“Progress in our nation happens when everyday Americans get involved and come together to chart our country’s course. It’s that uniquely American character—enhanced by a rich diversity of beliefs and a deep reservoir of ideas—that has always propelled us forward. As long as citizens of every party, every background, and every walk of life continue speaking out on the issues that matter to them and working toward the future we know is possible, our best days will always lie ahead” – Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States.
Here are four parts of the third chapter of Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine:
- Racism in the United States / The American Dilemma
- Building the New Empire
- Reactions to Overt Racism
- Outlawing Overt Racism
My book Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine has just made Goodreads 2017 Popular Racism Books!
Exploring the question of the Executive Orders titled Protecting the Nation from the lens of Sacred Scripture and the teachings and praxis of the Catholic Church, in Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine, Bartolo-Abela elucidates how race is the key sociopolitical ordering factor at play in the history and current state of America, with regard to fundamental human rights and the inviolable dignity of human persons. She explicates the underlying nature and stunning demographics of a newly-defined American alt-right population, and shows how at least two antithetical forms of both Christianity and Catholicism are being actively employed in the United States, at the intersection of politics and religion, to further a multidimensional racial agenda. Bartolo-Abela reminds readers how an effective and genuine remedy to America’s conflict does exist in accordance with the Faith and provides recommendations for non-violent change. Who Are You? What is Your Faith? is available in paperback and ebook editions from Amazon, the publishers Hope and Life Press, and other major booksellers.
- “Impressive documentation of systematic discrimination since the foundation of America.”
- “Challenges American Christians to ask if the Gospel of Trump is compatible with the Gospel of Christ.”
- “A passionate book unafraid of controversy.”
- “Struck me emotionally to the core.”
- “Magnificently presents the bottom line of America’s 21st century alt-right and Catholic Social Doctrine by utilizing true data.”
- “Provides a hard look at ourselves and awakens readers to draw out a decisive outcome of the future as a country and as Catholics.”
Another pre-publication review of Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine. Please click on this link to read the review by Huffington Post Passionista Hadel Ma’ayeh.
Review of Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine: Click on this link to read the early review written by British Catholic theologian Christopher Villiers.
Excerpt from my book Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine (In press):
Modified applied eugenics: The Bell Curve. The above views about the intersection of education and opportunity became very overt when Hernnstein and Murray (1994) called for the nationwide establishment of a cognitive elite through their bestselling book The Bell Curve. Hernnstein was a psychologist who had written a revisionist history of the intersection of eugenics, intelligence testing, and racism (Snyderman & Hernnstein, 1983). Murray was a political scientist and Bradley Fellow of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; one of the oldest and most influential public policy institutes in Washington, D.C. The bell curve was the original standard distribution curve that had been adopted by the intelligence theorist and eugenicist, Charles Spearman, to denote the unequal distribution of fluid intelligence based on the unequal distribution of the races (Jones, 1997).
Hernnstein and Murray (1994) declared the urgent need for the establishment of a cognitive elite, to construct and implement policies and practices across the US, on the basis of four points. These points were that:
- Intelligence quotient (IQ) was the best predictor of success in American life;
- IQ could be assessed in an accurate manner through intelligence tests;
- There were statistically significant correlations between metacognitive capabilities and race, with mean African American and Latino scores lying at one to one-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean scores for Whites and Asians;
- Race was biological and hereditary.
Using regression analyses of scores obtained by 12,000 youth on the US Armed Forces Qualifying Test in 1979 and 1990 as part of the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) National Longitudinal Studies of Youth, Hernnstein and Murray called for the social engineering of births in America toward women with high IQ, to counteract the presumed legal, political, psychological, and social endorsement of mothers with low IQ – by extension, children with low-IQ – through neoliberal welfare and child support policies. They proclaimed that America was headed toward substantial downward social-cognitive causation from the ongoing failure of the Great Society programs of President Johnson, which had resulted in filial regression to less-than-mediocrity. Hernnstein and Murray added that barring change, “a significant part of . . . the population must be made permanent wards of the states” (ibid.). The DOL studies had been bankrolled in part by the Pioneer Fund: a hate group as classified by the SPLC (2006). The Fund also financed social darwinist research that foregrounded the genetic superiority of races from Northern Europe (Flanders, 1999).
