Is Christian Nationalism Just The Tip Of The Iceberg?

 As we all know, an iceberg is larger than what can be observed above the water. In fact, the part of the iceberg that we can see is the smaller, and least threatening, part of the iceberg. According to the AI used by Google, around 90% of an iceberg is submerged.

The above pertains to Christian Nationalism because of the growing authoritarian movement in the U.S. This authoritarianism has already captured the Presidency. And because of the influence that Christian Nationalism has had on some of Trump's key people and the public attention that it is receiving, the question being considered here is whether Christian Nationalism is just the tip of the threat being posed to America's democracy or is there is something more dangerous lurking below the surface.

Christian Nationalism not only threatens to replace our democratic processes for determining our representatives and how they make decisions; it opposes equality by granting religiously conservative Christianity a privileged place above all ethnic and ethnic-religious groups in determining who will be governing our society. We should note what has been previously claimed in this blog. That what we are seeing in Europe and North America is a battle between Democracy with equality vs Authoritarianism with hierarchy. And the first sign of the latter is when an individual/group/ideology attacks equality for others. For without equality, we have no democracy, which, in contrast to authoritarianism with hierarchy, would be the rule of the people--the 'demos' means people. With the onset of Christian Nationalism here, what we seem to have, as Jeff Halper pointed out in his book, An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel, is an ethnocracy--the rule of an ethnocity or selected set of ethnocities over all of the people,

And so what is most apparent about the current authoritarianism in America is its Christian Nationalism character. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy? And if the answer is 'no,' then what other threats are there to our democracy?

We need to realize that religiously conservative Christians do not have to be Christian Nationalists to threaten our democracy. That is because religiously conservative Christians have a strong penchant for favoring authoritarianism. Consider the following 2 video clips of John MacArthur speaking on Christian Nationalism and then on the freedom of religion:

AND

Outside of the abortion issue, which is really a social justice issue if the unborn child is a human life, note that MacArthur opposes both equality for the LGBT community and religious freedom. One could summarize his opposition to both equality and religious freedom by noting that he seems to conflate supporting the right to choose with supporting the choices made. That is because Christians should not support people chosing homosexuality, transgenderism, and the practice of other faiths than the Christian faith, he believes that Christians should oppose giving people the option to choose those alternatives. And so in attacking the freedom to choose, MacArthur is attacking the equality of people from the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian religious faiths. A Christian approach to supporting equality for the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian faiths would be to support people having the right to  choose options that we religiously conservative Christians don't want them to choose. Such a perspective protects the equality of those mentioned by respecting their right to choose unbiblical alternatives. And then we could add that we Christians could then offer different choices through evangelism.

Note that MacArthur does not support Christian Nationalism. And yet, he is attacking the equality of some who think differently than he does. And the same goes for others, my fellow religiously conservative Christians in particular, who use code words to justify their opposition to equality for certain groups. Their opposition is based on traditional Christian beliefs that sprang from Christendom, which was an authoritarian time period when Christianity had a privileged place of influence and power over all other faiths throughout Europe and much of the Americas.

These code words are often used to obligate the civil authorities to ban certain practices that are condemned in the Scriptures. Code words like 'natural law' or the 'moral law' can be defined a number of ways. But when referred to by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, what they refer to are Christian definitions of those words. In fact, because Christian Nationalism is a diverse movement, sometimes what those religiously conservative Christians use code words want ends up being the same laws that some Christian Nationalists want to exist. Now it is obvious that Christian Nationalists are far more visible than these other Christians in terms of posing a threat to our democracy. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy? 

So what else could be attached to the iceberg that has Christian Nationalism as its tip? As this blog has pointed out before, oligarchy also threatens our democracy. And in a nation that celebrates Capitalism like America does, and especially like this President does, to follow what motivates those in our government, we need to follow the money. And in this case, that means we must look at the influence that certain sets of financial and corporate elites have on our government.

Here, we should note the past. And by the past, we should note Russia's influence on our President. Why? It is because Russia's Putin not only significantly contributed to Trump's 2024 election win and his other campaigns, he is greatly admired by Trump. And in terms of Putin's contribution to Trump's win in 2024, we don't know how much Trump owes Putin for his victory. In terms of admiration, Timothy Snyder, who is the author of the book, The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Trump's strong concern with having Putin's approval began in 2013. In addition, at one time, Trump chose to believe Putin regarding his attempts to influence our elections over what our intelligence agencies said.

This blog used the question of how much Trump owes Putin along with his admiration of him to predict what would happen if Trump was elected: Russia would be America's future. And what is Russia? It is a corrupt oligarchy run by a strongman where the national identity is tied to the Russian Orthodox Church even though most Russians do not regulary attend worship services.. That while Putin's government tosses out enough culture bones, such as its strong opposition to LGBT lifestyles, out to the Russian Orthodox Church to garner its support, it is mostly Putin, and then his oligarchs who are running the nation and primarily benefitting from its rule.  

What do we see in America? At Trump's inauguration, elite tech leaders were given seats of privilege. We see how Trump and his family has been financially garnering hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth. We see corporations receiving tax cuts, secured through the "Big Beautiful Bill," and cuts in regulations. And some are receiving higher government contracts. We see Trump removing Congressionally approved funds from charitable, educational, social safety net funds. In addition, there is the power that Trump gave to Elon Musk, who contributed around $250 million to Trump's campaign. And who did Trump take with him in his trip to China?

But if those facts are not enough, Trump's Presidency provides enough evidence to show that we have already entered some level of oligarchy. Trump's personal criteria for success is based on domination and acquisition. As mentioned before, programs of 'social uplift,' as Martin Luther King Jr. called them, are easily sacrificed because there is no profit being made. Trump has said that the federal government can no longer support Medicare, Medicaid, and some food assistance programs because the government can't afford to support those programs and pay for  what Trump sees are new defense needs to a tune of $600 billion being added to the defense department. As with USAID, Trump is threatening to cut federal assistance to state unemployment funds because of Trump alleged fraud. But that increase in defense spending is despite the fact that the Pentagon continually fails audits. And so it is the Military Industrial Complex, along with Trump's Presidential power that are the main beneficiaries of that increase in spending. This should remind us of what Martin Luther King Jr. once said:

'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death'

Or look at Trump's military aid to autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Or look at how Trump supports Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump supports Ukraine by selling needed weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine. Do you see the transactional basis for his policies. While criticizing Biden for freely providing some weapons for Ukraine, Trump is seeking an economic profit for corporations here as the basis for helping Ukraine. In short, and an early blog article has already made this point, Trump is the culmination of all that is wrong with Capitalism according to Marx.

We should include that some of the programs that are being cut or are threatened with being cut enable greater social/economic mobility for those who are the have-nots. Here, we should note what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his 1967 interview by Xander Vanocur. What  King stated was that he was afraid that his 'dream' was turning into a nightmare because of the lack of economic improvement for many blacks. Much of the above should help us see some degree of connection between financial well-being with civil rights

At the same time, Trump portrayed himself as the savior-defender of religiously conservative Christianity in America. And he has appointed people who have been strongly influenced by Christian Nationalism to certain key positions in his administration. In the meantime, Trump has been waging a "Christian" crusade against wokism, both here and abroad, to the extent that he is violating the free speech of those in the education systems of our nation.

Yes, Christian Nationalism should be a concern for us.  Some of it is just the tip of the iceberg while the rest is the part of the iceberg that that threatens our democracy. We are right to be concerned about it.

However, it is too easy to become so focussed on Christian Nationalism that we blind ourselves to the threat that oligarchy poses to our democracy and way of life. Here we should note that most of the dangers posed by Christian Nationalism lie in the future. In contrast to that, oligarchy is not just posing current dangers to our democracy, it has been damaging our democracy for a while. And so again, according to this blog, the current authoritarian movement in America is using a religious façade to garner the votes of religiously conservative Christians to support something in addition to Christian Nationalism. And though the iceberg that threatens to sink our democracy consists of both Christian Nationalism and oligarchy, it is time that we start paying more attention to our oligarchy, to the large part of the submerged iceberg, that has been gouging huge holes in the hull of our democracy some time now.

