Japan’s Homogeneity

Another blogger, Noahpinion, gives insightful critique of the homogeneity pushed by the far right. Particularly, the author criticizes the social demographic data as recorded by Roissy and summarized by the dictum Diversity + Proximity = War.

Not true, says the author. In a post entitled “The siren song of homogeneity,” the author passingly comments on the studies generally rather than goes into detail with any one of them. The author seemed to have three main critiques of the studies: their methodologies are wrong, they are mostly from Europe, and there are contrary studies. That’s a provoking overview but not extensive enough to dissuade their substantial findings, whose methods actually differ widely and some of which are global in scope. I was hoping he’d discuss Putnam’s research but he only mentioned it in passing.

Then, he moved on to say how he is skeptical of such empirical data, favoring instead measurable action of people (which some of the research did measure). “I guess like any good economist I instinctively put more stock in measures of actual behavior.”

Which makes his personal experience in Japan more interesting:

“Because Japan is homogeneous, ethnicity just isn’t that salient to most Japanese people – when a Japanese person meets another Japanese person, they don’t think “Japanese person,” they just think “person”. Ethnic identity isn’t on their minds…I suspect that the feeling of ethnic solidarity that many alt-right whites feel for other alt-right whites is something unique to minorities. People who have always been part of the overwhelming majority just don’t think about ethnicity enough for it to create bonds of solidarity.”

This anecdotal evidence demonstrates the point that ethnic diversity fosters group consciousness, which leads to group interests and group factions; while homogeneity creates a people largely unaware of themselves, their race, ethnicity, and other divisive elements. Japan is nearly entirely all Japanese and they are almost unaware of it. Blacks in America are a minority and they can think of nothing else. Hence, people amid the swirl of multicultural environments fixate on their difference, their uniqueness, the particularity, their alienation, preserving and acting with reference to their group. This has been the “measures of actual behavior” of people in multicultural societies. As a homogenous majority the people forget or assume their identities. As heterogenous minorities their identities are burned into their eyes and they claw to retain what makes them them, even if it hurts them socially. Hence, diverse societies are naturally at variance.

As Lee Kwan Yew, first prime minister of multicultural Singapore, said, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”



I watched a movie clip from the movie Meet Joe Black. The segment portrayed Brad Pitt masterfully employing pick-up game on a young woman who was loving every minute of it. I pointed out to a group online several things to illustrate how successful techniques go far with women. The females in the group all unanimously admitted that, “Of course they worked, it was Brad Pitt. I would let Brad Pitt come on to me in any way he liked.” I’m paraphrasing, but that was the gist of their sentiments.

This statement, spontaneously given by all the females, reveals an important truth about women: Women will welcome strong advances by high status (rich, powerful, dominant, hot) men. The opposite is also true: Women will not welcome strong (or any) advances from low status (poor, miserly, ugly, etc) men. Women will consider lovely and wonderful the dominant treatment of a dominant male, but they will perceive the exact same activity from a low value male as “abuse” or “unwanted” or “forced” or “uncomfortable” or even “rape.” 23561829_1669262356428793_7395184823084312621_n.jpg

The arbitrariness of women – their solipsism – contorts the very nature of reality about them. The same event is happening but the woman perceives it in two completely opposite ways. Moreover, she feels about it differently. This is not something she necessarily chooses cognitively. The lesson is that the sudden proliferation of #MeToo experiences is not entirely women experiencing something they wouldn’t desperately, passionately love to welcome – something most of them indeed already have done so – were it from the “right” guy.

That may be a bold assertive conclusion, but it leads to another point that may be illustrative. Liberated Woman demands to be dominated. She is desperate for men – so desperate that she actively searches for tyranny. It’s so obvious, the evidence so universal, the scene so tragic, that someone should make a documentary or write a tragedy play about it.

A New data reveals that women in their droves are searching for porn with tags like “extreme brutal gangbang”, “forced” and “rape”. A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex. Five percent of searches by women are for content portraying nonconsensual sex.”

“If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women…”

“But why are so many women so keen to see videos tagged with, say, “painful anal crying”, “public disgrace” or “extreme brutal gangbang”? Or content marked as “forced” or “rape”? The feminist porn movement – one focusing on equality and empowerment – might be thriving, but the data shows, proportionally, women are also consuming much more of the most extreme misogynistic sexual material available online.”

