Given the long track
record of left-liberal policies producing the exact opposite of the result
expected, it should come as no surprise that social scientists are discovering
that, far from eliminating racism, an increasingly diverse society is creating a
cohesive trans-ethnic white identity in the United States:
In a study of white
Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success
reflects the rise of “white identity politics”—an attempt to protect the
collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial
prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity
reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.
We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But
our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes
in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in
turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.
When we talk about white identity, we’re not referring to the alt-right fringe,
the white nationalist movement or others who espouse racist beliefs. Rather,
we’re talking about everyday white Americans who, perhaps for the first time,
are racially conscious.
The concept of “garden variety” white racial identity stands in contrast to
conventional wisdom. In the last three decades of scholarship on whiteness as a
race, the prevailing view has been that most whites fail to notice their own
whiteness. In a society dominated by white people, whiteness simply fades into
the background. Just as fish fail to notice the water around them, whites are
unlikely to think about how they are members of a distinct group.
Our research shows that the era of “white invisibility” is coming to a
close.Endorsement of white identity politics was highest in heavily Hispanic
neighborhoods and was strongly correlated with white racial identity. These
results suggest that America’s growing ethnic diversity is creating a
politicized form of white identity that has clear repercussions for future
Why does it matter that whites’ politics are driven by concerns about the
interests of their racial group? It suggests that racial bias increasingly
reflects attention to the welfare of one’s own group rather than animus toward
other groups. These collective concerns are only going to become more
pronounced as the nation becomes more diverse.
Recent research in social psychology suggests that when whites engage in
discrimination based on their perceived collective interests, it’s hard to
convince them that such discrimination is wrong. After all, doesn’t every group
have a right to prioritize its own members? We believe our results portend
increasing difficulty in achieving the democratic aim of getting race out of
Once more, we see that
the Alt-Right perspective is supported by science, logic, and history. It's
conceptual models are predictive. The conservative perspective is not, and its
conceptual models reliably fail to correctly predict future events, except
occasionally disaster for the left-liberal models, which is rather like trying
to take credit for predicting that gravity will still be operative tomorrow.
That is why Point 8 was included in the 16 Points of the Alt-Right.
The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current
conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these
conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible
to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on
scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. Any movement that aligns itself with science, history, and correctly
applied logic is much more likely to take positions that will eventually prove
popular, even if they are initially despised, because events are always going
to move in ways that favor their interpretations. This is why the Alt-Right is
on the rise along with the development of white political identity in the USA.
The only way to get race out of American politics is to deny the other races
the ability to participate in the political process.
Also notice that it shows my interpretation of white
identity as an American phenomenon appears to be correct, as Europeans are not
facing anywhere near the same level of racial pressure, particularly not in a
political sense. Here in Europe, the pressure is cultural and religious in
nature, so I expect a cultural Christian identity to gradually arise in the
lands that were once collectively known as Christendom.
giving its imprimatur to affirmative action, the Supreme Court has helped AA
become a palpable part of the American experience. Offered here in a moment is
an evaluation of that doctrine as it relates to air controllers.
air traffic control system that has been nothing short of miraculous.
Old-timers like me can never be complacent about this matter; we remember too
well the old days when buying the paper in the morning risked facing a
half-page headline announcing a new air crash. The FAA, however, has not been
able to keep its hands off the system. Specifically, character and personality,
not technical skills are now the first hurdle for would-be
two years ago most would-be air controllers would apply for training at a CTI
(Collegiate Training Initiative) School. If admitted based on some combination
of their academic record and piloting experience, and if able to finish the
program, candidates would qualify to sit for the eight-hour AT-SAT, a test
primarily of skills relevant to the job. Upon passing that test, and after an
interview, they would be eligible for FAA training, at the end of which they
could work as apprentice controllers for two years and then be certified as
full-fledged controllers. In
2014 the FAA overhauled the system. Most important, CTI experience was no
longer its first test for admission to FAA training. Nor did aviation
experience count, only a high school degree, a few years of work experience in
any area, and a passing score on a Biographical Questionnaire (to be discussed
shortly). Only then are candidates eligible to take the AT-SAT and, upon
passing, qualify for FAA training. The result: one-third of those qualifying
for FAA training now have no CTI, military or other aviation-related training.
At the same time, over 90% of air traffic control students have failed the
biographical test, including some who had extensive military experience and who
had earned the highest scores on their AT-SAT exams. These folks were thus
ineligible for ultimate FAA certification.
to assess the FAA changes, especially given a shortage of controllers? On the
one hand, since human lives hang in the balance, more than the usual amount of
caution would seem to be called for before an overhaul. The horror felt over
the recent loss of the EgyptAir plane shows how deeply invested we are in
airline safety. On the other hand, the testing system, for reasons that are not
clear, has resulted in relatively few minority and women controllers. (The FAA
has been tight-lipped about air control matters. What is known is that the pass
rate for minorities on the AT-SAT in 2015 was only two-thirds
that of whites.)
the light of contemporary economic and political conditions, no one can
seriously deny that it would be wonderful to leave our children a world in
which minorities are proportionately represented in employment. In this
respect, the old system was indeed “broke,” a point highlighted by acknowledged
EEOC pressure on the FAA to ensure a more inclusive air control system and by
FAA chief Michael Huerta’s specific
statement on the diversity objectives of the FAA.
keeping with its original and continuing mandate to ensure safe and efficient
air travel, the public face the FAA puts on possible tension between the two
goals is a firm denial that any diversity objective lies behind the changes.
