Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to you by Project 2025 and the New Apostolic Reformation or the End of the Reformation?

Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to y...: 

A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to you by Project 2025 and the New Apostolic Reformation or the End of the Reformation?

When Trump was elected President, people, for the second time in a row, thought "oh he won't be so bad".  

He's been as bad as expected, and worse.

A large segment of the politically aware American demographic is wondering, nearly every day, "what on Earth is going on here" as the Trump administration does something odd day after day.¹ A second group, his core MAGA adherents, ignore the oddities and assume that a lot of the nonsense about lurking Marxist must be true, and assume that Trump is doing what needs to be done to save the Republic.

Well, Trump is demented, which explains a lot. But there's something else going on. And that something else is Christian Nationalism with a strong Protestant Dominionist focus.

Round Head flag, English Civil War.  Takinginterest01, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. There were several varieties of this standard, as there was no standardized Parliamentarian flag.

Trump himself isn't really a sharp enough tool in the shed to do what's occurring. quite frankly, and at any point in his life, he probably wouldn't be interested enough to care anyway, as long has people are praising him and he seems to be getting what he wants..  To the extent he has any deep thoughts at all, and he likely doesn't, many of his real thoughts and desire run contrary to much of what's occurring.  Trump, after all, is nothing much more than a wealthy playboy.  He likes money, women, and has bad taste. M'eh.

But Trump was savvy enough to know he needed muscle and backing to get into office and moreover back into office.  The intellectual muscle has been provided by far right populist, Protestant Evangelicals and their fellow travelers, the latter of which will live to regret ever being associated with the movement.  Trump supporting Catholics are going to come to particularly regret traveling on this bus.  

We've often said here that the United States is a Protestant country, culturally.  It's so Protestant that people who aren't Protestant often are, culturally. Right now we have a really good example of that in the form of Stephen Wright, who is Jewish by heritage and perhaps by practice, but who in views is a raging Calvinist.  It's pretty easy to find run of the mill, and even some non run of the mill, Catholics in the Trump fold who likewise culturally looked not to Rome, and not even to Luther, but to John Calvin.  

The very first religiously significant group of English colonist in North America were religious dissenters, something very much worth remembering. The Puritans were Calvinists, not members of the dominant and official religion of England, the Church of England.  Their landing in 1620 came in the context of an ongoing struggle in England over what England was to be, in terms of its faith.  The Anglicans were in control at the time the Puritans left for North American shores and they were also suppressed for their religious radicalism in their native land.  England was now solidly Protestant, sort of, with latent Catholicism seemingly having been beaten down with the peasants losing the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, but whether England would be radically Calvinist or sort of looking back at its Catholicism with the Church of England had not been determined.  That question would provide much of the background to the English Civil War in which the parliament sought to depose an Anglican king, while being lead by a Calvinist who would be declared the Lord Protector.  Ultimately, Calvinism didn't sit well with the English, and while parliament won the war, the crown would be restored and playboy king seated on the throne, who would convert to Catholicism sometimes prior to his death.

Calvinist would flee to North America upon the crown being restored.

The early English colonies in North America were frequently religiously intolerant.  They were commonly sectarian and aggressively enforced the religion of their founders.  The Puritans did not come to North America for religious freedom in the manner in which so often portrayed in grade school when I was a kid, but rather to avoid suppression under the crown and enforce their version of Christianity where they lived.  People living in Puritan colonies had mandatory worship requirements at the local Calvinist church.  It's not as if, if you lived in one, you could sit that out, or for that matter declare that you were a Catholic and would worship elsewhere.

Puritans on their way to church.

Mary Dyer, a Quaker, was executed in Massachusetts for preaching her variant of Protestantism in that colony.  

Christian Dominionist look back to the Puritans and the 1600s for their concept of what the state should be like.  Not to the 1770s to 1790s.  They may not all do so consciously, but they do.  When they say that the United States is a Protestant nation, they mean its a Puritan one.

We all know, of course, that 1st Amendment protects the freedom of worship. That text states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When that law, and that's what it is, was added to the Constitution in 1791 the infant United States was much different that the loose group of sectarian colonies of the 1600s.  Indeed, the mother country itself was much different than the one that had fought the English Civil War.  Having endured that experience, and with its own history of sectarianism, what the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted was to avoid there being a Church of the United States, which if it had been created, would have been a branch of the Anglican Church.  The amendment protected the right of various people to worship as they saw fit, or not at all.  Modern conservatives have decried the Courts for decades about this amendment being misinterpreted, but it isn't.  The Bill of Rights inserted religious tolerance ito the law.

Be that as it may, there's no doubt that the country remained a Christian nation.   Other religions made an early appearance, setting aside native religions, very early on, but they were a distinct minority.  A Jewish house of worship existed in New York, for example, as early as 1654.  But overall, non Christian religions were practiced to a very small degree.  And early patterns of settlement meant that the sectarian nature of the colonies continued to reflect itself into the early 1800s, and even into the mid 19th Century, although patterns if immigration began to heavily impact that, particularly the immigration of Catholics, who were largely detested by everybody else for a very long time.  Be that as it may, American culture reflected Protestant Christianity well into the 20th Century and still does today.

This began to break down, as so much in our modern culture has, in the 1960s with the Baby Boom generation. Baby Boomers, or at least many of them, outright rejected many of the basic tenants of Christianity and brought in the really loose cultural Christianity, although with a leftward tilt, that we see today.  One religion was a good as another, Christianity was basically "be nice".  The warnings that St. Paul had given in his letters were ignored. 

Things decayed.