Another illustration involves the most popular genre in literature, which is women’s romance novels. Among those novels, one of the most bought and devoured story-lines is the rape fantasy. Go to a bookstore and look on the front covers of these racy page-turners. A bare chested, dark, tall, ripped man with a woman, a storm, and a castle in the behind him. The man breaks into a castle and forces his way into her room. He does not ask any questions. He knows what he wants and nothing – NOTHING – will stop him from having it. From having her. She cannot resist. She succumbs to his overwhelming power. Women eat it up by the billions in sales each year. Hype? No:
Fifty Shades Of Grey sold some 100 million copies worldwide, printed into 51 different languages, and sold about 45 million copies in the U.S. Rough estimates here: there are some 157 million females in America, about 100 million of which are at ages able to purchase and read the book. Which means that 4.5 out of every 10 women have read the book. This is not counting those who saw the movie, which had record ticket sales. Also not counting those who read this women’s romance genre, which accounts for some 21% of all genre sales.
Now, what do we have in America presently but many women publicly accusing men of doing to them the very things women in mass desire, pine, lust for men to do to them? This is why women cannot be entirely trusted in their claims. They flock to see Magic Mike with their gurls on opening night, having slipped away from their husbands, children, boyfriends, and fathers. The drink romance and rape fantasy like water in a desert. They search hardcore, brutal, violent pornography to sate their salivating sexual desires. They boost up the sales to among the highest of all time of a novel whose plot involves a strong, dominant, powerful billionaire who punishes, whips, tortures, inflicts an uncontrollable ecstasy of pain and and pleasure upon a quiet, humble, submissive, helpful, secretary-servant girl.
But all these women have been sexually assaulted and will not stand for it. #MeToo is their fight against male power – which they secretly long for. This is why women should not rule, run, or decide major things in the world. They are at once loving and hating, for and against. But their minds and actions are not random. They desire to be nearly-brutalized and dominated. Women want the bad boy that daddy can’t control. Nice guys lose the girl. Women flock to bad men. Here’s how it plays out in their minds:
50 Shades of Grey/Magic Mike fantasy: good girl meets bad guy, tames him with her (sexual) love, they ride off on a horse into the sunset and live happily ever after.
And here is how it plays out in reality:
Good girl meets bad guy, he uses her (sexually) and destroys her life, she sleeps around looking for a decent guy, finally settles down and resorts to reading romance novels and watching chic-flicks, escaping reality in her imagination. Eventually, she comes around to accusing him and all men of rape, abuse, domination, patriarchal oppression.
In short, women as often choose to put themselves in situations where they will be abused and “sexually assaulted”. Then, when things don’t go their way, they cry wolf.

Mono-Unity Leads To A-theological Emphases

The push for a mono-church will lead to a least-common-denominator theology:

Peter Leithart in “The End Of Protestantism”:

“American Protestants may find it easy to work for unity with other Protestants. White churches may also find it easy to reunite with other white churches. Crossing the boundary between Protestant and Catholic is edgier; negotiating the minefield of American race relations is more difficult still. But if American churches are going to make headway in achieving a semblance of catholicity, these are the places where reconciliation must take place…The racial divisions of the church will not be overcome if white Christians reconcile with other whites while keeping a safe distance from black denominations. Denominationalism will cease to be an obstacle to unity only when we attack the thicker, more impenetrable barriers. Black-white, Protestant-Catholic: these are the boundaries that must be transgressed, the dividing walls that must be broken through. So long as these walls remain, American denominationalism will go on its comfortable, childlike way, bowing low before the American way of life…So long as these walls remain, we will not fulfill the prayer of Jesus.”

Little do people mention that race is not the only thing that divides “white” and “black” denominations. There is a stark divide of theology as well. The same goes for protestants and Catholics. For the two racial groups to come together, a lot on one side or both are going to have to change their theology in some serious ways. Im not talking about end times stuff, nor of worship style. I mean soteriology and sanctification.

Speaking more broadly, it is perhaps the largest of errors of the multi-ethnic movement in the church that it is devoid of theology or that at best it relegates theology and doctrine and creed to secondary status. Unity is to be achieved at all costs.

But really, think about it. How can whites and blacks and Mexicans all get together in church with their vastly different beliefs about the Christian life and faith? Are multi-ethnicists so ignorant of those nonwhites whom they claim to love that they do not know of their differences in Christian teaching? Black church tradition, for instance, have very liberal, socialist, liberationist, and feminists beliefs and practices. Mexican churches are extremely charismatic (if not catholic/superstitious). To bring both of these into white, protestant, reformed circles will require the removal of theological barriers such as creeds, confessions, doctrinal statements, theological traditions like Calvinism, and so forth.

In fact, traditionally prominent figures such as Luther or Edwards are already being brought into question because they did not accept all people (Luther: Jews) or treat others as multiculturally equal (Edwards: slaves). The 500th anniversary of the Reformation could not go by without voices within the neo-reformed movement pointing to its fouled wellsprings:

A Pattern of Racial-Reconciliation Arguments

The trend of Christian articles that speak of Multi-Ethnicity and Racial-Reconciliation, follow a pattern of 1) establishing ethnic/racial identity of self as primary and of whites as “others”, 2) leveraging those two identities as fundamentally incompatible, 3) moving to Higher Ground that transcends ethnicity/race, 4) and returning to solidify ethnic/racial categories.


“1) As an Asian-American, 2) I am not at home among whites. White-majority (ie., non-Asian-majority) institutions do not meet my Asian expectations. 3) The gospel teaches that we should help the oppressed, welcome the stranger, no Jew or Gentile, etc. 4) Ergo, ethnic-racial divisions are real, and the church should accommodate for my ethnic/race-identity preferences.

