The Politics of Guilt and Resentment
When someone entrusted with the enforcement of public law for the protection of all members of society abuses their position and authority to violate that very rule of law, the injustice of the crime is greatly aggravated, especially when the results are lethal. This is part of the reason why the killing of George Floyd on May 25th by Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis â€“ an officer with multiple public complaints already filed against him â€“ was both appalling and shocking. No Christian familiar with the scriptures and committed to the righteous standards of Godâ€™s law-word could take any other view than that the officer concerned should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if convicted, punished accordingly.
In recent weeks, however, it has become obvious that many people in the West have not been content to let criminal justice take its course, instead demanding a form of social vengeance upon certain groups within society and even the destruction of the cultural history of the anglosphere. Legitimate, lawful and peaceful demonstrations have been strategically captured by a political ideology exploiting Mr. Floydâ€™s death and used as a pretext for rioting, violence, and a full-scale assault on the remnants of Western Christian culture as expressed in the biblical family structure and the rule of law.
As the revolutionary fervor against an alleged cultural imperialism has spread, few great politicians or notable cultural leaders from Western history appear safe â€“ not Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, Lord Nelson, Christopher Columbus or even Winston Churchill. All these great figures, we are told, must be defaced, beheaded, or pulled down to make way for the new order of â€˜social justice.â€™ It does not matter what they stood for, what liberties they realized for future generations, or what great accomplishments they achieved of which we are the ignorant and ungrateful beneficiaries. All that matters is that these people belong to an allegedly guilty culture and privileged ethnicity. For this, their portraits must be removed, their statues torn down, their legacy ridiculed and the memory of them erased. Evidence of their alleged crimes or clear arguments about the specific nature of their wrongdoing are deemed irrelevant.
How did an apparently straightforward case of criminal justice become a demand for revolution â€“ including the defunding or abolition of policing, radical socialist economic and social policy, disruption of the nuclear family structure and â€˜liberationâ€™ from every biological and sexual constraint? Somehow, a vital matter of juridical equity for one man has become a call by a neo-Marxist liberation movement to overturn our society and its few remaining mores, symbols and cultural norms. How did this happen?
A Religious Conflict
The idea of structural oppression and the need to be liberated from it is not new. It is a religious motive, with its own doctrine of God, man, sin, and redemption. It has taken specific aim at the evisceration of Christianized culture, and it has recurred again and again, especially since the French Revolution. It was one of the primary architects of that revolution, Jean Jacques Rousseau, who tried to bring together humanistic conceptions of freedom, equality, collectivity and radical democracy â€“ but true freedom became the casualty of the experiment. Rousseau began with the fundamentally anti-scriptural idea of the original goodness of the human person at birth, supposedly enslaved and corrupted by society and culture. All the problems of life, according to Rousseau, are the result of external causes, located in the structures and institutions of civil society, producing bondage and inequality. What was required, he believed, was social revolution and a new â€˜social contract.â€™ But as Jan Dengerink has pointed out:
According to the terms of thisâ€¦fictional contract, men must hand over everything they have, that is to say, their original, natural rights and freedoms in their entirety, to the new societyâ€¦to this end they are supposed of their own free will to place their entire person and everything pertaining thereto under the direction of the general will, the volonte generale. In this fashion there comes into being a moral and collective body [emphasis added].