On this site we've tracked some of that decay.  While not meaning to spark a mass debate, we've noted the erosion of hetrosexual religious standards starting in the late 1940s and which were in full bloom before the Baby Boom generation with the massive success of Playboy magazine, and the concept of the loose moral big boob dimwit and sterile "girl next store", who was always ready to have sex. By the 1960s the erosion was becoming generational.  By the 1970s it was becoming part of the culture and homosexuality began to openly emerge.  Marriage started taking a big hit by the 1980s, with divorce becoming increasingly common by the late 1970s  A culture in which divorce had been hard to obtain had evolved into one where marriage wasn't necessary at all, and ultimately into one where same sex couples could marry, the original meaning of marriage having been pretty much lost.

Enter (Evangelical) Christian Dominionism.

In 1975 Evangelicals Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright had a meeting in which they claimed to receive a divine message related to the culture.  They were shortly thereafter joined in their infant movement by Presbyterian theologian Francis Schaeffer..  They claimed a mandate from the Devine to invade and achieve dominion over the "seven spheres" of society identified as family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government.  The New Apostolic Reformation is informed by this movement.  And this is the Evangelical wing that is active in the Trump Administration and which have heavily influenced Christian Nationalist.

Dominionist, no matter what they may say, are not democratic.  They are part of the Illiberal Democracy movement, and in the United States, they are the very core of it.  Believing that the culture has been hopelessly corrupted in the seven spheres, they do not seek to convert by example, but to seize control of the culture, force a reformation of it, and bring about a Puritan nation on the model, sort of, of the original Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Puritan flag of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

This heavily aligns with the concept of Illiberal Democracy.   You can have a democracy, the Dominionist and Illiberal Democrats hold, as long as it fully accepts the predominant cultural world outlook.  No countering that is allowed.

Now, something careful observers will note is that this movement is now all over the European world.   And some of the early Christian Nationalist are most definitely not Evangelical Christians.  R. R. Reno is a convert to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church.  Patrick Dineen is a Catholic, although he's notably moved away from the Republican Party and is now openly part of the American Solidarity Party.  Rod Dreher was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and then converted to Orthodoxy.  He's also now moved on from the Republican Party to the American Solidarity Party.  The head of the Heritage Foundation, which is responsible for Project 2025, is Kevin Roberts, who is Catholic.  And of course, J. D. Vance is a Catholic convert.

How do we make sense of this?

Well, one way in which we can makes sense of this, although not in the case of Dineen, Reno or Dreher, is to admit that a large segment of Catholics are heavily Protestantized, although this notably excludes younger Catholics and recent converts who most definitely are not.  Gen. Jones Catholics and Gen. X Catholics were often very poorly catechized and therefore you can find quite a few who have gravitated to the far political right and who will state very Evangelical views of things which they have picked up from it, sometimes theological views that  Catholics don't hold at all.  Boomer Catholics went through the entire Spirit of Vatican Two era and are sometimes pretty beat up by it, and the younger ones experienced the Kennedy betrayal of religious adherence which caused many Catholics to follow suit.  Some Boomer Catholics were on the very liberal Church end as well to the irritation of nearly everyone else in the Catholic sphere, who are glad to see their waning influence, but who contributed to the atmosphere the same way that poorly catechized late Boomer/Jones/Gen X Catholics were, but with a certain added massive whineyness on some occasions.

Anyhow, while it happened later than the birth of the Dominionist movement, intellectual and younger Catholics have moved towards an increased conservatism for quite some time, and it is now really visible in the Church.  Overall it's a very good development, because it's so Catholic, and it reflects the view expressed in the letter to Diognetus more than any Seven Mountain tract.  But the decay in the culture, which is particularly evident from the much more informed Catholic perspective, has caused some intellectuals, notably Dineen, Reno and Dreher, to despair of the culture and, in the case of of all three, to openly maintain that liberal democracy is an experiment that has failed.²

They aren't dominionist, however. They're more in the nature of Catholic Integralist, a movement that long predates Christian Nationalism or Dominionism.

Integralism argues that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible.  It formed out of the chaos of the late 19th Century in Europe and was strong in traditionally Catholic Romance language speaking countries.  It never supported the concept of a state religion, but rather subordinating the state to the moral principles of Catholicism, rejecting morality from the state, and, in its European form, favoured Catholicism as the proclaimed religion of the state

Integralism really fell away from Catholic thinking as a discussed topic after World War Two for a variety of reasons, one being that modern liberal democracies quite being hostile to religion, which frankly most had been before the Second World War.  Indeed, over time, the Church increasingly disapproved of clerics being in politics, and ultimately banned it.  But in 2014, with an essay by Dinneen, it started to reappear.  It's adherents claim that its the official position of the Church, but fail to acknowledge that on many things the church's "official" position can be pretty nuanced.  Even prior to the Second World War it had always been the case that integralist took the view that imposing a Catholic view of things on a population couldn't be done on a non Catholic culture.  In more recent years the Church has really emphasized that there's a civic duty to participate in elections, which while not rejecting integralism, does demonstrate a view accepting democracies and requiring Catholics to participate in their democracies.

The revival of integralism came about the same time, however, that dominionism started to gain steam, and for same, but not identical, reasons.  Dineen's essay came out in 2014, but the following year the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and just as we predicted here, thing have really gone off the rails.  Justice Kennedy's decision lead directly the populist outrage and right on to Donald Trump.

Obergefell was just a bridge too far for many Americans, but the drift towards societal libertinism it expressed had been going on for a long time.  As we've noted, you can trace it back at least to 1953 and the release of Playboy, but savvy students of culture would point out that perhaps the signs were there as early as the very first movies, which took a run at pornography right from the onset until being reigned back in.  Mass communications of all types, including mass media, had a big role in this no matter how much society attempted to restrain it.  The moral shock of the First World War lead to the Roaring Twenties which foreshadowed the 1960s, interrupted only by the economic deprivation of the 1930s and the Second World War.  At any rate, the decay had set in pretty deep even by the early 1970s.