Again, Our Biggest Threat Is Authoritarianism

 Why is authoritarianism our biggest threat? It is because authoritarianism can play a highly significant role in how we determine what claims are true and what claims are not. It is also  our biggest threat because it is becoming more prevalent, especially in the West

We should note a couple of things about authoritarianism. First, it always comes with hierarchy whether that hierarchy is based on ideology, ethnicity, wealth, biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or some other category. Some forms of authoritarianism revolve around a single leader or group of leaders. Other forms of authoritarianism revolve around groups that are based on ethnicity, ideology, or economic class.

Authoritarianism knows no ethnic, ideological, class, sexual orientation, or gender identity boundaries. That is because in authoritarianism, the leader wants their followers to  reflexively or automatically accept or reject what is said based on who said it. In other words, it is the credentials of the source that determines a reflexive or automatic reaction. Here, we should note that we should recognize the credentials that experts have in the specific field(s) have. But with authoritarianism, credentials of the source are often irrelevant to the subject of the claims.

Basically, authoritarian leaders want to be nanny thinkers for their followers.  And so they will attack the credibility and credentials of sources that their followers are exposed to. For example, when Hillary Clinton referred to a certain group of Americans as 'deplorables,' she was trying to get her followers to reflexively or automatically reject everything that the people to whom she was referring were saying. When Trump followers call those who protest against him as suffering from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' those followers want people to reflexively or automatically reject everything that Trump protesters say. And Leftists have their own pejorative labels for those whom they oppose such as calling some the 'bourgeoisie.'  In other words, when we see someone employing a pejorative use of labels on a person or group or ideology they oppose, they are making an authoritarian appeal.

However, the presence of authoritarian followers does not imply that a given leader is authoritarian. Why? It is because not all leaders who have authoritarian followers act as authoritarians. Non-authrotarian leaders might have some followers who are authoritarian followers. That is, without the authoritarian appeal of a given leader, some authoritarian followers will latch on to any leader that they consider to be appealing.  Such a follower will automatically reject or accept what a source says solely based on whether their adopted leader contradicts what a source says. The basic dynamic here is the same however. If what a given source says is supported by the leader  of an authoritarian follower, then that follower automatically accepts what the given source says. Otherwise, what a given sources says will  is automatically or reflexively rejected.

This leads us to one of the problems with being an authoritarian follower. That is that an authoritarian follower does not use facts and logic to determine whether to accept or reject a claim. For the authoritarian follower to seriously consider what an unapproved source says results in a cognitive dissonance. For how can one both believe a single claim from an unapproved sources  while trying to reject everything that that source says? As the follower continues to agree with what an unapproved source says, the more credentials  the follower attributes to that source. As that credentials of that source increase, the follower must eventually decide whether to part ways with their adopted leader.

A caveat should be introduced at this time. It to automatically reject what an non-expert in a given field says is significantly different from automatically rejecting what an expert says. Though we shouldnˋt always automatically accept what a given expert in the field of the discussion says, they should be seen as having more credibility and credentials than a non-expert says.

Authoritarianism holds out a couple carrots to potential followers. Following a leader, especially a popular one, as being always or almost always correct can be an ego boost to some. It makes some people feel more significant because of how they have connected themselves with an esteemed person or ideology or group. Being an authoritarian follower can especially appeal to those who  feel alienated from others. And so fear becomes involved because if one should decide not to follow leaders or ideologies, one can lose a vital connection that being an authoritarian follower provides. Thus, challenging the beliefs of an authoritarian follower, even when done with facts and logic, can seem personally threatening to the authoritarian follower.

Another carrot that authoritarianism holds out is that it allows one to feel more comfortable, and even more in control, in a world that often seems to complicated. It is easier to latch on to a leader and put all of one's trust in that leader than to battle through the complexities of life and the world to come to one's own conclusions.

Authoritarianism plays a big role in determining what many believe or reject. And unfortunately, that role doesnˋt revolve around facts and logic. It is very unfortunate because authoritarianism, though never having disappeared, is definitely on the rise in the West, both in Europe and in North America. 

How should we respond to authoritarianism? We should note that authoritarian leaders want their followers to reflexively or automatically reject or accept what is said by a given source. The kind of thinking implied in authoritarianism is black-white thinking. In such thinking, either everything that a source says must either be accepted or rejected.  And that provides the key in battling authoritarianism. To fight authoritarianism, we need to see red flags raising when someone employs black-white thinking  And so we need to challenge the appeal to either reject or accept everything that is said by a source. To auotmatically reject everything that someone says is to say that that source needs to listen to me or us while we have no need to listen to it. Such an approach is driven by arrogance which, in turn, is often driven by ignorance. And to accept everything that an adopted leader says, implies that that adopted leader is omniscient.  And contrary to Trumpˋs view of himself, the only being who is omniscient is God.

All-or-nothing thinking, including black-white thinking, is the cognitive foundation of authoritarianism. And so to refuse to employ all-or-nothing thinking is to reject authoritarianism. 

But such an approach can be problematic for the religiously conservative Christian. That is because with what God has communicated to us, there are times to employ all-or-nothing thinking. But the source for such thinking is the Scriptures, not manˋs ideologies or abilities. We can learn much from manˋs ideologies, but we cannot afford to approach any ideology in an all-or-nothing manner. That is there is no ideology that does not need to be supplemented by other ideologies. There is no ideology that can solve all problems. Likewise, there are few ideologies that have nothing to teach us. 

And so we can start stopping authoritarianism by learning how to take hybrid approaches to problem solving. For example, in his book, Stride Toward Freedom, King notes that while Marxism forgets that life is individual while Capitalism forgets that life is social. And so King proposed that we combine the best approaches and thinking that are in Marxism and Capitalism to find a better approach to the economy and politics. Such an approach prohibits us from automatically rejecting or accepting what a source says.

Again, we are seeing a move away from Democracy with equality and toward authoritarianism with hierarchy. To stop this move, we need to understand authoritarianism and the kind of thinking that it employs. That understanding can save us from being ruled by tyrants especially if those tyrants first appear to be wearing sheep's clothing.

What Can We Realistically Expect From American Evangelicals Now?

As I compare Trump's 2nd Presidency with opinion polls, I see a great disparity. Why aren't more people disapproving of Trump? From what I see, Democracy is not just in a mere crisis, it should be placed in hospice. For at the current pace, it won't take long for Democracy to be irreparably harmed and destroyed. But Trump supporters are reacting to his Presidency as if their house was launched by a tornado and landed over the rainbow. 

And so why don't today's Repubs see the danger that our Democracy is facing? For some it is because they prefer a conservative autocratic regime to Democracy. One reason for that is because they didn't like all of the groups that were emerging from the margins to move into the equality neighborhood with them. For according to them, such people bring the value of their own property down. These Republicans are wearing such tinted glasses that they can't see the harm that Trump is causing.

Since over 80% for my fellow Evangelicals have played a key role in not just electing Trump, but in maintaining support for his regime, I thought I would share my views on why this is happening.

IMO, a main, but not only, reason why so many of my fellow Evangelicals have voted for and continue to support Trump is due to their penchant for authoritarianism. Dr Russell Razzaque has identified how many Christian parents raised their children as the reason for that tendency to embrace authoritarianism. And though he has some excellent points to make and to consider, he reduces the cause for their authoritarianism to be anger over how they were raised. Though that can come into play, it isn't the only factor involved here. I think that another factor that so contributes either with or without how children were raised which has caused my fellow Evangelicals to lean toward authoritarianism is the culture that religiously conservative churches promote. BTW, despite some of the reasoning that Dr Razzaque employs in his talk (seen below) and how some of what he says  challenges a Biblical understanding of the Old Testament God (see his short talk below), he is well worth listening to.

