The darkest part of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is its white nationalist element with some white male supremacists seeing Trump as the way to protect their historical dominance of America, says Nicholas C. Arguimbau.
By Nicholas C. Arguimbau
America has been a nation of white male supremacists from Day One. They “bought” Manhattan Island from the Indians for $24. They safeguarded slavery in the Constitution. They bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French but stole the land from the Indians, and then took the Southwest from the Mexicans. They settled what was left of the Indians on reservations in the most uninhabitable land on the continent where they live in poverty inconceivable to the rest of us.
White males have nonetheless done some great and noble things. When they declared our independence from England, they could have said, “Get out of our hair; we can make more money without you.” Instead, they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Donald Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention. (Photo creditL Grant Miller/RNC)
“–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
When 240 years later Sen. Bernie Sanders declared a political revolution, he could not have said it better, and not one word would have needed to be changed. Yet, the draftsmen in 1776 set the scene for their own demise should they fail in their duties and indubitably they have failed.
But who were the “we” who perceived that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”? Portrayed by the white male artist John Trumbull, the signers of the Declaration of Independence are a room full of white males. No exceptions. In other words, the “governed” at the time of the Revolution were white males.
Thus, governments in that world derived their just powers from white males, and there wasn’t any dispute about it. It was just the way things were.
Lincoln’s Racism
A few decades later, nothing had changed about the dominance of white males in America, and Honest Abe Lincoln spoke with unquestioned authority when he said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
A clearer statement of the principle of white supremacy could not be made, and if it was good enough for Honest Abe — maybe he believed what he was saying and maybe he didn’t, but he is perceived to have won the debates — who can doubt that such a racist attitude remains good enough today for a substantial portion of the white population.
Don’t let yourself forget that Donald Trump didn’t create the Trump phenomenon. The voters who gave him a clear victory in the Republican primaries did. And the Trump campaign, only weeks ago, was neck-and-neck with the Democratic candidate.
Honest Abe’s support of white supremacy has lingered and festered these many years, although, slowly, legal protection of racial and ethnic and gender “minorities” has taken hold in America through such devices as the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act.
But supporters of white supremacy have always had an ace in the hole that has preserved a tenuous constitutional support for white supremacy: a majority of the voting population. You might call it “constitutional white supremacy.”
Lost White Majority
But times are changing. Inexorable demography is taking over. Whites no longer retain a majority of Americans under age 5. Soon they will be a minority of those under 18. And it is projected that the white majority of the population as a whole will be gone completely in 2044.
The run-down PIX Theatre sign reads “Vote Trump” on Main Street in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. July 15, 2016. (Photo by Tony Webster Flickr)
That is the date by which “constitutional white supremacy” will become an oxymoron and whites will have to make a choice between the Constitution and white supremacy. That is a decision that is unavoidable, and must be made soon. Either white supremacists will cede their supremacy or they will maintain it by physical force.
It is the ultimate choice between government by a minority against the will of the people and through force, or government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Yes, that’s Honest Abe too.
The legitimacy of white supremacy within a constitutional framework has been finessed for 240 years, but demographics dictate that it can be finessed no longer. The November election has chosen itself as the forum in which the choice between constitutionalism and white supremacy will be made once and for all.
So let it be made, and made decisively, for constitutional government, which has served a changing majority probably as well these many years as any other form of government could have served.
There is an entire genre at this point of writing about the connection between Trump’s candidacy and the impending end of the white majority. See, for instance, “Donald Trump Is Winning Because White America Is Dying,” a summary of an interview with Noam Chomsky in which the author notes that “many say the business mogul is capitalizing on their fears about the perceived decline of white dominance in America” – a point that Chomsky argues is true but there is more including the seemingly unstoppable decline of the health and financial welfare of white males.
(Also see “Trump: A Presidency Befitting White Minority Rule?“; “Welcome, White Americans, to Your Future: This is What it Feels Like to be a Minority“; and “The End of White America?“)
Constitution or Supremacy
But seldom is it mentioned that white supremacy and constitutional government are fundamentally at odds (and that much of the strategy to protect white supremacy comes in trying to restrict the democratic and constitutional rights of minorities).
