Thornton return to a mayhem-filled Christmas. One reviewer intoned that The Ice Harvest “is a must-see for fans . . . in the mood to see one of the worst Christmas Eves in the history of cinema.” Roger Ebert was also impressed. “I liked the movie for the quirky way it pursues humor through the drifts of greed, lust, booze, betrayal and spectacularly complicated ways to die.” In other words, Hollywood’s version of Merry Christmas stuff.

The Gremlins

Perhaps the most unsettling Christmas movie was the original Gremlins (1984). Though directed by Joe Dante, Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment, released it. Time magazine characterized the film as being “developed and ‘presented'” by Spielberg and being one of his “children too.”

Stylistically, too, this film is completely Spielbergian, beginning with a typical suburban paradise. Snow is on the ground as local residents prepare for Christmas.

The drama begins when protagonist Billy receives a cute “mogwai” from his inventor father, but the creature spawns siblings that are far from full of holiday cheer. On the contrary, they bring violence, mayhem, and death to this otherwise happy time of year. Their mischief is methodically paired with normally positive symbols of Christmas. For instance, when Billy’s mom is home alone making Christmas cookies and listening to Christmas music, she is attacked by a squad of ghoulish gremlins, long in tooth and with murder on their minds. After stabbing one through the heart, she dispatches another with a deft push of the blender switch, turning the previously Christmas-cookie-aroma-filled kitchen into a bloodbath. Retreating to the living room, she is literally attacked by the Christmas tree, which is full of gremlins. This conflation of joyful Christian symbols with diabolical evil is a central device to the whole movie.


Another example comes when the police pass by Billy’s neighbor’s house and are greeted by the neighbor, dressed as Santa Claus, running about helplessly as gremlins eat into his brain. Next, Christmas-caroling gremlins arrive at grouchy old Miss Deagle’s door, only to send her flying out the second-floor window of her house in a malfunctioning motorized chair.

The scenes which most firmly tie this movie to a distinct Jewish sensibility, however, come with two extraneous dialogues between Billy and his girlfriend Kate. Passing a group of Christmas carolers singing “Silent Night,” Kate suddenly and soberly states that Christmas is a time when “a lot of people get really depressed. . . . While everybody else is opening up their presents, they’re opening up their wrists. It’s true. The suicide rate is always the highest around the holidays.” When she volunteers that she doesn’t celebrate Christmas, Billy asks, “What, are you Hindu or something?” Historically, the non-Christian group in America with mixed feelings toward Christmas is not Hindus, but Jews. Here the mask is in place but the true message is easily discernible.

Much later in the movie, after the gremlins have wreaked havoc on Kingston Falls, Kate launches into a startling horror story about Christmas, one that seems completely gratuitous since it is independent of the blood-thirsty gremlin theme. Surveying the rubble left by the marauding gremlins, Kate relates how she now has another reason to hate Christmas. It seems that when she was nine, she and her mother were decorating the tree on Christmas Eve, waiting for her father to come home from the office. They waited, but he never came.

Then, four or five days later, as the temperature dropped, Kate went to make a fire. “And that’s when I noticed the smell.”  Thinking it was a dead cat or bird, they called the fire department to clean it out, but instead “they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He’d been climbing down the chimney on Christmas Eve, his arms loaded with presents. He was going to surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck, died instantly. And that’s how I found out there was no Santa Claus.”

“Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics”

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here.)


No wonder Mr. Pearl, our Jewish reviewer, gleefully explained his motive for collecting anti-Christmas films in these terms: “It’s my wanting to recognize things that are deliberately anti-Christmas. It’s my wanting to take a big you know what on everyone’s Christmas spirit. . . . Each one of them is so anti-Christmas that I want to share them with the world, thereby forcing everyone to realize how liberating it is to rip off the Christmas mind control device and have some laughs in the process.” (Pearl provides embedded YouTube scenes of the anti-Christmas films he recommends).

Add caption
Two years later, the more extensive Mr. Hankey version was released as Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics. (A parallel CD of the songs includes the delightful “Merry Fucking Christmas”). Here Mr. Hankey besmirches the faces of children singing Christmas songs. He then introduces us to the next scene, Christmastime in Hell, where Hitler is shown crying over his Christmas tree. Later, when Jesus and Santa sing a duet, Santa gets miffed that there are far more songs about Jesus than about him, so he leaves the stage. When Jesus implores him to return, Santa speaks the cheery words, “Aw, fuck you, Jesus!” (Read the script here.)

This episode is a parody of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special in which everyone yells out “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!” only after Charlie has realized the true meaning of Christmas—which has Christ at its center. In the  South Park version, the characters wish the Jewish boy Kyle a Merry Christmas only after he has taught everyone, through Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, that Christmas and Christianity are shit.

Replacing Christmas with the culture of the Holocaust

Finally, this brings us to Christmas this year. More than ever, the focus will be on Jewish themes rather than Christian. As a recent New York Times article admitted, Holocaust-themed Christmas releases have been the norm for years. Sophie’s Choice, for example, debuted in December 1982, Schindler’s List was released in the same month in 1993, and The Pianist opened two days after Christmas in 2002.

This year is no different: On Christmas Day the new Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie will debut. This film features Cruise as a German officer who plots to kill Hitler, prompting Cruise to joke in an interview, “Go kill Hitler on Christmas!” We will also have Defiance and Good, two more Nazi-oriented films, which will premier a week after Christmas. Then there is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, “which tells the story of a forbidden friendship between the son of a Nazi officer and a Jewish boy imprisoned in a concentration camp.” And don’t miss The Reader, which features Kate Winslet being tried for her years as a concentration-camp guard. Finally, there is Adam Resurrected, starring Jeff Goldblum as a Holocaust survivor living in a mental institution. The title seems to posit the death of Jesus at Christmastime and his replacement with a Jewish resurrection.

Out with the old religion, in with the new. A friend wrote: “I’ve seen the previews for Valkyrie. Good grief! And to release it on Christmas Day — it really doesn’t get more obvious than this. Sort of like saying, ‘Don’t you realize, THIS is your new religion, not all this Jesus business!’”

Three years ago, Fox News Channel host John Gibson wrote The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Well, it has gotten worse than we thought. But Gibson’s parting words are still the only formula for a reversal in this war. “Those who would ban Christmas and Christians should not mistake the signs on the horizon. The Christians are coming to retake their place in the public square, and the most natural battleground in this war is Christmas. The war on Christmas is joined.”

And may the good guys win. It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose. Merry Christmas!

A Yuletide Message from Wotans Krieger

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

In this article I wish to restate some simple truths. There can be no accord between a folkish Weltanschauung and the abrahamic desert religions of judaism, xtianity and islam, the latter two being offspring of the first. There are some, particularly in the USA who feel otherwise, that what matters above all is race rather than belief. This is a fatal error for if they care to actually study European history over the last 2,000 years and indeed the history of the Middle East before that time they would understand that a struggle has been waging continually between the Aryan sons of the sun and the sons of shem. This does not concern race alone but the world of ideas for all the indigenous cultures of the earth have and are being threatened by all three abrahamic religions at one time or another.

The Second World War was but a continuation of the struggle waged between the Aryan tribes of the Old Testament against the jews, the Irminist Saxons against the fanatical xtian race traitors, the Franks, the Vikings against the xtianised Anglo-Saxons (who forsook the same Gods) right up to the present day, where we now live in a society that has thrown off the shackles of the alien xtian religion but has adopted its secular bastard offshoots, ie humanism, democracy and liberalism. 

The Second World War involved a life and death struggle between the 'allies' (how I detest that pompous and self-righteous term) and the Wotan inspired Third Reich which gradually was throwing off the shackles of a religion that had killed a third of its population in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). A fratricidal dispute over what variety of semitic xtian religion the people should follow. What an awful waste of German blood, all in the name of a jewish messiah who never even actually existed! That was indeed a holocaust of good German blood to a semitic demonic entity!

Look at the blood that was shed in the wars of Karl the Butcher, the Frankish king who attempted to eradicate authentic Germanic heathenism amongst the Saxon tribes, with the desecration of the Irminsul, our temples and groves, creating such devastation of our religion that researchers such as myself have to spend their lives trying to piece it all back together again in order that a new folkish religion may spring from traditional roots.