What first needs to be said here is a meaningful definition of authoritarianism. This is needed, especially by my fellow Evangelicals, because Evangelical churches so often teach us that we are always under authority structures and thus under people in authority so that we could easily conflate the Biblical submission to authority figures with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, as it applies to our personalities, was originally identified and defined  by the Frankfurt School. Its interest in the subject was due to rise of Nazism and the German response to it. Authoritarian personality types refer to specific ways by which authoritarian leaders lead and authoritarian followers follow their leaders. BTW, here is a big disclaimer on my views on authoritarian personality types. I am speaking as a common person, NOT AN EXPERT. 

And because Evangelical churches tend to so heavily emphasize the authority structures that we live under and our Biblical obligation to respect all who are in authority, many Evangelicals are confused as to how to interpret what an authoritarian personality type is. What authoritarian leaders want is to have authoritarian followers. And what authoritarian followers want are unimpeachable sources of instructions and worldviews. What such followers want from their leaders are those with whom they can reflexively agree. In a sense, they are looking for a pope-like parent who is relatively or absolutely infallible. They want nanny thinkers to lead them. Their leaders speak and they follow. And what drives them toward wanting such a leader is fear. And because they expect so much from their leaders, they tend to employ black/white thinking. And the fear that drives them to expect so much from their leaders also acts as a defense from attacks from all sides. All of that causes authoritarian followers to put their leaders on too high a pedestal, whether their leaders have real expertise to offer or not.

It is the inordinate desire to follow authority figures that causes many Evangelicals to be unable to distinguish a Biblical way of following those who have authority over us from an authoritarian way. And so they conflate both ways. In addition, many of my fellow believers develop an inability to distinguish situations when we do not need to follow an authority figure because we are surrounded by peers, by equals.

But why do I mention all of this about authoritarian personalities? One reason is that it realistically helps explain why many of my fellow Evangelicals are following Trump the way they are. It isn't the only reason though I see few other reasons why they would. And all that indicates are the limits of my own intelligence and thinking. The other reason why I mention all of this about authoritarianism is because it helps provide explanations on why many Germans remained so loyal to Hitler despite what was happening to them and their nation. We should note that the resistance group, the White Rose, was looked on as traitors to Germany by many of their fellow countrymen for years after the war because that group challenged the legitimacy of their leader.

And so if being authoritarian made many Germans reluctant to turn on Hitler and Evangelicals have a penchant for authoritarianism, then how should we expect Evangelicals to react to Trump's Presidency and its failures and challenges to Democracy? The poll numbers are providing a partial answer. With Trump's attacks on Democracy and people, independents seem to be changing their minds about Trump, but many Evangelicals are not and we should expect them to be very reluctant to for at least the short term.

The above is my take on what we should expect from many of my fellow Evangelicals. Now again, when I am talking about authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality, I am not talking as an expert. But that does not imply that everything I wrote is false. And so one could, and should, study the subject of authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality types and see what one can agree with in this article and what one thinks is wrong.

Is It A New Axis Of Evil Or Just A Love Triangle?

I've always been curious about movies that featured time travel. In two such movies featuring the military, troops who were unknowingly  transported through time were surprised to learn who their new allies and enemies were. For example, in the original The Philadelphia Experiment, two sailors were transported from 1943 to 1984. They were shocked to find out that the U.S. was friends with Japan. In the movie, The Final Countdown the commanders of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz are shocked to hear that Germany was attacking Russia

The Trump White House, which can now be called Kremlin West, has apparently caused our enemies and friends to trade places. From Trump's proposed economic policies and statements, Canada and the EU, including NATO, are our new enemies while the U.S. and Russia are in the process of becoming bosom buddies. But unlike the movie The Philadelphia Experiment, neither time nor the nations involved have changed. It is the U.S. that has changed abruptly and surprisingly because promises of these changes were not even hidden in the fine print of Trump's campaign. On the other hand, the U.S. has now joined North Korea, Belarus, and Iran in voting against U.N. resolutions that would condemn Russia for its invasion.

However, not all of the nations we have been involved with have traded places. For example, Trump's planned tariffs indicates that China is still viewed as an adversary.

So our new world consists of both the US and Russia growing closer while China and Russia are doing the same and the US and China have somewhat of an economic adversarial relationship. 

In a BBC NewsNight episode that included a former MI6 leader, Sir Alex Younger, see the video linked to below, stated that we have entered a new time period when instead of reliance on the law and treaties, our world will now be ruled by 3 strongman leaders and deals. Those leaders of course are, Vlad Putin, Donald J, and Xi Jinping where, because of their military strength of their respective countries, these strongmen will do what they can while the rest of the world will have to suffer with their decisions.

We should note that some have for a long time thought that the U.S. has ruled vulnerable parts of the world like a strongman seeing that the U.S. has been involved in coups and invasions in an attempt to facilitate regime change.s But one difference now would be that the U.S. would now have at least a somewhat cooperative relationship with at least one giant of authoritarianism, Russia, while acting like a strongman regime. In addition, Trump is beginning to act like a strongman leader to American citizens too.

Before dismissing Younger's analysis, we need to remember the words and planned actions of Donald Trump. He said that he is willing to use force to achieve his goals in Greenland where he wants access to certain essential natural resources. He also wants to control the Panama Canal and he said that he is willing to use force to do so. As for Canada, it seems that Trump will be waging an economic blitzkrieg in order to make Canada the 51st state. A major reason for Trump wanting to do so is that Canada too is rich in natural resources such as rare mineral deposits and oil. We should also note that Trump's planned tariffs on EU nations will make it tougher for those nations to build up their militaries.

And so what kind of relationship do these strongmen leaders have with each other? Are we looking at a new axis of authoritarianism (a.k.a., evil) or are we witnessing the emergence of a love triangle where Jinping and Trump are competing to be Putin's main squeeze? If the latter is true, what will Putin do? Will he favor one strongman leader over the other or will he try to become a political Mormon who is experimenting with political polygamy which, of course, also produces an axis of authoritarianism. We should note that the Surgeon General should warn everyone that having more than one wife can be hazardous to one's health while the Attorney General should issue a warning that that having more than one wife can be hazardous to one's finances. 

We should note that other nations are supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, notably North Korea and Belarus. But neither of those nations are in the same league with  the U.S. and China and so the best label we can give them is that of Putin's concubines.

So do we have a new Axis of Authoritarianism or Evil (Russia, the U.S., and China)\ or is there a love triangle with the U.S. and China competing for most of Putin's affections. I cannot speak to Jinping's  relationship with Putin, but there is an aspect to Trump's relationship with Putin that Sir Alex Younger didn't mention in the video. How much Trump lovingly caters to Putin or independently he acts depends on how much he owes  Putin for his election victory. BTW, Russian disinformation was definitely present in Trump's 2016 and 2020 elections. And though I have no information from intelligence agencies to confirm this, my discussions and reading on the web and scanning the news certainly gave strong indicators that Russian disinformation played a vital role in the 2024 Presidential election. 

Yes, as Younger pointed out, Trump wants Putin's blessings on his lusts for Canada and Greenland. But that would include Trump giving the green light to Putin for obtaining the Ukraine and other parts of Europasia. And perhaps one way of doing that would be for Trump to help contribute to making a fatally flawed peace treaty between Russia and the Ukraine. As Younger pointed out, while Trump sees the issue behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine as being the acquisition of land--he also sees it as an opportunity to sell himself as problem solver and chief to the American public--Putin sees it as an issue of sovereignty because, according to Putin, Ukraine naturally belongs to Russia. But then again, Ukraine's wealth in natural resources might be another reason why Putin wants Ukraine and so Ukraine could become a battle ground if Trump is unable to acquire either Canada and Greenland.

And so how much does Trump owe Putin? The answer to that question will be revealed during Trump's presidency and will help us determine whether we have a new Axis of Authoritarianism/Evil. If there is no new axis, perhaps the other alternative, a love triangle with Putin starring as the center of attention, will provide for some comic relief when watching or reading today's news.

