The Tower of Babel

Yahweh's Attack on Civilization

REM is international. Symbols and parables reference a common myth body that transcends regional languages. Nationalists (who might better be referred to as "petty nationalists," as opposed to pan-racialists) might argue that their languages and customs are unique and their preservation critical. The very opposite is the case. Save for words serving JEM, which appear through a Promethean Transmission, each modern language is a largely mindless formation, a degeneration of earlier languages, to which the intelligently cultivated language of Hebrew stands in contrast. A multiplicity of modern languages serves as a barrier to goodwill, communication, cooperation, coordination, and greater human achievement. As the nations to which they correspond, this "babel" impedes us from combining the best in the Aryan body. Additionally, a multitude of languages have evidently not served as meaningful barriers to racial and cultural amalgamation, when non-Aryans have been granted access to European societies.

The parable of the Tower of Babel is critical for our understanding. This famous parable occurs after the Flood and Yahweh’s destruction of the world. The remainder of humanity was composed of the generations of the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), whose lines are recorded in Genesis 10. Nimrod, the “mighty hunter before the Lord,” and a son of Kush, himself a descendant of Ham, is credited as the founder of Babel. Curiously, Nimrod goes unmentioned in the story of the destruction of the Tower, and his relation to the parable is unclear.¹

A silver lining to the postdiluvian world was unity: “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” (11:1). Dwelling in the plain of Shinar, the Flood survivors declared,

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 (11:4).

Here we see the ambition and resolve of the “children of men,”² not simply to survive but to achieve greatness, indeed, “reach the gods.” Yahweh is characteristically jealous and vindictive as he looks upon the project.

And Yahweh said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all on language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which that have imagined to do (11:7).

Yahweh descends to “confound (balal) their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” as well as “scatter them abroad” so they will stop building great towers (11:7-8). The Bible offers this act of "confounding" as the etymology of “Babel.” It derives from the Hebrew word balal (בּלל), which means to “confuse” and also “mix” and “fade away.”³ "Babel" was also the Hebrew for "Babylon," referencing the great Mesopotamian empires of Hammurabi in the 18th century BC and the Assyrian successor state of the 6th and 7th centuries. This latter Babylon is salient to Jews as the place of the “Babylonian Captivity,” which occurred after Judea suffered sieges and defeats and had its temple destroyed. As described in the Book of Ezra, the Jews were eventually freed by the King of Persia, Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC), who, inspired by Yahweh, encouraged the Israelites to return to Jerusalem to construct the Second Temple. The Bible thus evinces an intense resentment towards Babylon, in all its forms, and the Jews' temple to Yahweh is understood in contradistinction to any empire of power and glory.

In European poetry and prose, the Tower of Babel has long been referenced as “cautionary tale” of hubris and recklessness, roughly equivalent to the story of Icarus: “[W]ith melting wax and loosened strings / Sunk hapless Icarus on unfaithful wings...”⁴ The European Union, or any grand political project, is invariably compared to "another Tower of Babel” by conservative detractors. While there might be some wisdom to this sentiment, it is important to look closely at exactly what is happening in the relevant passage. The Tower does not come crashing down due to foolhardiness; in fact, Yahweh’s concern is that the people are able to realize their dreams. Though what happens to the Tower is not described in detail, being that Yahweh scatters the people, we assume that he actively destroys the Tower. Retrospectively, destroying Babel functions as revenge for Babel’s destruction of the First Temple, and, as the parable was passed along, Rome’s destruction of the Second in 70 BC.

Noteworthy, the builders of the Tower elect to use brick instead of stone (11:3). Stone is a symbol of Yahweh, and by extension a symbol of Jewry. Among many examples, Psalm 18:2 relates: "Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer." The legendary founding of the Christian church occurs as Jesus declares, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). The word for brick here is lebenah (ָה לְבֵנ), deriving from the verb laban (לָבַן), meaning “to be white.” In modern Hebrew lebenah may mean “whiteness” or “palor.” This same word is used in Exodus to describe the bricks that the Israelites are forced to produce at the behest of the Pharaoh, and we might suspect a similar metaphor there.⁵ We know this to be relevant in light of the aforementioned figure of Laban (“white”) appearing in Genesis, whom Jacob robs of his white flock, and also in light of the ubiquitous theme of racial competition appearing in JEM. Hence the Tower itself becomes a symbol of Aryan cohesion, unified like bricks in a wall.

Yahweh is the mother of new languages, and thus unintelligibility. And the real lesson to be learned from this parable, which is told from an antagonistic perspective, is that it is desirable that our race speak one tongue. We understand this while conceding that the deterioration of language—the proliferation of slang, for example, originating among lower elements—is certainly a form of degeneration, often promoted by the mass media. Confusion arises, as well, when too many different words or nuances develop in regards to the same phenomena. In English, for instance, we find the words "religion," "propaganda," and "art." If varying in degrees of sophistication, mystery, and subtlety, they all ultimately describe the same phenomenon. A failure to understand this has, indeed, led to great confusion. Once a universal tongue is adopted, it should be protected and ameliorated consciously and intelligently by higher elements. Abuse of language should be associated with low status and grounds for social ostracism. Absent this, prior to this, and continuing supportively with this, are parable, myth, and REM. The myth language transcends all others. We desire a shared society, not one fragmented into an odd thousand pieces, even if a period of fragmentation has freed us. In any case, the world will be homogenized one way or the other, for better or worse. Let us make it for the better.