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire on July 12, 2016. (Photo from cloud2013 Flickr)
We recognize that states are widely attempting to cut off minority voting rights, that “antiterrorism” is a not-very-veiled process going back two decades to deprive non-whites of constitutional safeguards (see, e.g. the US “Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act” of 1993); that conduct of the “war on terror” gives the President unfettered power to do virtually anything without prior authorization and with no apparent participation by the public or even Congress, presumably under his war powers; and indeed that Trump walks and talks like a World War II fascist dictator.
Yet we somehow avoid saying that abandonment of constitutional rule is part and parcel of the preservation of white supremacy. But the reality is that we simply can’t follow the will of a minority and lock out millions of people based explicitly upon race, ethnicity and religion, and maintain that the Constitution rather than the white race reigns supreme. It’s either or.
As fate has decreed, the representative of white supremacy is Donald Trump, and the representative of constitutional government is Hillary Clinton.
This writer doubts that a real majority of Americans are white supremacists willing to sacrifice constitutional government. But they have every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton, with long-lived ties to fictitious corporate “persons,” will do little more than Trump to “derive her just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Nevertheless, constitutional government will not win a decisive victory — and likely not a victory at all — unless Hillary Clinton makes a clean break with her all-too-well-known past and offers a full restoration of constitutional government (committed to the noblest sentiments regarding “We the People” as expressed in the founding documents and subsequent amendments).
If she does that (and she is at least giving lip service to it), she can offer not only preservation of the Constitution but a path towards recovery from the decline of white health and financial welfare discussed by Chomsky, a crisis that many whites (under Trump’s tutelage) wrongly attribute to other races and immigrants.
However, if Clinton wins and fails to restore constitutional governance (by continuing to be the representative of the corporate class), Trump’s followers may be justified in perceiving that they aren’t killing the Constitution because it is already dead.
Nicholas C. Arguimbau is a retired lawyer living with a cat and a dog and forty fruit trees in rural Massachusetts, and doing his level best to avoid consumption that will aid global warming.
Evangelista
August 29, 2016 at 9:08 pm
“Sorry about messing up continuity with my out of context response to RRT’s trollery. I was at that point in the thread to write a response to your post regarding Thadeus Stevens and Andrew Johnson, who I perceive you putting in reverse order in your post (painting Johnson the villain and Stevens the hero in their post-civil war sparring). I was unable to devise a response that was not over-complicated for having to go too deep into background and peripheral factors for the space available, and, in fact, change focus to a main point that is peripheral to the primary point of your presentation.
You appear to depict Johnson as evil for being an antagonistic to black advancement, which he was not (on both counts), and Stevens as noble for his strongly opposing reconciliation and championing coercive racial integration, which he was not, first, because Stevens’ advocacy was for revenge, to punish, if not totally destroy, the secessionist states, and second because his purpose was not integration between the races, but racial role reversal in the ‘conquered’ states, to finish the ‘conquest’ as he desired to finish it.”
::
Thank you for that unrealized perspective. You’ve shown me a completely unimagined political POV.
– and these are only your first 2 statements!
Your challenge vis-a-vis villain v hero is Provincially provocative and although I disagree, demands respect and discussion.
On the Johnson vs Stevens epilogue, we’re on completely opposite poles… !
please continue.
was a liberal for thirty years until i woke up recently to how bankrupt and weaponized toward white genocide that the culturally-marxist neo-bolsheviks are today who pass themselves as ‘liberals’. its all such dangerous, nasty and deluded nonsense!
Postscript:
accurate context of exchanges must be assembled according to time and date… .
J’hon Doe II,
Sorry about messing up continuity with my out of context response to RRT’s trollery. I was at that point in the thread to write a response to your post regarding Thadeus Stevens and Andrew Johnson, who I perceive you putting in reverse order in your post (painting Johnson the villain and Stevens the hero in their post-civil war sparring). I was unable to devise a response that was not over-complicated for having to go too deep into background and peripheral factors for the space available, and, in fact, change focus to a main point that is peripheral to the primary point of your presentation.
You appear to depict Johnson as evil for being an antagonistic to black advancement, which he was not (on both counts), and Stevens as noble for his strongly opposing reconciliation and championing coercive racial integration, which he was not, first, because Stevens’ advocacy was for revenge, to punish, if not totally destroy, the secessionist states, and second because his purpose was not integration between the races, but racial role reversal in the ‘conquered’ states, to finish the ‘conquest’ as he desired to finish it.