According to Hegarty (2007), the argument of Hernnstein and Murray echoed that of “Galton’s imperialist vision of a society lead by a male cognitive elite.” It was an argument that reflected the old positive and negative eugenics agendas of selective inbreeding of the fittest and coercive sterilization as moral imperatives, while integrating both psychological nativism and scientific racism. It was this precise agenda that had been endorsed in 1927 by the SCOTUS, which was exemplified by the words of Chief Justice Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Mehler, 1988). The agenda, both covert and overt, of Hernnstein and Murray was reminiscent of the travels of Goddard in the early 20th century, when he had frightened Americans into believing in the rapid growth of feeblemindedness through lantern-slide presentations across the Union (Selden, 2007).
It should be noted that the argument set forth by Hernnstein and Murray (1994) ignored in a consistent and repeated manner the facts that:
- The AFQT is not an intelligence test, but a general knowledge test (Darlington, 1996);
- Intelligence tests (e.g., the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet tests) are not race-normed. Their verbal and nonverbal subtests are culturally-biased toward, and loaded with, the formalized middle-class and English-based educational system in the nation (Dana, 1992, 1999; Helms, 2006; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005; Suzuki, Ponterotto, & Meller, 2007; Valencia & Suzuki, 2000).
- Intelligence tests do not assess all components of the multiply defined construct of intelligence (Neisser et al., 1996; Sattler, 2001; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005);
- The nativist perspective of intelligence had been debunked over and over (Gould, 1996; Neisser et al., 1996);
- Fluid intelligence operates in environmentally and culturally-contextualized ways (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005);
- Formal education shapes crystallized intelligence (Snow, 1996);
- Racial and ethnic minorities had been excluded for longstanding periods from formal education;
- Human persons in performance-based settings tend to fulfill expectancy effects (Speight, 2007; Valencia & Suzuki, 2000; Weinstein, Gregory, & Strambler, 2004) according to stereotype threats (Steele, 1997, 1998). These effects are correlated with a change of up to 27 IQ points. Academic performance is positively correlated with ‘raceless’ student identities (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995).
- Intergenerational intelligence distributions at the filial dimension regress to the mean (Sattler, 2001; Smith, 2005);
- Race is a social, not biological or heritable, construct (Helms, 2005; Human Genome Management Information Systems, 2003; Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005);
- Consistent African American and Latino mean score differences of about one to one-and-a-half standard deviations below that of Whites and Asian Americans are thought to reflect class and/or other multicultural individual differences (e.g., racial identity ego statuses).
 Holmes was a student of eugenics. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the coercive sterilization of the financially, legally, and mentally challenged was enforced by law in 30 states (Guthrie, 1997, 2004; Strickland, 2000).
 These subtests are presumed to assess both fluid and crystallized intelligence capabilities.
 The heritable component of intelligence.
 The Pygmalion effect.
 Almost two standard deviations.
 Within-group variations.
In the meantime, below are a few samples of the most prominent sayings of the President’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, in terms of the three criteria of racism, White nationalism, and populism [We have already seen those of the President himself]. Bannon at present serves on America’s National Security Council and is the former executive chair of Breitbart News, a network he had earlier described with great pride and without hesitation as “the platform for the alt-right” (Flegenheimer, 2016; Posner 2016).
- “We don’t believe there is a functional conservative party in this country and we certainly don’t think the Republican Party is that. It’s going to be an insurgent, center-right populist movement that is virulently anti-establishment, and it’s going to hammer this city, both the progressive left and the institutional Republican Party” (Schultheis & Boccagno, 2016).
- “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment” (Radosh, 2016).
- “Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty” (Victor & Stack, 2016).
- “Two-thirds or three-quarters of the C.E.O.’s in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia” (Shane, 2016).
It has in addition been reported that Bannon declared, “Maybe that’s not such a bad thing,” when a film colleague had both mused about limiting voting rights in the US to property owners and commented that such a measure “Would exclude a lot of African Americans” (ibid.).