O Canada, It Could Happen To You

The title of this article comes from the titles of two songs. One is the national anthem of Canada and the other is from a JimmyVan Heusen's, It Could Happen To You, with the lyrics by Johnny Burke. If you look up the lyrics to the latter, you will find that the message from the original It Could Happen To You is a bit more cheerful than what I am warning Canada about.

I remember many  times when I was reading about or watching the Nazi takeover of Germany, I thought how that could never happen here in the good old USA. The recent election and current coup attempt by our two Wicked Witches, Trump and Musk, have proven me wrong. And the US has been, in part, experiencing what went on in Germany in the 1930s only American style. Certainly we didn't experience the same kind of political tactics used in Germany back then. In addition, the longer Trump's rein continues, we won't see here the kind of carnage that the Nazis forced on Germany back then. Rather, we will have our own version of carnage and the elimination of programs of human uplift, the accusations of fraud and waste leading to the mass firing of the employees without any due process, the elimination of agencies that held  government and business accountable, and the economic blitzkrieg of tariffs and threats of tariffs that would seriously threaten the economies of at least some of our allies currently going on are a foretaste of the carnage to be caused by our two Wicked Witches.

O Canada, our dearest ally and friend, and the nation I prefer to be a citizen of, what we are seeing now just didn't happen to us, it has happened elsewhere such as in Hungary, and it is threatening to happen in Germany within a decade if things continue the way they are. And it could happen to you too as well as to every other friend we have in Europe. In reality, what we are experiencing can happen to anyone. What we are seeing here today is a battle between Democracy with equality vs Authoritarianism with hierarchy with the latter one winning. Sometimes that hierarchy is ethnically based as it is in Hungary. Other times that hierarchy has a façade of being ethnically based but is really class based as what has been existing in Russia and is the direction in which the US is heading. And the equality that comes with Democracy is often overlooked the more people focus on their immediate economic concerns.

Please don't let your Canada First be the Canadian version of America First and Germany's previous Germany First versions. Be different from us and Germany of the past in how you pursue Canada First. Be different in the goals you pursue.

Here are some hints to determine what kind of nation first should be avoided by how you vote in your upcoming election. 

1. Research The Friends And Supporters
2. Lookout For False Or Misleading Claims
3. Look For Traits Of Authoritarianism

1.    Research The Friends And Supporters

    If the supporters of a politician or movement include Elon Musk, then do what is often sung in the Bear Hunt song and what is sometimes heard in the Monty Python And The Holy Grail movie during a battle: RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!!!

    If a politician is being supported by Musk now, he will be owned by Musk after the election. If a movement is being supported by Musk, it must be significantly contributing to the carrying out his agenda. If one is unsure what Musk's agenda is, then look at what is happening to the US.

     If a candidate has the same traits or agenda that Trump had, then, again, RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!!! The most evident personality traits of Donald Trump are a high level of narcissism and authoritarianism. And he has extremely high levels of both personality traits.

    But a candidate doesn't have to have a Trump persona to lead a nation astray. Examine each candidate's past and present agenda. For Trump, that agenda included cutting the ties to social responsibilities for the wealthy. In other words, through Trump's agenda, despite benefitting the most from America's infrastructure, the wealthy are coming closer and closer to having a free lunch while the rest of us will be paying for that free lunch.

But taxes that support America's infrastructure and social safety net programs are not the only cutting of the wealthy's ties their societal responsibilities. Trump is axing our government's ability to protect people from the harmful and exploitive practices of those businesses whose only concern is with the maximization of profits. 

II.    Lookout For False Or Misleading Claims

In times of crisis or widespread discontent, our ability to distinguish false claims from factual ones is infringed by wishful thinking. And our wishful thinking grows more during hard times. That is what America was experiencing with an inflation that followed and was even caused by the pandemic. And so Trump's campaign opportunistically scapegoated Biden for the inflation. And then his campaign used false, misleading and exaggerated claims about immigration as fear mongering technique. Then his campaign took full credit for the absence of conflicts, like Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Hamas's October attack on Israel. And he not only claimed that neither event would take place if he was President, he claimed that he would solve Russia's war against Ukraine in one day. 

He basically said what many here were clamoring to hear. We were wanting to hear such claims because of the legitimate tension we felt our problems with inflation and immigration as well as over world events.

Realize that Russian sources have been busy in affecting elections both here in the U.S. and in Europe. I've seen that activity here in the US on Facebook and the blogs. Russian sources have spread disinformation in the form of misleading and false accusations. By doing so, those Russian sources told both those on the real left and the right that regardless of the flaws Trump has, he is preferable to Biden. And so, many a leftist 3rd party votes as well as many conservative votes for Trump were actually anti-Biden votes.

You have a similar situation that we have. You have a population suffering from inflation and because of their focus on that, you can easily become inadequately concerned with maintaining equality and  human rights. And so you too are ripe for receiving Russian disinformation and are looking for simple solutions.

III.    Look For Traits Of Authoritarianism

Speaking as a former political conservative--I actually voted for George Bush in 2000--conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than their liberal and leftist counterparts. It's not that there is no authoritarianism in liberalism or the left, there is. Authoritarianism gets its start when people in a political party, ideology, or ism become too loyal to that political party, ideology, or ism. Once they pass a certain threshold, the more loyal they become the less objective they can be in the flaws of their own groups. They soon passionately embrace moral relativity in approving of their party, ideology, or ism practicing the same actions that they condemn outsiders for.

Why conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than other groups is because conservatives start with a high degree of loyalty to their traditions. It is like in a 100 meter dash, while most of the followers of the other political parties start at the regular starting point, conservatives tend to start 25 to 50 meters ahead. And so please apply a sharper eye out when examining conservatives than any other group. But also look out for those who are party loyalists, ideologies, and those who have strong loyalties to whatever group they belong to. One way to do that is to replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank  in the Martin Luther King Jr. quote below

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just'

Put the name of each candidate and party in the fill-in-the-blank. If a candidate or party says that they have all of the answers and have nothing to learn from their critics or opponents, then RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY. Instead, prefer those candidates who opt for hybrid solutions to your problems and can learn from their critics.

Canada, please learn from the negative example that the we in the US have so foolishly provided. We have released a monster in the world. Do release either one of your own or on that would be an ally to the monster we released.

 

Why Trump?

Why could America elect Donald Trump to be the next President when there have been a plethora of red flags being raised and waving vigorously in the air. January 6, 2021 alone should have provided enough reason for not reelecting Trump, but it hasn't. If that had been tried during the 1970s, both parties would unanimously condemn such actions and prevent those involved from serving in government again. But that was yesteryear.

There are 3 reasons that I can see why we could elect Trump as President. That does not imply that these are the only 3 reasons. What follows are the reasons that I can see.

Reason #1

As a society, our thinking is more limited today than it was decades ago. That limited thinking is not due to a lack of intelligence, it is due to how we think. We should add that our limited thinking is self-imposed. Why and how? The how is because more and more of us have passionately embraced a form of all-or-nothing thinking called black-white thinking. We see things either one way or the other. An example is when then President George Bush told the world after that 9/11 attacks that people are either with us or against. us. What Bush was telling others was that it was either his way or the highway. It isn't issues that necessarily polarize us, it is passionately embracing black/white thinking that does.

Such thinking not only causes polarization, it is also the kind of thinking that authoritarian leaders dream of in their followers. Such leaders dream of such thinking because it makes their followers more susceptible to their desires. To disagree with an authoritarian leader often results in the being labeled as 'enemies.' 

We can go to Russia to see some past examples of such leaders. Both some of the Tsars and Vlad Lenin promoted this type of thinking. While the Tsars promoted the idea that because they were Russia. That how Russians treated them illustrated how they were treating their nation is an example of such thinking. And the same goes for Vlad Lenin only his identification was with the proletariat and the Revolution in the newly formed Soviet Union. \

And so today we have Trump, who previously called the Press the 'enemy of the people,' predicting that there will be utter disaster if he is not elected. In addition, he has told me and my fellow religiously conservative Christians that we will never need to vote again should he be elected.