How to proceed? Since the FAA has shied away from any real analysis, we
have to do it ourselves.
the Biographical Questionnaire. But does the BQ measure the very qualities the
FAA claims to seek? For obvious reasons test questions are not released.
Fortunately, however, a few items from the mostly multiple choice 2014 test
have leaked out. “The number
of different high school sports I played in was A) 4 or more… B) 3… C)
2… D)1… E) Didn’t play sports.” “I would rather be known as a person who is
very a. determined b. respectful.” I am more a, eager, b. considerate.” Daily
News Los Angeles. “I would rather be known as a person who is very a.
determined b. respectful.” Other questions related to how candidates
describe “your ideal job” and the major cause of “your failures.”
these tests be taken seriously, especially when students self-assess in the
privacy of their own homes, and can thus be coached, when tests can be retaken,
and when controllers spend their shifts in control rooms? Will these kinds of
questions say anything useful about risk tolerance et al? Will the major causes
of perceived failure change from year to year?
might be expected, reports
of cheating have emerged. A group of sympathetic FAA employees
apparently fed some minority candidates questions as well as “correct” answers.
(I have not been able to learn what discipline those employees faced.)
beyond the cheating and the self-assessment, it is simply inconceivable that
the number of sports activities a candidate played in high school is more
relevant to success in air control than successful service as an air traffic
controller in the military for five years. Indeed, a report by
the government’s own Office of Aerospace Medicine calling for Questionnaire
“biodata” to be tested for validity supports this skepticism.
we cannot be sure that the FAA can be trusted to put safety first, its initial
mandate, one has to wonder whether diversity might be weighted too heavily.
The larger point here is that the FAA has not been straight with us. The
first order of FAA business then should be to explain itself in full. Has
technology replaced the need for technical skill? If the FAA continues to
stonewall, we are left with the kind of government arrogance that rallies
people to Donald Trump and, to the extent that the FAA is training people who
may not have competitive skills, to a distinct sense of foreboding.
Subotnik, Professor at Touro Law School, is author of “Toxic Diversity, Race,
Gender, and Law Talk” (NYU) and many articles (the latest in Academic
never envied the rich or thought they owed me anything.
the short list of unalienable rights, nowhere is it written that I have a claim
to property of another. My moral code resists that idea, and the criminal
code prohibits it.
if those on the higher rungs of the economic ladder owe me something, it
follows that those on the lower rungs have a similar claim against me. My
enlightened self-interest resists that idea.
whole entitlement mentality makes me uncomfortable. Coercive taking by
the state and redistribution to favored political constituencies are inexorably
replacing the voluntary good works of charities, churches, friends, and
neighbors as the primary means of providing a safety net for the needy.
change in methodology may appear to be a distinction without a difference, but
the real-world effects on giver, recipient, and society as a whole are deeply
illustrate, a small bakery owner and I once belonged to the same loosely knit
community group. We met weekly.
day he arrived with a tray of pastries. I don't know if his intent was to
relieve the tedium of the reading of the secretary's and treasurer's reports,
but relieve the tedium they did.
surprise treat morphed into a weekly affair. Attendance grew.
Members arrived with coffee in hand and smiles on their faces. A sense of
unity, purpose, and accomplishment filled the air.
one week, he wasn't there. Members strode to the table only to look up in
dismay when they discovered the cupboard bare.
all agreed that his absence was likely due to a sudden emergency (the flu,
perhaps) and that he would return the following week.
the following week came and went, and the week after. Each week, grousing
about "our" pastries grew, and concern about their purveyor
no one called to thank him for his generosity or to inquire about his
well-being. No one thought to stop at a Dunkin Donuts to fill the
short, I witnessed the birth of the entitlement mentality on a micro-economic
is that sense of entitlement, of demanding something for nothing that is
spreading, virus-like, through our culture, infecting and affecting everyone
recently overheard a retired steel worker complain that his retirement is
insufficient to live on. Blaming "inflated corporate salaries and
costs," he railed that "greed runs the wealthy. The more some
people have, the more they desire."
than pointing fingers, I suggested that he look in the mirror and ask himself
how his greed had contributed to his economic downturn.
three decades, he enjoyed high wages, job security, and generous benefits in a
heavily unionized industry.
During those halcyon days, how often did he
buy another "toy" – snowmobile, second vacation – rather than setting
something extra aside for a day he knew was coming? Did he expect the
gravy train to never end?
he avail himself of tuition reimbursement to better himself and his earning
did he counsel restraint at contract time, when his union leaders brought
unreasonable demands to the negotiating table while turning a deaf ear to
management's warning that lack of competitiveness in a world economy would
force plant closings and drive jobs overseas?
were unions satisfied with what they had?
responsibility, enlightened self-interest, and caring for each other are not
incompatible. To the contrary, they are indispensable to a prosperous,
just, and peaceful people and nation.
is only when, as now, the scales tilt in favor of individuals self-interestedly
demanding rights without attendant responsibilities coupled with a government
self-interestedly striving to satisfy those "rights" by means
of income redistribution that tyranny, disintegration, and division begin.