Reconstruction resulted from Stevens’ policies, and the vengeance-orientation (and desire to loot) of Congress at the time making it possible for Stevens to push the radical antagonism of his hate agenda through. Reconstruction resulted in Jim Crow and yellow-dog-Democrats and the uncontrolled, and uncontrollable, rise of popular racial hatred in the Southern States (including Tennessee, which was not a secessionist state).
The purpose of Lincoln, and Johnson, who was an anti-slavery, pro-Union Tennessee Democrat, and who was, for those reasons Lincoln’s (not the Republican Party’s) choice for vice-president in 1864 (to take office in March, 1865) was to control the integration of blacks into free society in the ex-slave states to minimize friction to result from competition, and to facilitate Southern economic recovery to create employment opportunities to minimize the competition for livelihood that was known, in the North, to trigger friction. The purpose of Stevens, self-avowed, and openly advocated (Stevens was honest) was to “make the black the master” in the “conquered and occupied South”. The “occupation armies” in the subjected “conquered Southern territories” were to be Northern armed black militias.
Before the civil war there was already antagonism between poor and middle-class white and black populations. The slave-owning Southern populations were between two and seven percent (depending how the ‘total’ population was counted). The ‘elite’. For the lower white population in the South the slaves were competition, or ‘killers of competition’, for whose presence in the economic mix low-level jobs, available to whites (and blacks) in the North, were ‘reserved’ for blacks, whose families, to make the problem worse, were not dependent on the income of a ‘family breadwinner’. Rent-a-slaves, worth more to their owners the more skills they had to rent, were, for being more lucrative property, on the increase before the war, encroaching on the white middle-class (of which Andrew Johnson was a part, and who, with lower-class whites, formed the base that allowed Johnson to make a start and rise in politics, their opposition being the ‘elite’ classes).
What was needed after the war was a means to integrate a lower-class unskilled white workforce with the then existing (previously slaves) black unskilled workforce and integrate black skilled workers into the already existing white skilled workforce. With the poor white population of the southern states (and the northern states, too, decimated by the war, by encouraging an economic resurgence (more work than workers) it should have been possible to meld the ex-slave population into the general worker population with minimal friction (enough jobs for applicants of both races. Lincoln’s intention appears to have been to have Johnson, a politician whose base was in the class that would be most restive, to help smooth that class’s transition, which would be from antagonistic opposition to the slave-owners and their slaves to co-parties with both.
Reconstruction, the forcing black supremacy down the throats of all southern ‘rebels’, that Stevens advocated, marshalled and generaled to ‘success’, made the formerly angry opposition southern middle-class allies to the ‘elite’ they had formerly opposed, with the poor white for foot-soldiers, against Northern Military backed, and armed, black…all black. And ‘Stevens’ war’ began where the civil war left off. For the Reconstruction war all, except the opportunists, lost. The blacks, who were used for weapons, were the biggest losers.
As far as the Constitution, and Principles, go; there were no amendments made to the Constitution. A Bill of Rights was proposed, but was dismissed as unnecessary: The Constitution was recognized to cover what needed to be covered. It was argued, however, by ones with little faith in human honor or integrity, that certain primary rights ‘needed’ to be iterated, to assure they were in writing in front of the governing and beyond any questioning, just to make them ‘safe’ from attempts by the entrusted to govern to over-ride them. Thus, some states ratified only provisionally, if a Bill of Rights was addended. Time has proved the suspicious correct, and even with the basic rights in writing, in a Bill, and in additional amendments, the lawyers and legislators their judiciary co-conspirators have conspired to niggle and naggle and quibble and fiddle ways around the written words.
The fourteenth amendment is one of the basics that should not need to be written, which, however, it is, and has again and again proven, necessary to have in writing, in its own amendment statement, and has, even then, been restricted and constricted and even officially and judiciarily ignored. Ideally, the Constitution, itself, and the Principles it was framed to reflect, and support, would be sufficient, but there are always, and have always been, more willing to chip at Principles for personal apparent current perceived benefits than uphold the Principles and ideals the Principles depend from.
