Culture Wars/Current Controversies

The Rise Of Religious Nationalism with Katherine Stewart

A leader of an organized atheist group (the far left of organized religion) interviews a member of the liberal media class (the new clerisy) on the role of the religious right (clerical oligarchs manipulating naive peasants on behalf of the right-wing of the ruling class/dying WASP elite/Likudniks/war profiteers).

Journalist Katherine Stewart, whom the Boston Globe has called “the Paul Revere of American civic life,” is a leading authority on the politics of the Religious Right. Her first book, “The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children,” came out in 2012, and this spring her new book, titled “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism,” has been released. Stewart has written for the New York Times, the New Republic and the Washington Post.

“The role of the right-wing propaganda sphere in fostering distrust of fact-based media and scientific expertise really can’t be overstated here,” she explains in the interview, done remotely, about why a section of society is exhibiting such an irrational response to the pandemic. “The rank of the movement have been told over and over to dismiss the real news as fake news even before Trump.”

7 replies »

  1. A few years ago, it seemed to me that the term “Christian Nationalist” was a term used similar and exclusively linked to “White Nationalist” in that they wanted a White Christian Ethno-State, but wanted a softer term for themselves. Now, the term seems to be more squishy and a jazzed-up way to call Trump supporters racists, but this time with under the guise of “intelligentsia” rather than the how the Twitter mob did for the last 3+ years. It has always seemed more honest (and useful) to try and use the term that a people-group calls themself when describing that people-group. As someone who grew up and was educated around and by Christians, the bin of people this lady is is putting in the “Christian Nationalist” group would NOT use that label.

  2. There is no “fact-based media and scientific expertise.” Every bit of official information with which we are presented is pre-programmed, manufactured propaganda from one group or another. And it’s been demonstrated to be false time and again. Why should we believe any of it? There are scores of videos online from various scientists and doctors of all stripes outright contradicting the official propaganda regarding this latest manufactured crisis. And the establishment Silicon Valley powers at YouTube, etc. are throwing their muscle behind censoring it all. The “religious right” is one of the least threatening groups imaginable, unless you’re a butthurt wannabe media hack “expert.” And staunch opponents of a particular worldview always make the most reliable “leading authorities” on those worldviews, am I right? I can’t tell who you’re siding with in the frame of this conflict, if anyone, Keith. These media types are the mouthpiece of the totalitarian humanist, globalist, technocrat world order. Am I to infer that you side with so-called experts and high priests of Central Authority simply because one group opposing them is icky religious zealots? Surely not. Genuine resistance offered up from any quarters should be welcomed. I’ll go with the rabid Bible thumper’s pitchfork and torch posse against the State, rather than side with the stay quietly at home and sit on your hands while we await our instructions from the overlords crowd. So some people who say your facts and science are bullshit are religious right wingers? Boo fuckin hoo. This bitch is just mad because she and her ilk are being called out for being full of shit. Down with the filthy media. Down with the medical industrial complex. Down with fucking science.

    • These ladies are obviously for a powerful state authority, they would just like to take the reins for themselves, it seems to me Kieth is not trying to do that.

      Although the video is damn near unwatchable, I appreciate the post: it is fun to the talking points of the “intelligentsia class” as the fish rots from the head, and soon enough all our podcasts and YouTuber are going to be jumping into the game.

  3. The purpose of the post is to simply point out what some clerical sectors (organized atheism and the liberal pundit class who champion the therapeutic state and scientism) are saying about other clerical sectors (right-wing televangelist types who shill for the plutocrat-military-AIPAC Republican axis). It’s not a matter “taking sides.” It’s just a battle of one ruling class faction and its stooges against another.

    As for the COVID-19 crisis, I agree too many things about all this don’t add up. Whoever heard of a disease where 50% of the victims don’t even show symptoms, for another third it’s like having a bad cold, and a small number die? I also suspect many people whose death has been attributed to COVID-19 may have died of other causes. How does anyone know if they weren’t tested? And what are they testing for? Supposedly, there are multiple strands of the coronavirus. I’ve even heard there could be a dozen or so strands. Does a single test cover all stands? Are all strands equally dangerous?