Some white nationalists may not consider the murder of 4,500 heathen Saxons in October 782 in Verden, Lower Saxony something that is worthwhile to remember and indeed one of the writers of The Great Yearning. An Armanen Ritual (see Warg: The True Story) appears to be outraged by our remembrance of this heinous act and refers to such feelings as "to moan and grovel". The author regards the murderer of my maternal ancestors who stayed true to the Aesir (the real meaning of Asatru) as "A man of wolfish spirit" (meant by the author I feel as a positive not a negative trait), "chopping down the superstitious and enforcing discipline." Karl the Butcher's  'discipline', being the 'discipline' of a tyrant, something I am sure the author would not accept in his own country, the USA where individual freedom is supposedly cherished and enshrined in their constitution! This said 'discipline' being the bloody introduction of xtianity, the destruction of our ancient practices and beliefs and their substitution with the enforced worship of a jewish anti-'god'.  The admonition that "We will honour Charlemagne" makes just as much sense as me saying "we will honour Churchill", both of whom were notorious traitors to their race who caused irreparable harm and whose actions reverberate down to the present day.

The Third Reich had 4 major opponents: capitalism, bolshevism, liberalism and xtianity, all offshoots in some way of judaism. This truly was a war not so much of race as our enemies would have the masses to believe but a war of ideas, ideology and spiritual forces. This is an idea that I will return to in a future article on this blog. This war of ideas and beliefs continues up until the present day with the commercialisation and xtianisation of the ancient Germanic festival of Yule, thus creating the struggle in microcosm of xmas against Yule.

The Armanist Rune Magicians and Ariosophists of the early 20th century were like all of us men of their time and a product of the societies into which they were born. We must be careful as 21st century heathens in our interpretation of Armanist material as much of it is unfortunately contaiminated by xtianity to a certain extent. Those of us who are involved in esoteric Wodenism are aware of these shortcomings as we create a new religious path, rooted in the Blut und Boden of the past but with one eye towards the future. Nothing can or should remain static or the same. We must change as this is the dynamic of life: Arising-Becoming-Passing Away to New Arising! However what is new must be rooted in what is old, what is organic to our folk and lands. This is the essence of the Woden Folk Religion.

A very happy Yule to all of my readers!

Police Story

via Radix Journal

Cops are the talk of the nation right now. Ever since a charging Black man was shot by a White police officer in Ferguson, the actions and non-actions of police have been on the public radar. 

Why do we tolerate such brutality? How do they get away with murder? Why are they so White? Why are they so racist?

And these questions haven’t dissipated in the wake of the two officers shot dead in New York City last weekend.

This discourse has resulted in a whole lot of hot air for bleeding hearts. If there’s anything to glean from this affair, it’s that non-Whites, particularly Blacks, and their White adorers have a real problem with the growing presence of law enforcement in American society. What they fail to realize is that the reason why we’re placing cameras on every street corner, giving tanks to suburban units, and allowing cops to dress up like Army Rangers is due to us becoming a loosely connected, multiracial country—the very thing they champion the most. [Militarized status quo] (http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/8/18/militarized-status-quo) is only the cost of admission.

What’s more peculiar about this cop fixation is how it’s revealed that some on our side share the same loathing for police that the average Leftist does. “Fuck tha police!” apparently isn’t a slogan only for anarchists, Blacks, and N.W.A., but also appeals to some White Nationalists.

Why is that?

For one, I think anti-police sentiment among right-wingers is not necessarily ideological. It’s based more on a few bad experiences with the men in blue. Let’s be frank, we’ve all dealt with dickhead cops. Cops who wake up every morning wanting to prove to the world that they have power and they just love using it. We’ve all gotten that speeding ticket for going 5 over the limit and dealt with the cop’s smug satisfaction after he ruined your day. Some of you even had worse with arbitrary arrests and intimidating threats. I doubt there’s a single person who has not had at least one negative experience with police—including cops themselves.

But bad experience is a terrible reason to hate one specific profession. Every profession has an asshole demographic. The only difference between every profession and cops is that the guys in uniform have more power and you are more likely to interact with their abuse. That still would not justify despising them.

Cops are supposed to wield their power to safeguard the community and uphold the law (no matter how messed up the law is). It’s a part of their job to occasionally swing their dicks around and intimidate citizens. Therefore, it’s not surprising that we all deal with them in some unfortunate circumstances. If they did not have a willingness to use their power, they would not be law enforcement. They would be an inner city Peace Corps incapable of satisfying their job requirements, all the while garnering neither fear, love, nor respect. In many ways, cops follow Machiavelli’s dictum that “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting.” As we all know, it’s not a requirement for police to be loved to do their job, but they do need an element of fear to serve the community.

The second and ideological reason for why Identitarians may hate cops is because they are seen as the foot soldiers of a hated System. Memories of Ruby Ridge and Waco are recalled and used to cast officers as mindless grunts gunning down anyone who opposes the regime. In this mindset, police are cast as the complicit minions in the System’s evil deeds. Thus, a cop is not an average Joe just doing his job and looking out for criminals, but an enemy deserving neither pity nor understanding. If you take this point of view, you might as well apply it to all people who work for the government—no matter whether they believe in their purpose or are just there for the paycheck.

Needless to say, this is an extreme point that deserves to be cast aside. No matter what occupation you have, we are all in some ways complicit in this society we despise. You might work for a company that is directly involved in bringing in millions of non-Whites to this country or you might shop at a store that gives millions to the Anti-Defamation League. We all commit our small acts of complicity and we shouldn’t fault government workers who are not directly involved in promoting evil around the globe. Police officers are not the State Department. In the words of Jack Donovan, maintaining an anti-cop attitude for this reason “seems a little bit like screaming at the DMV lady about the price of your vehicle registration.” While cops might be more involved in enforcing the dumb rules and bad policies of the American state, to quote Donovan further, “Cops don't make the rules, they just do the dirty work for the people who do.”

Besides, the vast majority of American police work does not center around arresting and assaulting White advocates and other political dissidents. They’re mainly concerned with ensuring that their town is safe enough for people to live there and to arrest threats to the community. That sounds a whole lot different than funding Pussy Riot.

These are only defenses of cops against common reasons to hate them. There are also strong arguments in favor of supporting them.

The primary reason is that every society, no matter how great or terrible, requires policemen. Even if we forged the Ethnostate and it had an unprecedented level of social trust and low crime rates, we’d still need cops. Or at least people who perform their task with a different name and status. You can say that that job should be left to individual communities, but the individuals or individuals tasked with the law would still be providing the same service as police. They might have a different name, but they’d still have the same function. We are not utopians and we should expect law enforcement in our ideal society to maintain order and public well-being. If all men were angels, we wouldn’t need laws or men to enforce them. But men aren’t angels and we need these mechanisms in place to have any type of functioning community.

The other reason to support cops is due to one of the major criticisms they receive from the Left: they’re just a bunch of racists. Leftists do have a point when they assert this. Cops are the frontline troops in America’s great racial divide. They have to see non-White criminality up close and personal on a daily basis. They are frequently targets of abuse, slander, and attacks from America’s most diverse, and—in the case of Darren Wilson and many others—suffer when they retaliate. Not only do they witness this racial nightmare first hand, due to their oversight by the government, they also have to deal with the real-life consequences of affirmative action and diversity quotas. Many get passed on for promotion or otherwise ignored in favor of the minorities who make it through police academy. I cannot think of any other profession where racial awareness is almost a requirement of the job. Not that most officers are actually aware of racial differences on an explicit level, but they do have a fundamental knowledge that certain races are more prone to crime than others.
Radix even has its very own police contributor—and I’m sure he’s not alone in his beliefs.

Whatever your opinion of the law, you have to understand that the guys “protecting and serving” are not the reason why we live in such a twisted society. Like many of us, they merely serve and you shouldn’t hate them for that. Do you hate the soldiers who fought in Iraq or their superiors who sent them over there? That same line of thinking should apply to cops as well, and we should never let certain ideas take hold of us that could alienate a group that our ideas could very well appeal to. You can still dislike cops, and I’m not in favor of mindlessly supporting no matter what they do. There is a great deal of evidence that some abuse their authority and some do harass dissidents.

But don’t blame them for the problems of the System. Blame their superiors who run the System.

The Axial Age & the European Discovery of Logos

via Counter-Currents

The idea of an “Axial Age” was a boon to the ideological drive after WWII to envision the history of all cultures as a “collective” undertaking between “connected” peoples. The behavior of Germany during Second War was testimony, apparently, of what happens when an otherwise modern culture refuses to join with the world of cosmopolitanism in defense of its ethnic integrity. Germany had strayed from the course of “human history” by envisioning itself as “special people” with a unique destiny for greatness.