A few samples of the most prominent sayings of Steven Miller – a senior political adviser to President Trump, White House policy director, and one of the prime architects of Protecting the Nation – are also given below in terms of the three aforementioned criteria:
- “I can’t be your friend anymore because you are Latino” (Peinado, 2017).
- “Everybody who stands against Donald Trump are the people who’ve been running this country into the ground . . . Everything that is wrong with this country today, the people opposing Donald J. Trump are responsible for” (Merica, 2017).
- “Foreign workers . . . they’re competing against you, and your children, and your grandchildren, and your brothers, and sisters and neighbors for jobs. Low-wage foreign workers being brought in to take your place at less pay” (Miller, 2016).
- “We could have lived with the Indians, learning how to finger paint and make tepees, excusing their scalping of frontiersmen as part of their culture . . . We do nothing for American holidays, but everything for Mexican holidays . . . That is why we invited a Muslim leader to the school to explain the splendor of Islam, but no such proclamation was ever made about America” (Miller, 1999).
- “America without her culture is like a body without a soul – yet many of today’s youth see America as nothing but a meeting point for the cultures of other nations . . . We must come to the defense of our heritage . . . As we obsess over, adulate and extol the non-American cultures, we ignore the culture we all hold in common . . . our language and religious values were brought to us by those who settled and founded our nation” (Miller, 2006).
A Presidency of Hatred?
Each one of us is called to be an artisan of peace, by uniting and not dividing, by extinguishing hatred and not holding on to it, by opening paths to dialogue and not by constructing new walls! Pope Francis.
Given all the above data – data interpreted within the context of US history as discussed before – that show, at the very least, more than significant contempt for the different other as manifested by the ongoing and, at times, longstanding patterns of stereotyping, sweeping generalizations, the prevalence of Manichean-based thinking, and incessant fear-mongering based on racism, either implicit or explicit; blatant White nationalism, equally blatant populism, and relentless demonization of the other based on religious biases, the following questions arise:
- Is the current presidency of Donald John Trump a presidency that is run on the basis of the subjective emotion of hatred, implicit or explicit, rather than on the objective bases of neutrality, reason and evidence, despite all the political white-washing and repeated attempts at verbal rhetoric to the contrary?
- If yes, what does that indicate about the underlying sentiments present in the hearts of 81% of White evangelical Christians and 52% of Catholics in America, who, in both essence and fact, elected the President to office and enabled his like-thinking strategists to become some of, if not the, most powerful influencers in the White House?
- Again if yes, what made such a comparatively large number of Christians and Catholics – people and groups of people called to the higher standard of “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Mt 22:39) by the virtue of their baptism and their faith – decide to engage in what can now be considered in no other way than material, if not outright formal, cooperation in an electoral campaign – now, a presidency – that both was and seems to have remained characterized by such a degree of hatred toward the other; in particular the other who is non-White and/or non-Christian, whether local or foreign?
- Is hatred an emotion that comes from God or from someone else?
- How do the Christians and Catholics who elected the President justify their vote in face of the present charge of material, if not formal, cooperation?
- Can such cooperation with this level of hatred ever be justified in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Church?
 Breitbart has been described by the SPLC as part of “the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas – all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as ‘alt-right’” (Piggott, 2016).
 This figure was found to be inaccurate upon fact-checking.
 In Address (2013a).
From forthcoming Who Are You? What is Your Faith? America’s 21st Century Alt-Right and Catholic Social Doctrine
All are brothers and all are children of God (Pope Francis).
The American alt-right has been defined as a broad group of people or movement who tend to ascribe to far-right ideologies that include “preserving and protecting the White race . . . in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes, and strict law-and-order” (Daniszewski, 2016). The movement has been considered to be “an offshoot of conservatism” (ibid.) that is characterized by the confluence of racism, White nationalism, and populism (SPLC, 2016b). It has also been critical of “multiculturalism, and more rights for non-Whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants, and other minorities” (Daniszewski, 2016).
Several individuals who ascribe to the mentality of the alt-right, whether declared or undeclared, tend to reject, in either an explicit or an implicit manner, the fundamental right that all human persons are equal under the law irrespective of creed, ethnicity, gender, or race. The core belief held in the alt-right mentality is that “’White identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice,’ to undermine White people and their civilization” (SPLC, 2016b).