Nov. 8, voters can begin to restore the balance.
Donald Trump has wiped out Hillary Clinton's comfortable lead,
with the Democratic candidate dropping in the polls just 11 days before the
election. Clinton now leads by just two points with 47 per cent to Trump's 45
according to the poll put together by ABC and The Washington Post. At the start
of the week, she held a comfortable advantage over her opponent with 50 to his
These were polls carried out BEFORE the FBI announced it was
reopening emails investigation. The truth is that Hillary never had a 12-point
lead over Trump or anyone else. It was nothing more than the usual attempt to
manage public opinion by the mainstream media.
Of course, they have to dial back their attempts right before the election in
order to retain their credibility for the next time. Hence the
"late-breaking independents" and "undecideds making up their
minds". As Scott Adams said over a month ago, no one is undecided about
Hillary Clinton; she's been a public figure for nearly 30 years.
Zerohedge notes a key admission in the way the latest poll was conducted. "Changes
in the poll’s latest four nights compared with the previous four are not mainly
about people shifting in their candidate preference, but about changes in who’s
intending to vote." Translation: the oft-heard narrative about late-deciding independents
tightening the polls is a false one.
Zerohedge also observes two more relevant facts: "Ironically, these new
results do not reflect the latest FBI bombshell as polling was concluded on October
27th and it still includes an 8-point sampling advantage for democrats." It is still true that the state polls in the battleground states are the
important ones. But the known unknown there is the extent to which they have
been manipulated in the same way.
has a way of clarifying where people stand. When the Hitler War came to Europe,
the French government fled from Paris to Vichy and offered to Hitler all
the innocent French Jews he could murder. Vichy France surrendered with hardly
a shot fired. The worst war in European history did nothing good, but it
clarified Good and Evil. Almost every occupied country in Europe turned
out to have its native Nazis. Denmark was a noble exception, but Sweden sold
arms to both Hitler and the Allies. Norway had its Quisling. War clarifies, and
generally the things it shows are shocking and discouraging.
the most shocking fact today is the open betrayal of the Conn-e's -- the
self-proclaimed conservative establishment has openly abandoned the nominee of
the Republican party. Don't misunderstand this: The very conservatives who have
been flying the flag of true most vigorously have betrayed the cause. This is
the flight to Vichy, American style. It is the most abject and dishonorable
surrender to the worst ideological enemy conservatives have ever faced: Both
Obama and Hillary, the two most dangerous candidates for the Oval Office in two
centuries of American history.
is as conservative as any Republican candidate for President in the last half
century -- who were always supported (sometimes with reservations) by the
Conn-e's, the Conservative Establishiment. Bill Buckley and National Review
supported Nixon and Ford with deep reservation as the best of the available
options. Neither Nixon nor Ford were 100 percent pure conservatives. But they
were far, far better than the alternatives, and Buckley's National Review chose
the most practical realistic option.
Not so Buckley's and Irving Kristol's
successors. Given a true conservative battler, who takes the fight to the
enemy, Donald Trump, they have fled to the foxholes. I know I will never
trust them again; I certainly will not buy their magazines or pay for their
advertisers. No. I'm waiting for a New Conservative Media to emerge (as it
is already doing) and I will boycott the Old Conn-e's who failed to fight when
their support was crucial.
don't doubt that they will be blamed either way -- if Trump wins or Hillary
does. Since Hillary is an unconvicted felon in the eyes of conservatives all
over the country, and has highly suspicious money flows from the Jihad forces
in the world (which we now know were accepted for her by Huma Abedin) this is
an historic moment for choosing. No Hillary voter can be a patriot when the
fate of the country is at stake. I don't care what flavor of conservative Trump turns out to be: He
is an unapologetic patriot, and that is what matters in this fight. Other
conservatives I trust, notably Giuliani and Gingrich have taken sides. This is
no time for those who shy away from battle.
the words of Thomas Paine in 1776:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman."
Well, Jonah and Bill and George, you are
the summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots today. You shrink from the
service of your country. Well, so be it. You can be sure that your purified
conservatism that shrank from the battle when it came will never again enjoy
the credibility it once deserved. To patriotic conservatives you have failed,
and failed forever.
Goodbye in your future endeavors, but this
black make of cowardice at a crucial moment in American history will
forever stand against you. And that goes for Paul Ryan and all the other
sell-outs as well. This is the most dangerous moment in American history since the
Stalin-era Communists sold the Manhattan Project plans to Stalin. It is even
worse, because the West is constantly infiltrated by Jihad forces on top of the
usual Leftist treason.
you have chosen your path.
of US conservatives fervently hope that you lose, along with the Obamas and
all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the
group that will decide the election has come down to the demographic of “The
Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds,
from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America,
from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left
Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t
asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their
own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent
businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes
and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.
He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the
employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a
beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the
right thing to do.
The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was
written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of
appointed judges and political winds.
The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in
defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his
life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing
someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.
Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in
Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he
went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help
themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a
civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer
firefighter. Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized”
and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is
a curse-word to him.
His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be
Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or
any of a hundred others. What does matter is that he considers himself in every
way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you
aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move
The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker,
watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build
things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a
penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple
of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a
train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant so that you can
keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry
Man is the backbone of this country.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man and not a dishrag.