When Karl Jaspers first articulated this idea in the late 1940s, he saw it as an exceptional age in which the major civilizations of the world accomplished similar intellectual and spiritual breakthroughs roughly between 800 and 200 BC. He saw this age as an example of how relatively isolated cultures had shown a common humanity in producing rather similar moral ideas and rules with universal intent. But while Jaspers believed that the civilizations of the world diverged greatly after the Axial Age, and agreed with the then general consensus that Western history was characterized by a “special quality” in the generation of far more cultural novelties, historians in subsequent decades gradually came to the view that axial-age thinking was the product of the “common” and “connected” nature of the entire history of “humanity” and that its thinking “spread and shaped thoughts and feelings in every clime and continent.”[1]

In this essay I will use the Axial Age thesis as an opportunity to make the case that there was a dramatic contrast between the revolution in thought in ancient Greece and in the other civilizations combined. In making this argument, I will restrict myself to the pre-Socratic thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC. The Presocratics were the originators of the uniquely Western idea that there is a logos in the universe, a pattern, a structure in the way all things are. This idea teaches us that humans have a faculty within their soul, or natural constitution, that can be identified as “rational,” which allows them to offer arguments about the logos of the world and “to speak” or use words in a reasoned way about the way the world and humans are structured and the way humans should live in accordance with this order.

I will also use the Axial Age idea to highlight the movement by which Western scholars came to make the opposite “argument” against the uniqueness of the Greeks and Europeans generally in the name of world history connected. I will examine this use first. The acceptance and popularization of the Axial Age has come in varying degrees and ways, but a good way to access its impact and general characteristics is to examine its incorporation in college textbooks. Many world history texts could have been chosen to show how far ahead the idea of an Axial Age was extended, but for our purposes the following two, very successful, texts, will suffice: The Heritage of World Civilizations (2003), by Albert M. Craig et. al. This 2003 publication is the sixth edition; the text was first published in 1990, and it is already in its tenth edition as of 2010. The other book I will examine briefly is the above cited, The World — A History (2007), by the internationally celebrated Fernandez-Armesto. This book was released with a huge splash, evaluated by more than a hundred reviewers from around the world and “class-tested” at fifteen academic institutions in the United States. The third edition of this text came out in 2011, with another edition planned for 2015.

Heritages of World Civilizations

Examining these two text makes for a interesting contrast between the initial phases in the acceptance of an Axial Age, as understood by Heritage, which is now seen as an outdated text written by old white men close to retirement, retired, or dead, still employing “unsound” terms like “civilizations,” and what is currently seen as a truly progressive version of the Axial Age, as understood by The World.

The authors of Heritage, Craig, William Graham, Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner, are known as relatively conservative historians in academia. Kagan has a reputation as a “neoconservative,” and Turner, no longer alive, as a “historian of the ideas that shaped Western civilization.” All in all, they are/were solid academics from a generation that has now been practically replaced by outright promoters of diversity. In the sixth edition of Heritage, they humbly write about improvements in the text such as the consolidation of four chapters on European peoples into two chapters, thereby offering “a more balanced treatment of world history.”[2]

We should not be surprised at their efforts to march in step with the cultural Marxist expectations of the time. In fact, not only do they follow Jaspers, but go further in solidifying and expanding historically Jaspers’ rather moderate assessment, making the following key observations about this age:

There is more than an obvious similarity between the Jewish Messiah, the Chinese sage-king, and Plato’s philosopher-king. . . . Each would reconnect ethics to history and restore order to a troubled society. . . . The reason is not that humans’ creativity dried up after 300 BCE, but that subsequent breakthroughs and advances tended to occur within the original [Axial] traditions. . . . Once a cultural pattern was set, it usually endured. Each major culture was resistant to the others and only rarely displaced (my italics).[3]

While they agree with Jaspers that in subsequent centuries, once each tradition was set, each culture tended to follow its own tradition, we are made to believe that they remained equally attached to the fundamental ideas of the Axial Age. Chinese thought “had greater staying power than Greek thought,” as Greek thought was “submerged by Christianity,” becoming “the handmaiden of theology” until it “reemerge as an independent force in the Renaissance.”[4] So, overall, the West more or less continued the axial-age thinking of the Greeks, with the difference that it then brought in the tradition of “the Jewish Messiah,” submerging the Greek one under it, until Greek thought managed to reemerge again in the Renaissance, leading to the rise of modern science.

To its credit, Heritage examines each of the four traditions of the Axial Age separately, bringing out some key differences, backed by solid, old fashioned sources. Yet, the text cannot help playing up the idea that we are all “Homo sapiens” who have come together historically through “globalization” and that no citizen in the West can “escape the necessity of understanding the past in global terms.”[5] The current global course of history dictates the way we should see the past. We have always been moving towards the creation of cosmopolitan citizens, and this book hopes to contribute to this process.

The World — A History

Once we get to Fernandez-Armesto’s text all these qualifications about divergent paths and Western dissimilarities are thrown out the window. I have already examined this text in Uniqueness and will not rehash the flagrant manner in which it deals with European uniqueness. Suffice it to say that he allocates a meager 40 pages or so to ancient Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance combined, but 23 pages to the Mongols alone. He then goes on to claim, for the modern era, that there were “comparable” revolutions in science, industry, and in Enlightenment thought in China, India, and in the Near East. The paramount message of the text is that the history of the peoples of the earth must be presented in a “unified” or “global context.” This is the message right from the opening chapters on the evolution of humans. What, then, is so different about the Axial Age?

After some cheerful chapters about how “all the people that we now recognize as human” evolved in Africa, the emphasis, leading up to a chapter titled “The Axial Age, from 500 BCE to 100 CE,” is about how humans moved “out of Africa” “peopling the earth.” We hear endearing stories about how “Eve’s children” migrated out of their native “homeland” in Africa to other continents. Did you get this students? We are all immigrants except the original humans of Africa!

Armesto then goes on to say that most cultures across the world made similar transitions to herding and farming on their own initiative, everyone developing civilizations.[6] The old definition of “civilization” is now rightfully “discredited as a word” for all cultures are civilizations since any agrarian engagement with an environment is a form of civilization.[7] As he puts it in Civilizations (2000), “In reality, civilization is an ordinary thing, an impulse so widespread it has transformed almost every habitable landscape.”[8]

Armesto believes this to be aesthetically equivalent to . . .
Armesto believes this to be
aesthetically equivalent to . . .
It became widespread through diffusion; there may have been more, but we know of only six civilizations originating on their own. Armesto imagines himself a provocateur in academia. He condemns the “crude perversion” of Kenneth Clark’s words that “‘the Apollo embodies a higher state of civilization than the [African] mask.'”[9] All civilizations are equally ordinary, or no better than foraging societies.
The importance of the Axial Age is simply that “the thinkers of the time anticipated and influenced the way we think now” (my italics).[10] Whereas Jaspers saw the Axial Age as a unique epoch, world historians nowadays see it as a continuation of past “connected” trends characterized by new intellectual trends. Whereas Jaspers observed divergent paths after this age, with the West following a “special” path, Armesto views the West as no different from the other civilizations; every place was similarly “anticipated and influenced” by “the common content of the minds” of the axial thinkers. In the many centuries after this age, the West, just like the Rest, “added so little to it.”[11]

 . . . this.
. . . this
Armesto, however, adds that the Axial Age was not restricted to Eurasia but was a “worldwide story,” “because of the way axial-age thinking later spread and shaped thoughts and feelings in every clime and continent.”[12]
The other areas were co-participants as members of trade networks, as colonial areas, or plainly as members of the same species that migrated out of Africa, supporting the core regions in their endeavors while adding their own cultural motifs. World history is a wonderful tapestry of cultures working together.

Ancient Greece Produced far More Great Thinkers

But anyone with some knowledge of ancient Greece would know that the number of thinkers coming from the Greek world was vastly greater than the number coming from all the other, large and heavily populated, civilizations combined. Mush as Armesto tries to portray the thinkers outside Greece as saintly, lofty, and exalted sages, while ignoring most of the Greek thinkers and referring to the main one, in his view, Plato, as a “member of an Athenian gang of rich aristocrats” who idealized “harsh, reactionary, and illiberal” states, and whose preference for “militarism,” “regimentation,” “rigid class structure,” and “selective breeding of superior human beings,” all had a “distressful influence,”[13] one wonders about the Greek invention of tragedy as a literary form, dialogical reasoning, deductive method in geometry, invention of prose, citizenship politics, the science of geography, cartography, historical writing, and much more.

First, the region of Persia, South West Asia, produced only one global thinker known as Zoroaster from the late seventh and early sixth centuries BC. In the case of India, we have Vardhamana Jnatrputra, also dated without precision to the sixth and early fifth century BC. He founded Jainism. We also have Gautuma Siddharta, who “probably” lived in the mid-sixth and early fourth centuries BC, associated with the foundation of Buddhism. Concerning the Israelites, we have “the monotheistic revolution” associated with the “Book of Deuteronomy,” the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible, dated from about the eighth to the fifth century BC. There are no clear names here other than prophets such as Hosea and Jeremiah, both roughly dated to this period. Some add Jesus to this group, Armesto for one, “as an independent-minded Jewish rabbi.”

