Carol Swain and “The New White Nationalism”

The most impressive study by far on this topic comes from the Princeton scholar Carol Swain and her book “The New White Nationalism in America.” Published in 2002, Swain argued that what she called the new white nationalism is different than the white supremacism of old, which intuited whites as biologically, genetically, and intellectually superior to non-whites. The new white nationalists are instead motivated by something entirely different: they’re making the case that the current project of multiculturalism is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminating against white people and white interests on behalf of non-white constituents whose interests are taking a priority in terms of national policy. In other words, if we are society that is increasingly built upon the leftist notion of identity politics, where blacks have their own political interests and Hispanics have their own political interests and Asians have theirs, then it logically follows that white people must have their own unique political interests as well. And yet, when whites assert such logic, they are scolded for exemplifying bigoted and racist sentiments!
 
Swain argues that concern over this blatant double-standard goes way beyond white nationalists; it resonates deeply with the wider white population and is causing significant resentment and backlash. A recent study found that more than half of white Americans believe that “whites have replaced blacks as the ‘primary victims of discrimination.’”
 
Dr. Steve Turley
Excerpts from Newsletter
 
I would only add here that we have to keep the ideological aspect of all this before us as well as what Turley brings out. At the end of the day, this isn’t only about Identity politics as if people from different races can’t be in opposite racial camps then what the identitarians insist only exist for particular races. For example, there are HUGE numbers of White people who are identifying with minorities in the BLM movement in this country, and that because the minority political movement is ideological as much as racial. Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement and what it is achieving is it is convincing a large percentage of the black community (93% plus) that to be black or minority is to be Marxist. The resistance to that Black Lives Matter movement is found primarily in the white community, which ideologically speaking, is Anti-Marxist. However, there are plenty of white people (in the Academic, Feminist, Pervert, Journalism, and Ecclesiastical communities) who support BLM and the Marxism it shovels. So the Identity politics does not fall exactly along racial lines. What is really going on underneath reveals itself when people of other races cross Identity politics lines to join people of different races in order to support their majority ideology in those racial movements. In brief, a small percentage of the minority community hates the Marxist movement(s) and a substantial percentage of the white community (via perversion, Academia, Feminists, the Church etc) support the Marxism characterized by BLM and anti-fa.
 
The unfortunate thing here is that the political fault lines do indeed end up being largely racial in terms of who is and is not in the different Marxist vs. Anti-Marxist camps and when that happens generalities pile up to the point that people in all races just begin assuming on the basis of race alone that the people they are seeing automatically belong to the ideological camp that is most often associated with their race.
 
And to be honest, while may not be ideal this is understandable. When conflict begins to heat up generalities are a good thing to operate by if one has to make snap decisions upon which the survival of one’s family may depend.

Macron’s Allegiance to the New World Order

“It is together that we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world. It is together that we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds.”

Emmanuel Macron 
French President 
Comments on Arrival to Trump White House

1.) Macron a question. In your Globalist elitist worldview is there any nationalism that isn’t an “aggressive nationalism?”

2.) When you say “deny our history” vis-a-vis “nationalism that will divide the world” who is the “our” in that sentence?

3.) Macron, we’re not stupid. We understand that your, “Strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy” equals, “New World Order.”

4.) How can nationalism be a counter-point to pluralism when the only way to get to genuine pluralism is by distinct nationalisms?

5.) “Divide the World.” The only other option to dividing the world that Macron so fears is to unite the World into a uniform politico-social-economic miasma.

Wherein MD and BLMc Have a Conversation on Trump, Politics, and Worldviews

A chap named MD stopped by with a comment on my “Trumpism as Religion” post and left some comments. I’ve decided to post his comments here and interact with those comments since they are revelatory of the way Worldviews work as well as how language gets distorted depending on what worldview context in which the language lies. I don’t know who MD is, and so far as I know I’ve never interacted with MD before.