We who recognize the utility of principles and ideals need to maintain those to keep them on hand and in mind sot that when the chippers and ignorers and other disregarders and over-riders have brought our system near enough to self-destruction a majority recognize something needs to be done to prevent total implosion (or even after things have imploded) the Principles remain at hand to be brought forward again.
The trick is to keep them as much in light as possible, so they can be brought forward sooner, and be readily and easily recognized when they are, so the most damage the dodging and deprecating would do can be avoided or prevented.
“Divide and conquer and horrible name calling”? Have you even listened to what right-wing rhetoric Donald Trump has been saying? “Sick to death of liberals”? Since when do liberals conquer and divide? You pulled that out of your ass. Trump supporter, you were clearly projecting, like my abusive uncle has been thankfully been arrested. Be pathetic somewhere else, loser.
Evangelista— “What makes the Constitution, not what it is today, but what it was made to be, and should be, is that the white people who made it made it to be a white document, to frame a nation that would be, if maintained in accord with the intentions of the Constitution, a white nation. The word ‘white’ used in this paragraph is used in all cases in its second given meaning, upholding of ideals and higher principles..”
::
Looking back to the 14th amendment (which Mr. Trump claimed in unconstitutional) you’ll find a very clear example of the two ‘whites’ in fact and action. Thaddeus Stevens’ ideals and higher principles v. Andrew Johnson’s strong opposition to the bill. It’s unclear if he ever signed it into law, BTW.
Johnson’s Tennessee roots constrained his “better angels” and the full force of the amendment never materialized. He survived impeachment but his remaining tenure as President was bleak.
Stevens wanted full equal rights for emancipated slaves. He sought land rights and economic opportunity for those who endured forced labor and vicious indignities. His call for reparations was an opportunity for self-sufficiency and actual freedom for the now American ”citizens.”
The history of events from the Assassination through Reconstruction is a critical revelation vis-a-vis white skin and “higher principles.”
::
[ For the record, Lincoln’s wife and others thought Andrew Johnson was in league with Booth. They were friends in Tennessee… .]
You actually take Evangelista seriously? Are you a complete idiot?
RRT,
You wrote: “a second meaning of white race being “moral people”?” adding the words “race” and “people” to ‘adjust’ a presented concept to something of your own devising, which, apparently, you needed to fuel yourself to a hysteria.
What i wrote was: ““White” has two distinct allegorical meanings. One is a pale-skinned “race” made up of a wide-spectrum of mixed races, but which is predominantly pink, red or lighter shades of brown. The second meaning is “ethical, principled, idealistic, dedicated to promoting higher ideals, ethics and principles”.Any persons may be ‘white’ in the second sense, whatever their race, nationality or skin-tone.” There is no ascription of “white race” equating to “moral people”. All people, to be moral people, have to develop abilities to control themselves in accord with morals to be moral.
You also wrote “Be pathetic somewhere else, loser.” Do you hate Trump because he does you better than you do, yourself? Or do you emulate for respect?
evangelista you write and argue so well. any books that you would reccomend??
This article, “Trump’s White Supremacist Factor”, is pretty much pure flatuous blather, for which the question, why is it published here is entirely valid.
The answer would seem to be that it is late summer, 2016 and there is an election on. Consortium News has been publishing a lot of electioneery garbage, from pure Winship attack-blather trash-writing to Robert Parry practicing playing Little Orphan Annie, with his eyes blunk out. The clearest indication of election-year-making-mindless is that the bias on Consort News has been to Hillary and her scary-collie who turned out to be her lap-dog Bernie, who engaged in, and continues to engage in, every and all kinds of skulduggery, deceit, underhandedness and flatly illegal behavior. Notice that Arguimbau’s addition, here, ends with a sort of blatheresque eulogy to the Constitution, which, Aguimbau raptures, Hillary might be able to revive, if she would, but which has, in any case, already died…The Constitution as Lazarus, Hillary as Jesus of Nazareth; if Hillary does not bring it back to life on November 9th (provided she wins the Power) we will have to turn in our Bibles to Revelations…
“White” has two distinct allegorical meanings. One is a pale-skinned “race” made up of a wide-spectrum of mixed races, but which is predominantly pink, red or lighter shades of brown. The second meaning is “ethical, principled, idealistic, dedicated to promoting higher ideals, ethics and principles”.Any persons may be ‘white’ in the second sense, whatever their race, nationality or skin-tone. Micah Johnson, for example, who engaged in shooting back at police, any police, to retaliate for police shooting ones of We the People, any ones of we the People, did so for being white in the second sense, just as the signers of the Declaration of Independence, which Arguimbau quotes in the beginning of his article were, and for which they engaged in a similarly, but less directly, self-endangering protest against excess and oppression.