What about the much talked about “Hundred Schools” in China? As far as we know, there were three major schools: Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism, together with some other important figures known as “Logicians,” “Mohists,” “Cosmologists,” and “Rhetoricians.” The original, great thinkers, were: Confucius (born 551 BC), Mencius (370-290 BC), who offered an idealistic version of Confucian thought, Mo-tzu (470-391 BC), founder of Mohism, Lao-tzu (fifth or fourth century BC), founder of Taoism, and Sun-tzu (sixth-fifth century BC), author of the Art of War. This is an impressive list, with other less significant names.

To make the case that something very different transpire in the Western world, it will suffice to contrast China’s contribution to Greece’s contribution to axial thinking. China is the only civilization that contributed thinkers that were actually not religiously oriented and, in this respect, China is closer to the criteria that Jaspers sets, according to which this age saw not only a brake with tribal gods and values, but a new style of thinking emphasizing reason and argumentation, logos. Armesto confounds his students by placing the main ideas of the axial thinkers under such generic terms as “Monotheism,” “New Political Thinking,” “Math,” “Reason,” and “Science.”

The number of great thinkers in the pre-Socratic era alone is greater than the number of all the thinkers of all the other civilizations combined. I am using primarily as my source for this list the very authoritative text, The Presocratic Philosophers, by Jonathan Barnes (1982), linking each name listed to respected Encyclopedia links as well as Wikipedia, and other links which include book sources. These are not obscure or secondary names; there is ample choice of links for each in the internet. I will leave out dates, which are available in the links, except to say that they are essentially thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC.

Presocratic schools of thought and their influence on Plato and Aristotle

Presocratic schools of thought and their influence on Plato and Aristotle
We have a total of 17 great Presocratics: Anaxagoras, AnaximanderAnaximenes, Democritus, Diogenes, Empedocles, Gorgias, HeraclitusLeucippus, Melissus, Parmenides, Philolaus, Protagoras, Pythagoras, ThalesXenophanes, and Zeno.
I am leaving the great figures associated with Greece’s most creative period, the classical period, which borders with the Presocratic era but extends into the fourth century BC. The Axial Age for Greece, in truth, extends through the Hellenistic period, usually accepted to begin in 323 BC and to end in 31 BC, which produced not just the major philosophical names of Epicurus, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Ariston, Pyrrho, and Aristippus, but the first true scientists in human history, as argued by Lucio Russo in The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why it Had to Be Reborn (2004). What Russo argues in great detail, mind you, has long been known by classicists; for example, Marshall Clagett, in Greek Science in Antiquity (1955), calls the Hellenistic period “the great period of Greek science,”[14] correctly identifying the Presocratics as philosophers rather than scientists, and offering an overview of the original writings of Strato, Aristarchus, Eudoxos, Erastosthenes, Hipparchus, and Archimedes.

It can be argued, actually, that the Greek accomplishment, which can be extended beyond 31 BC to cover the ideas of Euclid, Ptolemy, and Galen in the first two centuries in mathematics, solid and fluid mechanics, optics, astronomy, and anatomy, found no parallel in ancient, medieval, and modern China. The reasons for this lack of a breakthrough in the cultivation of a proper scientific method has been much discussed recently. I will refer here to James McClellan and Harold Dorn’s Science and Technology in World History (1999), which sums up some of the key differences:
  1. Chinese society did not witness a distinct profession of scientists; there were many sciences but these were practical and there was “no notion of pure science pursued for its own sake.”
  2. Despite producing great algebraists, Chinese mathematicians did not cultivate a formal geometry with logical proofs.
  3. The Chinese style of thinking was correlative or associative, and strove to find analogies and relations between diverse things, rather than looking at nature as a separate entity working according to universal laws that could be understood in terms of cause-effect relations, self-evident definitions, and logical inferences.[15]
In Part II, we will see that the Presocratics had already come to view nature as working according to rational laws explainable through the proper employment of rational arguments. This contrast was a key difference, among others, setting the West apart as a civilization driven by the movement of reason freed from external hindrances, arguments for or against, with a dynamic of its own, producing, through the process of proving arguments and receiving criticisms, refutations, new conjectures and new-proof-generated concepts, leading to the accumulation of knowledge.

Notes

1. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World — A History, 2007: 185.
2. Albert M. Craig et. al., The Heritage of World Civilizations, 2003: xxviii.
3. Ibid., 42.
4. Ibid., 42.
5. Ibid., xxvi.
6. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World — A History, 2007: 5-68.
7. Ibid., 70.
8. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Civilizations, 2000: 214.
9. Ibid., 8.
10. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, The World — A History, 2007: 159.
11. Ibid., 187.
12. Ibid., 185.
13. Ibid., 172.
14. Marshall Clagett, Greek Science in Antiquity, 1955: 34.
15. James McClellan, Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History, 1999: 121-49.

On the Sydney Siege: Call for a United Front

via Nationalist Alternative

James Kirkpatrick of the conservative US site VDare wryly predicted (in an article, ‘”Sheik” Man Monis Behind the Siege in Sydney’, 15/12/2014) that news accounts of the siege and the murders would be followed by headlines such as ‘Muslim Community Fears Backlash’. Lo and behold, he was right: right on cue, the liberal establishment media has produced a welter of ‘backlash’ headlines. The Australian media is, at present, in damage control mode: a raft of ‘moderate Muslim’ spokesmen are appearing across our TV screens, and in the following few days we shall be treated with sermons and platitudes, from politicians and liberals in the churches, the media, the trade unions, the universities reminding us that, in the words of “Sheik” Monis, ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and not to judge an entire religion by the actions of a few. There’s the mawkish hashtag, #IllRideWithYou, put up by a mentally unstable Chinese woman of liberal persuasion, Tessa Kum, who declares that she has no ‘prejudice’ against Muslims and is prepared to ride with Muslims on public transport (the question is, are Muslims prepared to ride with Australians on public transport, especially Australian dogs?).

Australians aren’t fooled, however. I’ve heard angry comments on the siege, and Islamism, around where I work – in the Melbourne Central Business District – from people who are apolitical and not ‘Far Right’ or ‘radical’ at all. The liberal narrative is going off the rails. It’s awful timing for the liberals – the siege occurred right after a massive 15,000 number march by PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) against Islamisation and asylum seekers in Dresden, Germany, a march which was condemned by the German political and media establishment. No doubt, at future marches in Germany, the point will be made that ‘If that sort of thing can happen in Australia, it can happen, quite easily, here in Germany’.

The siege is a signal instance of multi-culti madness. One of the first images of the siege was that of ‘Australian’ Ellie Chen, a Chinese immigrant waitress at the Lindt restaurant. Not many outside of Australia knows this, but Sydney now in 2014 is a Chinese city. In many ways it resembles Shanghai in 1930 – a Chinese city with a small European population. So my first impression of the siege was that a man of Middle East extraction – most likely Lebanese (he turned out to be Iranian) – was holding Australian and Chinese people captive in a Chinesi-fied city, all in the name of Islam and ISIS (the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant). That’s symbolic of the multi-culti chaos of Sydney today.

The terrorist incidents, carried out by Islamists in Boston, Toulouse, Ottawa, Sydney and elsewhere, auger a gloomy future for the West. Islamism, and the alienation that produces ‘crazy gunman’ shooting sprees, can’t be prevented if we are to stick with the present multi-culti and liberal democratic political model. It’s quite true that this sort of thing didn’t occur in Australia in 1960 or 1970 – but we can’t turn the clock back. The social, political and economic model back then may have worked tolerably well, and certainly there were less explosions of violence brought about by alienation, but there’s no return to the model of that time. What’s needed are two things: one is ethnic homogeneity – a society which doesn’t let Haron Monis in – and greater participation by the community in the life of the nation and state, a participation which is by default barred by our present liberal and democratic political and social system. It is the opinion of this author that we need drastic alternatives to that system, alternatives resembling those of Europe and the West’s discarded past. ‘Crazy gunman’ shooting sprees brought on by popping pills or Islamism or both didn’t occur in societies such as the DDR (East German Democratic Republic) or National Socialist Germany. There, Germans were encouraged to take pride in their work and view their labour, no matter how menial it was, as being beneficial to the community and the state; German youth joined youth associations which enabled them to participate in the life of the community and the nation, and engage in healthy activities such as sports, music, camping (and what we in Australia call) bushwalking. I once saw a documentary on the Europe-based Korean Friendship Association – a communist front group which promotes cultural exchanges with and visits to North Korea – and a young Scotsman interviewed on why he supports North Korea; he stated that all the terrible social problems of the West – drugs, prostitution  and other scourges – were brought about by ‘capitalism’ and an individualistic society. He’s right.

