It's my impression that alt-right support for Trump reflects, at least in part, a backlash against the anti-white, anti-male ideology of the liberal establishment–even though the liberal establishment is dominated by white male thinkers and powerbrokers. This has been brewing for a long time. Take the Bakke case from the 70s.
And I think there are some legitimate grievances. The white guilt, check your privilege tactic has no traction with me. Likewise, I'm not ashamed to have a Y chromosome.
I'm a critic of Muslim immigration, and I'm a critic of illegal immigration–largely due to the drain on social services. But those are the only immigrant groups that concern me–for different reasons.
The problem is a reactionary policy. Overreacting to something wrong is just another wrong in the opposite direction.
Take white nationalism. Bracketing the moral issues, there's this myth of white identity and solidarity. As if whites ipso facto have more in common with each other than they have with other ethnic groups. But that's silly on the face of it.
To begin with, you have many children of immigrants who become thoroughly acculturated into American society and the pop culture.
In addition, we've had different ethnic groups rubbing shoulders in America since the Colonial era. That's nothing new.
But there's also this myth of a white culture that caucasians naturally relate to. Yet that's a wild overgeneralization. How much to Mark Twain and Henry James have in common? How much do William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald have in common? How much do Johnny Cash and Nelson Rockefeller have in common? How much do Billy Graham and Willard van Orman Quine have in common? How much do Clint Eastwood and Susan Sontag have in common? Or J. Gresham Machen and Andy Warhol? Or Eudora Welty and Robert Mapplethorpe? And so on and so forth.
Likewise, there's a basic divide between highbrow culture buffs and lowbrow culture buffs. It's not as if the average white American has a taste for Quattrocento art, German Lieder, and the novels of Anthony Trollope.
To take a different example, when I attended high school, back in the 70s, David Bowie was a big rock star. And appearance wise, you can't get more Aryan than Bowie. Yet his gender-bender image was naturally repellent to any normal American boy in the 70s.
To take another example, it's my impression that traditionally, Italians didn't identify as Italian, but as Sicilian or Lombardian or Ferranese. In other words, identity was more regional than national. Likewise, I think that traditionally, a German wouldn't so much identify himself as German, but, say, Bavarian Catholic. By the same token, even though Austria and Germany have so much in common, many Austrians did not appreciate the Anschluss–even though they couldn't denounce it in public or do much about it.
To my knowledge, Mussolini was fairly popular until he made a pact with Hitler, resulting in Nazi troops stomping around Italy.
It's wholly artificial to posit a generic white culture that white folks in general relate to. That never existed. And it never will.
'White nationalism' is just a label, useful to the Left with which to brand us, but not useful to us. I consider myself just a Christian. But Christianity is laden with liberal assumptions, particularly with regard to race, that it calls for something more to be said. Some other descriptive term, like Alt-Right, but even that is imprecise because there are people of different religions and no religion at all that ascribe to the Alt-Right. It is a loose, umbrella term. Here's the rub: everything you said in the first three mini paragraphs of your post is enough to get you branded a white nationalist by the left and many, many Christians as well. John Piper, no doubt, would rebuke you.
ReplyDeleteAs for all the different flavours of Italian culture, that's not the point. None of us, except the pesky 1488'ers (who have more FBI and SLPC trolls than bona fide members), want an ethnostate where everyone is from the same part of Alabama, wears the same shoes and eats the same bbq - that's a straw man argument. The point is that the Sicilian and the Bavarian Catholic have more in common than the Sicilian with the Bantu. There is diversity and there is that which is alien.
There is a huge problem with abortion, lack of parenting, secularism, destruction of the nuclear family, alternative lifestyles etc. happening among white europeans in the US. No one sees change coming over night. Or even in a decade...not unless the men become killing machines and the woman become baby factories under the auspices of a totalitarian government...but we can only dream...lol
But we can improve the situation and avoid the break up of the union by making it a started purpose to maintain the white european majority. Demographically, it's certain that Mexican's in the US are going to declare independence at some point; parts of the US are becoming black and Muslim. The election of Trump slowed that decline. Our goal is turn back what has been lost. While we have no illusions of creating a white utopia; there's no reason why we cannot re-establish the country of the Founding Fathers. A certain kind of Christianity, infected by terror of being called a 'racist' is holding us back from implementing the laws and programmes that can achieve this. Conservatives, it seems, would rather accept decline and a 'principled defeat' than acknowledge a threat and do something about it.