The framers of the United States Constitution were “white’ in both senses of the word, which is why they framed the Constitution as they did, to form a form of government that would extend the same benefits to all free people in the republic the Constitution provided a governmental framework for.
If you read the Constitution the framers produced you should be able to notice that there is no racism in the document. Free peoples of any races, admitted into the nation the Constitution framed government structures for, are granted the same and equal “We the People” status. Independent indigenous peoples were not included, because they were recognized ‘indigenous aliens’, indigenous to the continent, but alien to the United States. Women were not included for the same reason children were not included, because women and children were dependents, persons the male of the population were responsible to protect and maintain, and, with children, raise, in accord with customs predating the creation of the Constitution governed new nation. Owned persons, legally, then, property, were also not included, since they were property under then current convention. Despite the blind ballyhooing of self-styled “black-history” propagandists, there were significant numbers of African-Americans who were not owned, some of whom, in fact, owned people, themselves.
What makes the Constitution, not what it is today, but what it was made to be, and should be, is that the white people who made it made it to be a white document, to frame a nation that would be, if maintained in accord with the intentions of the Constitution, a white nation. The word ‘white’ used in this paragraph is used in all cases in its second given meaning, upholding of ideals and higher principles..
Not all people are white people, even if their skins are pale, and even if they call themselves white. Most people, whatever the colors of their skins, are non-white in the devotion to right, ideals, principles and ethics sense. Hillary Clinton, for a stark black example, is blue-eyed, blond and pale-skinned, but black as the recesses between a devil’s hemorrhoids, which blackness has noting to do with epidermal pigmentation.
To bring the United States back toward being a white nation, in the ethical and principle-based higher-ideals sense, we need to return the document the framers framed as their best effort to provide a government for a nation that could hold the nation formed to ideals and maintain its policies in conformity to principles, the United States Constititon, to supremacy, and then put our best human efforts to making our nation as proximate to a supreme white nation as it can be made, and held.
Obviously there is no way that will be possible if the present black president Barack Obama is replaced with a blacker Hillary Clinton. While many of We the People have objected to Obama’s mis-use of powers not granted to United States Presidents in the Constitution (even if court shills ‘interpret’ fabrications and bray those fabrications to), those who have been in positions where their responsibilities were to call down the over-reaches and abuses have, instead, condoned them. None of those people are white, not even any who might be albino.
So if Hillary is put into the president’s office we can be sure the United States will continue down the road to darkness, becoming a blacker nation in everything except budget.
If Trump is elected to the president’s office, on the other hand, all of the indications are that those in power, who today look the other way and whistle when questions of Constitutionality are raised, will suddenly be alert and taking interest. Especially if they see opportunities to raise some ‘interpretation’ that they think might ‘precedent’ declaring something Trump might do “unconstitutional”.
So if you want to see the Constitution and Constitutionality argued after November 8, 2016, you will want to vote for Trump. You will also want to read up on the Constitution and prepare yourself to argue for its white ideals being supreme over the shady interpretations the black-robed and black-hearted power-corruption shaded characters of the United States (and state, and county and municipal) courts have twisted up to write-over the whiteness the framers sought to create.