Concomitant to this is that a revolution – a nationalist political and social revolution – is needed to bring about a new order and the demise (let’s say phasing out) of the old. How to go about it? For political activists, there’s two avenues of attack: talking points and the united front.

Firstly, talking points: these can be deployed in a wide variety of situations – with one’s colleagues, relatives, friends, and on Internet forums, Comments sections in the news and elsewhere. Some of these talking points are (and the reader no doubt can think of a few himself):

- ‘Muslim Community Fears Backlash’ – why is it that this headline always follows an Islamist terror incident? Why the double standards of the media? If a crazy gunman spree killer murders people, the call goes up for gun control and gun owners are all tarred with the same brush. The same goes if some nutcase with tenuous connections to the ‘Far Right’ does the same thing.

- This segues into another point: when was the last time we saw a Catholic or Lutheran or Scots Presbyterian terrorist incident? Why aren’t there Scots Presbyterian or Episcopalian ‘extremists’ carrying out these attacks, given that (according to the liberal narrative) the problem is not a particular religious creed but the taking of that religious creed to ‘extremes’?

- Why was the Islamic cleric and activist Haron Monis allowed into the country in the first place? This leads, naturally, to an argument for tighter border controls – not just on illegal but on legal immigration.

- Mention, casually – as an observation of ‘no great import’ – that there seem to be two types of immigrant to Australia. One type – the Muslim – makes demands to the alteration of his environment, demands that, for instance, swimming baths be segregated and that dogs be barred from taxis driven by Muslim cab drivers; the other – the Chinese – doesn’t draw attention to himself, instead he keeps his head down, ignores any ‘racism’ from Australians, works hard and before you know it, he fills the streets of a Sydney or Melbourne with Chinese-language small businesses and snaps up all the mining concessions and real estate available. In effect he ends up dominating his environment without calling attention to himself unlike all these ‘sheikhs’ and clerics. Mention these facts in a tone of wonderment, as if you are not evaluating the two types of immigrant – you are merely making an observation, that’s all.

- Conclude by saying something along the lines of ‘Things don’t look good for us’ (in the West) and that any conflict between Muslim immigrants and Westerners is inevitable. Liberal democrats may have won the First and Second World Wars, and the Cold War, but won’t win the War on Islam, especially in the Western theater (the UK, US, Australia, France and the rest of Continental Europe). Put into your own words Yockey’s thesis that the West and the Arabic-Semitic Cultures are two separate civilisations, and if members of the Arabic-Semitic ‘Magian’ Culture are present in the West in large numbers, ‘antibodies’ – Western individuals and groups who are highly resistant to the ‘Magians’ – will appear and bring about conflict. This process is inevitable. It’s at this juncture that you mention the German marches against Islamisation.

These are the talking points; now onto the question of the united front. Recently a demonstration was held, by a motley array of nationalist and Far Right Australian groups along with concerned residents, against the construction of a mosque in Penrith. The protest turned out to be a huge success, because of the large numbers of nationalists (from disparate groups) attending. A small contingent of pro-Islamist communists, anarchists and ‘anti-racists’ showed up and were outnumbered by the nationalist side; by the end, the ‘smash the state’ leftists were hiding behind the police line and begging for police help. The nationalists, meanwhile, managed to intermingle with members of the community who were by no means radical or politicised. The Penrith demonstration serves as an example of the efficacy of united front tactics. Members of the movement managed to put aside any grudges and demonstrate side by side, and mix with members of the ordinary, apolitical Australian public who felt concerns over Islamisation.

The same united front tactics are working well in Germany. The group HOGESA (Hooligans Against Salafism) managed to carry out demonstrations against Islamisation in Cologne; nationalists managed to link up with soccer enthusiasts and took to the streets in thousands. The last march, however, was banned by the police and pro-Islamist leftist counter-demonstrators organised a contingent which was at least double the nationalist numbers. PEGIDA has been much more successful. They have mobilised ordinary and peaceable apolitical Germans in the east in the thousands and consistently outnumber the pro-Islamist counter-demonstrators. No wonder, then, that the German political establishment loathes them. Politicians, trade unionists, journalists and the rest have all come out against PEGIDA.

The conclusions we in Australia need to draw from the Penrith and Dresden demonstrations are that a) we need to maintain our focus on questions (such as the Muslim question) which preoccupy large sections of the apolitical public and b) we can’t force our ideologies down peoples’ throats and that we may need to compromise – strictly for the purposes of the united front effort – and work with people we wouldn’t ordinarily associate with politically (that is, we may need to demonstrate alongside Zionists and Israel-lovers and those ‘nationalists’ and bourgeois conservatives who are against Islamic immigration but are neutral, or even positive, on Chinese immigration). The Left appears to be huge in numbers when it mounting demonstrations on, for instance, ‘Stop the War’, but if we examine such demonstrations closely, it’s the case that the crowds are made up disparate groups – trade unionists, liberal progressives, and members of anarchist and communist splinter groups. The communists in particular are adept at using an issue of concern to a broad cross-section of the Left – such as ‘Stop the War’ – as a force multiplier. If we nationalists use the same tactic, there’ll be no problem in building up numbers and putting the pro-Islamist Left in their place.

The thing to avoid is splitting and sectarianism. There is an international Trotskyite group called the Spartacist League which is famous on the Left for its refusal to march alongside other communists and leftists at these events – it spurns even fellow Trotskyites. They are notorious for taking sectarianism to the n-th degree. We nationalists should steer away from such dogmatism and need to keep in mind that anti-Islamism is merely a stepping stone, a doorway, to higher things. The anti-Islamist struggle needs to be linked to the wider nationalist struggle, but before one can undertake that process of education and consciousness-raising, one needs to get a foot in that door. United front tactics and a focus on a concrete issue such as Islamisation provide us with that entry point.

America’s Death Dance: Our Government Steals Our Money and Burns Our Towns, Still We Don't React

via Darkmoon

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before  . . .

The gay perverts in Washington insist some country is abusing its own citizens, and America needs to ride to the rescue, either with a No Fly Zone (buzz phrase for all-out massacre) . . . OR, it needs to funnel arms to the rebels (invariably Mossad-approved henchmen hired out of the same sewer as Al-Qaeda, ISIL or the Jew butchers assigned by Hillary Clinton to take over the so-called government of Ukraine) so they can destroy the target country and provide more reconstruction contracts for Halliburton.

They call this a financial strategy. They have been using it for more years than we realize.

All the while, the Jew controlled maniacs in the White House keep insisting that honest leaders who have done their best to improve the situations in their countries have really been terrible tyrants who need to be destroyed. Doubtless you know the list: Qaddafi, Saddam, Milosevic . . . and if you know your history, Czar Nicholas II.
The difference today is that it’s not merely a psychotic president with the itchy trigger finger, it’s the entire House of Representatives, which recently voted to significantly increase the chances of World War III by blaming Russia for the trouble in the Ukraine, when it was clearly fomented by the U.S. and its Israeli masters. (See “Reckless Congress declares war on Russia.”)
There are apparently no independent actors in Congress who will refuse the direct orders from their Jewish masters that are destroying America. There are certainly none in mainstream media, meaning the majority of the American people believe what the Jews tell them to believe, meaning that a rigor mortis of the soul has set in, dooming the once bright American republic to a future of semi-conscious slavery.

This is the new reality all Americans must face.

What comes out of the foul mouths of Jew controlled American politicians is consistently not in the best interests of the American people, and in fact, consistently violates the laws these corrupt creeps supposedly took an oath to uphold.

The U.S. threatens war with Russia over a situation that the U.S. has created and then lies about who is responsible for it. The just-passed House Resolution 758 continues the neocon fantasy that Russia invaded the Ukraine and stole Crimea and recommends sending American arms to Ukraine.

The resolution calls on Russia to support the independence and sovereignty of all countries. Well, Russia already does this. It’s the United States that doesn’t do it. It’s the United States that shoots up countries that don’t bend to its will. It’s the United States that kills foreign leaders it doesn’t like, and then claims it has done that country a favor.

If you need more examples  . . .

The U.S. sends planes and troops to fight a Mideast enemy it has itself armed and trained as part of a backdoor plan to destroy the nation of Syria.

Then, the international bankers tell the U.S. they will have to steal a percentage from everyone’s saving accounts in order to enable them to continue funding their derivative transactions, which already have bankrupted the entire world.

Then, although this has already been happening for years, the government has plans to ramp up the practice called civil forfeiture, in which law enforcement can steal what money you have on your person, give you a receipt for it, and never have to give it back to you. You may go to court to reclaim it, but it will take years to get it back, and you will never reclaim all of it.