How have we come to engage in such self-limiting thinking? It is because of people like Rush Limbaugh, who for decades, encouraged us to see all liberals as having nothing to offer or teach us and true conservatism as being the fount of all blessings. And because, like Trump, Limbaugh knew how to speak to a frustrated conservative audience, he could promote these black/white thinking in people which has caused today's polarizations in America.  And like Reagan, he could make such conservatives feel good about themselves and their political causes.

Reason #2

And just as we have limited our thinking, we have limited our ability to be fair and objective. And we should note that just like our limited thinking, this inability to be fair and objective is self inflicted. The moment that we let our loyalty go wild, we decided that we no longer  needed or even would be able to judge our own groups and other groups using the same standards and measurements. 

What has infringed on our ability to be fair an objective? As was just mentioned, it is when we allowed our loyalty to go wild. And when our loyalty goes wild, we take a black/white approach to loyalty. In this case we believe that loyalty can only be a virtue, and never a vice, so long as we are loyal to the right groups.

The more loyal we are to a group, the more resistant we are to the criticisms of that group until finally we passionately embrace moral relativism.That occurs when right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. We see this in authoritarian led groups where either the person or ideology is seen as being relatively omniscient. In other words, borrowing a phraseology from Martin Luther King Jr., we see this moral relativity when a group believes that it has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others. And so with becoming so loyal to a group comes the elevation of the pedestal on which we put that group. 

Reason #3

Many of us have seen a decline in our affection for democracy. And what has caused that decline is the materialism that comes from our consumer society. Once we've become materialistic,  then democracy, with equality,  is no longer seen as being important.

Of course in this election, it isn't just those who are marginally opulent who are hit hard by today's economy, it is regular people too. But the same principle holds. Once our economy crosses certain thresholds, democracy with equality is no longer seen as being an important value to cherish and hold on to. We want our economy fixed and fixed now. And with our black/white thinking, we will look for simplistic explanations and solutions to our economic problems. That is why Republicans pin the blame the past spike in inflation, which is over with, solely on government spending while the Democrats blame the previous spike in inflation solely on corporate price gouging. What is missing from both narratives is the simple economic roles that supply and demand plays on prices. In lieu of recognizing that our inflation may have had multiple causes, both Republicans and Democrats oversimplified what caused our spike in inflation.

And so we look for a magic leader who can immediately fix the economic problems we have been having. And that isn't the major problem here. Just as we are looking for an immediate solution, we become more willing to do without other  important things. So what if that magic leader needs more and more power to get the job done, as long as one's own economy is fixed, then all becomes forgiven. 

And so with today's Republicans, as long as they claim that they can "fix" the economy, immigration, and our other problems, who cares if we elect a person who tried to overthrow a fair election, who wants to be a dictator for "just" the first day, who has expressed strong admiration of dictators of the world like Putin, Erdogan, and Xi Jinping, and who has constantly and shamelessly lied throughout all of his Presidential campaigns?

We should also note is that the factors mentioned in those three reasons feed personal needs that we all have. The simplistic worldview that black/white thinking produces makes us feel more in control of what is going on around us. The excessive loyal to a group that we idolize makes us feel more significant because we belong to something greater than ourselves (see Fromm's The Authoritarian Personality) 

Not only have we heard warnings from those who served him during his presidency, we also have documentation from mental health experts some of whom are from prestigious universities (for mental health concerns such as Trump's narcissism, see The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump). 

In addition to that, we have history, however recent. Like that of President George W. Bush, the end of Trump's first term ended with America in shambles. It was in shambles because of  Trump's belligerent attitude and response to the nation's medical science community; and it was in tatters because of his his response to the election. His lawyers brought no court worthy evidence in the 60 lawsuits they filed. And when they failed, there was January 6, 2021. Trump himself had told the Proud Boys to 'stand back and stand by.' He advertised the event by saying that it was going to be a 'wild time.' He tried to pressure then Vice President Pence into shirking his Constitutional duties. He set up the whole conflict by claiming before the election that the only way he could lose would be by fraud. He is vowing revenge on his political opponents while claiming that the indictments and guilty verdicts made by ordinary citizens in grand juries and juries are political attacks.

If we refuse to listen to those warnings and if we ignore the recent past, we will be like Israel when, despite the prophet Samuel's warnings, they insisted on having a king (see I Samuel 8:10-22). And what prediction that Samuel gave did not come true?

Yes, Pro-Life is an important issue. But those hoping to manipulate the votes of religiously conservative Christians reduce being Pro-Life to abortion. This reduction of what is Pro-Life is another example of all-or-nothing thinking. In truth, neither the Democrats, with their legitimate concerns for the climate, environment, poverty, and social safety nets, nor the Republicans, with their legitimate concerns about abortion, are consistently pro-life.

Will we heed the warnings or will we provide yet another example of what Hegel said when he said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history?

A Partial Return Of The Blog

I had to shutdown the blog for health concerns. I spent part of that time trying to get in the best shape for surgery, and now I am spending time recovering from surgery with which there were complications.

Last year, I spent quite a bit of time talking about the threat of the other pandemic: authoritarianism. That time was spent on this blog as well as in my comments on other blogs. The threat of authoritarianism around the world is real and growing. In the U.S., it is politically most pronounced in today's Republican Party, especially in its leaders like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. It is also exhibited in groups like Moms For Liberty and results in many of the state laws passed regarding voting and gender transitioning. Religiously, it is most pronounced in those fellow religiously conservative Christians who are Christian Nationalists. Those working for such a nation are being driven by authoritarian sentiments more than by biblical concerns as seen in the sources they use to prove their claims.

In discussing authoritarianism, we can further define it by its alternative: democracy. For with authoritarianism comes hierarchy while with democracy comes equality. The hierarchy that comes with authoritarianism can manifest itself in terms of the power of a single leader, the power of a small group of elites, or the power of an ethnicity and/or an economic class. With the last classification comes the notion of a shadow nation. A shadow nation is where a given nation is seen as belonging more to one ethnicity and/or economic class than it belongs to the rest of its citizens. Evidence of a shadow nation can be seen in the laws passed by a nation's government. Do they favor a specific economic class more than the other economic classes? If so, and they do so here in America (click here and there), then we could classify a nation as a classocracy. If the laws passed by a nation give a privileged position to a given ethnicity in a multi-ethnic nation so that there is a diminishing of the equal rights of other ethnic groups, there is an ethnocracy. Totalitarian regimes can also be ethnocracies and/or classocracies. There are at least two ethnic groups vying to establish an ethnocracy in America or parts of it: whites and every form of Christian Nationalism. And what makes every form of Christian Nationalism a Biblical problem is that it puts all of us Christians in the inevitable position of 'lording it over others.' And it puts all of us Christians in the inevitable position having privilege and supremacy over the group to which we are to preach the Gospel. Is it unreasonable to suppose that many to whom we preach the Gospel will have already stopped listening because they first noticed the inferior position in society they have to us?

Starting this year, I will try to focus on the Martin Luther King Jr. quote below even with a partial return of the blog. It is partial because I will be posting at the most one article per week except for the first week. On the first week I will also post one article showing comments that were blocked on conservative blogs that same week. I will provide other posts like the one on blocked comments on a regular basis when I am able to.The King quote is below (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. 

If we were to apply King's statement, we find that it speaks to us as individuals, to our institutions, to our businesses, financial institutions, and corporations, and to the nation as a whole. As consumers, we are so easily sold on the latest technological gadgets. We are also hyper aware of what our expenses, including taxes, are compared to our income. We are even more conscious of what others get, especially from the government, in comparison to what we receive. But we are not a monolith.

Some know all of the above from the perspective of deprivation. Others know it from a treading water status. While others know all of the above as the results of having done well  and some of them have succeeded by exploiting others. It is natural and right for those from the first two categories to speak out because they are doing so for survival. 