REPEATING (“white”) HISTORY
North Dakota’s Standing Rock Sioux aren’t backing down to oil pipeline developers
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2016/08/standing-rock-sioux-protest-dakota-access-pipeline/
https://www.facebook.com/CampoftheSacredStone/photos/a.1696414397314258.1073741828.1570124769943222/1754646184824412/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/CampoftheSacredStone/photos/a.1696414397314258.1073741828.1570124769943222/1754493041506393/?type=3&theater
J’hon Doe II,
Regarding the North Dakota Sioux anti-pipeline standoff, I don’t see what it has to do with Arguimbau’s article or my comment, but here is some information about the indigenous people and “law” conflict in the U.S., which might help in explaining the situation:
“Native owned lands sovereignty is more straight up and straight-forward in Canada than in the U.S., where sovereignty is “sovereignty”, muddied and muddled by U.S. government defining ‘guardian’ status to itself (which it also defined assignable), and “ward” status to indigenous peoples (leaving the governmental organization [tribal] status out of the equation [so it could be disregarded]). The effect was to de-sovereignize, to effectively legally de-legitimize the indigenous from sovereignty. It also remove indigenous people from international law protection, and removed the applying United States legal structures from control under the U.S. Constitution. It moved any and all questions involving indigenous people to an invented area of law that we, today, know as “Family Law”. An invented field of “law”, in both federal and state application inventions, in which no preceding legality exists, or has existed. Where all “law” applied is “law” that appliers have invented, or may invent, and that has been mace precedent, or may be made to become so, and so become, effectively, “law” for “lawful” application. No prior law or legally defined law exists to control this created “Family Law” construction, which means nothing exists (except in course of application precedents) for reversion or reference and control (designated recourse and remedy legally, and without which systems of law are not legally, or legitimately, systems of law [they are judiciary and lawyer toys where anything may be done and anything may go]).
From the FDR era through the present U.S. Federal judges and courts have been attempting to “de-arbitrarify” the malice and opportunism based agglomeration of “precedents” to attempt to put at least a patina of legal veneer on the agglomerate heap of shit-“law” United States “legal” abusings, misusings, justificatings, opinionatings and dicta-tings have slopped into records in their abusings and defraudings of indigenous peoples, whose becoming, in mid-twentieth century, United States citizens gave them capacity to ‘grow-up’ and become adults, at least as members of the population. Indigenous tribal structures, not being able to achieve citizenship, retain “ward” status, with “rights”, if any in reality, subject to their “guardians” approvals.
Thus, in the United States, while an adult Sioux individual may today freely leave his or her designated concentration-camp (known in euphemism as “reservations, and today no longer guarded to prevent such escapes) and be an adult individual in U.S. society, in the concentration-camp he or she is not that individual, but a part of a ‘child’ under the ‘guardianship’ of the United States’, and under its assigned Bureau of Indian Affairs ‘governess’ (the U.S. used to farm them out to religious , Methodist, Quaker, etc., foster-care).
As you can see from this, in today’s commercially owned United States (the United States government is, today the world’s biggest corporate subsidiary) the commercial kids are the ‘natural children’ of the United States, and tend to be the favored kids (with the non-commercial kids [including individual indigenous ones] less favored). The indigenous tribes are step-kids, not natural (to de-confuse the legal constructs involved in these relationships see “color of law” and “legal fictions” in law dictionaries and exegeses). When ones of the natural kids want to kick some of the step kids off a corner of a play area, or take over, or build across some step kids’ play areas they are supposed to ask, but especially if they are favored, commercial kids, they can generally just announce and then just do. The step kids have to complain to a “parent”, meaning a U.S. judge, and, where the “parents” don’t seem to give a damn, try to elicit sympathy from some of the other kids, the natural ones, the more favored among the less favored, who stand a better chance of being listened to than the step kids, who tend to be looked on as a nuisance liability/responsibility.
Just plug the features of the Dakota Access usiness into this framework to see what is going on, and how and why. Oh, yes, it helps to know that the purpose of law in the United States is to provide benefits to their commercial owners and livings for the owners’ favored lawyers.”
Your thought process is admirably impressive, Evangelista. It seems, however, that your latter essay refutes the idea of “upholding of ideals and higher principles” that you devised in your former composition.
Your writing is well imagined and knowledge based and you have my full respect in regard to your intellect. But your allegory of the two ‘whites’ can only be categorized as fable or illusion after more than two centuries of purposed racial separation, and with a superior/inferior status that grows despairingly worse in it’s constancy, and a long historical record of MURDER of those few who’ve leaned toward — “ethical, principled, idealistic, dedicated to promoting higher ideals, ethics and principles.”
The two examples I’ve provided as counterpoints are not meant to ‘shoot down’ your wonderful method of thought and expression. They’re merely reminders that our nation is far removed from anything resembling Higher Ideals… .