There's an irony here: the climate change people make the same argument: Lethargy and unwillingness. Meanwhile, they want to lower the population but their goals only affect wealthy whites who adopt the narrative. We want the opposite. Raise population and birth rates - government stimulus packages offered to white families that have children. But that's discrimination!!! Yeah? So? Who made it the highest and only sin in the world that 'Thou Shalt Not Discriminate In Favour of White People In White Countries'? From whence did equality for all trump group interests? That's secular human rights law, not Christianity.
For a professing Christian you seem unusually race- rather than Gospel-fixated. A few questions:
Delete1. Does a Sicilian Lutheran have more in common with a Bantu Lutheran or a Sicilian papist? How do you know that?
2. What "liberal assumptions" is Christianity laden with? Do you mean generic American Christianity, Scriputre itself, or any other body?
3. If Biblical Christianity has any assumptions you don't share, how Christian are you?
4. The founding fathers were rather philosemitic; are you?
5. You mention the societal and personal ills afflicting American whites, which were elucidated in JD Vance's /Hillbilly Elegy;/ by what mechanism would funding such people to produce more dysfunctional children save America? Indeed, why should government be involved in any programs redistributing OPM; ie have these programs of the Welfare State helped or hindered American society?
6. Do your racial views have any Scriptural warrant? If so, do enlarge thereupon.
7. Do you see any aspect of American societal meltdown as a function of Church's failure to evanglize, catechize, and discipline?
8. Do you see any of the problematic behaviors of racial minorities to have resulted from lack of evangelization and bad theology of white churches? Could one say the same about those same behaviors in rednecks? If so, is the problem racial, cultural, religious, orn any combination of the aforementioned?
9. What does it mean that the sons of Japeth will dwell in the tents of Shem?
10. If I told you that it is possible that your ancesters first learned of Chrisitanity from Coptic missionaries, what would you think?
I could go on, but we have enough before us here.
Several good points from Kirk Skeptic.
Delete"Christianity is laden with liberal assumptions, particularly with regard to race"
If (arguendo) that were true, shouldn't your priority be to Christianity, not conservative values?
"there are people of different religions and no religion at all that ascribe to the Alt-Right"
So then why did you bother to say you want to make America a "white Christian" nation rather than simply a "white" nation?
"except the pesky 1488'ers"
I presume you're referring to the neo-Nazi group 14/88. They're just "pesky" though? Not, say, racist? Or dangerous?
"The point is that the Sicilian and the Bavarian Catholic have more in common than the Sicilian with the Bantu. There is diversity and there is that which is alien."
1. Even if it's true (arguendo) that a and b have more in common with each other than with c, that doesn't necessarily imply a and b aren't significantly different. For example, you could say a Christian has more in common with a Muslim than with an animist. But that doesn't get rid of the crucial differences between Christians and Muslims.
2. A conservative evangelical Christian Bantu has more in common with a conservative evangelical Christian Bavarian and a conservative evangelical Christian Sicilian than a non-Christian Bantu/Bavarian/Sicilian has in common with another non-Christian Bantu/Bavarian/Sicilian.
3. Actually, many Germans have looked down on Italians in the past. And many Italians have returned the favor.
In fact, even within Italy, many Italians look down on Sicilians.
Anyway, there are not insignificant differences between the various peoples and cultures of Italy (e.g. northern Italy, southern Italy).
"But we can improve the situation and avoid the break up of the union by making it a started purpose to maintain the white european majority"
1. Which "white european majority" are you referring to? Are white Americans still "European" in any significant sense?
2. There are many liberal white Americans. If liberal white Americans became the majority, then how would that "avoid the break up" of the United States?
3. Why only the white "European" majority? What about, say, white Hispanics and Latinos? Would, say, white Hispanic Ted Cruz's beliefs and values contribute to "the break up" of the United States?