Perhaps "ethno-nationalists" will offer up their misunderstood pagan gods or the various, inestimably precious and unique beers of their lands as evidence of “things that must never be lost.” But they are wrong. Everything without a purpose is a burden, often designed as such, and will die. On the other hand, Epicurean things, such as regional cuisines, hardly need fastidious protection. We needn’t add here that beauty has the greatest purpose and thus is always spared, so long as it appears in service of itself. To be “rich and interesting” will no longer suffice to protect obsolete cultures, which, in any case, people on the Right understand and appreciate the least. AIM is international. We have a common global project, and we must face adversaries as one common global people. In this regard, REM and AIM is the ultimate solution. Crypsis means that adversaries may not always be recognizable and may persist unnoticed in a society, even after separations have officially occurred. AIM, its deployment and its understanding, demoralizes these adversaries and thwarts their use of JEM. In Rome, for instance, this was achieved through Latin and the establishment of chieftain Aryan gods, such as Jupiter and Mars, over servile or secondary Semitic gods, such as Mercury, the messenger and herald. We, too, recognize the necessity of such a pantheon.

1. That Nimrod, a son of Kush, is credited with the founding of multiple Babylonian and Assyrian cities in Genesis 10 is odd. Particularly as we understand the person and tribe of Kush to represent an African Negro (or inhabitant of the southern Nile valley). This racial meaning of Kush seems very much intended in the Hebrew Bible especially in Numbers 12, where it is indicated Moses marries a Kushite. The marriage angers Moses' sister Miriam, so Yahweh gives her the ironic punishment of turning her white with leprosy, a disease that does, indeed, appear to represent "problematic whiteness" in the Bible. That Nimrod is a son of Kush is especially odd if we accept that Nimrod is not a reference to a historical person but rather, like other Biblical figures, an intelligently developed parabolic or mythical archetype. The messaging of the story of Babel does not suggest a Black founder as will become apparent. Likewise, while modern scholars might argue for a Semitic founding of Mesopotamian civilization, as opposed to an Aryan one, none would argue for a Negro founding. A Black founder also seems contrary to birth order tropes that suggest the Aryan or Gentile, such as Esau, as a firstborn founder. There are multiple possible reasons why a Kushite is suggested as a civilizational founder here. One possibility is that Jewish authors are tendentiously disparaging or denying the Aryan founders of Mesopotamian societies. Another possibility is that the "building" and "rebuilding"(banah) of Nimrod's kingdoms in Mesopotamia represent African migrations to established civilizations, whether as slaves or immigrants. In fact, both possibilities could be true simultaneously. In other words, the authors might both be disparaging or denying the founders of these civilizations through a revisionist pseudo-history, while esoterically indicating an African migration to these cities. Perhaps the strongest clue supporting this thesis is the name Nimrod itself. The closest words in the Hebrew bible are Nimrah (ִמְרָה נ) and namer (נָמר). Nimrah means "place of the leopard" and namer means "leopard."Spotted or striped animals broadly represent intermixture in JEM. Both the leopard and the tiger are associated with the proto-Jewish Bacchus in the ancient world, a god of decadence. In our time, the "zebra" is a slur for a mulatto. The most compelling example here is Jacob's spotted sheep, which he derives from Laban's flock in Genesis 30. Stan Lee appears to offer corroboration of this thesis with his super villain named "Kraven the Hunter." Kraven is almost certainly a reference to "Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord." (Genesis 10:9). The black-haired, White Russian Kraven gains his power from drinking a secret potion stolen from a hidden African tribe. In his earliest appearance, he is depicted in leopard print pants, a tiger skin belt, and an open vest depicting the split head of a lion. Kraven may himself be an ethnic attack on Russians, as being "not quite" European.

2. "Children of men" or "Son of men" as in Jesus, the Son of Man, is possibly a Jewish identifier, describing a people descended of the Aryan race of Adam/ Edom but not Adam himself. In Genesis 11:5, it is used to describe builders of the Tower of Babel. To the extent that phrase is a Jewish identifier, it may suggest Jews or proto-Jews employed in a Gentile project, such as the building of the pyramids, whether opportunistically or reluctantly.

3. Interestingly balal also means to "anoint," which may lend a subversive meaning to the religious act of anointing or baptizing. At once it may suggest confusing or deceiving the anointed; a metaphor of sexual "mixing" may be suggested. This would, in any case, be consisted with messaging found throughout Biblical JEM, especially with the symbols of circumcision, crucifixion and baptism.

4. "The Death of Icarus," Erasmus Darwin.

5. It is important to understand that the Biblical tribe of Israel represents both Aryan and Semitic elements, as this book will discuss. Hence they would be able to produce “whites.”