Anyhow, Integralism and Dominionism are not the same thing. Pope Francis, noting a rising connection between Integralism and Christian Nationalist, approved a publication criticizing the drift in this direction.  Catholics getting tied up in the far right Evangelical movement's goals are going to be in for a surprise when they learn that many in that community would not even regard Catholics as Christians.  The re-Puritanization of the country would not be a good thing for Catholics, who after all hold a very broad view of Christianity rather than a nationalistic view of it, and who don't share the same millennialist views of things at all.

Dominionist, for their part, would be shocked to learn that Integralist hold a lot of things that Dominionist frankly accept as abhorrent. They may be united on abortion being evil and transgenderism being contrary to the moral law, but modern American Evangelical Christians would be surprised that the mass of the Catholic Church holds divorce to be a great moral wrong and condemns easy remarriage.  They'd also be surprised to learn that Catholics condemn sex outside of marriage, including all sexual acts outside of the unitive type, to be grave moral wrongs, and that's the Catholic concern with homosexuality.  

Rod Dreher, who seems to have joined the Christian Nationalist movement, or who had joined it (I'm not sure about his current position, given that he's a member of the American Solidarity Party), early on advocated a sort of walled in approach to societal moral decay in his book The Benedict Option.  I criticized that approach here, and he seems to have retreated from what he seemed to indicate that book espoused.  Anyhow, looking at the situation overall, this is a really dangerous moment in American history, but also one from which Western societies might emerge into something new, and better.

Much of this comes in the context of the collapse of the Reformation, and it stands to accelerate it.  At the end of the day, holding Donald Trump as any sort of "Godly Man" is absurd. The direct attack on American democracy, which is occurring as we write, is highly dangerous, but probably won't succeed.  Forces on the other side have taken forever to react, but are finally starting to, including a reassessment of the really radical and downright goofball positions the left has advocated for some time.  The New Apostolic Reformation and Dominionist movement carrying the flag is causing "Christianity" to be condemned, but among thinking Christians is causing a reassessment of the Reformation churches and a massive movement away from them back into the Apostolic fold, as the theology of the Reformation churches simply can't be defended.

Roman society was reformed by Christianity, but not by operation of law, but by operation of the faithful members of the "one Catholic, Holy and Apostolic Church".  We're in the death throws of  the Reformation, of which this is all part.  If that's right, it'll be a blessing in the end.

Footnotes:

1.  In fairness, a lot of the odd things that Trump does is because he very obviously has dementia, which nobody is doing anything about.  He's really not mentally stable enough to occupy the office he's in.

2.  Evangelicals of the far right are particularly focused on transgenderism and homosexulaity, but just completely ignore almost all of the remaining actual Christian tenants on sex.  Donald Trump, whom Evangelicals have really adopted, is a serial polygamist.  White House "faith advisor" is on her third husband.  Evangelical churches have pews fill up on Sundays with people who are living in what St. Paul very clearly condemned as states of mortal sin.

Related threads:

A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it means.

Labels: American Civil Religion, British Empire, Catholic, Christian Nationalism, Christianity, Colonial North America, Donald Trump, Judaism, New Apostolic Reformation, Orthodox, Protestant, religion, Society

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinitely superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.

Labels: 1940 Wyoming Legislature, 1941, 1970s, Blog Mirror, Evolutionary Biology, Long Posts, Marriage, Monday at the bar, religion, Sex, Sexual Revolution, Social Issues, Sociology, The relationship between men and women

Can real conservatism exist without authoritarianism?

Labels: Agrarianism, Commentary, Conservatism, Democracy, Distributism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Populism, Progressivism, William F. Buckley

Illiberal Democracy. A Manifesto?

Labels: Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, National Conservatism, Politics

Illiberal Democracy.

Labels: 2020s, 2022, Christian Nationalism, Conservatism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Politics, Populism, trends

"Do not be led astray: 'Bad company corrupts good morals.' Trump, Putin and American Evangelicals.

Labels: American Civil Religion, AnteCovid, Christian Nationalism, Illiberal Democracy, Monarchy, Mormon Missionary Test, Protestant, religion, Russian Orthodox Church

Lex Anteinternet: CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 101st edition. The Vanadal in the museum.

Lex Anteinternet: CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 101st edition. The V...: 

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 101st edition. The Vanadal in the museum.

Of all the countries in the world, we and we only have any need to create artificially the patriotism which is the birthright of other nations.

Agnes Repplier, Americanism, in The Atlantic, 1916.

 

A letter from the illegitimate Trump occupational regime in the Oval Office to the Smithsonian:

The Honorable Lonnie G. Bunch III

Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

1000 Jefferson Dr SW

Washington, DC 20560

Subject: Internal Review of Smithsonian Exhibitions and Materials

Dear Secretary Bunch,

We wish to begin by expressing our appreciation for the brief tour you gave us recently of the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and by acknowledging your work on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution, as well as the Institution’s role in shaping public understanding of American history and culture. We are completely aligned with your statement that the Smithsonian is “a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans.” We are grateful that you and the Board of Regents have expressed your commitment to the non-partisan, educational mission of this great institution.

As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s founding, it is more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story. In this spirit, and in accordance with Executive Order 14253, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, we will be leading a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.

This review is a constructive and collaborative effort — one rooted in respect for the Smithsonian’s vital mission and its extraordinary contributions. Our goal is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of curators or staff, but rather to support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America’s heritage.

The review will focus on several key areas:

1. Public-facing Content: A review of exhibition text, wall didactics, websites, educational materials, and digital and social media content to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals.
2. Curatorial Process: A series of interviews with curators and senior staff to better understand the selection process, exhibition approval workflows, and any frameworks currently guiding exhibition content.
3. Exhibition Planning: A review of current and future exhibitions, with particular attention to those planned for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
4. Collection Use: Evaluation of how existing materials and collections are being used or could be used to highlight American achievement and progress, including whether the Smithsonian can make better use of certain materials by digitizing or conveying to other institutions.
5. Narrative Standards: The development of consistent curatorial guidelines that reflect the Smithsonian’s original mission.