If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He
stands up straight, opens doors for others and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He’s not being chauvinistic; he’s being courteous and respectful. He acts that
way toward everyone.
He knows that his wife is sometimes more emotional than rational, and he is the
opposite. He also realizes that the best course is to balance the two. Each
spouse then relies on the other for the qualities lacking in themselves.
He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed, when people exhibit
behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing
to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the
rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in
everything he does.
The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government.
It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they
represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest
question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do
anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he
must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he
finances doesn’t. Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed
implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in
government are smart enough to do that.
importantly, the Angry Man has reached his limit. When factories become flooded
with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and wages drop like a stone, he gets
righteously angry. When jobs get shipped overseas, and he must speak to some
incomprehensible idiot in another country for tech support, he simmers. When a
social justice agitator go on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter,
safe spaces or other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers.
When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly
bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in
education and law enforcement.
when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and
getting off scot-free, the Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for
the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live or die situation, so
he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing
to lose and he will never give up.
In many ways, George Bush and Tony Blair’s
war on Iraq feels like yesterday. Colin Powell’s jewel case of lies before the
UN, Tony Blair’s Parliamentary debate during which he listened neither to
reason nor to warnings, the ‘shock, and awe’ of bombs being dropped on Iraq’s
great cities, Bush’s ‘mission accomplished’ farce and the war which continued
for years after, one which still is ongoing; all of it feels surreally fresh.
Almost 14 years later, the lessons of Iraq
are well known: illegally invade a sovereign country which threatens no one and
expect hell, instability, blood, torture and terror as a consequence. The
lessons were not remembered by Hillary Clinton who along with David Cameron and
Nicholas Sarkozy dragged a hesitant Barack Obama into a war in Libya, a war
whose outcome is even more disastrous than the war in Iraq.
The wider public, however, have learned the
lessons. Both in Europe and in America, the general public are fed up of war.
Some are too naïve or too arrogant to openly associate themselves with those of
us who warned of the dangers a war on Iraq would unleash. But they too have
learned the lessons. It is one of the reasons Donald Trump continually states
his opposition to the war in Iraq which then Senator Hillary Clinton voted for.
This is why the mainstream media are in
fits of hysterics trying to do the bidding of their war monger masters in
attempting to convince the public to support doing to Assad what was illegally
done to Saddam and Gaddafi.Since 2003 not only have the lessons of Iraq been
instructive to erstwhile war supporters in the west, the media landscape has
also changed significantly. Television channels like RT did not exist in 2003
but now they present rational claims from not just the west but around the
world, against the calls for war.
In hindsight, the internet had not fully
blossomed by 2003, much though it felt that it had done at the time. Today many
news and analysis websites put the failing newspapers to shame. They are an
instantaneous source of valuable information.
Wikileaks did not exist in 2003, but since
its inception in 2006, it has blown the lid on the sadistic things governments
do, how they do them and the sinister motives behind them. One cannot dismiss
oppositional viewpoints as conspiratorial when one reads the documents which
speak the truth in black and white.
But most importantly yet surprisingly least
talked about, is the fact that Syrians have the internet, they have cameras,
they have websites and they are using them. In 2003, the western media
attempted to demonize the proud and highly educated Iraqi people either as
gangs of Saddamite stooges or as opposed unpatriotic invalids without minds.
Because of the poor education system in countries like America, many believed
this without ‘questioning more’.
Today, though, no matter what the
mainstream media say, the voices of the Syrian people cannot be drowned out.
Indeed, The Duran frequently publishes
pieces by Afra’a
Dagher, an actual Syrian as opposed to Samantha Power who pretends
to speak for Syrians against their wishes. There are videos on youtube,
statements in English from Syrian journalists, experts, and the legitimate
government. This are being read and circulated on social media. The mainstream
media monopoly is over.
It is often viewed as a platitude to say
that ideas and the dissemination of ideas can change the world. But the
aggregate effect of opposition media like RT, Wikileaks, online expert opinion
and analysis and the power of social media may well have saved Syria from the
fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya.
A recent op-ed
piece in The New York Times urged the Republican Party not to
“throw away free enterprise” and embrace populism. Arthur C. Brooks, the author
of the article, makes two bold but erroneous claims. First, he asserts that
populist moments throughout history — including the Trumpian moment in the US —
are triggered by severe financial crises that result in protracted and uneven
recoveries that exacerbate existing income and wealth disparities.
In resorting to naïve economic determinism
to explain populism, Brooks completely overlooks the awakening of the broad
American middle class to political institutions and policies that have been
designed by the entrenched elites of both parties to oppress and plunder them.
The never-ending and immensely costly war against “terror;” the Federal bailout
of multi-billion dollar financial institutions both domestically and abroad;
the ineffective and grossly expensive war on drugs; the pandemic of political
correctness unleashed by Federal mandates and regulations that has infected
American colleges and universities, and the egregious and unrestrained spying
on American citizens by the bloated US security apparatus. All of these issues
seem to count for nothing in Brooks’s simplistic analysis. For Brooks, “The
real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth.” Brooks’s attribution of the rise
of populism in the US and elsewhere almost exclusively to increasing income and
wealth inequality is not only peculiar but absurd on the face of it and I will
refrain from further comment on it.