Have you even read any article by Consortium News on Hillary Clinton? They hate her. And a second meaning of white race being “moral people”? What garbage is that? The fact you think they have recently been supporting her, and the fact you’re using that to deflect criticism of Trump, shows you have a persecution complex and you’re using the shill gambit.
thank you for writing something so intelligent to something so ignorant! why consortium news prints such pablum is mystifying. I am 51 and widely traveled. i have never met a white supremicist in my life.
My comment was deleted by consortium news……All the information I provided is easily found by searching the definition of white supremacist….Donald Trump’s DNA profile and the links between white supremacist and those who consider themselves Aryan….Consortium news will only allow a certain amount of information to be available for review…….
I didn’t see your comment, but I assume it was racist drivel. And you seem to have a persecution complex. Pathetic.
Trump is a mixed bag. Certainly his foreign policy seems to be vastly superior to Hillary’s. I have to say ‘seems’ to be. His domestic agenda is Nixonian—play the races against each other. What I like is that his campaigns have made visible, more so than the Tea Party has done, that a huge swath of white males have figured out that establishment Republicans have duped them. That has to scare establishment Republicans. But that is not enough to fix what ails us. I believe Chris Hedges is right—we cannot vote our way out of the mess we have created.
nice comment!
About support for Trump, I’ll add my impression is that America likes its trends and right now its trendy in popular politics not to be a nice, positive, truth-seeking, ideas-focused person. If you follow laws or have any sense of integrity you’re an idiot, dupe, pc slave loser.
Its hard to know whether most people that subscribe to it take seriously what the reality of the trend and their support and consequent political choices means for the every day lives of most people including themselves, the future of this country and the rest of the world.Most people are good right? Right?
Television and internet, radio is the affordable goto entertainment. I think that some of the appeal for above mentioned trend comes from if you aren’t a reader, artistic and/or living in a macho part of America that believes learning some form of artistic expression is sissy stuff (or sin for a man) you have a void in your life that popular politics has been able to fill with free poison. The filler is similarly needed if you’re poor but don’t want to be or aren’t motivated by profit and status. You’ve shamed America by your failure to succeed but lucky for you, you’re white. All is not lost. And you know what else? You have opinions for online discussion – pretty common and inexpensive (also in my opinion, some of the most pointless and potentially destructive interaction you can have with people for reaching a consensus anyway. :)
Maybe its just the sites I’ve visited who knows.)
If the only outlets you can afford for a break reinforces emotions and perceptions about *people* that adds fuel and purpose to what would normally pass as a negative moment at work – alcohol, drug abuse, violence and the lack of care for the consequences of what someone like Trump wants and stands for – as POTUS – for yourself and the people you live with is not far away.
Positive note: more support for free art/music and community events less identity politics as explanations if at all possible.
Also the president isn’t the only vote that counts. Try voting in local elections, you might like it.
I was about to cut Nicholas C. Arguimbau some slack until he dumped on Abraham Lincoln a second time. By trashing the president who freed the American slaves Mr. Arguimbau is crawling into bed to play footsie with the very same White Supremacists he trashes in this essay.
They share the same virtues in detesting Lincoln – the wannabee Klansmen hate him for winning the Civil War and the author for Lincoln’s not matching HIS version of moral perfection 158 years later.
I looked up Mr. Arguimbau and concluded that he’s not normally an ignorant jackass, and that this essay is mostly spot-on. I will say that he needs to pull his head out of his heinie and get a little bit more educated and a lot more flexible. If Mr. Arguimbau had lived in Lincoln’s day I’d predict there would be about 1 chance in 1,000 HE would have been even remotely as decent as Lincoln on the subject of Race.
The author ought to also consider that Lincoln’s views were in a state of flux and that Lincoln was not thinking the same things in 1865 as he was in 1858.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/
I also felt this was a kind-of left-handed “divide & conquer” bid. There is only one race; the human race. There is only one problem; the ruling class and its’ loyal servants (who come in many colors and two genders) who control almost everything for their own benefit, at The Peoples’ expense. And The Wealth of All Nations is one-and-only-one thing; educated, well-trained, organized, LABOR; human genius applied to raw matter eventually turning it into useful artifacts such as Fords and Chevys. They can no longer fool or confuse me. This was true in caveman days; it’ll be true in some “Star Trek” future.
My opinion is that Lincoln only stated he was not POLITICALLY supporting equal rights for blacks, as opposed to not having them privately.