The original alt-right. The term alt-right was first coined in 2008 by Richard B. Spencer, the now 39-year-old president of The National Policy Institute (NPI; ibid.; Wallace-Wells, 2016). The NPI is a far-right think tank in Arlington, Virginia, that is involved with the ideologies of White nationalism and the preservation of Western civilization. The motto of NPI (2017) is “For our people, our culture, our future.”
White nationalism has been defined as “the belief that national identity should be built around White ethnicity, and that White people should maintain both a demographic majority and dominance of the nation’s culture and public life . . . [thus] maintaining political and economic dominance, not just a numerical majority or cultural hegemony” (Kaufmann, in Taub, 2016). Meanwhile, Western civilization has been defined as “a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe” (Wikipedia, 2017a). Populism has been defined as a Manichean-based “thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’” (Mudde, 2004; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2013). The goal of populism is to unite the “uncorrupt and unsophisticated ‘little man’ against the corrupt and dominant elites (usually the established politicians) and their camp of followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals;” Wikipedia, 2017b).
According to Spencer, the alt-right was defined by:
“A break with establishment conservatism that favors experimentation with the ideas of the French New Right; libertarian thought as exemplified by former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul; anarcho-capitalism, which advocates individual sovereignty and open markets in place of an organized state; Catholic traditionalism, which seeks a return to Roman Catholicism before the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council; and other ideologies” (SPLC, 2016b).
Two revealing examples of alt-right thought are shown below:
- “Immigration is a kind of proxy war – and maybe a last stand – for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile”;
- “This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters. Libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules. In the West, we must have standards and enforce them. The ‘freedom’ for other races to move freely into White nations is nonexistent. Stay in your own nations, we don’t want you here”.
The alt-right and establishment conservatives. The alt-right movement has to date been, for the most part, considered in public discourse by establishment conservatives to be made up of individuals “young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies . . . [with] a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric . . . born out of the youthful, subversive, underground edges of the internet . . . [with the fora] 4chan and 8chan [being] hubs of alt-right activity” (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos, 2016). As such, it has been reported that many conservative politicians and the conservative press had no qualms about often throwing “these young readers and voters to the wolves” (ibid.) given their, at times, more-than-outrageous behavior, to avoid charges of bigotry from both establishment liberals and the alt-left.
A new definition of alt-right and its population. Insofar as the term alt-right, however, has been more narrowly defined as an offshoot of conservatism that is characterized by the confluence of the prime factors of racism, White nationalism, and populism (the three criteria; Daniszewski, 2016; SPLC, 2016b), it can herewith be contended that the American alt-right has become de facto comprised of several establishment conservatives themselves, regardless of whether they (1) admit this or not to themselves and others; (2) consent to the definition or not; (3) are politicians, readers, or voters; (4) are young or not-so-young; (5) are either White, self-identify as White, or identify in full with White culture. This contention holds irrespective of whether the said conservatives (6) are active on the internet or not; (7) ascribe in a declared or undeclared manner to the entirety of the afore-referenced ideologies as long as they fulfill the three criteria in a confluential way; and regardless of whether they are (8) White Christians or non-Christians, White Catholics or non-Catholics.
It should be noted that the narrow definition of alt-right referenced above has arisen from the independent, but converging, work of the multinational nonprofit mainstream media – considered by many to be the ‘fourth branch of government’ in the American system of checks and balances – and various nonprofit civil rights and public interest legal advocacy organizations. It should furthermore be noted that the new de facto shift in, and definition of, the population comprising the alt-right in and of itself annuls the very break that had characterized it as an offshoot of conservatism in the first instance, thus moving the alt-right into what can now be considered the new 21st century conservative mainstream based on the confluence of racism, White nationalism, and populism. In other words, the alt-right in the US is no longer ‘alt,’ but the new norm.
 Alternative right.
Here is the front cover of my newest book scheduled to be released in the summer period, in paperback and ebook editions, under Hope and Life Press. In it will be addressed the intersection of immigrants and refugees as human persons, the broadly defined alt-right in 21st century America, and the praxis of Catholic Social Doctrine.