The second claim that Brooks makes is more
commonly accepted and is fervently promoted by the mainstream media, and
academics and political analysts of the “responsible” left and right. This
claim is that populism comprises specific ideological positions and policies.
Thus, Brooks refers to “populist positions on issues such as trade and
immigration” and to “populists who specialize in identifying culprits: rich
elites who are ripping you off; immigrants who want your job; a free trade
that’s killing our nation’s competitiveness.” According to Brooks, populist
policies thus “involve some combination of increased redistribution,
protectionism, and restrictionism.” In other words, on economic issues at least,
populism is the polar opposite of classical liberalism and libertarianism.
Left-wing and Right-wing Populists
But nothing could be further from the
truth. For populism is not a right-wing ideology but a strategy that may be
used by any ideological group whose political agenda differs radically
from that of the ruling class. Surely, Brooks has heard of left-wing populists
such as Juan and Eva Perón, Huey Long, the “Radio Priest” Father Charles
Coughlin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chávez. And what about classical-liberal and
libertarian populists such as Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams, Richard Cobden and
John Bright, and more recently, Dr. Ron Paul? Lately, we have seen the dramatic
rise in popularity of the populist
Pirate Party in Iceland, which may win the next election and whose
membership is ideologically diffuse and comprises libertarians, hackers, Web
geeks, and anti-globalist anarchists.
Although populism may be either
ideologically left or right, libertarian or statist, it is always hated and
feared by the political center. The reason is that the center is occupied by
those individuals and groups comprising the “moderate” left wing and right wing
who are allies in defending the political status quo and take turns ruling and
operating the levers of power to distribute privilege and wealth to themselves
and their cronies.
What Populists Stand For
Regardless of ideological bent, populist
thinkers and movement builders take to heart, at least implicitly, the profound
insight of great political theorists from La Boétie and David Hume to Mises and
Rothbard that there is no such thing as an unpopular government. They thus set
about exposing the moderates who run the State apparatus as a powerful and
wealthy elite whose interests are inherently opposed to those of the masses of
productive workers and entrepreneurs. In order to grab the attention of people
who are not yet fully conscious that they are being exploited — or in Marxian
terms, to help them develop a class consciousness — it is only natural that
populist leaders employ extreme, emotional, and embittered rhetoric. Such inflammatory
rhetoric is especially necessary for the US today and most European countries
where the mainstream media, while ostensibly free, operate as a privileged
mouthpiece for government and spew non-stop propaganda designed to camouflage
State exploitation of the productive class and to discredit dissenting
Harsh and extreme populist rhetoric, such
as that used by Donald Trump, strikes a responsive chord among the US
electorate, but not because Americans are subject to irrational bouts of envy,
xenophobia, and insecurity brought on by crises and recessions, as Brooks would
have us believe. Rather, Americans are being awakened to the cold, hard fact
that they have been plundered and oppressed by the “moderate” American
globalist political establishment since World War Two. What Rothbard
said about the populist French Poujadist movement of the early 1950s
applies to the US and other interventionist democratic states today:
lot to be bitter about: crushingly high taxes on businesses and individuals,
submergence of national sovereignty in international organizations and alliances,
fumbling and incompetent government, endless fighting in colonial wars.
A final point: once it has penetrated into
the public discourse, populism — precisely because it is the only effective
political strategy for radical political change — will not wither away as a
result of a few more percentage points of “evenly distributed” economic growth.
Trump’s threat to contest the election, Brexit, the continuing growth of
right-wing populist movements throughout Europe, all attest to the fact that
populism is here to stay. This should be cause for celebration among the
libertarians who for the first time since its inception in the mid-1960s have
at their disposal an effective strategy for rolling back the US welfare-warfare
Theonomists all know and agree
that no one can be saved by works, or by keeping God’s law. Salvation is by
grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is a pure gift of God. It
is not of man’s works lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8–9). To God alone shall be all the
Nevertheless, too many people who quote Ephesians 2:8–9 fail to go on and quote verse
10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Scripture teaches that we are not saved by works, but the same passage of
Scripture teaches us that we are saved for good works. So there is no
question that good works have a necessary role in the life of the
believer. That role may not be as necessary for salvation, but it is still
necessary as a result of salvation.
Uses of the law
Most Christians agree that
God’s law reveals to us His standards for righteousness. Most would agree on
certain uses of this law. First, we would agree that God’s righteous
standards show us why we need Christ: we can never measure up to His perfect
standard. In this aspect, His law convicts us as hopeless sinners, and we
despair of any ability or merit on our own part to escape damnation. This use
of the law should drive us to Christ alone seeking our salvation. Since the law
teaches us our need for Christ and leads us to Him in this way,
it is usually referred to as the “pedagogical” use of the law.
Most Christians also agree that
the law provides a standard by which to restrain evil in society. Various
agencies—including everything from personal relationships, advice of elders and
parents, schools, businesses, social customs, and civil governments—should work
together to curtail expressions of evil and promote goodness. We see this use
of the law most readily in the role of the civil authorities revealed in Romans 13:
For rulers are not a terror to
good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in
authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is
God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not
bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries
out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:3–4).
This is God’s minister and he
must execute God’s wrath. This mandates God’s standard, then, as well.