This emergent and fictional collective body is thus conceived as the realization of freedom in itself. Ironically, however, Rousseauâ€™s thought â€“ embodied as it is in todayâ€™s collectivist social democracy and manifest emphatically in the present calls of agitators to disrupt the nuclear family, defund police forces, redistribute wealth and overthrow â€˜white privilegeâ€™ in all its forms by creating a new society â€“ moves inexorably in a totalitarian direction in which all people must be â€˜forced to be freeâ€™ in the new order. Any person, any institution, and any cultural artifact representing the old order must be removed, destroyed, censured or shamed into line with this new freedom. It is easy to see how the concept of institutional racism is likewise the offspring of Rousseauâ€™s notion that it is the structures of society â€“ permitting excessive latitude for created (or natural) individual rights and freedoms â€“ which cause, rather than merely convey disparities and inequalities within human society. The characteristic differences within human life either by birth or as the result of our free decisions and their outcomes â€“ the inequalities â€“ can obviously become the basis of covetousness, jealousies and resentments. Cultural theologian Andrew Sandlin has noted:
In a free society, some people are richer than others. Some are more accomplished because they are smarter. Some have a physical constitution to allow them to work harder, and in many cases generate greater income. Some businesses are successful and some go bust. Some people gain social approval because of their appearance, elocution, and personality. Others are disapproved for the same reasons. Some are wrongly disapproved: for example, for their skin color. Christians rightly disapprove of homosexuality. The variations in people â€” and therefore social responses to them â€” are nearly endless. It is these unequal outcomes that Cultural Marxists deplore. Classical liberals value a free society one of whose inevitable by-products is these inequalities. Theyâ€™re willing to endure these inequalities (inevitable anyway) to protect against political coercion. The Cultural Marxists, conversely, wish to employ political coercion in order to eliminate or mitigate these inequalities.â€¦ Classical liberalism believes in equality too, but defines it as equality of condition, or process. Everyone should be treated the same under the law. For Classical Marxists, this is the Achillesâ€™ Heel of the free society. If everyone is treated the same under the law, peopleâ€™s life outcomes will be different from other peopleâ€™s, sometimes radically different. This is unjust.â€¦ It also means that Cultural Marxists see social inequalities as a result of bad, venal intentions. Its perpetrators are the oppressorsâ€¦; if there is to be the truly just society, they must be deprived of their ability to oppress. This means using the state to crack down on their political liberty.
The challenge of facing and overcoming resentments regarding oneâ€™s situation in life or in regard to the sins of others, real or imagined, is a normal part of the human condition in a fallen world. However, for any number of reasons, it does not take much for resentment to become a governing emotion in peopleâ€™s lives and be quickly transformed into a social cause. The late English philosopher, Roger Scruton, points out that this happens â€œwhen resentment loses the specificity of its target, and becomes directed to society as a whole.â€ He notes that this is the characteristic trait of radical left movements in the modern era:
In such cases resentment ceases to be a response to anotherâ€™s unmerited success and becomes instead an existential posture: the posture of the one whom the world has betrayed. Such a person does not seek to negotiate within existing structures, but to gain total power, so as to abolish the structures themselves. He will set himself against all forms of mediation, compromise and debate and against the legal and moral norms that give voice to the dissenter and sovereignty to the ordinary person. He will set about destroying the enemy, whom he will conceive in collective terms, as the class, group or race that hitherto controlled the world and which must now in turn be controlled. And all institutions that grant protection to that class or a voice in the political process will be targets for his destructive rage.
This perceptive insight helps account for the thousands of young people running around screaming in the streets, firing weapons, assaulting officers, destroying public property and chanting â€˜no justice, no peace.â€™ Their rage is an existential posture with no specific target â€“ it is generalized against society and its institutions as a whole. The demonstrations have moved well beyond awareness-building around a specific incident and a need to deal swiftly with violent and corrupt officers to protests with no specific goal in mind beyond the overthrow of existing structures.
Consequently, for a generation nourished in our government schools and universities on the radical intellectual legacy of Rousseau and flavored with the neo-Marxist developments of the New Left, the heinous killing of a black man in an American city by a rogue police officer has provided a pretext for a revolutionary fervor to sweep across the Anglo-American nations demanding the overthrow of Western civilization as we have known it. In response, â€˜progressiveâ€™ (social democratic) politicians, intellectuals, churchmen and media personalities anxious to virtue signal, have been â€˜taking a kneeâ€™ with protestors or verbally prostrating themselves before the outraged agitators, confessing their guilt and white privilege and pleading for ideological absolution so that they too can be on the side of the angels. Various church leaders and Christian organisations have published similar â€˜confessionsâ€™ and issued calls for â€˜social justiceâ€™ in the form of various reparations for blacks and other ethnic minorities nearly 200 years since the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and over 150 years since Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
It is supremely ironic that the primary agitators â€“ a movement called Black Lives Matter (and elements from Antifa) deploying the abstract concept of white privilege to call for a new sexually libertarian, collectivist society with a self-conscious orientation to turn tables and oppress the â€˜oppressorâ€™ â€“ should place themselves under ideological servitude to white European intellectuals and philosophers who have demanded liberation from the creation order for the past 200 years. The BLM website utilizes all the same rhetoric as radical feminists, queer theorists, cultural Marxists and anarchists which are almost entirely the rarified thought products of Rousseauâ€™s European intellectual heirs â€“ ideas which have gradually colonised minds in the global south over the past sixty years. There is no originality, no creativity, no utilization of historic biblical tools for reconciliation and renewal, just the same tired list of destructive or redistributive demands that Western society has been hearing from humanists, collectivists and totalitarians since the French Revolution.
