Believe it or not, I only this evening realized that, while my post of the 26th and JM Smith’s post of the 23rd were quite different, both concerned Babylon. I suppose his post must have played a role in my intuition – in an email correspondence with Tom Bertonneau a few days later – that “Babel” might be a suitable name for our Enemy in his current corporeal instantiation. In retrospect, it seems as though it could hardly have been otherwise. But at the time, I had no conscious recollection of Dr. Smith’s excellent essay. None whatsoever. Had you asked me about it, I would have been able to reel off a précis of the piece. But at no point in the writing of my post a few days later did it occur to my recollection.
In this event, at least two things are of interest to me.
First, the synchronicity of the two posts was not planned. Not consciously, anyway. Nothing at the Orthosphere ever is. We don’t read each other’s posts before they are published, and no one acts as a gatekeeper or editor in chief. I read Dr. Smith’s essay, was edified and educated thereby, and filed it away cerebrally for future reference. When I wrote mine, his did not appear to my conscious attention at all.
Now on the one hand, this sort of conjunction of events makes Jung’s notion of synchronicity look pretty humdrum. Stuff happens, and it happens to fit together intelligibly. How not? How, otherwise, could we have a world?
Fair questions.
But then on the other hand, it makes synchronicity look pretty fundamental, especially in human history. Something about Babylon was in the air, or it would have been most unlikely for Dr. Smith to have thought an essay upon it worthwhile. Likewise with me.
Humdrum has to be fundamental, almost by definition. Synchronicity, then – the ingress of an unusual or (especially) novel idea contemporaneously at many loci of the extensive continuum – would seem to be a basic feature of things.
And that’s the second thing.
Funny thing, Providence.
The Orthosphere 
Pingback: Babelonian Synchronicity | Aus-Alt-Right
I had my own awareness of synchronicity only yesterday. I’m rereading Lewis’s That Hideous Strength in conjunction with a small book study group, and while doing some background reading learned (or was reminded) that the title of the book is taken from an old poem in which “that hideous strength” refers to the Tower of Babel. In the Spring, Tennyson wrote, “a young man’s fancy turns to thoughts of love.” We live, alas, in autumn, so our fancy turns to thoughts of Babylon.
I went back last evening to read your essay again in view of mine, and vice versa. I found that they dovetailed to a spooky degree, even though they deploy quite different rhetorical devices in service of disparate objectives.
The key link is I think your statement that “Construction of the Tower of Babylon was the first organized human rebellion against God.”
Yes. It was at Babel that politics was first employed in the service of the Enemy. And wherever Babel reconstitutes himself, he organizes a campaign of explicitly political domination ordered toward a spiritual objective that is Gnostic, that rebels against the Creator and his created order.
And, of course, when the Antichrist appears, he will be in the vesture, not of a religious figure, but rather of a political leader of a global utopian project.
I experienced it too. My daily bible reading for that day happened to include the passage from revelation. Then I came upon a podcast interviewing a pair of neopagans who were talking about their worship of this demon. (Or “goddess” as they put it.) Then these two essays, all on the same day. I almost made a comment on your article, but didn’t think that much of it. Strange.
I don’t know if this counts for much, but I was learning to play Waters of Babylon by Don Mclean just before I read the first of the two essays.
Pingback: The Alt-Right considered in light of Hegel – The Dissenting Sociologist