We call this use of the law the “political” or “civil” use, because its
function is that of maintaining civility in society. Note a couple things in
regard to the civil use of the law. First, this use pertains to external
behavior only. It has no reference, generally, to justification by faith or our
salvation. It is merely a standard of behavior for all people. As such,
secondly, this use of the law applies to unbelievers as well as believers. All,
regardless of faith or not, are expected to behave according to this standard,
and civil authorities are ordained of God to enforce certain external standards
on all people alike.
A third use of the law is
accepted throughout the world of Reformed theology, including most confessional
Baptists (but not among most Lutherans, among others). This use is called
“normative” or “didactic” (meaning “instructive”) and refers to the use of the
law as a pattern of good works for righteous behavior which the redeemed
Christian should follow.
The teaching of Theonomy agrees
with and promotes all three of the traditionally accepted uses of the law,
though is most notable in regard to the civil use. Our view appears most
distinctly in the beliefs that Scripture reveals standards by which the
civil magistrate is bound to perform his task, that these standards are
revealed primarily in Mosaic judicial law, and that they remain applicable for
civil magistrates today.
Theonomists contend that this
view should not be a point of controversy. After all, it is an argument based
upon Scriptural standards, not man’s. It is just this type of standard upon
which we all agree in regard to the other uses of the law. In regard to the law
as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, we look to God’s revealed law,
including Mosaic law. In regard to moral standards for Christian life and
ethics, we look to God’s revealed law, including Mosaic law. But then, in
regard to standards for civil and political ethics, most theologians depart
from revealed standards and argue that human standards, or some other standards
(“nature”), are adequate. But not only is this argument a departure from the
pattern accepted in the other uses of the law, it is also itself not found in
Scripture. It is utterly devoid of Scriptural root or directive.
New Testament mandate
What then does the Bible say
about the civil use of the law? The easiest place to see the abiding validity
of God’s Old Testament law in its civil and judicial standards is in 1 Timothy 1. Here Paul warns Timothy against
false “teachers of the law” and instructs him in regard to the proper use of
the law. Here is what he says,
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus
so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor
to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote
speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of
our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a
sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into
vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding
either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the
lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and
profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the
sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers,
and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel
of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (1 Tim. 1:3–11).
Let’s break this down into its
key points. First, Paul is promoting “the stewardship from God that is by
faith.” The word for “stewardship” (v. 4) here is oikonomia, from which
we get our words “economy” and “economics.” It literally translates as “law of
the house.” It is a term of governance. I actually prefer the NASB here which
translates the word as “administration.” This is a passage in which Paul is
contrasting the frivolous, superstitious use of the law against that use of it
which accords with the government of God which we are to obey “by faith.”
Second, Paul contrasts those
who want to be “teachers of the law,” but do not understand what they are
talking about, with the proper use of the law. He is not arguing against the
teaching or use of the law in itself, but against those who want to do so in a
way contrary to the law and the gospel. To this end, Paul affirms that the law
is in fact “good,” but only “if one uses it lawfully.”
It may sound funny for someone
to say that the right way to use the law is “lawfully.” And just to be sure,
the Greek contains the exact same redundancy: nomos (law) must be used nomimos
(lawfully). It sounds like a circular argument. But that is just Paul’s point:
there is only one standard by which we can interpret God’s word, and
that is God’s word. So, in order to understand God’s law, we need to read and
understand God’s law—in this case, as opposed to “myths” and “genealogies,” but
also as opposed to man’s laws, nature’s laws, or anyone else’s
laws. There is no neutrality in this universe: we will conform either to God’s
law or to someone else’s law. Only God is the ultimate authority. The
Scriptures say that “when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one
greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13). The same is true with regard to
His law: there is no other standard by which to appeal in order to understand
and apply His law. Only His law is authoritative.
This means first that we should
read the law for what it actually says. Many people condemn God’s law
based on misunderstandings of it. This problem can often be remedied by merely reading
what the law actually says. Some people fear it for irrational reasons. Some
people dismiss it because they think the Old Testament was harsh and cruel
while the New Testament is loving and forgiving. In fact, this view is not only
incorrect according to Scripture, but was promoted by a heretic named Marcion
who denied the authority of most of the Bible—including half of the New
Testament!—because of this view of the Old Testament. It was condemned by the
church as a heresy way back in the third century. Instead, those who would use
the law lawfully as Paul instructs must read the law itself, read what it
actually teaches, and read all of it in the context of all of Scripture
Third, Paul teaches here that
the law applies not only as a guide for the life of believers, but as a rule outside
the church. He says specifically that the law, in this sense, “is not laid down
for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners,
for the unholy and profane” (v. 9). This verse confirms the “civil” use of the
law mentioned above—the use it has for restraining evil in society.
Here we must repeat that this
use of the law is for the lawless, ungodly, and sinners—people outside the
church. We must also remember that most Christians accept this use of
the law—it is not a controversial distinctive of Theonomy. Many critics object
to Theonomy in modern civil law by arguing something like, “You can’t impose
biblical laws on an unbelieving people.” Yet this is not only exactly how Paul
says the law applies in this verse, but for hundreds of years most Christians
have not objected to this very use of the law! Yet when Theonomists say that
the standards of that law are revealed in Scripture, some critics apparently
forget that they themselves believe that God’s law in general applies outside
the church in this way. Theonomists simply note that even the content of
the law appears in this passage as well—the very next thing.