"Demographically, it's certain that Mexican's in the US are going to declare independence at some point"
How do Mexican demographics lead to them "declar[ing] independence"? How does that follow from their demographics? What if Mexicans become the majority in the US, but they cherish American beliefs and values?
"parts of the US are becoming black and Muslim"
DeleteMuslims are a genuine threat. However, Muslims can come from many different races and ethnicities. For example, the Tsarnaevs were/are Chechens. Most scholars seem to classify Chechens as white or Caucasian peoples. Even white European. Yet they committed the Boston Marathon bombings.
"there's no reason why we cannot re-establish the country of the Founding Fathers"
So you want to go back to viewing black people as 3/5ths human for political purposes? You want to go back to legalizing slavery in certain states? That was "the country of the Founding Fathers". If so, that would truly be racist.
By the way, not all the Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians. Take Thomas Jefferson. Many were Deists. Take Ben Franklin. Of course, Thomas Paine was an atheist.
"There's an irony here:"
Actually, here's what ironic: many if not most liberals would agree with your view that "the country of the Founding Fathers" was a "white Christian" country.
"Meanwhile, they want to lower the population but their goals only affect wealthy whites who adopt the narrative."
While that may be part of the reason, I think another reason "wealthy whites" don't have more children is because they invest themselves in careers which require a lot of education, which in turn means they're older when they graduate, which in turn means they can't have as many children. That's more true for women than men. Human biology can't be paused.
"We want the opposite. Raise population and birth rates - government stimulus packages offered to white families that have children. But that's discrimination!!!"
So you're advocating gov't taking taxpayer money for the purposes of social engineering? And you call yourself a conservative?
"Yeah? So? Who made it the highest and only sin in the world that 'Thou Shalt Not Discriminate In Favour of White People In White Countries'? From whence did equality for all trump group interests? That's secular human rights law, not Christianity."
That's not only "secular human rights law". Many nations without secular human rights would agree with you. Take Muslim countries. Muslim nations would agree with you.
Take a nation like Malaysia. Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-ethnic nation. However, the Malaysian government has in place legal policies which favor Malays over other races and ethnicities in Malaysia (e.g. Indian, Chinese). I guess that's the direction you wish to see America go.
It's interesting the distinctions people draw. I've read Martyn Lloyd-Jones making fun of Englishmen like John Wesley. Lloyd-Jones as a proud Welshman, and relished discussing the differences–to the detriment of the English.
DeleteYears ago I saw an interview with Elizabethan scholar A. L. Rowse in which he was quite insistent about classifying himself as a Cornishman, in contrast to Englishmen.
Twice I've seen John Lennox emphasize that he's a Northern Irishman.
These distinctions wouldn't occur to outsiders.
Years ago I listened to Roger Nicole's taped course on systematic theology. Among other things, he took jabs at German names. For instance, he made fun of Ritschl because it had one vowel followed by five consonants.
Harry Cassandra
Delete"But we can improve the situation and avoid the break up of the union by making it a started purpose to maintain the white european majority. Demographically, it's certain that Mexican's in the US are going to declare independence at some point"
Aren't many or most Mexicans (and other S. American Hispanics) descendants of Spaniards and Portuguese? Isn't that just as white and/or European as descendants of French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, &c.? So your white/European demarcation breaks down.
"parts of the US are becoming black and Muslim."
We've had large black populations in cities and states as a legacy of the slave trade. That's hardly a new development.
Mr. Cassandra accused Mr. Hays in the previous thread of believing in Magic Dirt theory, the notion that people groups who arrive in the United States will automatically assimilate to American culture if given the chance. Mr. Hays did not and has not endorsed such a fantastical idea, but I agree with the premise that Magic Dirt theory is wrong.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Magic Dirt is wrong, consider how much more comically absurd is the notion of Magic Sperm theory--the theory that Mr. Cassandra and other alt-righters subscribe to with great fervor. A prophet of their own, Sam Francis, once said that Western civilization was impossible "apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." In other words, Western cultural achievement boils down to Magic Sperm--genetics, genetics and more genetics.
Reasonable, biblically informed readers can easily determine how seriously they should take Magic Sperm theory.