But what about those who done well? What about those including both individuals and businesses of all kinds who are wealthy? Do they have the right to complain when their taxes pay to assist those who are from the first two categories? Do they have the right to complain about paying taxes that would benefit the education of the children whose parents are from those first two categories? Do they have a right to complain when some fellow citizens work to change our economic structure so that there are fewer people who are either living in deprivation or are just treading water?

And for those who have done well, do they really think that their own charitable giving is enough? If they do, then they should read the next two quotes.

The first quote is from King. It is a continuation of the quote given above. King said (click here for the source):

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

Now below is a quote from Vlad Lenin. Generally, I don't like Lenin. He acted as a prototype to Stalin and the structure of his government, as Rosa Luxemburg noted, was based on a bourgeoisie dictatorship model rather than a socialist one. But the following quote from Lenin coincides significantly with was just quoted from King (click here for the quote):

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation...But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Another way of saying what Lenin said is that, for many of the wealthy, charity can become an indulgence that removes the guilt that comes from either directly exploiting others or a system in which people are economically exploited. Again, charity is a bandaid used to cover the wounds of a the disease of economic exploitation. And so for the wealthy who would believe that giving charity is all that is morally required, they must realize that they need to go farther. They need to remove the structures and policies by which their abundance of wealth is due to taking advantage of others. 

And isn't that what King is saying too? It isn't enough to give charity and to help individuals or even groups. We need to change the structure of our economy so that there are fewer and fewer victims and beggars on the road on which we all travel in life. 

We should note that our current form of Capitalism, is not the form of Capitalism that was employed in America and around the world after WW II. That form was called the Bretton-Woods System. The Bretton-Woods System was a form of economics that, while employing a significant measure of Capitalism, gave national governments more control over their economies. And in a democracy, that translates giving the people, who elected those leaders, more control of their own economy.

Our current form of Capitalism, which was introduced to some nations through manufactured crises, is called Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism eliminated many of the powers that were reserved for the government. As a result, private investors, sometimes even those who are from other nations, gained more power in determining a given nation's economy. And many of those private investors religiously followed the maximize profit ethic, which is a cannibalizing ethic that devours all of its peers. And as a result, disparities in wealth and income, both between the economic classes and the races, have continued to increase for the past few decades. Can we now see how the economic road on which we all travel needs to be changed so that there are fewer people in need? 

BTW, we also need to see that Neoliberalism has both a domestic side and a foreign side. That distinction was made in the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. While Clinton favored trade agreements that would give more control of our economy to foreign investors, Trump favored tax and regulation cuts that gave American corporations and financial institutions more control over our economy. Only Trump successfully obscured the fact that he was still promoting a Neoliberal capitalism.

Not all in our society have preferred to be part of a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society. And not all who have preferred to be part of a thing-oriented society do so to the same degree.  Certainly the Democratic Party is a mixed bag in terms of caring more about people than it does about profits and property rights. Some third parties and individuals try to promote a person-oriented society to varying degrees.

In contrast to those who are working to advance a person-oriented society, there is Wall Street. Clearly, Wall Street favors profit motives and property rights over people as do many from corporate America. And here we should note that the "wokism" promoted by many in corporate America does not imply that a corporation is promoting a person-oriented society over a thing-oriented society. That is because many in corporate America can favor certain woke causes that do not interfere with the economic policies they lobby for that make profits and property rights more important than people's need to be able to earn livable wages, the needs that people have for government assistance, and/or regulations that protect people and the need to protect the environment.

The Republican Party under Trump has cared and continues to care much more about profits and property rights than it does about people. That was shown by the policies of Trump that decreased the financial and social responsibilities of corporations and financial institutions in order to increase their immediate profits. And their increase in profits also contributed to a spike in the deficit.

Today's Republican Party under Trump has become the political home for Cain when he rhetorically asked God, 'am I my brother's keeper'?Of course, one could retort that at least that such a question is Biblical, but it is Biblical in the same way of how Pharaoh treated the Hebrews who were being led by Moses. Despite that, today's Evangelical support for the Republican Party under Trump is continuing a conservative Church tradition over the past few centuries of siding with wealth and power. Such was done in France, Russia, and Spain before their respective revolutions. 

We should note that the Church paid dearly both during and after those revolutions. And the reputation of the Gospel has been harmed because of the oppression and abuses that were logical consequences of Christendom. Both Critical Theory and Post Modernism have accurately pointed out the failures that came with Christendom and other sources. That oppression from and brutal treatment by those who claim to have an exclusive knowledge of the truth is part of the history that Critical Theory and Post Modernism is directing our attention too. Sadly, neither Critical Theory nor Post Modernism have provided viable solutions to what Christendom wrought. And worse, those who want to bring back Christendom, with the promise that they can do domination right, are speaking louder and louder and are stirring up a growing audience because the Christians in that audience are in fear from anticipating the coming of a real persecution as secularism becomes more pervasive.

The New Testament tells us that 'the love of money is a root for all sorts of evil' (click I Timothy 6:10 for the source). That is true not just for the individual Christian, it is true for everyone. And it is true not just for individual people, it is true for businesses, corporations, financial institutions, society, and the nation. It's not that profits and property rights are not important, they are necessary for economic survival. It is that when gadgets, profit motives, and property rights are more important than people to our institutions, businesses, society, and nation, we are all forced to merge onto a highway leading to self-destruction.

At the same time, it is not enough to point out the failures of others. James 3 tells us that 'we all stumble in many ways.' Paul tells us in Romans 3:9 that both the person who denies the existence of God and the religious person are equal in sin and are thus in the same boat. And so to the best of our ability we need to point out those failures in the same way that we want others to point out our own failures. We need to point out those failures as fellow sinners. We need to point out those failures not as those who are morally superior to sinners or as a way of tearing others down, but as a way of offering an alternative way to live. We need to point out those failures not as authoritarians who are virtue-signaling by seeking to punish others. Instead, we need to point out those failures as peers in sin who want people to change for their own benefit so that they can be better than ourselves. I have not mastered that way of pointing out the faults of others. In fact I am still trying to begin to learn how to do that. At the same time, some things must be immediately pointed out.

So, hopefully, the importance of not just distinguishing a person-oriented society from a thing-oriented society will be the focus of this blog during this year, but the importance of promoting the former society over the latter one will also be emphasized.

Did Traditional Christianity Set The Stage For Trump?

If we want to gain at least a partial understanding why so many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians have been following Trump, their first step is to read about the authoritarian personality. Certainly, reading about that personality type will not tell us everything that there is to know about why many of us, not including me, have remained faithful to Trump. But it will give us a good introduction.

 Why study the authoritarian personality type in order to begin to learn about why many of my fellow believers have been following Trump? We should note that the appeal of fascism and ethnocentrism triggered studies into why the appeal existed. The emergence of leaders like Hitler and Mussolini were key examples of fascism and ethnocentrism. Fromm, from the Frankfurt School started to talk about the appeal of these isms in the 1930s while Adorno co-lead a study on why people responded the way they did. These began the studies of the Authoritarian Personality.

We should note today's emergence of highly authoritarian leaders who demonize their opponents and present themselves as messianic leaders or saviors. We should also note the ethnocentrism that is behind some of the growth in authoritarianism in nations like Hungary, Israel, or Turkey. And so overly strong leaders are not the only fulcrum for authoritarianism. Another source of focus for authoritarianism can be ideology while yet another could be political party. Here, the Soviet Union serves as an example. In any case, the focus of the authoritarian is that there is only savior for the people. That one savior can be an 'I' as in a person or 'We' as in a group. And because that is what is taught, a high degree of conformity to what the savior demands is required as well as a fear and hostility toward those are different.

We should note one of the first weaknesses of what was written about the Authoritarian Personality was that it was skewed against conservatives. That means that only conservatives were cited for this type of personality flaw. But it wasn't too long until the same kind of personality was recognized as being in vogue in "communist"--they were nevertheless anti-Capitalist--nations which should not have been difficult considering leaders like Stalin and Mao. Accurately measuring the presence or degree of authoritarianism in a person was another weakness. 