Then, we learn that all businesses which burned on Florissant Avenue in Ferguson, Missouri were targeted for redevelopment in a report published earlier in the year. Some people think a lot of the fires were lit by the police, and that the federal government manipulated this crisis to make it worse than it needed to be, all in the interests of corporate redevelopment.

And topping it all off — at least in today’s news — is America’s use of torture.

abu-ghraib-america-torture-abu-ghraib-war-crimes-demotivational-poster-1235262526
What a disgusting joke! As if Americans didn’t know

Almost nobody blinked when it was first announced. Now they’re making a big deal about it over things we should have realized from the outset, as we should have realized that the invasions of all these countries were fraudulent, cruel, unnecessary and the real reason that America’s budgets are all busted, its people are starving, and there is no real hope for the future except more tyrannical misery.
Does all this sound like America to you? No. Does all this sound familiar? Yes.

When’s the last time your government did something you could truly be proud of, or implemented some program or plan that actually benefited the American people, or — hardest of all to believe — told the truth about any international incident or new law being imposed on the American people?

When’s the last time you could actually applaud your elected representative?

When’s the last time you felt that warm glow in your chest because you knew you were living in the fairest, most admirable country in the world?

Of course you can’t recall any specific examples of these, because there haven’t been any.

And why there haven’t been any is because none of our leaders are actually working for the American people. They’re working for the international bankers who furnish them with bribes to buy their consciences to look the other way as us ordinary peons continue to get fleeced. That’s why they’ve allowed the United Nations mandates to take the place of the U.S. Constitution — all without the approval of the American people.

The plan is to get everyone working for the government so there will be no one left to protest governmental tyranny. They won’t be able to, or they’ll lose their jobs. Between the career welfare recipients and the pampered illegal aliens who are given full benefits when they arrive, we’re almost at that point now. The infrastructure is teetering and the social systems are way past overloaded.

People march voluntarily into a prison fabricated by Jews in which they are not allowed to say what they’re thinking, they’re not allowed to talk about the Jewish control of everything for fear of losing their jobs, losing their money, and starving.

Economic watchdog Ellen Brown recently pointed out that the G-20 meeting in Brisbane put the final touches on a plan to do “bail-ins” throughout the world, which means people’s saving accounts will be given “haircuts” by the bankers so they can continue their insane derivatives trading and assure that the world goes many more trillions in debt, guaranteeing that their commissions will continue to grow so they can hire more security types to keep us ordinary people from killing them on the spot.

If that doesn’t worry you, I don’t know what would?

So this a clear indication that in a world run by criminal billionaires, ordinary hard working people simply don’t matter. Be sure and explain that clearly to your children and don’t be surprised when they spit in your face (as they should, if they are properly educated).

We need to do something a lot worse than that to all these politicians who depend on Israel for their bribes and their hookers. At the very least, every office holder you know should be confronted on a constant basis as to why they continue to work for a system that is destroying the country.

If there were justice in the world, those who invented and abetted the practice of torture — especially since they all knew the people they were torturing were innocent dupes — could suffer the application of these deviant horrors and live with the same scars their actions have inflicted on other innocent bystanders.
Yes, I would like to waterboard George W. Bush.
If you think you can hide from the future and that all these problems will somehow blow over, then you should realize you’re already as good as dead.
We need to take all these corrupt subhumans out into the streets and do something unspeakable to them, just like they’ve done to us.

Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 2

via Faith & Heritage

In his teaching series refuting Kinism, Brian Schwertley has thus far failed to appropriately explain the Kinist understanding of two passages in Genesis: the creation order of “after their kind” and the curse of Ham. He has likewise, in his preliminary discussion on the tower of Babel, failed to explain the true Kinist understanding of race and nationhood as means of sanctification, instead constructing a straw man where we replace the ministry of the Holy Spirit with the practice of ethnonationalism. I will continue dissecting the errors he commits as he provides commentary directly on the tower of Babel.

The Tower of Babel

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

After all his preliminary invectives against the Kinist opposition to imperialism, Schwertley seeks to establish his interpretation of Genesis 11, starting with the sin of Babel. He states that the sins of the people of Babel were pride, rebellion, and idolatry: pride, since they set about to make the city and tower as a tribute to their own glory; rebellion, since they were acting against God’s commandment to spread over the whole land (11:4); and idolatry, since they were substituting a godless, humanistic unity for godly unity. Against these sins, God confused their language as a means to thwart their efforts. Kinists are in perfect agreement with Schwertley on these points.

But Schwertley errs in describing the Kinist understanding of this passage. According to him, the Kinist usage of the Babel narrative is that God immediately, supernaturally created racial distinctions at Babel, corresponding these racial distinctions to the new language groups, so that all the new racial groups would be unable (and thus forbidden) to intermarry. Another Kinist utilization of this passage, according to Schwertley, is that the separate linguistic groups created at Babel intend to communicate that those separate groups are not permitted to have any exchange of anything in the future: no transfer of goods, no sharing of ideas, no exchange of recipes, no teaching of foreign languages, and definitely no intermarriage. These are the straw men that Schwertley loves to demolish, and, as they are quite foreign to the text, their demolition is easy. So outlandishly easy, in fact, that it is evident he did not inquire into various Kinists’ belief on the subject.

The general Kinist understanding of Babel is that God’s command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), which the Babelites flouted, had an ethnonationalist basis (Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26-27): that the reason underlying the command to fill the earth was not simply a desire of God for certain land to be inhabited, but, principally, His very design of nationhood. This understanding of the dominion mandate is not only more prima facie plausible, for it coherently connects the formation of nations to God’s design for nationhood, but it also asserts its validity when we understand that the linguistic groups formed at Babel corresponded to familial and national groups that were already in place, demonstrating that God intended these hereditary groupings to have intrinsic value, worthy of preservation. Therefore, as the command to fill the earth had an ethnonationalist basis, and as the Babelites rebelled against this command, they were rebelling against God’s design for nationhood, preferring imperial, humanistic unity to the ethnic-national separation for which God has designed man. With this general understanding in mind, let us more clearly expose the follies of Schwertley’s four specific points against our understanding of Babel:

1. Schwertley presents the Kinist position as teaching that the unity of language which the Babelites shared at that time (Gen. 11:1) was itself sinful, representing an illicit mixing of cultures or nations which God sought to overthrow. The clear refutation of such a straw man is that God created man speaking one language, and hence that linguistic uniformity is not essentially sinful. But as stated above, the Kinist understanding of Babelism as imperial amalgamation depends simply on the idea that the diffusion of the nations, which God commanded, is linked with God’s design for separate ethnic nationhood. This link is supported by the fact that when God divided the people at Babel, he did not choose random assortments of people and then assign them to a language group. Instead, God divided the people hereditarily, based upon a group of families descended from a common patriarch. The Table of Nations repeatedly states that the progeny of Noah was divided “in their lands, after their families, after their tongues [languages], in their countries, by their nations” (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31-32). There should be no doubt that the division of nations occurred along hereditary lines, and that they were identified by descent from a common patriarch. God assigned different languages to the different nations, but the existence of the nations preceded the tower’s attempted construction, since their ancestry can be traced from patriarchs who lived before the incident. The initial post-flood dispersion of the nations was intended to geographically separate them both hereditarily and linguistically, and Babel supernaturally expedited this process with severe linguistic confusion. This is why, commenting on Genesis 11, Matthew Henry can state:
God, who, when he made man, taught him to speak, and put words into his mouth fit to express the conceptions of his mind by, now caused these builders to forget their former language, and to speak and understand a new one, which yet was common to those of the same tribe or family, but not to others: those of one colony could converse together, but not with those of another.1
If the linguistic divisions at Babel ran along hereditary lines, and if such a forced division was intended to make men comply with the nationalism of the dominion mandate, then clearly, among other evils, one of the sins of Babel was the mixing of different hereditary lines that ought to have separately diffused throughout the earth. This is exactly why Kinists can cite Babel as an instance of Alienist amalgamation.
Incidentally, while Kinists do not hold that linguistic uniformity is in all circumstances sinful, we do maintain that seeking a one-world language today would be sinful, and for two reasons. First, as Matthew Henry says, to do so would be “to strive against a divine sentence.” God at Babel punished man with a harsh linguistic confusion, so our undoing of that supernatural imposition would be presumptuous. Second, a certain degree of linguistic diversity is built into man by design, so that we would hold this position irrespective of the events at Babel. Even if Adam had never fallen, as man would have spread across the earth he would have progressively acquired certain national and racial distinctions, and corresponding to these would have been cultural and linguistic distinctions. Proof of this can be found in the fact that we have many more language-groups today than could have emerged at Babel, that we can witness languages having evolved in our own records of history (such as Old English), and that peoples who likely did not participate in Babel (e.g. many Shemites) nevertheless had linguistic diversity (e.g. Gen. 10:31). Hence man still would have attained some degree of linguistic diversity without any supernatural acceleration as occurred at Babel, and, as such linguistic diversity would be part of God’s nationalist design of man, it would be a sin to resist this design by imperially seeking a one-world language. However, it is doubtful that linguistic uniformity would have been sinful as early in post-flood history as Babel, for linguistic distinctions would probably have not yet formed, and at any rate, our argument does not depend on that being the case.