#1 establishes one’s ethnicity/race as the primary starting place for reason and experience. Implicit in #2 is that the (minority) would feel more at home among a culture dominated by his own ethnic-racial people. #3 is often pure spectacle, a rhetorical baptism meant to persuade. “Gospel-issue” etc. In #4 ethnic-racial divisions are re-emphasized, tied to this gospel-rhetoric, and turned into imperatives and mandates.

In short, these sorts of articles are saying, “As a (ethnicity/race), I do not feel accepted around other people. The bible says all should feel accepted. I want to be around my people.”

Old Identities

We live in an individualistic age of shattered identities and allegiances. Individualism has attempted to abolish all of the old, natural, and traditional ties one human has to another, leaving people desperately searching for and ardently forging new, composite identities out of the fragments. So, in one instance the Church of England, following our Western mainstream intelligentsia, encourages us to explore new composite identities such as volition-based gender, multiethnicity communities, and globohomoist multi-nationalism. But in the next instance we are dissuaded through shame and patholocization away from the old, natural, earthly identities such as biological gender, family heritage, or national allegiance. However, the message today it is not that we should be identityless abstractions but that we must hold to the new, composite, appropriate identities. But in a time of such shattered, bleeding identities, people will be more sensible of them and tend to overemphasize them in attempts to make some society-stabilizing restoration of things, and in so doing they may stumble upon the old ones again.


It’s a hallmark of multi-ethnic racial grievance arguments to *almost* use empirical observation.
They proceed as though to make factual, data-driven arguments that land on earth but then pull up at the last minute into ethereal metaphysical abstractions.
Everytime I read one such article I harbor a small little hope that this will be the time when logically conclusive, concrete, verifiable data and examples of “systemic whiteness” et al are brought out. For then, we could kill the beast and go about living together in harmony.
But alas, it is a thing everywhere and nowhere, all around us but invisible to detection. Indeed, to ask for evidence is supposedly proof that it exists. “The fact that you can’t see it proves that it’s there!” It’s almost like pressupossitionalism’s view of God: when the atheist asks for evidence it is proof that he is wrong, that theism is true. God is systemic. Whiteness is systemic. Omnipresent. Self-evident. Axiomatic. Divine.
But this makes the divine unprovable, untestable, outside the realm of sensory knowledge and experience. It is only known through trust, belief, faith, revelation. So, to ask for evidence of systemic ideology X (racial grievance) is to prove all the more it is real.
“White churches don’t know how white they are.” Tell us how white they are. “They’re so white that, people don’t feel welcomed.” Show us where people are not being welcomed. “Look, if you can’t see this, then you should listen more to my witness.”
So, since it cannot be found, softer definitions are offered, but ones that are further removed from empirical observation – from validation and falsification. So far removed are they from verification, study, and testing that one begins to doubt their existence.

What is a multi-ethnic life?

“To erase the stain of racism in the SBC requires all racial groups within the denomination to preach reconciliation, to live multiethnic lives, and to reject and fight against he enduring effects of white supremacy with the gospel of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.” – Jarvis Williams, Removing the Stain of Racism
What does it mean to live a multi-ethnic life?
Is it by disallowing one single ethnicity exist? By blending them all? By not letting anyone marry a spouse of one’s own culture, ethnicity, or race? By preventing, morally or legally, one to have children that are not somehow of mixed ancestry, culture, color, etc? This appears the mirror opposite of Hitler’s experiment. The Nazis wanted a pure Aryan race. These people want a pure mixed race.
The great sin in the eyes of these racial grievance people is to be of one single ethnicity or race (re: white). Read what they’re saying through that lens and it will all make sense. The SBC will not be finished until all live multiethnic lives. “Multiethnic” means non-purely white lives. Pure white must go. It is wrong. Ergo, to be a pure white person is a sin. To have pure white kids is a sin. To have an all white home, church, business, school, neighborhood, community, city, nation, is sin. Ok, maybe not sin. But it’s not as “vibrant,” “radiant,” “Christ-like,” “developed,” “economical,”.
But, there is a sense in which to be white is to be diverse. We have Irish, Italian, Spanish, British, Scottish, Polish, German, Armenian, Russian, Swedish, American, New England American, Southern American, Appalachian, Sicilian, etc. The goal of these anti white critical race radicals is to reduce all whites into a reductionistic category and then condemn that monolithic category, which only shows they don’t understand white people in the slightest. They have invented a reductionist analytic hermeneutic that blinds them to the complexities of reality and of history. They know little of white history (see Anthony Bradley’s FB page on African Americans and the European Reformation), that for instance white people have a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities and histories, that white people have warred against each other, enslaved each other, plundered and oppressed each other, that in the twentieth century more white people died at the hands of other white people than all slaves brought from Africa abroad or all black people still alive on America today.
Much less do they know that they are awakening something in white people collectively which will not soon go back to sleep. They are reducing all white people to a monolithic category inside of which white people live and move and have their being and outside of which they claim white people cannot exist even at the minutest of levels? So be it. If they succeed in uniting all whites together against themselves, they will have created a monster as much worse than Hitler as the Western world is larger than Germany.