Race and Racism
In terms of this Christian analysis of the cultural situation that takes seriously a biblical worldview, it is important to look at the presuppositions underlying the emotive rhetoric. Racism is not a biblical concept or idea â€“ though the Bible is acutely aware of human sin manifest in prejudice, hatred, revenge and resentment. Racism is yet another â€˜ismâ€™ which takes a misunderstanding of the nature of the human person and proceeds to exaggerate ethnic identity into the ideological and interpretative key to life, history and culture. In some cases, it actually becomes a form of idolatry: the Nazi concept of blood and soil with its ideal purebred Germanic superman; the Shinto-based Japanese cultic belief in their racial supremacy as descendants of the gods (which blended with Darwinism to view Europeans with longer arms and hairy chests as closer to the apes); the Black Power Movement; the Nation of Islam etc., are all examples of â€˜racialâ€™ idolatry.
Yet from the scriptural standpoint, there are no distinct â€˜racesâ€™ â€“ there is only the human race (i.e. one human family), traced back to our common first parents, Adam and Eve and then Noah and his family after the great deluge. Every person on the face of the earth today is a descendent of the brothers Ham, Shem and Japheth. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and the monumental historical moment at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 give us a broad overview of the spreading out and distribution of the human family and the emergence of various peoples and tribes from ancient times. This diaspora led to the development of distinct cultures with different inherited genetic characteristics as the peoples moved out across the world and became more geographically isolated. In Acts 17:26-27, within a cosmopolitan Roman Empire, the apostle Paul points out that this was Godâ€™s doing and that we are all of â€œone manâ€ (or one blood). Paul elsewhere reminds us that all ethnicity-based divisions are overcome by the gospel (Eph. 2:11-14, 21-22), a living reality that creates one new person in Christ, since we are all Abrahamâ€™s seed and heirs by faith (Gal. 3:27-29).
In Acts 2, the Day of Pentecost actually reverses the divisions of Babel, for with the giving of the Holy Spirit, people from all over the known world hear the gospel in their own language by the miracle of tongues. The renewed covenant people, a multi-ethnic Christian church, is therefore a new humanity in Jesus Christ and is truly a new race born anew in the last Adam, irrespective of national or ethnic background. Godâ€™s people are called from every tribe, tongue, people and nation having been made one kingdom of priests unto God (Rev. 7:9-10). As such, Scripture-upholding Christians have a unique contribution to make in addressing and resisting the tearing apart of society along the lines of skin color through race baiting and identity politics, or revolutionary action rooted in resentment, hatred and vengeance. Only the gospel of the kingdom that announces jubilee in Jesus Christ is able to bring reconciliation where oppression, hatred or resentment, conflict and acts of vengeance between peoples once reigned. Every revolutionary movement setting out to right wrongs whilst not grounded in scriptural truth and the reconciling work and Lordship of Jesus Christ constitutes a counterfeit jubilee and a political gospel of false guilt, phoney confessions, fictitious atonement, larcenous restitution and artificial forgiveness.
Culture, Religion and Skin Colour
The sinister attempt to put people at war with each other and divide society has involved the co-opting of black identity and culture by a movement of radicals and then putting it to a political purpose in the name of social justice. The agenda rings increasingly hollow as the demonstrations, violence and lawlessness have continued, and especially as more brave black voices have spoken out against what is taking place. Key to the attempt to divide is a one- sided and revisionist interpretation of cultural history that seeks to paint one ethnic and cultural group as the oppressive cause of all societyâ€™s ills, with everyone else as victims.
Although throughout history there has always been prejudice, resentment and the mistreatment of fellow image-bearers on every continent (and always will be till the fullness of Christâ€™s kingdom comes), remarkable cultural progress has been made, particularly in Western society and most especially through Christians like William Wilberforce, Charles G. Finney and Martin Luther King, in overcoming laws and practices that enslaved or discriminated against people â€“ in some cases on the basis of their skin color.