    Also, I don’t trust Anthony Fauci. I remember him fueling the AIDS hysteria in the 80s when they were saying it was going to be like the Black Plague, even though in developed countries virtually no one except gay men, IV drug users, and their partners got it (and hemophiliacs very early on).

    What they used to do with AIDS is provide a diagnosis even without HIV testing in places like Africa with limited healthcare resources, and even in hot spots like San Francisco (e.g. gay guy comes in with chronic pneumonia-yep, he’s got AIDS).

    Another thing: The Hong Kong flu epidemic in 1968/69 killed 50,000 Americans, almost as many as the Vietnam War, and with a much smaller US population than we have now. Was the whole economy shut down at the time?

    And then there’s the fact that at first they were telling us not to wear masks and saying the masks don’t do any good (which is obviously counter-intuitive and seemed nonsensical at the time) and then did an about-face essentially trying to make masks mandatory?

    I imagine when the final history of all this is written it will reveal we were told a lot of nonsense, either deliberately or out of ignorance, or both.

    • Keith, thanks for being so crystal clear and courageous in stating your views. It’s a breath of fresh air in light of all the people trying to hedge themselves and taking both sides of every issue.

      Helps me trust you more. In fact, since the lockdown, and you have been posting like crazy, this site has become BY FAR my favorite, and really opened my eyes to all the different sides of anarchism.

      I have become much more aware of how inter-class and outer-class warfare is being used and thought about. It gives me a better understanding of why anarchists have traditionally aligned themselves with hard-line marxists types (seemed crazy to me) and then always got stabbed in the back.

      Now that I see it this way, I cannot unsee.

      • It’s a breath of fresh air in light of all the people trying to hedge themselves and taking both sides of every issue.

        I think a lot of that is simply about people wanting to be accepted, liked, welcome, popular, etc. on “their own side” rather than any kind of real consideration of the issues. There have been several former associates of mine who have gone in those kinds of directions, left and right, and that is what seems to be a motivation.

        It gives me a better understanding of why anarchists have traditionally aligned themselves with hard-line marxists types (seemed crazy to me) and then always got stabbed in the back.

        That’s an aspect of anarchist failure that I am trying to correct. I’ve been asked what the principal differences between me and the left-anarchists are and why I generally don’t get along with them. I’d say both me and them have the same basic ideology, only I’ve added some modern elements to make it relevant to contemporary times (like managerial revolution theory, fourth-generation warfare theory, the critique of “totalitarian humanism,” “empire” theory, Kotkin’s class analysis, etc.) and brought it under the “pan” umbrella of decentralism and voluntarism vs centralism and authoritarianism.

        But the “anarcho-progressives” are generally progressives first and anarchists second. They see the tribal/cultural/sectarian civil war as the primary fight, with the “far-right” as the main enemy, and the actual fight against the ruling class as something much more distant, remote, or abstract, if they take it seriously at all.

        I reverse all that and make the anti-ruling class fight primary, with cultural issues being secondary (and with a more nuanced and eclectic set of positions), and potential dangers involving the far-right as much more distant, remote, or abstract.

        • I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post!

          I’m more of the born-into-it type of anarchist, but only about two years ago I became comfortable enough (and slightly educated enough) to understand that I ‘belong’ under that umbrella.

          Since, I’ve been stuck over on the free market side, but your info has helped me understand and be more open to the syndicate state of mind a bit better.

          I cannot abound anyone who will not emphasize de-centralism, so I was turned off to the Chomsky worshipers who see government education and carbon credits as their savior.

          I’m totally okay with worker owned co-ops, as well as volunteer wage slavery. I don’t quite understand the NAP yet, as I kind of think, if it came down to it, breaking the shins of tyrants is part of the good fight, and don’t like doing post-hoc mental gymnastics.

          So maybe I’m a pan-anarchist? But for now, I’ll just stick with the more common ‘anarchist’.

          Thanks again Keith!

Leave a Reply