2. Still depending on the mistaken notion that Kinists object to the linguistic uniformity of the Babelites as sinful in itself, Schwertley then argues that the linguistic division at Babel was a means to an end: the peoples were growing too strong and too capable of committing great sins, so God weakened them through linguistic confusion, but He had no issue with their linguistic unity as such. Once more, Schwertley here ignores the purpose of this linguistic confusion as relevant to Kinism. True, God sought to weaken the peoples by dividing them, but He also sought to force compliance to His mandate to fill the earth, and as stated above, this mandate has an ethnonationalist basis. No Kinist argues that the imposed linguistic confusion was an end in itself and nothing more; much less do they use that falsehood to argue for racialist conclusions.

3. According to Schwertley, the tower of Babel has no racial implications for the plain fact that God did not supernaturally alter anyone’s morphological features. He did not change “skin colors, hair types or facial features,” but only languages; therefore the passage has nothing to do with race. This is clearly a confused objection. The ethnonationalist basis of the dominion mandate suffices to demonstrate the ethnic or racial implications of Babel; there is no need for, nor have any Kinists stated the necessity of, racial distinctions appearing immediately at Babel.

It would also be important to note here that the Kinist argument does not require morphologically evident racial distinctions to have already existed at the time of Babel. Their presence would better demonstrate the anti-nationalist nature of the Babelite rebellion, fortifying our case, but they are not necessary for our argument. The Kinist argument depends only upon the ethnic design which God has for nationhood (undergirding the command to fill the earth), irrespective of whether that design had yet in history yielded vivid racial distinctions among various peoples.2 But it is quite interesting to note that Schwertley apparently agrees that man has a providential racial design, for he states that racial distinctions emerged as a physical necessity in God’s providence: “God did not in an instant make up different races. Different racial features took several centuries of people groups living in isolation in radically different climates with breeding continuing within a specific geographical area.” Like any Alienist, Schwertley would reduce all the racial-providential workings of God to purely environmental causes, and he would reduce all racial distinctions to purely external features like skin color; but he nevertheless reveals a fundamental problem for the Alienist: since all Alienists hold that racial distinctions emerged necessarily from the diffusion of mankind across the globe, and since all Alienists hold (or ought to) that mankind, apart from sin, would have spread across the globe, then they must hold that racial distinctions are not purely the result of sin, but were incipient within God’s original design of man. Even by their own lights, all Alienists must maintain that racial and ethnic distinctions are not a transient solution to a moral problem, created only in response to sin, but instead a lasting part of God’s creative activity that we will see even in the eschaton (Rev. 21:24-26). The only remaining step to becoming Kinists, then, is their comprehending the obvious fact that race is more than skin color.

Hilariously, after bringing up this point, Schwertley is mysteriously driven to assert that “there is only one race, the human race,” and that the concept of race did not appear until Darwinism introduced it in the past few centuries. Again, I have already demonstrated that this charge is false, and that secular humanism is racially egalitarian – but the very fact that he sees fit to assert such a point leads one to wonder if he caught himself stating too much in his brief discussion of providentially ordained racial distinctions.

Schwertley also argues that as modern linguistic groups do not correspond to conventional racial groupings, Kinists have no grounds to oppose racial intermarriage on the basis of Babel. His goal is to show that skin color does not point to true racial distinctions, for people-groups of vastly different skin colors can be linguistically similar and thus more closely related, making all skin-color-based opposition to intermarriage to be horrendously “racist.” He specifically cites Europeans and Indians: “What is particularly interesting is that the Aryan Indians are linguistically more closely related to Germans than Germans are to the Celtic peoples. Thus, the dark-skinned Indians are more closely related to Germans than are the Irish and the Welsh and the Scottish.” At one point Schwertley even comments, “What morons. They don’t know that Indians in India are Caucasian?” Before calling his opponents morons, he ought to have done some research on the subject in question. Kinists are very much aware that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, and we are aware that this language was brought to the Indus Valley by Aryans millennia ago. But Schwertley is wrong on a number of points.

First, two different populations can share a common language without sharing a biological relation, due to the providential movement of that language in history. Spanish Europeans are more closely related to the French, even though they are linguistically more similar to the Mestizos of Central and South America given their colonialism. This fact is confirmed by molecular anthropology. So we cannot conclude, as Schwertley does, that linguistic similarity is the same thing as genetic or hereditary similarity. Second, Schwertley is very confused about Indian racial identity. True, there was an Aryan migration into India long ago, but the majority of the population of India remains distinct from the Aryans that settled there. The native Dravidians were somewhat intermixed with the Aryan settlers, making them more closely related to Europeans than other East Asians, but Europeans, such as the Germans and Celts, are still much more closely related to each other than they are to Indians. Third, although the original Aryan migrants who brought the Indo-European language to India have largely been absorbed into the Indian population, there is a discernible remnant still extant to this day, and their clear similarity to Europeans is palpable. The Indian actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is an example of this Aryan remnant, as she clearly is not a representative of the dark-skinned Indians Schwertley has in mind. Thus Schwertley’s main point – that actual racial groupings do not correspond to our conventional racial groupings, which are based more on skin color – is false.

This excursion about Indians should return to the primary Kinist contention regarding Babel: when God linguistically divided the nations at Babel, He preserved their national integrity, not assigning random individuals to random language groups, and He did this because of His overarching design for nationhood: that hereditarily distinguishable peoples should reside in their own lands (cf. Acts 17:26-27). Suppose, from this starting point, that two disparate racial and linguistic groups (Aryans and Dravidians) later encountered each other, so that their languages became mixed (or one subsumed the other). None of this is incompatible with the message which God would have originally communicated at Babel: that He has designed the nations to retain a distinct existence. But that is to say, none of this is incompatible with Kinism.

4. Schwertley alleges that the Kinist view of Babel is that any degree whatsoever of cultural, linguistic, or racial mixing “leads to a one-world government,” and in refutation, he simply cites that the political aims of one-world imperialism are vastly different from and unrelated to the consumption of foreign foods or the utilization of foreign instruments and clothing. In other words, according to him, Kinists hold that “each racial group must remain completely separate,” in the strictest possible sense, “because that is God’s plan for humanity.

But once more, this is an evident straw man. Kinists do not believe that racial groups can or should live in total isolation from each other. In fact, Kinists believe quite the opposite; just as families can live in independence while interacting with and mutually profiting from other families – though never with an intention of ignoring or assaulting familial boundaries – so also can distinct ethnostates do the same. We affirm that national identity is based upon hereditary ethnic distinctions that ought to be conserved. Consequently, among other things, permanent property ownership within the nation’s homeland should be restricted to the members of the nation itself. This belief in ethnonationalism no more leads to complete ethnic separation than the belief in familial property rights entails the complete separation of families. Just because families can and should own and maintain their own property, it doesn’t follow that people must interact only with members of their own family.

What we do believe regarding Babel is that it displays God’s punishment for man’s violation of the command to fill the earth, and hence of God’s design for distinct nationhood. One of the sins of Babel was refusing to comport with this nationalist design of God, which forbids a certain kind and degree of cultural mixing, but certainly not all cultural mixing whatsoever. However, because this topic requires more elaboration, I will now cover it in further depth.

Some Comments on Culture

Throughout his sermons Schwertley makes several references to culture. He contends that the mixing of the non-sinful elements of culture is entirely without consequence. Christians should be free to adapt different elements of different cultures as long as these elements of culture are not sinful. He also accuses Kinists of supporting pagan elements of Western culture, citing a portion of the Kinist Manifesto to prove that Kinists are supportive of syncretism as the ideal for Western culture:
Nevertheless, we stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people.
We receive this colorful retort:
Talk of this wonderful confluence of pagan and Christian traditions being “irreplaceable” and vital to our survival as a people. Well, that’s unbiblical and has more in common with the Nazis than the Bible. It’s unbiblical, satanic rubbish; it’s a sin; it’s idolatry. Paganism has nothing to offer us. Nothing. It is offensive to God. All elements of paganism in our culture should be destroyed and replaced with godly counterparts. The gods of the Vikings and the old gods of the Germanic tribes and the old gods of the Celtics: it’s a bunch of satanic excrement, and to say that we need to combine that with Christianity for our wonderful white culture is very similar to the Nazis.
Another straw man. Kinists have never promoted the worship or reverence of pagan deities, but have often been on the front lines protesting paganism or heathenism of any sort. The passage in the Kinist Manifesto is referring to the Christian conquest of pagan symbols and traditions for Christ. Our ancestors’ pagan past contributed to their identity as a people, and we can inherit and cherish that identity, as it has been formed through the confluence of pagan and Christian principles, without thereby promoting a syncretism of pagan and Christian religion.