Because of this cultural struggle in terms of biblically derived principles, today, I am aware of no existing public law within the United States, Canada or the United Kingdom that discriminates against any person based on ethnicity. Indebted to the Christian gospel, the Anglo-American tradition has emphasized the rule of law resting on the equal dignity and worth of every human being, made in the image of God. Of course, this legal reality does not rule out the presence of ethnic prejudice or resentment in the hearts of some people any more than the rule of law can eliminate pride or lust leading to various other sins. But not all sins are crimes punishable by the state. We cannot criminally or legally punish people for feelings of resentment toward Asians, indigenous peoples, blacks or whites. As Christians we can only call people to repentance in Christ so that hearts are changed, and the life of the kingdom made manifest.
To stir animosity, hatred and division, in much the same way that radical Islamic movements constantly rehearse the alleged evil of the crusades, a great deal has been made by the BLM agitators of the African slave trade and the supposed need to tear down statues, portraits or symbols of anyone or anything associated with it either directly, indirectly or even by mere cultural association. Although the implications of the transatlantic slave trade and the later Democratic party Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in the southern United States must not be overlooked in understanding the economic and psychological situation of some in the black community today , on their own these deficits simply cannot account for the lagging status of many in the black community. The fact is, almost every civilized nation at one time consisted of multitudes of slaves, even in majority in some cities in Southeast Asia. Whites, Asians, the peoples of the Middle East, as well as blacks, have been repeatedly enslaved; the institution of slavery itself is not inherently based on race, as most slaves have been of the same ethnic origin as their enslavers. There were more slaves in India than the entire Western Hemisphere during the era of slavery. China had one of the largest and comprehensive slave markets known to man, and the Islamic nations, even to this day in some of the African nations, have seen the ubiquity of slavery to the extent that slaves were part of the money of the African economy. Interestingly, the word â€˜slaveâ€™ is actually derived from the name of a European people â€“ Slavs â€“ a region enslaved long before an African was bought as a slave by a European and brought to the West.
These facts have been carefully explored by one of Americaâ€™s foremost intellectuals and economists, Thomas Sowell. As a black man growing up in underprivileged circumstances and for many years a devoted Marxist, Sowellâ€™s intellectual clarity, insight and honesty in pursuit of the truth has won him widespread respect and admiration. Sowell has shown that, contrary to the claims of BLM protestors and the Western intelligentsia supporting them, the Christianized West led the world in freedom, opportunity, prosperity and opposition to slavery. He comments:
What was peculiar about Western society was not that it had slaves, like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery â€“ and that it spent more than a century destroying slavery, not only within Western civilization itself, but also in other countries around the world, over the often bitter and sometimes armed resistance of people in other societies. Only the overwhelming military power of Western nations during the age of imperialism made this possible. Slavery did not quietly die down of its own accord. It went down fighting to the bitter end, in countries around the world, and it is still not totally died out in parts of the Middle East and Africa.
Sowell further demonstrates that it is not a history involving slavery, but cultural attitudes, behaviours and beliefs which are the main predictors of outcome in life for all people. Skin color plays a relatively minor role in modern Western society. For example, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that nationwide, the average black 12th grader reads at the level of a white 8th grader, yet charter students in Harlem at schools like KIPP and Democracy Prep are outperforming their white peers in wealthy suburbs. Sowell writes, â€œmany of the schools that have been successful with black students have gone against the cultural values that permeate ghetto communities.â€
The ghetto culture of some black communities is frequently represented or regarded as authentic Black Culture, especially by the politically correct white community, but it isnâ€™t authentic or Black when you examine its cultural history. Sowell has shown in a collection of essays entitled Black Rednecks and White Liberals, that many of the behaviours, mannerisms, ways of speaking and attitudes common to this â€˜ghetto cultureâ€™ were absorbed by some blacks from white redneck culture in the antebellum South. This â€˜redneckâ€™ culture in turn was imported from the â€˜cracker cultureâ€™ of the Anglo-Scottish border areas â€“ a lawless clan region with a dysfunctional society and conflicted allegiances. Sexual promiscuity, work aversion, drunkenness, propensity for violence and a despising of education were characteristic of this area. Significant numbers from these communities emigrated to the southern US where clusters of these attitudes became endemic in segments of white society and were picked up by some black communities. So the present challenges of violent crime, sexual promiscuity, family breakdown and hostility to education and work found in some segments of the black community have no claim to being â€˜black culture.â€™ The very idea is an insult to millions of hardworking, successful and high-achieving blacks across the West.