MD writes,

Bret, I disagree with you almost completely on religion and politics, but I think you’re on to something here, though not the something you have in mind. So please allow me to offer an alternative explanation.

Bret responds,

I am humbled that you would read here at Iron Ink MD, though you disagree with me almost completely on religion and politics.

MD writes,

In general, for most of the past 50 years (since Nixon’s southern strategy), the conservatives have run on resentment — it’s the fault of the blacks, the Hispanics, the immigrants, the gays, etc. — whereas the liberals have run on optimism — we can give you health care, a good social safety net, and otherwise improve your lives.

Bret responds,

I am of the age now where I can actually remember the campaigns of the last 50 years with greater and lesser clarity. 1968 and 1972 remain a bit fuzzy.

Already though we see the imposition of worldviews. MD has it in his worldview that conservatives have run campaigns on resentment while the liberals have run on optimism. Of course only a liberal with a non-Constitutional world and life view could reason like that. 

I, quite to the contrary of MD would insist that it is his liberals who have consistently run on resentment since 1968. Those student riots during the Democratic convention in 1968 sure looked like resentment to me as well as the riots at the Trump rallies during  2016. Democrat resentment swelled against Nixon’s law and order campaign and against Trump’s law and order campaign in 2016. 

Indeed Democrats have campaigned on resentment against our social order, resentment against previous mores and taboo boundaries long established, resentment against law and order, resentment against our 2nd amendment rights, resentment against women as seen by their forcing them out of the home and into the workforce and they have done all this while labeling this resentment as “optimism,” and casting those who were running on optimism as those who run on resentment. This reminds of the scripture,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

I would go so far as to say that the Democrats are the party of resentment but as they think their resentment is the norm everyone who disagrees with their resentment are those who are filled with resentment.

MD writes,

There have been exceptions, and the GOP has used coded language rather than stating it as bluntly as I just did, but I would say that’s generally true.   You yourself proved my point in your third-t0-last paragraph in which you offer a list of things you’d like Trump to do.  Every single one of them involves doing bad things to people you don’t like.  There wasn’t a single line item on it in which you wanted him to do good things for people; it was all nasty things you wanted him to do to people.

Bret responds,

Here is another worldview example. It is true I don’t want the Government to do good things for people.  Being a Constitutionalist and believing in the 9th and 10th amendment I do not think it is the role of the Federal Government to do people “good.” The role of the Federal Government is limited to those matters which are enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government powers. The Government does not exist to do people good in the way MD thinks. The good the Federal Government does is to stay out of the affairs of the American people except where enumerated and delegated by the US Constitution.

Secondly, only a liberal would see this list I cite as “doing bad things to people.” Here is the paragraph from the last Iron Ink entry which MD questions,

“If Trump were to cut the budget, kick sodomites out of the military, bar women entry into the military, turn off all loans to Israel, kick out the United Nations, turn off funds to states and cities who claim sanctuary status, implement their own version of Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” or any number of other sundry things I would say … “I was wrong about Trump. He really is anti-NWO.”

Let us review these,

1.) Cut the budget — This would be doing good things to people since the when the government subsidizes negative behavior the consequence is more negative behavior. Cutting the budget would go a long way to re-introducing personal and individual responsibility for one’s actions. That is a monumentally good thing. 

2.) Kicking sodomites out of the military — This would be a good thing to people who are not sodomite since they no longer would have to survive the advance of sodomites in the military. It would also be a good thing for the nation as a whole because the presence of sodomites in the military cannot help but weaken the moral fiber of the military. 

3.) Barring women from the military — Again this is good for the military because women in combat positions decrease the fighting ability of the military. Also, it is good for women since they will not be killed in battle.

4.) Turn off all International loans — This would be good for the American people since that money could either be returned to their pockets or that money could be used to pay down our national debt. 

5.) Kick out the United Nations — The UN idea has forever been connected with the Marxist New World Order dream. It is a Marxist organization carrying out a Marxist agenda. It would be good for the world as well as the US to be done with the UN.