A prominent example of this is the Celtic cross, which is based upon the pagan sun wheel. Similarly, Sunday originally referred to the Roman pagan celebration of the Sol Invictus, or the Unconquerable Sun. Christians who met for worship on Sunday did not reject the name, but rather altered its significance to refer to a celebration of the Son of God. The Western calendar contains pagan references in our days of the week and our months of the year as well. Parliamentary government is also based upon the pre-Christian Roman practice of the Senate. This has been incorporated by white Christians as an element of the Western political tradition. Schwertley might dismiss all of this as “Nazi” and “satanic,” but this is what Kinists are citing when we talk about Western culture being based upon the confluence of Christian and pagan traditions. To suggest that Kinists support the worship of pagan deities is simply dishonest, and shows no effort whatever to carefully consider our claims.

Next, let’s unpack Schwertley’s assertion that the mixing of the non-sinful elements of culture is a matter of indifference. This is problematic because culture does not arise in a vacuum. We agree that there’s nothing inherently wrong with using non-sinful elements of a foreign culture, especially when these cultural elements arise from a closely-related kindred nation. By definition, if they are adiaphora, then their usage is not intrinsically sinful. However, what is intrinsically lawful is not necessarily righteous to use (1 Cor. 6:12), according to what the circumstances dictate – in our case, what is beneficial for the nation. A nation should place a priority on cultivating its own culture using the resources that it has at its disposal. Without a strong sense of national identity, a nation will lose its unique cultural characteristics that have typified her people’s existence for generations. Different fine cuisines, national holidays, folk customs, and styles of architecture, literature, and clothing arise from nations with a strong sense of identity that give due reverence for their ancestors and due regard for their future generations. Healthy national and regional cultures develop out of the practice of applied ethnonationalism, which has an undeniable basis in biblical law. Schwertley’s position assumes that Christians are to be considered as deracinated individuals, rather than as loyal members of a family, clan, tribe, nation, and race.

Plinio CorrĂȘa de Oliveira has written an excellent article explaining that a relatively closed local and regional economy is needed to preserve the delicacies that we associate with refined culture. Gourmet food, fine craftsmanship, and quality goods and services are the products of a local economy. Cheap trinkets, mass-produced kitsch, and fast food are the products of mass consumerism and multiculturalism. While international trade can and should help to circulate quality goods from all over the world, a healthy priority should be given to local customs and cultural traits, without which quality goods would cease to exist. So while it is permissible to learn a foreign language, eat foreign food, and use some other aspects of foreign culture, this should not supplant our own domestic language and culture. Nehemiah complained that the mixed descendants of Israelites and foreigners were speaking a foreign language (Nehemiah 13:23-24). We can see that Nehemiah considered the preservation of culture to be important, since language and dialect is a manifestation of culture, itself a manifestation of our God-given identity.

According to Schwertley, if Kinists are consistent, we should oppose the teaching and learning of foreign languages. This evidently makes us hypocrites. But the issue for Kinists is not with learning foreign languages or with making use of certain aspects of foreign cultures; the issue is sufficiently honoring and preserving one’s own language and customs. It would not be sinful to learn a foreign language or to make use of the morally defensible aspects of a foreign culture. One can certainly do this to the glory of God, especially if used as a means of evangelization. However, efforts to do away with language and cultural barriers entirely should be rejected as sinful. We join with Nehemiah in opposing his people’s learning a foreign language to the detriment of their own national identity and pride. In a Kinist world, the majority of the time, people would eat the food they made and that was grown locally, use the products that were made locally, and make a concerted effort to preserve and meaningfully contribute to the culture of their ancestors. The products of foreign culture, such as foreign food, customs, and traditions, could be enjoyed as the exception to the rule, without allowing them to supplant the domestic culture.

It should also be noted that the progressive change of cultures over time does not undo this obligation of ours. No Kinist would deny Schwertley’s statement, “Nationalities and cultures have never been unchanging air-tight categories, but have been changing and borrowing from each other from the beginning.” But the mutability and change of cultures does not nullify their reality, nor does it mean that cultures carry with themselves no duties of allegiance.3 Culture has developed over time, but healthy culture has developed within the context of healthy nations with a sense of their own identity.

Further, a national sense of identity is not inconsistent with some usage of another nation’s resources. For example, we often associate tea-drinking with Britons, but their love for tea, when tea leaves are indigenous to Asia, does not entail some degree of blurring between British and Asian cultures. This simply means the British have appropriated a natural resource from another country. The same can be said about Western coffee drinkers; they are not blurring their culture with South American culture, even if coffee beans are grown there. Of course, it can be difficult to draw a line distinguishing all cases of healthy cultural interaction from decadent and imperial cultural mixing (such as our modern phenomenon of “Reformed rap“), but we can at least understand the two categories as separate when inquiring about any particular instance of cultural transfer. We can use extreme examples of the two different types of cultural mixing, but it would be the fallacy of Loki’s wager to assume that, just because they can be practically hard to distinguish, there is no real distinction between the two.

Beyond these cases of cuisine, garb, architecture, and other things, however, it is crucially important to acknowledge that the distinctive elements of a culture involve a number of inarticulable behavioral subtleties in our social interaction. When we speak of having a particular Western culture, we rightly include such elements as literature, cuisine, and garb, but the fundamental joy we derive from a homogeneous culture is how we can deeply understand one another – even feel one another’s souls – in our communication. Rudyard Kipling speaks of this in his great poem, “The Stranger”:
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
There is naturally a greater degree of distrust in racially diverse communities, no doubt due to these differences in body language and communication. Even our facial expressions vary by ethnicity, as do a whole number of perspectival subtleties distinguishing our interpretation of events from other peoples’. Living among people similar to us, our kindred, aids us in ways we can hardly articulate. But we can leave it to foolish Alienists like Schwertley, who assert their innocent love for Kung Pao chicken as proof of the permissibility of full-bore cultural mixing, to mock our desires for the preservation of white culture. Fortunately, Schwertley did not double down on Loki’s wager by demanding that “white culture” be defined or else discarded; but his incorrect views on culture are nevertheless inexcusable.

Conclusion

In discussing the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, Schwertley makes a particularly glaring omission. He fails to account for the context provided by the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. It is abundantly clear that the national divisions reaffirmed at the Tower of Babel were based upon common descent from a national patriarch. Thus there is no basis for Schwertley’s statement that “this passage does not speak to the issue of race at all,” nor is there any grounds for all his other straw men concerning our understanding of the passage. But the plain fact is that, in rebelling against the command to fill the earth, the Babelites also set themselves against God’s ethnic design for nationhood, and hence their imperial aims were thoroughly Alienist.

Schwertley’s sermons are loaded with incendiary rhetoric. He refers to Kinists as “idiots” and “morons,” while referring to Kinism as “satanic,” “rubbish,” and “pagan.” The actual substance of his sermons has not matched his charged speechifying. Schwertley has failed to back up his claims with evidence, like his claim that Germans are more closely related to dark-skinned Indians than to Celts. His analysis of cultural mixing is as problematic as his analysis of Babel itself, since he permits no nuance in the Kinist position, assuming that we forbid any and all possible interaction or communication among different cultures.

We will next look at Schwertley’s case against Kinism using the example of Old Testament Israel. As he argues, Israel wasn’t a society with an identity rooted in heredity, but was exclusively based upon a common faith. Unfortunately, as we will see, his analysis of other Old Testament passages suffers from the same problems.

Footnotes

  1. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Genesis 11
  2. Biblical arguments for the existence of racial distinctions at Babel would center on the length of time between the flood and the tower’s construction – i.e. the time needed for racial microevolution to occur – particularly assessing the relevance of Nimrod’s (Gen. 10:8-10) and Peleg’s (Gen. 10:25) lifetimes, the possibility of genealogical gaps in the Table of Nations, the timetable which the sons of Noah would have originally established for the post-flood diffusion of nations prior to Babel, and the feasibility of both the post-flood diffusion and the construction of Babel, given the number of men required for both tasks. The subject is complex.
  3. The belief that mutable or changing things are therefore not real, particularly in the context of race, has sometimes been termed the “Platonic fallacy,” due to Plato’s beliefs about ideal Forms as the only true reality, all else being a mere shadow.