Initially, our review will focus on the following museums. Additional museums will be reviewed in Phase II.

• National Museum of American History
• National Museum of Natural History
• National Museum of African American History and Culture
• National Museum of the American Indian
• National Air and Space Museum
• Smithsonian American Art Museum
• National Portrait Gallery
• Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

Materials Request

To initiate this process, we respectfully request that each of the museums listed above designate a primary point of contact and provide the following materials to our team (including for online content):

1. 250th Anniversary Programming
   1. Exhibition plans, draft concepts, and event outlines related to America 250.
   1. Supporting materials such as proposed artwork, descriptive placards, exhibition catalogs, event themes, and lists of invited speakers and events.
2. Current Exhibition Content
   1. Catalog and programs for all current and ongoing exhibitions, including budgets.
   1. Digital files of all wall didactics, placards, and gallery labels currently on display.
3. Traveling and Upcoming Exhibitions
   1. Full index of scheduled traveling exhibitions (2026-2029).
   1. Proposals, projected schedules, and preliminary budgets for upcoming exhibitions over the next three years.
4. Internal Guidelines and Governance
   1. Curatorial and staff manuals, job descriptions, and organizational charts.
   1. Documentation outlining the chain of command for exhibition approvals, scheduling, and content review.
   1. Internal communications or memos pertaining to exhibition or artwork selection and approval processes.
5. Index of the Permanent Collection
   1. Access to an inventory of all permanent holdings.
6. Educational Materials
   1. Teacher guides, student resources, and supplementary educational content linked to current exhibitions.
7. Digital Presence
   1. URLs and descriptions of official museum websites and exhibition-related microsites.
8. External Partnerships
   1. A list of active partnerships with outside contributors including artists, historians, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations.
9. Grant-Related Documentation
   1. Copies of grant applications and funding agreements tied to past or current exhibitions, particularly those that influence content or presentation.
   1. Current artists featured in museum’s galleries that received a Smithsonian grant.
10. Surveys and other evaluations of visitor experience
    1. Responses to surveys and other forms of evaluating the experience of visitors to the Smithsonian’s museums and users of digital content.

Timeline

To ensure clarity and coordination across all parties involved, we have developed the following implementation timeline:

Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we anticipate:

• Each museum to submit all requested materials outlined in the first four bullet points above, including current exhibition descriptions, draft plans for upcoming shows, America 250 programming materials, and internal guidelines used in exhibition development.
• Review of America 250 exhibition and program planning and connect with curators and staff about their specific proposals.
• A staff liaison from each museum will be designated to serve as the primary point of contact throughout the review process.
• Our team will begin on-site observational visits, conducting walkthroughs of current exhibitions to document themes, visitor experience, and visual messaging.

Within 75 days:

• Museums are asked to submit the remaining requested documentation (items 5 through 10), including promotional literature, grant data, educational materials, and guided tour content.

• Our team will begin scheduling and conducting voluntary interviews with curators and senior staff. These conversations will help us better understand each museum’s goals and the broader curatorial vision guiding the institution.
• Each museum should finalize and submit its updated plan to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary and ensure coordination with the White House Salute to America 250 Task Force to align messaging and public engagement.

Within 120 days:

• Museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials.

If all benchmarks are met on schedule, we anticipate completing our review and preparing a final report for your review in early 2026. This report will include museum-specific assessments, institutional trends, and constructive recommendations for future exhibition strategy.

We view this process as a collaborative and forward-looking opportunity—one that empowers museum staff to embrace a revitalized curatorial vision rooted in the strength, breadth, and achievements of the American story. By focusing on Americanism—the people, principles, and progress that define our nation—we can work together to renew the Smithsonian’s role as the world’s leading museum institution.

We look forward to working alongside you and your team to ensure these iconic institutions remain vibrant, trusted, and inspiring for generations to come.

Lindsey Halligan

Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Staff Secretary

Vince Haley

Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

Russell Vought

Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Management and Budget

The term "Americanism" goes way back.  I know that it was used by Theodore Roosevelt, for example, who as an advocate of it.  Indeed, he delivered more than one speech on the topic.  I'm a fan of Theodore Roosevelt, although less than I once was, and I don't admire his jingoistic advocation of Americanism, although it has to be realized that it came at a different point in our history, and tended to combat a growing sense of internationalism as well as "hyphenation" in various American identities.  

Starting particularly in the 1920s, Americanism began to change from a focus on celebrating an American identity, to being pro White Anglo Saxon Protestant.  Roosevelt delivered a speech to The Knights of Columbus at  Carnegie Hall on October 12, 1915, for example, which meant that the solidly American former President of Dutch ancestry, who was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, felt comfortable addressing a body of Catholics.  Indeed, that was somewhat the point as Catholics were by that time a  major voting block, but WASP American culture detested them and saw them as alien.  Roosevelt didn't want them to be alien, but American, meaning he was not only taking a stand against people identifying as "Irish American" or "German American" (two major Catholic groups), but also as White Anglo Saxon Protestants.  

Roosevelt was not a racist.

By Woodrow Wilson's administration, a lot of Americans were reviving the thought that if you were an American, you needed to be a WASP.  The Red Scare contributed to that in a major way.  The country illegally deported people simply for being on the radical left, including some who were American citizens.

Imagine. . . deporting an American for not being the right kind of American. . . sound familiar?

This sort of Americanism became strong in the 1920s, although roots of it were clearly there before, and it continued on into the 1930s as sort of a plant of some of the opponents of Franklin Roosevelt, although Americanism took a real hit during that time period.  It revived, however, in an ugly fashion after World War Two were it was once again associated with the far right.