One of the best brief introductions into this type of personality was written by Erich Fromm (click here for the article). In his article, Fromm distinguishes between two kinds of Authoritarian Personalities (leaders are active authoritarians and followers are passive authoritarians), he identifies the traits that they share, and he mentions why people develop this kind of personality. And though there is more to say about the Authoritarian Personality type than what Fromm wrote, his article gives a good overview of the personality type.

But what does all of the above have to do with my fellow religiously conservative Christians and their yearning for a leader like Trump? I can give an answer to that question having been a religiously conservative Christian (a.k.a., flaming fundamentalist) for most of my life. One of the first things we are taught in conservative Christianity is the need to submit to authorities. In fact it seems that we are encouraged to seek authority structures and figures to submit to. Whether you are a child and must submit to your parents and then almost every other adult in your life, or you are a wife and you must submit to your husband, or you are employed and you must submit to your boss, or you are a believer and you must submit to your church's authorities, or you are a citizen and you must submit to the different governing authorities, there seem to always be some kind of authority figure to whom we are told we are dependent on for instructions. In other words, egalitarian relationships are rarely even briefly mentioned.

If you add our need to submit to all of the governing authorities above us to teachings about how the world is divided between us and them, believers and unbelievers, and that those unbelievers will eventually start to persecute us if we believers are being faithful enough, it should not be difficult to see how insular we religiously conservative Christians can become. And by being insular, it means that we prefer to stay in a bubble or echo chamber where many of our leaders have told us to stay so that we are protected from being led astray.

But how did the Republican Party become our political hiding place from the corruption of the world? My speculation tells me that it started with J. Gresham Machen's book, Christianity And Liberalism, where Machen correctly distinguishes between genuine Christianity and liberal theology, the brands liberal and conservative seem to have been generalized to other spheres such as political and economic ideologies and political parties. 

We should also note in Machen's case is that that he was unfairly treated to a significant degree. We should also note here that after liberal theology denied the deity of Christ along with the  supernatural intervention of God through Christ, acts of mercy and working for justice became a substitute for believing the Gospel. And thus some of Machen's reactions to liberal theology could have easily been spread to liberal politics and liberal ideologies since all of them, like liberal theologians, care about helping people. In addition, Machen held to the traditional values of the South which included some racist views. 

Now Machen's political views, except his racist views, still continues in some Reformed circles, what about the rest of the Evangelical world. Here we need to look at the work of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who were able to solder religiously conservative Christianity to political conservatism.  And that included a political conservative view of America's history which puts a high value on conservative patriotism and what they view as traditional views of America.

And so how does this tie into the Authoritarian Personality type? When we read Fromm, we see that there are two kinds of Authoritarian Personalities: leaders and followers. Both kinds have become dependent on each other. Authoritarian followers look to attach themselves to bigger than life leaders, political groups, and/or ideas to give themselves a sense of significance and personal connections that they did not have before. For those people, groups, or ideas to be big enough to provide that sense of significance, they must at least be approaching all powerful or all knowing level. And that tells us the kind of thinking that followers most often employ. Followers employ a kind of all-or-nothing thinking by hold to a black-white worldview. And thus those who disagree with our hero/political group/idea, they must be against us because who or what we follow has all of the answers.

Authoritarian leaders depend on a very high degree of allegiance from their followers to give themselves the sense of significance and connection with others that they seek. Without enough people giving the authoritarian leader a high degree of loyalty, the leaders themselves feel vulnerable. However, they cannot afford to appear vulnerable to followers who are expecting larger than life heroes to follow.

Now the descriptions of authoritarian leaders and followers mostly, if not totally, come from Fromm. But what From contrasts with the Authoritarian Personality type shines a spotlight on why us religiously conservative Christians are vulnerable to succumb to the appeal of authoritarianism. The opposite of the Authoritarian Personality is a person whose maturity, love, and reasoning enables them to be independent--btw, Fromm does distinguish between relying on the views of authoritarian leaders, groups, or ideas from relying on experts in a given field. And if you remember how us religiously conservative Christians are constantly being guided to find the right authority figures and structures to submit to in order to protect ourselves from going astray, why we are vulnerable to authoritarian appeals should become obvious now.

Here we should note that when religiously conservative Christians, like Robertson or Falwell, wedded political conservatism, the Republican Party in particular, to the religiously conservative Christianity, they used issues like the pro-life issue. The fact that the religiously conservative Christian view of pro-life reveals how their black-white worldview operates. By exclusively emphasizing the right to life for the unborn, Pro-life has become defined, for my fellow religiously conservative Christians, solely by the abortion issue. Similar to that is today's exclusive emphasis on the family in responding to the LGBT community. That threats to post-born life from toxins in the environment, poverty, war, and certain diseases do not qualify as pro-life issues because the exclusive emphasis is on the abortion issue.

Now we should note that even before us religiously conservative Christians became a political force, just the authoritarianism from our religious lives and how that spilled into our social views has been around since the beginning of our nation. And our penchant for authoritarianism has spread well beyond the current conservative political and ideological boundaries. We can now see authoritarianism in both Democratic liberals and from some Leftists.

Thus, conservatism does not have a monopoly on authoritarianism. However, the more enamored one is with a leader, political party, or ideology, the more vulnerable one becomes to the vile clutches of authoritarianism.

And so, what do we see in Donald Trump and his followers that we did not see before Trump entered the political scene? With Trump we have a self-proclaimed Messianic figure who claims that he is the only one who can solve our problems. Us religiously conservative Christians should have seen red flags of blasphemy and its sub sequential idolatry flying high over his campaign. 

But many of us didn't because we preferred not to see those flags. And that was because many of us wanted a Trump like leader to restore order to America whose changes have come too quickly and too disruptive for our comfort. And considering how many of us were taught that America was founded as a Christian nation, these changes were also seen as being unfair and became oppressive in our eyes. And that doesn't count how we see these already intolerable changes as the harbinger of worse things to come.

If you can then imagine the fear, trepidation, and anger many of us, not  me though, feel over what has become of the present and what will seem to be our future, you should be able to understand why Trump appeals to so many of us. And that it is reasonable for Trump's persona and leadership so appeals to many of us religiously conservative Christians tells us so much about why Christianity is in decline in our nation. Anger over the present and fear of the future has caused us to choose poorly. In the meantime, real threats to our future, such as climate change, poverty, authoritarian regimes, and nuclear war easily fly in under our radar while the much of the world watches in horror. 

A Christian Fundamentalist's Reaction To The Book, 'Read And Riot'

The following article is a reaction to Nadya Tolokonnova's (click here for a short biography) book, Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism, of which the paperback version can be ordered (click here for the book). I will be reacting to the book as a Christian Fundamentalist and I hasten to add that other such Fundamentalists would have reacted differently to the book. In addition, I call this a reaction rather than a review because I will not be going through the book as I would if I was reviewing the it.

But first, we must talk about the state of many of my religiously conservative American Christians. Many of them are in what I call an apologetic panic. Christian Apologetics is about defending the Christian faith. But currently, we are in a panic about what to say in defense of the faith. This panic is evidenced by our tendency to try too hard to say too much either for Christianity or against those whom we regard as rivals to the faith. This apologetic panic is triggered by at least 1 of 2 causes: the past social failures of the Church in history and the success of unbelievers in addressing some of today's relevant issues. 

We can see how this apologetic panic can be caused when we see the failures that the Church has experienced in the past. For example, for the past few centuries, the dominant branch of the Church in several Western nations has sided with wealth and power. We saw that preceding the French and Russian Revolutions as well as before the Spanish Revolution. An unintended consequence of siding with wealth and  power made the Church a favorite target of revolutionaries once they got power. And by branches of the Church, I am referring to the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church and Protestants. And if that wasn't bad enough, the current American Evangelical trend is that of supporting the major political party that grants the most privileges to wealthy corporations in terms of tax breaks and the cutting of social responsibility ties. Of course we are talking about the Republican Party. In addition, the American conservative Church has a rich tradition of supporting racism, sexism, and classism in American history.