In view of this observation, the present attempts to condemn law-enforcement agencies as systemically racist, and to slander police officers dealing with this cracker culture on a daily basis as â€˜racistsâ€™ out to â€˜shoot blacks,â€™ are both dangerous and misplaced, as well as contrary to the most careful national studies of policing in the United States. As the lead researcher in one major study, Joseph Cesario, associate professor of psychology at Michigan State, has commented:
Our data show that the rate of crime by each racial group correlates with the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings.
In a 2019 article by Tom Kennedy covering the research, he comments:
The professor said that by connecting the findings of police officer race, victim race and crime rates, the research suggests that the best way to understand police shootings isnâ€™t racial bias of the police officer; rather, by the exposure to police officers through crime. The vast majority â€“ between 90 and 95 percent â€“ of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot. Ninety percent also were armed with a weapon when they were shot. The horrific cases of accidental shootings, like mistaking a cell phone for a gun, are rare, Cesario said. â€œWe hear about the really horrendous and tragic cases of police shootings for a reason: theyâ€™re awful cases, they have major implications for police-community relations and so they should get attention,â€ Cesario said.
As we have already seen, there are inevitable disparities and inequalities of outcome for people in every society around the world, as well as between nations themselves. Thomas Sowell, who is not a Christian, has demonstrated persuasively that these disparities are overwhelmingly the result of cultural beliefs and practices. Institutions within society may convey those disparities, but it is quite another matter to say they cause them. What we believe and practice in regard to sexual morality, marriage and family life, discipline and hard work, all have profound implications for social, vocational and economic outcomes, whatever our ethnic background. Until 1960, about two thirds of black children were living in two-parent families. Today, the fact that 75% of young black men in America donâ€™t have a father in their life will inevitably cause disparities and inequalities that the rule of law is powerless to fix. This is because the roots of the problem are religious and cultural, not political or institutional. We are frequently told that poverty is the real cause of criminality, but there is less poverty today in the black community than in 1950 when imprisonment of black males was lower. The same trajectory is seen in Britain among lower-class whites where a burgeoning counterproductive underclass has been created by social democratic state policy amidst the collapse of the family. The reality is, since 1994, the poverty rate among black husband-wife families has been below ten percent, but these families, whilst living with the same external system, represent a different internal culture and values.
To say these things involves accepting the idea that judgments about cultural values are necessary to make progress. It means embracing the truth that some beliefs and values are superior to others morally, socially, rationally, historically and culturally. The progressive dogma that all cultural attitudes, beliefs and practices must be regarded as equal is part of the New Leftâ€™s egalitarian delusion and totally destructive of progress for any nation or community. Without doubt, it has been the borrowings of cultural and technological insights between civilizations and nations for thousands of years, substituting various features for â€˜betterâ€™ ones that has led to development, progress and prosperity. The progressive dogma of multiculturalism which refuses to judge beliefs, values and practices in terms of transcendent, transcultural and trans-historical norms inevitably handicaps people in the real world. As Sowell writes:
The promotion of separate group identities not only fragments society into warring factions, it keeps those groups that are lagging â€“ whether lagging economically or educationally or both â€“ from fully utilizing the existing culture of the larger society around them for their own advancement.
Multiculturalism, like the caste system, tends to freeze people where the accident of birth has placed them. Unlike the caste system, multiculturalism holds out the prospect that, all cultures being equal, oneâ€™s life chances should be the same â€“ and that itâ€™s societies fault if these chances are not the same. Although both caste and multiculturalism suppress individual opportunities, they differ primarily in that the caste system preaches resignation to onesâ€™ fate and multiculturalism preaches resentment of oneâ€™s fate.
Once again, identity ideology and multiculturalism, the thought products of European intellectuals in the grip of hatred of the Christian legacy, actually hold down the very people they claim to be helping.