It's been a feature of the revived post Reagan far right for some time, and has really been picked up by the populists supporting Trump. They cloak themselves with the flag and tattoo what they think are patriotic things on their forearms, not appreciating that our forbearers' might not necessarily be all that keen on their views.

Part of what is happening here is that Americans have frankly always had a difficult relationship with history, and they still do.  Americans as a group do not know their history well, and tend to reduce it to highlights, and often associate those highlights with patriotic bromides.  The Mayflower passengers were, for instance, a bunch of people seeking religious freedom in the American mind, not a minoritarian Protestant sect that neither the English or the Dutch were keen on tolerating, and they were not tolerant themselves (and, to add to it, most of the Mayflower passengers were not "pilgrims".  The American Revolution was all about and only about liberty, people believe, and didn't start off as a protest over tea tariffs (oh my) and have as a goal unrestrained settling of Native lands and forced conversion of the Quebecois to the Church of England.  Half the country seemingly believes that the Civil WAr wasn't about slavery, when that's all it was about.  The Winning of the West doesn't feature any uncomfortable colonial aspects of it. And the dropping of the Atomic Bomb was certainly moral.

Like many things in our current culture, the counter revolution going on here has its roots in a post Vietnam War revolution which really did go too far.  Early radicals, like those before the end of World War Two, often were in fact really radical, but they often really loved their country two.  One Marine Corps officer who won the Silver Star during the Second World War, for instance, was an avowed Communist who had fought in the Spanish Civil War.  Today people like Donald Trump and Chuck Gray would go into screeds about him, just as Trump has about Zohran Mamdani.  A person doesn't have to be, however, conservative or Christian to genuinely love the United States.

Going back, however, to the post Vietnam War Era, it seemingly was the case that during the war some on the American left came to actively detest their country, and as part of the general culture of the times, the band aid was ripped off of some of our problematic past.  For people with a serious interest in, and knowledge of, history, much of that was irritating, but there were those who were generally shocked by it as their knowledge of history apparently stopped at 4th Grade.  Even now, for example, I'll have people come up to me who are reading A People's History of the United States and cite something as if its a blisteringly knowledgeable new revelation.  I'm not interested in anarcho-socialist Zinn's interpretation of US history much, and I'm always skeptical of anyone who titles anything as "A People's" anything, as that claims too much for your work and yourself, but still, the "revelations" people come up with are topics that anyone who graduated from high school should have a pretty good command of.

But then, many Americans have no real command of history.  Entire events in American history, and world history, are unknown, I think, to the vast majority of Americans, which makes them easy targets for revisionist of the right and the left.

We're seeking a lot of far right revisionism going on right now.  This sort of stuff is part of it.

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 100th edition. Downfall, Despair, and hoping for DeGaulle.

Labels: Charles de Gaulle, Christian Nationalism, Commentary, Culture, Culture Wars, Greed, National Conservatism, Patrick Dineen, Politics, Populism, R. R. Reno, Stupidity, The Second Trump Administration, United States, Zeitgeist

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist. 70th Edition. But fo...

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist. 70th Edition. But fo...: 

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist. 70th Edition. But for Wales, Welcome to Appalachia and pointless Presidential Sedevacantism musing.

Today Congress will certify the results of the 2024 election.  Unlike last time, as Trump agrees with the results this time, it'll go smoothly and with little drama.

It's a good time for this post.

The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Governor Freundenthal laying down the law.

We ran a couple of items on historic Wyoming inaugurations yesterday, one for Ed Herschler and the other for Nellie Tayloe Ross

Sunday, January 5, 1975. Ed Herschler inaugurated.

January 5, 1925. Nellie Tayloe Ross sworn in as Governor.

Both were Democrats.

I remember Herschler, who is regarded even today as Wyoming's most popular Governor.  That caused me to think and realize that during my lifetime, the Governor's office in Cheyenne has bee occupied by Democrats over half the time, and I'm 61 years old. Those Governors were:

Gov. Matthew Mead  2011 - 2019  Republican

Gov. Dave Freudenthal 2003 - 2011 Democratic

Gov. Jim Geringer 1995 - 2003 Republican

Gov. Michael J. Sullivan 1987 - 1995 Democratic

Gov. Edward Herschler 1975 - 1987 Democratic

Gov. Stanley K. Hathaway 1967 - 1975 Republican

Gov. Clifford P. Hansen 1963 - 1967 Republican

Of those men, and they've all been men, in my view Hathaway was the best.  He brought in the severance tax over the panic crying and whining of the legislature at the time.  

He wouldn't be successful doing that now

Herschler was likely the second best.

There hasn't been a bad one save for Geringer, who I was not impressed with at the time, and I'm still not.

Freudenthal was our last Democratic Governor.  I'm quite confident that there isn't a Democrat in the state who could win that office today.  The Democratic Party here is darned near dead.

Freudenthal was always blunt and gruff.  He had been a U.S. Attorney and in his speech he sort of reminds me of a more erudite variant of a Clint Eastwood character.  For that matter, at least prior to being Governor, he packed a .44 Mag around, concealed.  It was named "Due Process".

The Republican part is struggling.  It's been taken over by Populists, who really aren't Republicans.

I noted the Populist "Five and Dime" program here the other day.  It turns out that Freudenthal now writes a newsletter in Wyoming for the AARP.  I'm not a member of the AARP as I'm not retired, so I didn't read it.  But I've read about it, and he notes that the nickel and dime program's tax programs will gut municipal resources.  

It simply will.

I wonder if the Wyoming Freedom Caucus doesn't realize that, or if they just don't care.  My guess is that its a combination of both.

Property taxes in Wyoming are pretty much where money for police, firemen, roads, and everything, come from.  It's where the money for education comes from too.  I don't think the WFC folks care much about education, and I'm not too certain, given that so many of them are imports, they don't care about the rest of that either.  They probably don't really go out in their towns and counties much, and are happy in their newly built house which is driving up property values. They just don't want to be taxed.