6.) Turn off funds to States and Cities that claim sanctuary status — As the presence of illegal aliens reduce wages for Americans, increases pressure on the social safety net, increases the national deficit, and contributes to the elimination of the middle class, it would be good for US citizens to have the FEDS turn off funds to States and Cities.

7.) Implement an Eisenhower version of “Operation Wetback.” See above #6.

So, while MD sees me advocating doing bad things to people I don’t like. I see me advocating following the law and doing a good thing to people who likewise are following the law. MD wants to do good to illegal immigrants, sodomites, feminists, Marxists, citizens of other nations, etc and the reason MD calls what I advocate bad is because his liberal worldview calls those things bad. Again,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

So, it is only in a liberal (cultural Marxist) worldview where the things I advocated which MD complains about as “nasty,” are seen as nasty. The question that needs to be asked of each of us is — ‘by what standard is nasty, counted as nasty?’ I would contend that MD’s worldview forces him to call what is good by a scriptural account as nasty.

So MD as proven my point. He advocates for nasty things to be done to people and calls the good things I call for “nasty.” 

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

MD writes,

It reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle.  The genie said, “You can have anything you want but your neighbor gets twice as much.”  The man thought for a minute and said, “Can you make me blind in one eye?”

Bret responds,

And MD reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle. The genie said, “You can have anything you want.” Whereupon MD said, “I want perversion to be normalized. I want the Marxist utopian dream to come to pass. I want women and men to be non-distinguishable. I want the Federal Government to be an ever-present Genie always doing what I want.” Finally, the Genie stopped him and said …”Dude, even reality has boundaries.” 

MD wrote,

And what happened with Trump’s election is that everything aligned just right so that we now have a president whose entire administration is based on the politics of resentment.  He’s not a Judas goat so much as the culmination of fifty years of conservatives running for office on a platform of resentment.  And your real quarrel with him is that your list of people you want punished doesn’t precisely match up with his, though you’re certainly getting more from him than you would have from Hillary Clinton.

Bret responds,

The politics of resentment MD according to how your worldview defines resentment. Had the Hilda-beast been elected the politics of resentment would have really gone into high gear. Christians bakers, florists, and photographers would have been continued to be resented. Resentment against any idea of limited Government would have been overthrown. Resentment against heterosexual marriage would have continued to be exercised. MD thinks that he can demonize conservatives by characterizing them as practicing the politics of resentment when in point of fact it is the left which created the whole category of resentment and envy. The left could not exist if it were not for its practicing the politics of resentment. Yet, the left is crafty, and like the terrorist who is being chased by plainclothes law officers, the left turns and screams while pointing at the law officers and says, “the Terrorists are trying to get me. HELP.”

MD writes,

And the reason he’s (Trump) going to make the GOP, and conservatism, irrelevant is that people are now actually seeing what a government based on spite looks like.  Before, it was all theoretical.  Now, it’s playing out in practice.

Bret responds,

This is really quite bad political analysis. As anyone can tell you who knows me I carry no brief for the GOP, or for modern conservatism (so-called). However, the GOP and modern conservatism most certainly will not be seen as irrelevant because the electorate finally sees what a Government based on spite looks like. That thinking is a liberal fairy-tale. The GOP and conservatism will be seen as irrelevant because the politics of resentment and envy which is characteristic of the left’s cultural Marxist base will finally have overwhelmed traditional Americanism in terms of sheer numbers.  Our political landscape is now almost completely dictated by demographics and it is the weight of these demographics and the resentment the cultural Marxist left has seeded in those demographics which will finally make the GOP and modern conservatism irrelevant.

MD writes,

And now that people are actually in danger of losing their health care and social security, they’re running for the exit.  Maybe in 2018 and 2020 they’ll give optimism a chance.