Fourth, therefore, Paul cites
the civil and judicial sections of Mosaic Law here. We will discuss categories
of biblical law in more detail later. For now, we simply note that Paul does
not confine himself to the Ten Commandments, or the “love” commandments. He
specifically cites from that portion of the law which is most often dismissed
today: the judicial “case” laws that follow after the Ten Commandments, as well
as points within Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
In addition to references to
murder and lies which are obviously drawn directly from the Ten Commandments,
Paul also specifically cites, among others, “those who strike their fathers and
mothers,” “men who practice homosexuality,” “enslavers,” and “perjurers.”
Striking parents appears in Exodus 21:15. Likewise,
“enslavers” is a reference to the very next verse in Exodus which prohibits
kidnapping and slave-trading. Both of these laws are considered to be part of
the civil and judicial law of Israel. They are case examples of how the Ten
Commandments apply in the realm of civil government. Paul is citing them here
as the proper use of the law, including outside the church, in the New
Similarly, the reference to
“men who practice homosexuality” comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The latter of these two passages makes clear
that this is also a civil law because it prescribed the death penalty—the role
of the civil magistrate. In the same way, “perjury” is a reference to Deuteronomy 19:16–19. This law designates that
false witness in a court case (“perjury”) is a serious crime and specifies the
just punishment of it (whatever punishment would have fallen upon the accused
is to be imposed upon the false witness).
So with just a little Bible
study, we can see that Paul’s “lawful” use of the law includes content from
that part of Mosaic Law which pertains to civil government. It is no wonder,
then, that we see the author of Hebrews stating that Mosaic Law “proved to be
reliable,” that by it “every transgression or disobedience received a just
retribution,” and that we should therefore “pay much closer attention to what
we have heard, lest we should drift away from it” (Heb. 2:1–2). It is only here that we see just
punishments delivered by God Himself.
Fifth, Paul closes this brief
discussion of the lawful use of the law by saying it is “in accordance with the
gospel” (1 Tim. 1:11). Far too often, any mention of
law in the Christian life at all, let alone specific reference to Old Testament
judicial law, is dismissed quickly with sayings like “we’re not under law but
grace,” or “that’s law not gospel.” Here it is unavoidably clear that Paul
teaches that the proper use of the law is in accordance with the gospel,
not separate from it or opposed to it.
We can see this same accord in
Christ’s Great Commission to His disciples (Matthew 28:18–20). He not only commanded them
to make disciples and baptize them, but also to teach them “to observe all that
I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). While the
preaching of the gospel is the heart and soul of the Great Commission, the
enduring teaching of God’s commandments and obedience to them is just as
necessary and obligatory to it.
So, what does 1 Timothy 1:3–11 reveal to us? Paul teaches
that we should avoid aberrant views of the law, and instead seek to obey the
administration of God. This administration involves the lawful use of the law.
This lawful use applies outside of the church, includes civil government, and
follows the statutes for civil government revealed in Mosaic Law. Finally, this
use of the law is in sweet accord with the gospel itself. This is the
distinctive teaching of Theonomy in a nutshell. As you can see, it is
simply straight, biblical teaching.
The New Testament teaching on
God’s law, therefore, is that love is the highest of Christian virtues. It is
the greatest of the commandments of the law itself. Love is the law upon which
all other law depends. It is the summary of the law. Since it is a summary,
then in order to understand the details and nuances of the law of love, we must
look back to the nuances and applications of the detail of the law in the law
itself. This law is at the heart of the New Covenant, the heart of Jesus’
teaching to His disciples, the heart of the disciples’ teaching in their
epistles, and the heart of the Great Commission.
This perfect law applies not
only in Christian life and Christian ethics, but outside the church as well.
The lawful use of the law is not only to lead us to Christ for salvation and to
direct the Christian in holiness and righteousness, but also to provide
standards of justice in the civil realm, even among unbelievers.
With this basic background, we
are now in a position to start talking about theological definitions.
Observing the US presidential electoral
campaign, Thierry Meyssan analyses the resurgence of an old and weighty
conflict of civilisation. Hillary Clinton has just declared that this election
is not about programmes, but about the question «Who are the Americans?». It
was not for reasons of his political programme that the Republican leaders have
withdrawn their support from their candidate, Donald Trump, but because of his
personal behaviour. According to Thierry Meyssan, until now, the United States
was composed of migrants from different horizons who accepted to submit to the
ideology of a particular community . This is the model which is in the process
of breaking down, at the risk of shattering the country itself.
During the year of the US electoral
campaign that we have just weathered, the rhetoric has profoundly changed, and
an unexpected rift has appeared between the two camps. If in the beginning, the
candidates spoke about subjects which were genuinely political (such as the
sharing of wealth or national security), today they are mostly talking about
sex and money. It is this dialogue, and not the political questions, which has
caused the explosion of the Republican party – whose main leaders have
withdrawn their support for their candidate – and which is recomposing the
political chess-board, awakening an ancient cleavage of civilisation. On one
side, Mrs Clinton is working to appear politically correct, while on the other,
«The Donald» is blowing the hypocrisy of the ex-«First Lady» to smithereens.