A lot of services in this state, and education, are first rate, but everything is pretty lean.  This will change the state, and for the worse.  

Welcome to Appalachia.

But for Wales.

From Senator Barrasso's Facebook page, on July 28, 2020.  Along with the photograph, was this post: "I would like to wish a very Happy Birthday to Representative Liz Cheney. It is a privilege to represent and serve the people of Wyoming with you."

For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales!

A Man for All Seasons.

President Biden indicated the other day he was giving former Wyoming Congressman Liz Cheney the second highest award that a civilian can be given.

Our Senator, John Barrasso, has condemned this, stating:

President Biden was either going to pardon Liz Cheney or give her an award. She doesn’t deserve either. She represents partisanship and divisiveness — not Wyoming.

Barrasso is the Senate Whip right now, and in Donald Trump's GOP, now that McConnell has stepped aside as the leader of the Senate Republicans, that means the Whip does Trump's bidding.

Barrasso is probably right that Congressman Cheney no longer represents Wyoming's view.  We don't really know what his views are, as they've sort of blown with the wind as he started to sense he was in political trouble going into the primary. There was no doubt what so ever that his main opponent was definitely a Trumpite and far to the right.  If anything, Barrasso moved to the right of that candidate.

But I'll confess that I don't understand many of our current politicians, or certainly our Republican ones.  I've met some in one way or another. At least Barrasso would never have said what he did about Cheney prior to Trump.

I don't believe that he believes, really, what he said.

I don't understand wanting an elected position so badly that you'll compromise yourself and say what you don't believe.  I particularly don't grasp it in the case of a man who is 72 years old and who could, and really should, retire.

Is being whip that intoxicating?

It must be.

And how odd that at the same time that Barrasso is condemning somebody that he once got along with, he's praising, along with Cynthia Lummis, the late President Carter as “the personification of the American dream,” 

That statement, I'd note, comes along with the usual crap that Carter rose from humble yeoman peanut farmer to the Oval Office.  Carter, as we've already noted, was a Naval Academy trained nuclear engineer who had served in the Navy's submarine service.  To have done that means he was a genius.

He was also deeply Christian and wouldn't compromise his views for anything.

Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., stated, on Twitter:

President Jimmy Carter worked tirelessly for the country he loved, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his service.

How can we owe Carter a debt of gratitude, which I agree we do, and not owe the same to former President Obama, or former President Biden? 

A Catholic saint who had been a lawyer (I've forgotten his name) declared to a friend before entering the Priesthood that he was leaving the law as it was too easy to lose your soul in the profession.  How much more true must that be for politicians, for reasons that I can hardly grasp.  

Entering a season of danger.

I fear that we're entering what will prove to be a very destructive and dangerous era.  

We shouldn't be surprised.

Politics is always full of extreme claims, but starting with the Obama Presidency, they began to enter the Bat Shit Crazy region, and not through Obama or the "establishment" Democrats.  The reaction to Obama was in some quarters very extreme.

Trump picked up on that and has incorporated it into his schtick.  A salesman by trade who formerly hung out with the rich and shallow, he realized that a disgruntled body of Americans were ready to listen to him, no matter what he said.

Since his defeat in 2019, he's yielded to really crazy and hateful statements.  People hate the comparison, but he's used the same demonization tactic that Hitler did.  Your problems are caused by somebody else, and that person is evil.  By January 6, 2020, a substantial body of the public had come to believe that.

That event was sort of our Reichstag moment, and things are going to get worse.  So now we have a deluded and likely mentally ill U.S. Army Master Sergeant blow himself up in a Tesla in front of a Trump hotel, in Los Vegas, claiming to be in support of Trump. 

MSG Livelsberger was likely pretty nuts and perhaps suffering from injuries that contributed to what he did.  But what's not really been circulated is what his full note said.  Somebody has published it, but I didn't save the link.  The truncated note says:

We are the United States of America, the best country people to ever exist! But right now we are terminally ill and headed toward collapse.

This was not a terrorist attack, it was a wake up call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives?

Why did I personally do it now? I needed to cleanse my mind of the brothers I’ve lost and relieve myself of the burden of the lives I took.

An email he left states:

In case I do not make it to my decision point or on to the Mexico border I am sending this now. Please do not release this until 1JAN and keep my identity private until then.

First off I am not under duress or hostile influence or control. My first car was a 2006 Black Ford Mustang V6 for verification.

What we have been seeing with "drones" is the operational use of gravitic propulsion systems powered aircraft by most recently China in the east coast, but throughout history, the US. Only we and China have this capability. Our OPEN location for this activity in the box is below.

China has been launching them from the Atlantic from submarines for years, but this activity recently has picked up. As of now, it is just a show of force and they are using it similar to how they used the balloon for sigint and isr, which are also part of the integrated coms system. There are dozens of those balloons in the air at any given time.

The so what is because of the speed and stealth of these unmanned AC, they are the most dangerous threat to national security that has ever existed. They basically have an unlimited payload capacity and can park it over the WH if they wanted. It's checkmate.

USG needs to give the history of this, how we are employing it and weaponizing it, how China is employing them and what the way forward is. China is poised to attack anywhere in the east coast

I've been followed for over a week now from likely homeland or FBI, and they are looking to move on me and are unlikely going to let me cross into Mexico, but won't because they know I am armed and I have a massive VBIED. I've been trying to maintain a very visible profile and have kept my phone and they are definitely digitally tracking me.

I have knowledge of this program and also war crimes that were covered up during airstrikes in Nimruz province Afghanistan in 2019 by the admin, DoD, DEA and CIA. I conducted targeting for these strikes of over 125 buildings (65 were struck because of CIVCAS) that killed hundreds of civilians in a single day. USFORA continued strikes after spotting civilians on initial ISR, it was supposed to take 6 minutes and scramble all aircraft in CENTCOM. The UN basically called these war crimes, but the administration made them disappear. I was part of that cover-up with USFORA and Agent [Redacted] of the DEA. So I don't know if my abduction attempt is related to either. I worked with GEN Millers 10 staff on this as well as the response to Bala Murghab. AOB-S Commander at the time. [Redacted] can validate this.