Bret responds,

Only in a twisted liberal Worldview could the centralized bureaucracy and Governmental Tyranny required for the euphemistic malapropisms called “universal health care” and “social security” be considered “optimism.” It is so surreal that the only response it can be met with is a hearty belly laugh were it not for the case that so many people have swallowed this bilge. Over and over again in the 20th century, we’ve heard the utopian promise that if we will just give optimism a chance then we will be able to get something for nothing and over and over again the Government has placed its long ugly tentacles in the fiber of our lives only for the citizenry to be sickened and jaundiced by governmental remedies and cures found in government programs like government healthcare and government social security. 

And how did the liberals get people to believe in these fairy-tale promises? You guessed it … by practicing the politics of resentment and envy. By placing words in the left’s upside down, inside out, and backward worldview with the result that honoring the mores and taboos of the past end up being labeled as practicing resentment. Semantic and linguistic deception were birthed by the left.

MD writes,

Now, here’s where I split from your conclusion:  When Trump got the GOP nomination in 2016, I knew he would destroy the Republican Party and conservatism.  I just didn’t realize he’d have to get elected first.  And because I don’t agree with using government to punish people, I just hope he doesn’t drive the country itself off a cliff first.  I would really hate for the next Democratic administration to spend all four years doing little but clean up the mess his incompetence and cluelessness will leave.  Candidly, that may be part of the GOP strategy —  to make a mess so big that the Democrats’ energy once they return to power will all be spent on that rather than on actual governance.  Perhaps we should have this conversation again in 2021.

Bret responds,

1.) It is my prayer that both the Republican party and the Democratic party implode as they are really just different words for the same establishment. 

2.) You really need to examine the past few election cycles at the State levels. The Democrats have been getting their heads handed to them. I think it is just as reasonable to argue that the Democrats are on the edge of extinction as the Republicans are.

3.) You do believe that government should punish people. You just think that when the Government is punishing Christian cake bakers and florists and photographers that does not really count as punishment. You either know this and so are lying to advance your cause, or you don’t know this and so are just one of the useful idiots that Lenin talked about.

Trumpism as Religion

I was thinking about the tenacity of many of Trump’s followers to not let go of Trump. As a result of my cogitations, I have concluded that Trumpism is not Falsifiable. Trumpism is a religious faith system that cannot be falsified. Any fact that would disprove and so falsify Trumpism is thrown over the Trumptard’s shoulder into the sea of impossibility. Here is are some examples of random Trumptard reasoning,

“In an omnibus Trump has the discretion on how money is spent if not mistaken. He can build the wall using defense money with Army corps of engineers. If he couldn’t win it politically maybe he won it with wording in the bill.”

Trump wanted money for the military and felt he had no choice. He was betrayed by his own party pukes and the horribly flawed process they used to create the bill. I wish he’d have vetoed it, but maybe he can steal money from the military crap to build the wall. If that happens, I’ll feel better & will be waiting to see what he’ll do on the next spending bill.

So, here we find Trump signing a massive omnibus budget bill that has Democrat leaders Pelosi and Schumer as excited as two toddlers on a sugar high on Christmas morning and we are being asked to believe that Trump has “whooped em again Josey. ”

If Hillary Clinton had been elected with a Republican House and Senate such a bill likely would have never gone to Hillary to sign. It is unlikely that Hillary Clinton could have never gotten such an omnibus bill past a Republican House and Senate if only because a Republican House and Senate would not have wanted to give a Democrat that kind of victory. However, the Republican President has accomplished what a Democrat would have found almost impossible to accomplish.

Even if it were possibly true,  that Trump hoodwinked the Establishment those asserting that possibility have no real evidence upon which to believe that. Believing that such a thing is true amounts to a faith in faith. How can we ever trust someone who is always running a cloak and dagger game on his own base? How could we possibly know that there wasn’t some kind of double agent matrix occurring?  I’d rather stick with the “Trust but verify” mindset. I’d rather say that without verification I refuse to embrace a politician’s wink and a nod.