“The November election has chosen itself as the forum in which the choice between constitutionalism and white supremacy will be made once and for all.”
Absolutely not. The election in November is a choice between globalism – with a government by the elite for the elite (i.e. Clinton) – and nationalism – with a government by the people (i.e. Trump).
Those who say otherwise do not understand what is actually going on in this world. Trump and his “white folk” supporters hate the New World Order and the globalist technocracy (by the Bilderberg Group and their vampire squid tentacles) – that is killing jobs and our economy, exacerbating income inequality, and driving millions of people (white, black, red, yellow or purple – doesn’t matter) into poverty from which there is no escape.
This is not about race. White people do not hate minorities. The white people and the minorities who have woken up to what is actually going on in this country hate establishment globalists in industry and politics (including Hillary Clinton and her pay-to-play politics) that have sold out every American regardless of race, color, or creed while lining their pockets and living in gated communities that protect them from the masses – the masses they say they care about while their actions prove otherwise.
People of all groups in this country hate the globalist establishment. This has nothing to do with race. This is about the criminal enterprise in Washington DC that seeks to disguise itself as a democracy instead of the criminal oligarchy many of us know it to be.
By the way, a little tid bit of information for you Nicholas – Hillary Clinton flew 20 miles in a jumbo jet instead of taking a car. Not the move one would expect from someone that claims to care about climate change and global warming. Is it?
Actions speak louder than words. The American people are watching and waking up. Thanks to God.
Spot on!
“Spot on!”? The guy above is a right-wing conspiracy theorist! Anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot.
great assertion! accurate.
In light of the documented Clinton record, including her support of the Jihadi takeover of Libya which included a mass liquidation of ethnic Africans in Sirte as documented in a recent Blackagendareport article by Danny Haiphong, any criticism of Trump for “racism” is a red herring. In light of her documented demand for a no-fly zone in Syria, which would likely lead to World War III and probable nuclear exchanges in light of the Russian role in Syria, this is even more of a red herring.
Hello. I have a few bones to pick here. First, it was not “noble”, as you say, when white men wrote “that all men are created equal” because, although we’re told as children that “men” means everyone, it does not, since women did not have the vote. These men really did mean men. There may be a literary reason, however, why the word “men” crops up where “people”, “persons” or “men and women” would be more accurate. “Men” has one syllable, putting more punch in a sentence. Second, you say “Trump walks and talks like a WWII fascist dictator.” This quality of supreme confidence Trump exhibits is widely misunderstood. Trump, thoughout his young adulthood, had as a close friend and mentor Norman Vincent Peale, author of “Power of Positive Thinking”. One of the techniques of positive thinking is self-praise, which enhances one’s confidence and effectiveness. The underlying principle is that we are all great if we realize it. Trump has practiced Peale’s philosophy with tremendous success, as is shown in his business accomplishments. Third, there is no sense in which Hillary is for constitutional government. The statement is so absurd, it would be an exercise in nonsense to argue against it. And fourth, it is of course not Trump’s fault if white supremacists share some commonality with him. Trump himself is not a white supremacist. I believe this stems from the fact that white sumpremacists tend to favor orderliness in society, which Trump advocates. Hillary, in contrast, represents lawlessness, both in her own behavior, and in her approval of persons who enter this country illegally and who are therefore by definition criminals. Why has Consortium News published this article?
“Why has Consortium News published this article?”
Exact same thought went through my mind.
They only spoke the truth, idiot!
Here is an article that looks at how much it would cost American taxpayers to deport all illegal aliens from the United States:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/03/the-high-cost-of-enforcing-current.html
With nearly $20 trillion in debt, the odds of actually enforcing the nation’s immigration laws are very, very low.
I believe it is far more expensive to educate and support these illegal aliens than to deport them.
They have jobs, moron! You do you think works as farmhands in the Southwest and works in meat processing factories?
But … Why would Hillary suddenly make a clean break with her life’s work?
Budgetary balance is a modern progressive position, she can’t go there.
August 7, 2016 was Earth Overshoot Day. That is the day when the world economy overshoots Earth’s ability to resupply and recycle wastes. Earth overshoot day occurs earlier each year. Greenhouse gasses, water pollution and specie extinction are among the more dangerous overshoots.*
http://zerowastenews.org/autonomous-democracy/contents-democracy-2016.html