You need to elevate this to the media so we avoid a world war because this is a mutually assured destruction situation.

For vetting my Linkedin is Matt Berg or Matthew Livelsberger, an active duty 18Z out of 1-10 my profile is public. I have an active TSSCI with UAP USAP access."

Okay, he was pretty much bat shit crazy.  But in an era in which people listen to Tucker Carlson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., . . . well you are going to get bat shit.

And then there's  Luigi Mangione.

Absolutely frighting meme endorsing murder.  That this is going around, is telling.

We haven't heard from him yet, but we all know that Luigi Mangione murdered the head of United Health Care seemingly because he was the head of United Health Care.

Moreover, some people are celebrating the murder.

That's outright scary.  And its interesting. I can't recall terrorist attacks against corporate officers, except in extreme times. There was of course the famous Wall Street Bombing of 1920, which shows up on this site as we covered its 100th Anniversary.  

Who would have expected something like that to return?

And then there were the radical groups of the 1970s, which seemed to be something that was behind us.

A lot of the same rage that fueled the rise of Trump fuels an anger like this, even though Trump himself is a very wealthy man and is now backed by the world's richest man, Elon Musk. 

On New Years Day a Muslim American from Texas, who was a U.S. Army veteran, performed an act of terrorism in New Orleans. The perpetrator may have also entered the bat shit region.  Apparently he left a note that he originally intended to act in support of ISIL by killing his family, which is downright bizarre.  He changed his mind and hit New Orleans, leaving a note that he conceived of himself in a war between believers and non believers.  Hitting New Orleans makes sense, in that contexts, although the press seems to have missed it, as its so heavily associated with a Catholic religions event, lent, in the form of a heavily secularized observation, Mardi Gras.

This attack is definitely different, I guess, and actually feeds into something that Trumpites have long maintained, that being that non Christian societies don't necessarily integrate well here.  Indeed, an irony of the 2024 election is that Muslims upset about the US supporting Israel in the current war didn't support Harris, and now are going to see a President who is in the Israel can do no wrong camp.

Am I blaming Trump for all of this?

No.

Some of it?

Well, sort of.

The same sort of ardent anger that gave rise to populist MAGA and the January 20 insurrection gives rise to an atmosphere where some serving members of the military feel they need to strike out against an imaginary domestic enemy.  Moreover, those inclined to political violence over their plight, often have no clear direction in how they do it.

Students of history would do well to recall that more than one member of the Nazi Party had been members of the German Communist Party. The rage that fueled a misbegotten fanatic love of the worst President in American history can just as easily turn on him, or on those conceived of as being class enemies, or contribute to an atmosphere of violence in general.

I have some predications regarding this.  And I'm going to leap back to Sen. Barrasso, who posted this in the wake of the attacks.

After what we saw in New Orleans, it is critical that the Senate confirms President Trump’s national security team as quickly as possible.

Eh?  How so?

Well, seeing as this refers to New Orleans, my first prediction is that the MAGA camp that is hostile to all immigrants is the one that will prevail.  Rather, the one that is hostile to all "alien" cultures is the one that will prevail.  Sorry Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy, you ain't a White Anglo Saxon Protestant, so you need to leave. 

That will be the view.

I'm not saying that's Dr. Barrasso's view.  I strongly suspect that the Wyoming Senator's views on things are much, much, much, much further to the left than his statements suggest, and much, much, much further to the left than those even held by traditional Wyomingites.  I don't even think he thought that out.  It just sounds like a good thing to say in your role as whip.

I will note that both attacks share one single commonality.  They were carried out by veterans of the United States Army.  There has been an ongoing investigation into extremism in the military, but my guess is that this isn't what Sen. Barrasso is talking about.  Indeed, the GOP was quick to leap on the thesis that the New Orleans attack was carried out by a recent immigrant, which it wasn't. And the second attack. . . that was carried out by a Green Beret.

One of my predictions is that we're going to see a violent couple of years.

The other is that within a year and a half the editorial pages of the American Rifleman, who fawned over Trump, will be decrying a GOP embrace of gun control.  Fans of radicals who proclaim themselves to be for democracy and freedom while ranting about others as enemies should here to study history.  

Gun control came in to the USSR with the Communists, after they'd secured power at the barrel of a gun.  It was the Irish Republicans who brought gun control into Ireland, after the republic had been won with guns.  People like to claim the Nazis brought gun control to Germany (they didn't), but those who like to yell that should recall that Hitler was elected into office as part of a populist movement that promised to fix the economy and which hated "others", so to speak.

As soon as Trump sees the populace as the enemy to his safety, he'll act to preserve himself.  It's not, after all, as if he's been competing at Camp Perry and he doesn't need anyone's vote in four years.  If he acts, what are those who supported him on this issue going to do, join the Democrats?

A third, and final, prediction.  Wyoming won't see one single good thing come its way due to the Trump Administration.  All the things that people imagine will occur, won't.  There won't be more oil drilled in some magic fashion.  The coal industry won't come roaring back.  Agriculture, and by that I mean real agriculture, will suffer due to trade policies.  Inflation will increase.

Waiting in the wings.

One final prediction.

There's a really good chance that much of what I'm noting won't come about for one reason.

J. D. Vance.

I don't want to sound like a Vance booster.  I'm not.  I do think he'd make a much better President that Trump, however, as he's not demented.

My guess is that Vance has an 18 month schedule for removing Trump.

Presidential Sedevacantism. Musing on something that won't occur. 