The other cause for our apologetic panic are the somewhat successful attempts at identifying and/or producing solutions for social injustices by individuals and groups who are outside of the Church. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being told by their leaders and influencers that Christians can ignore what these secular sources say because they have not added to what Christians have said or are saying. In addition, these leaders also often believe that even listening to or reading what they groups say can be dangerous our faith. So in essence, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being taught by their leaders and influencers to only listen to or read Christian sources on social justice issues. 

What we are seeing in this second cause is what we see in how many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers interact with the social sciences. These leaders and influencers act as if they are in a turf war with the social sciences in explaining the world. Likewise, they act very similarly when interacting with secular individuals and groups whose cause revolves around social justice issues. 

In the past, not seemingly all Christian leaders have reacted to secular social justice movements as if they were in a turf war. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr studied and reflected on Marxism/Communism, he ended with a different approach to it than today's religiously conservative Christians have taken to social justice workers. Now before reporting that, it should be noted that King wrongly conflated Marxism with Soviet Union Communism. 

King called Marxism/Communism evil and yet he also agreed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, who called it a 'Christian Heresy.' They called Marxism/Communism a Christian  heresy because its concern for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century Capitalism should be essential parts of the Christian life. At the same time, they called it heretical because attached to its concerns for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century capitalism were beliefs that no Christian should ever hold. King wrote about his review of Marxism/Communism and how it compares with Capitalism in his book: Stride Toward Freedom (click here and go to pg 92 to find Kings discussion on Marxism. The webpage begins with pg 90 of the book). 

After commenting on both Capitalism and Marxism/Communism, King concluded that we need to take a hybrid approach to our system by combining the best of Marxism with the best of Capitalism. He took that approach because he saw that while Communism forgot that life was individual, Capitalism forgets that life is social. And just perhaps, religiously conservative Christians like myself should take a similar approach to today's social justice movements and forms of wokism. That we need to at least develop hybrid approaches that include what social justice workers and leaders are saying with what we know from the Scriptures.

Such an approach is different from the current turf war approach taken now by the vast majority of religiously conservative American Christian leaders and influencers. It is different because instead of telling us that we can dismiss everything that unbelievers have to say about social justice, King's approach tells us that we should intently listen to and work with social justice concepts that were being promoted by unbelievers, especially by those who are real political leftists. To not do so while believing in evangelizing would be say to the world that they need to listen to us while we have no need to listen to them. Such an attitude can, for what can be inexplicable reasons for many religiously conservative Christians, turn off some people.

And so we come to Nadya Tolokonnikova and here book: Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism. This book is specifically about being an activist. But in doing so, this book contains a lot of other useful information. 

Because of some of the things that Tolokonnikova practices, stands for, and says, there are some of her ideas that no Christian should ever believe and act on. But when one reads her book and learns about the concerns she has and what she is doing to help people in need, we see a kind of approach to life that all Christians should have. And so just as King and Temple called Marxism a 'Christian heresy,' we could call Tolokonnikova and the Pussy Riot Art Collective 'Christian heretics.' Doing so would not state or imply that she is a Christian however. Seeing how she selectively uses the Scriptures and misses the foundational parts of the Gospel, we can safely conclude that she is not.

Having read her book, followed her Twitter page, and listened to her speak in videos, it is downright easy to underestimate the  kind of person she is when one sees her references to sex work, her use of the word 'pussy' in talking about it beating fascists, and some of her performances with the art collective known as Pussy Riot. But to underestimate her would be to rob oneself of opportunities to learn from her. For Tolokonnikova is an an exceptionally strong person and a woman of great substance.

We can see in her the kind of strength that one would  see in any man who has suffered through and triumphed over the physical and mental grind and torture that she has experienced. She is the founding member of an art collective that practices activism, she has started a prisoner rights group and a media company (click here for Media Zone), she has helped provide contributions to various charities, she has studied philosophy, she is well read, and she has a good analytical grasp of what is going on in parts of the world in addition to her understanding of her home nation. And despite her time in prison, which she used to further her understanding of people, she is speaking out against authoritarianism, oligarchy, and consumerism though some of that could result in her reliving her prison experience or worse.

She has been interviewed numerous times by cable news channels, given a TED talk, spoken to the US Congress as well as the British and European Parliaments, has been a recipient of a LennonOno Grant for peace, and is a co-recipient of the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.

She understands what real artists are suppose to do. For real artists are not there to use their abilities to entertain in order to anesthetize their audiences from real life. Rather, real artists are the first line of society's secular prophets who tell us where society and the state have gone wrong. And so she uses her art to more vividly expose her audiences to the real world in order to get them to react. She makes a good point in saying that perhaps the anxiety that many people suffer from are signs that the world, not those feeling the pain, needs to change. Her artistic efforts are sometimes silly, gross, or absurd. But she uses the bizarre to illustrate what is ludicrous in the world. She uses what is ridiculous but tolerable stunts to illustrate absurdities that should never be tolerated.

Though much of the world is either impressed or intimidated by Putin, she logically demonstrates what a weak man he is. That he lacks all of the good characteristics that most of us associate with being human. And because of their similarities, she is also able to provide a good analysis of Trump too.

In short, she has suffered much and despite that she has accomplished much more than many people who have not suffered at all have.

But of course her book has some shortcomings. She explicitly states that she is distrustful of experts. This is especially true as it pertains to medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, she seems to accept what climate science experts have to say and makes a great point that we must reduce our consumption to address climate change. And what is implied by that is that if we were to downsize our consumption, which strikes at the heart of capitalism, we must share more of our wealth and resources to work against poverty at the same time.

But this distrust of experts would go against one of the people whom she reads and learns a lot from: Erich Fromm. In speaking against authoritarianism, Fromm made it a point to distinguish blind loyalty to authoritarian leaders from distrust of experts. It isn't that experts are always right. But they often are and a blind distrust of them can be harmful.

For example, the blind distrust of medical science during the pandemic helped contribute to America having one of the highest death rates from Covid during the pandemic. Believers in conspiracy theories from the Left, Liberals, and the Right chalked up the precautions and/or vaccines as government attempts to gain more control of us. This was especially prominent among Trump-loving Republicans but that dismissal of warning or suggestions from medical experts could be seen in people from all ideological persuasions.

That blind distrust in experts also enabled many people to participate in the January 6th Insurrection. For there, opinions from both experts in law, including judges appointed by Trump, and other government officials were blindly dismissed by those who were convinced, without evidence, that the election of Biden was because of fraud.

The point being made here is that there are times in Tolokonnikova's book where she tends to exercise some types of all-or-nothing thinking. Such think disables from making important distinctions such as which experts we can trust or what parts of the feminism she promotes should be followed and which parts should not. Sometimes, a kind of all-or-nothing thinking is part of a response to suffering trauma and the person employs that thinking so as to avoid making mistakes that could lead to suffering more traumas.

And, of course, we Christians could never accept her sexual mores or suggested alternative to families which came from an early Communist who was a feminist. It at this point that her use of the Scriptures and references to Christianity show a great selectivity. For while she will argue for equality between the sexes using a passage in Galatians where Paul states that there is  no male or female, she neglects passages that talk about sexual purity and about the roles Paul designates for husbands and wives. But here, we Christians also have a distinction to make. We have to be able  to tell the difference between Scriptural rules that just apply to Christians from those Scriptural rules that should also be applied to all in society.

Are there other things in her book that Christians cannot accept? Certainly. Are there ideas that she promotes that would not be good for society? Yes. But over all, Tolokonnikova has not only offered an inside view of the Pussy Riot Art Collective, she has provided an insightful view of as well as challenges to us in the world that would make the world a much better place should we follow some of them. I found it very worthwhile to read the book. And I believe that many religiously conservative Christians would benefit from reading it.