Now having said all that, I would be delighted to be wrong and have it found out that Trump really did “whoop em again Josey.”  I’d be delighted to see Trump take the money allocated to Defense and put in place to fund a policy to return all illegal immigrants to their homeland of origination and then station the military to guard our border, but asking me to believe that or something similar to that is what Trump is going to do is like asking me to believe that the New World Order has been defeated and fooled by a Johnny-Come-Lately to the political pool party.  It’s like asking me to believe in the big rock candy mountain.

 

Now, some might counter that I am guilty of the crime of not allowing any falsification of my conviction of Trump is possible. However, that just is not true. To the contrary, my doubt in Trump is falsifiable. If Trump were to cut the budget, kick sodomites out of the military, bar women entry into the military, turn off all loans to Israel, kick out the United Nations, turn off funds to states and cities who claim sanctuary status, implement their own version of Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” or any number of other sundry things I would say … “I was wrong about Trump. He really is anti-NWO.”

As it is, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Trump is a Judas Goat, assigned the task by his masters of leading whatever little remains of any possible resistance to the Internationalist Globalist dream down a path of irrelevancy.  One simply does not fight one’s enemy by giving one’s enemy everything they could possibly hope for in terms of budgetary desires. One does not defeat the enemy by funding the enemy. Trump has funded the enemy by signing the omnibus bill.

Trump is not a Cyrus. Trump is Julius Rosenberg.
 

McAtee Examines George Will’s Conservative Bonafides

“You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven…”

Daniel 5
Daniel Addressing Belshazzar 

“But a free market economic system is a system. It is a public product, a creation of government. Any important structure of freedom is a structure, a complicated institutional and cultural context that government must nurture and sustain. Obviously, free speech is not free in the sense that it is free of prerequisites. It is not free of a complicated institutional frame. Free speech, as much as a highway system is something government must establish and maintain,” and so on and on.

A welfare state is certainly important to and probably indispensable to social cohesion and, hence, to national strength. A welfare state is implied by conservative rhetoric. A welfare state can be an embodiment of a wholesome ethic of common provision.”

George Will 
In Defense of the Welfare State — 1983

1.) Note first that Will has always been cast by the Mainstream media as a Conservative. This reveals that 35 years ago Conservatism was a joke. How much more so now? Thoughtful Christians have to realize that in terms of the political spectrum in this country we have no dog in the fight. Our dog died in 1861.

2.) Note also that the free market is not only a creation of the (presumably Federal) Government, per Will, but the free market being the creation of the Government it is up to the Government to nurture and sustain this thing that the Government has created. The whole idea of Creation, Sustaining and Governing used to be ascribed, in systematic theology, to God’s providence. Will has replaced the Christian God with the state as God walking on the earth. The State is the creator, sustainer, and governor. Man is Plato’s political animal.

3.) If a free market economic system is a ‘creation of Government’ then how is it the case that it is ‘Free market?” If it is a creation of the Government then why not refer to it as the “Government market?”

4.) Will is presupposing the old fascist line of ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.’ Will has posited that the State is the overall conditioning environment in which man lives, moves, breathes and has his being. Of course, the fascists got that idea from Hegel who got it from Aristotle and Plato. No Biblical Christian can abide this horse manure thinking from the “conservative” George Will.

Increasingly, one is hearing the modernist clergy bleat about how politics does not belong in the pulpit. This quote proves that the pulpit cannot help but be political. When our wisemen, politicians, talking heads, and cultural gatekeepers arise to denounce God’s sovereignty how can the pulpit not sing out in defiance of all such pagan thinking? For the pulpit to remain mute in light of the claim that the Government is God walking on the earth would be to abandon the calling to be salt and light, it would be to go all treasonous at the very moment when faithfulness is most desperately needed, as done on a large scale it would be the end of Institutional Biblical Christianity. The pulpit must be political because politics is increasingly seeking to muscle in on the bailiwick of the pulpit. Ministers who refuse to thwap pagan thinking upside the head when pagan thinking is seeking to mold the thinking of God’s people are either stupid or cowards.

Modern conservatism is just right-wing Hegelianism.