I've noticed that some have been developing a desperate set of legal theories proposing that Donald "Felonious Balonius, Potty Mouth" Trump can't be sworn in as President.

Well, he will be, but its interesting.

Let's start with this.

Donald Trump won the 2024 election, taking the popular vote as well as the electoral.  The popular vote part is really amazing, quite frankly, and something that probably even Trump didn't anticipate.  Indeed, it wasn't all that long ago that the Republican Party itself seriously wondered if it was doomed to demographic extinction, and the Democrats planned on it being and Trump was already creating lies on why he'd lost.

We'll note we were ahead of the curve on the demographic aspect in predicting that the Democrats, and for that matter the Republicans, on that, were likely wrong.

So Trump was elected, he will be sworn into office, and he will be the President in late January.  I'm not going to say for the next four years, as frankly, I've been amazed that neither Trump or Biden expired due to natural causes before now, and I don't really expect either of them to make it through the next four. 

I also expect, as is obvious, for Vance to wheel him out the door into managed health care at Mara Largo.

They are, after all, old.

Okay, so what are people pondering?

Well, purely as an exercise, could a case be made that Trump will not be the President?  Some are musing on that.

Well, you can (even though this is not going to occur).

Trump, is a felon.  He was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

This is an odd conviction, frankly. I really think those charges were fairly weak.  I question if they'll hold up on appeal.  But, be that as it may, he's been convicted of 34 counts of what amounts to a felony.

Let's look at felonies.

Blackstone, looking back at the long history of the term, maintained that “the true criterion of fel e also acknowledges a change in meaning over time: “The idea of felony is, indeed, so generally connected with that of capital punishment that we find it hard to separate them . . . .”19 As the definition of felony became less definitely tied to forfeiture and the use of capital punishment became more general, the number of felonies in English law multiplied. The traditional common law felonies were nine: murder, manslaughter, arson, burglary, robbery, rape, sodomy, mayhem, and larceny.20 Many more were added by statute. Francis Bacon, writing around 1620, listed some thirty-four felonies, including witchcraft and harboring a priest.21 Blackstone lamented that, in his day, “no less than a hundred and sixty [offenses] have been declared by act of parliament to be felonies . . . or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death

Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic.  Will Tress  University of Baltimore School of Law 

Sedevacantism is a hyper ultra extreme traditionalist Catholic thesis by a tiny minority that holds that the Seat of Peter, i.e., the office of Pope, is vacant and has been since 1958, or maybe even early.

It's frankly out to lunch, and so the thesis advanced below, a political thesis, likely is as well.

But I'll advance it anyhow.

Donald Trump cannot legitimately be sworn in as President in January, and therefore the administering of the oath of office to him will work a nullity, and there will be no President for the next four years.

Eh?

A felon cannot be sworn into office due to forfeiture.  That's the essence of forfeiture.

A photo of Donald Trump that appeared this week on Twitter.  I don't know the source.  It's postered here for another reason.  When Trump is caught in candid moments, which is fairly rarely, he looks like what he is, an old out of shape man.  His ramblings of this past week once again have raised questions on his mental status.  I continue to be surprised that old age didn't catch up on a permanent basis with either Biden or Trump, but then I'm still not convinced that either one of them, or at least one of them, will not expire due to natural causes before the inauguration.  I'm also convinced that the National Conservatives are already pondering removing him from office due to mental decline.

Now, the Constitution doesn't mention felonies at all.  Indeed, it'd hardly have to as the death penalty for the collection of them would make it unlikely that a felon would ever run for office.

That's likely why the Constitution just speaks of "high crimes and misdemeanors" when it refers to impeachment.

And it also says that Congress "may" impeach for those reasons, not must. 

Anyhow, not going to happen.

A more interesting one is the application of the 14th Amendment, which bars insurrectionist from office. 

Trump is an insurrectionist, so those who claim he's barred by the 14th Amendment are 100% correct.  He is.

But the 14th Amendment is a 19th Century amendment and much of the law before the early 20th Century was vague by modern standards.  Indeed, this is constantly a problem with Constitutional interpretation, and provides the reason that scholars and the courts have to look back in time to try to figure out what the drafters meant.

This is a really interesting one.  When drafted, everyone knew who the insurrectionist were, they were the Southerners who betrayed their country by serving in the Southern governments and thier armies.  But it doesn't' actually say that.

Apparently, nobody felt it had to.  The amendment worked just find and when people wanted back in, after repenting of their treason, they were provided with a legal means of doing so.  

Given that, the way this works is really weird in a current context.  You are supposed to just presume somebody is an insurrectionist, if they participated in an insurrection, and its up to them to ask for legal forgiveness.  If you don't think you were guilty of insurrection, you'd have to challenge it in court and prove you weren't, which is the reverse of the legal norms.

This causes all sorts of problems in a modern context. There's been no legal declaration, outside of Colorado, that an insurrection occurred.  Does that work?  Who knows, it hadn't been tested.

Indeed, what this would require would be an immediate legal challenge in the Federal Courts, or a mass refusal to swear Trump in, neither of which are going to occur, and frankly probably shouldn't.  It would provoke a constitutional crisis, at this point, which is likely to be worse than having Trump be the presumed President, at least for the next 18 months.

But if we assume all of this is correct, and that its' challenged, and ultimately a Federal Court gets around to ruling, "yup, he wasn't President", who would be?

Well, until somebody was sworn in, maybe nobody.

More likely, the Court would backdoor in his status until the legal decision was made.

None of this, we'd note, is going to happen.  No court challenge is going to be made, and probably none should be.  

Last edition.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 69th Edition. TDS, Vance in the wings. Our geriatric oligarchy. Immigration spats. Banning puberty blockers. Mjuk flicka and the Mantilla Girls.

Labels: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, J. D. Vance, mehr Mensch sein, National Conservatism, Old Age, Populism, The rich and the poor, The roles of men and women, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Zeitgeist