On one side, Hillary Clinton promises male
/ female equality – although she has never hesitated to attack and defile the
women who revealed that they had slept with her husband – and that she is presenting
herself not for her personal qualities, but as the wife of an ex-President, and
that she accuses Donald Trump of misogyny because he does not hide his
appreciation of the female gender. On the other, Donald Trump denounces the
privatisation of the State and the racketing of foreign personalities by the
Clinton Foundation to obtain appointments with the State Department – the
creation of ObamaCare not in the interest of citizens, but for the profit of
medical insurance companies – and goes as far as to question the honesty of the
I am perfectly aware that the way in which
Donald Trump expresses himself may encourage racism, but I do not believe for a
second that this question is at the heart of the electoral debate, despite the
hype from the pro-Clinton medias. It is not without interest that, during the
Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton apologised to the Nation and convened a
number of preachers to pray for his salvation. But when he was accused of
similar misconduct by an audio recording, Donald Trump simply apologised to the
people he had upset without making any appeal to members of the clergy. The
current divide re-awakens the revolt of Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran values
against those of the Calvinists, mainly represented in the USA by the
Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists.
While the two candidates were raised in the
Puritan tradition (Clinton as a Methodist and Trump as a Presbyterian), Mrs.
Clinton has returned to the religion of her father, and participates today in a
prayer group composed of the army chiefs of staff, The Family, while Mr Trump
practises a more interior form of spirituality and rarely goes to church. Of
course, no-one is locked into the systems in which they were raised, but when
people act without thinking, they unconsciously reproduce these systems. The
question of the religious environment of the candidates may, therefore, be
In order to understand the stakes of this
game, we have to go back and look at 17th century England. Oliver Cromwell
instigated a military coup d’etat which overthrew King Charles 1st. He wanted
to install a Republic, purify the soul of the country, and ordered the
decapitation of the ex-sovereign. He created a sectarian régime inspired by the
ideas of Calvin, massacred thousands of Irish Papists, and imposed a Puritan
way of life. He also created Zionism – he invited the Jews back to England and
was the first head of state in the world to demand the creation of a Jewish
state in Palestine. This bloody episode is known by the name of the «First
British Civil War».
After the monarchy had been reinstated,
Cromwell’s Puritans fled from England. They set up in Holland, from where some
of them left for the Americas aboard the Mayflower (the «Pilgrim Fathers»),
while others founded the Afrikaner community in South Africa. During the War of
Independence in the 18th century the United States, we saw a resurgence of the
struggle of the Calvinists against the British monarchy, so that in current
manuals of British History, it is known as the «Second Civil War».
In the 19th century, the American Civil War
opposed the Southern States (mainly inhabited by Catholic colonists) to the
North (mostly inhabited by Protestant colonists). The History of the winning
side presents this confrontation as a fight for freedom in the face of slavery,
which is pure propaganda. The Southern states abolished slavery during the war
when they concluded an agreement with the British monarchy). As a result, we
once again saw the revolt of the Puritans against the British throne, which is
why some historians speak of the «Third British Civil War».
During the 20th century, this interior
confrontation of British civilisation seemed over and done with, apart from the
re-appearance of the Puritans in the United Kingdom with the «non-conformist
Christians» of Prime Minister David Lloyd George. It was they who divided
Ireland and agreed to create the « Jewish national homeland» in Palestine.
In any case, one of Richard Nixon’s
advisors, Kevin Philipps, dedicated a voluminous thesis to these civil wars, in
which he noted that none of the problems had been solved, and announced a
fourth confrontation .
The adepts of the Calvinist churches, who
for the last 40 years have voted massively for the Republicans, now support the
I have no doubt that Mrs Clinton will be
the next President of the United States, or that if Mr Trump were to be
elected, he would be rapidly eliminated. But over the last few months, we have
witnessed a large electoral redistribution within an irreversible demographic
evolution. The Puritan-based churches now account for only a quarter of the
population and are swinging towards the Democrat camp. Their model looks like a
historical accident. It disappeared in South Africa, and will not be able to
survive much longer, either in the United States or in Israël.
Presidential election, US society will have to evolve rapidly or split once
again. In a country where the youth massively rejects the influence of the
Puritan preachers, it is no longer possible to displace the question of
equality. The Puritans envisage a society where all men are equal, but not
equivalent. Lord Cromwell wanted a Republic for the English, but only after he
had massacred the Irish Papists. This is how it is at the moment in the United
States – all citizens are equal before the law, but in the name of the same
texts, black people are systematically condemned, while attenuating
circumstances are found for white people who have committed equivalent crimes.
And in the majority of states, a penal condemnation, even for a speeding
ticket, is enough to cancel the right to vote. Consequently, white and black
people are equal, but in most states, the majority of black people has been
legally deprived of its right to vote. The paradigm of this thought, in terms
of foreign policy, is the «two-state» solution in Palestine – equal, but above
all, not equivalent.
It is Puritan thinking that led the
administrations of preacher Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr. and Jr. are direct
descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers), Clinton and Obama to support Wahhabism, in
contradiction to the declared ideals of their countries, and today, to support
A long time ago, the Founding Fathers built
communities in Plymouth and Boston which were idealised in the US collective
memory. And yet the historians are formal – they claimed to be creating the
«New Israël», and chose the «Law of Moses». They did not place the Cross in
their temples, but the Tables of the Law. Although they are Christians, they
attach more importance to the Jewish scriptures than the Gospel. They oblige
their women to veil their faces and re-established corporaI punishment.