Freedom, Atonement and Keeping the Faith
Shame and guilt are not uniquely Christian ideas â€“ they are part of the universal human experience. However, it is only Christianity that articulates a way to effectively deal with shame and guilt, by nailing it to the cross of Christ. If people reject the idea that they have sinned against a holy God, that rejection does not get rid of sin or its attendant guilt and shame, it just forces them to place it on something other than the cross, and nothing but the cross can bear that weight.
In our time, the chosen instrument for attempted expiation of sin is in the realm of politics. As the late Armenian-American scholar, R. J. Rushdoony pointed out, â€œMan cannot get rid of the burden of sin by himself. Man tries, first, either to pay for his sins himself by masochistic activity, a futile process, or second to make others pay for them through sadistic activities. Both activities lead to sick lives and sick societiesâ€¦[in addition] the political cultivation of guilt is a central means to power, for guilty men are slaves; their conscience is in bondage and hence they are easily made objects of control.â€
The politics of guilt with its gospel of social justice offers a form of atonement that leads only to enslavement in the hearts of individuals and in society. The BLM agitatorsâ€™ motive in our time appears increasingly sadistic in their desire to lay on groups in society (the police, government officials, whites etc.,) , the burden of sin and guilt, whilst the media enablers and political cultivators of guilt, taking a knee and prostrating themselves in false confession and repentance, are caught in a masochistic motive of self-atonement in the hopes of clinging to power and control and manipulating people in terms of their ideological purpose. But the result for everyone of this utopian project is only more societal sickness and enslavement because there is no remission for sin or true reconciliation outside of Jesus Christ. Whatever oneâ€™s ethnicity, only a person and culture that is grounded in the atonement of Jesus Christ can know what it means to be free from guilt and shame personally, move toward freedom socially through reconciliation and restitution and build a free society.
It should not be surprising to Christians that we feel increasing pressure to respond to the protests and demonstrations and calls for social justice. As believers, we want to be on the side of righteousness and justice because our desire is to be on the Lordâ€™s side. But we frequently hear the voices, even of churchmen and clergy, that sow confusion of mind. We have been indoctrinated in the West by our own intelligentsia for decades to believe that we are guilty for being Christians. If you are of European or British descent, we have the added guilt of your â€˜whiteness.â€™ If you are black and donâ€™t support the revolution, you are dismissed as an Uncle Tom or coconut. If you are indigenous or another ethnic minority you may be frequently written off as a traitor, as â€˜not speakingâ€™ for your ethnic community.
The inference of the ongoing social revolution is that though Christians must recognise all the â€˜identity rightsâ€™ of others, believers have no right to their identity. And this is a great tragedy for our culture because the liberating identity of those in the covenant of grace transcends skin color and ethnic origin and refuses to look at the world in terms of us and them, oppressors versus oppressed, but grasps all reality in light of our Creation, Fall and Redemption as a human race. This is a gospel of new birth and inner renewal that results in a cosmic creational, cultural and social healing revealed in the scriptures and manifest through the Lord Jesus Christ who is reconciling us to God and one another as one covenant people â€˜in Him!â€™ There is no other message and no other community like it â€“ it is the community of the King of kings.
So in spite of the difficulties and the intimidation frequently faced when standing for Christ and His Word, we must remember that because of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, Godâ€™s justice has been satisfied, our consciences have been cleansed and we have been delivered from bondage into the culture of Christian liberty â€“ the kingdom of God. In this culture we can love and serve others and the cause of Godâ€™s justice with hope and joy knowing that if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed! (John 8:36). â€œFor this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faithâ€ (1 John 5:4).
 Jan Dengerink, The Idea of Justice in Christian Perspective (Toronto: Wedge Publishing, 1978), 20
 Andrew Sandlin, A July 4th Worldview Clash, https://pandrewsandlin.substack.com/p/a-july-4-worldview-clash?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5MTU3MTgzLCJwb3N0X2lkIjo2MDU5MzgsIl8iOiJhckRLayIsImlhdCI6MTU5Mzc5NTAwMywiZXhwIjoxNTkzNzk4NjAzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzY0NDIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.ovFddJTH6i6yHuWZI76iLE3-fQnjEzLbHlXQBi566Xw&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share
 Roger Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 14-15.
 See Larry Elder, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3nInyPuFE
See also, https://www.theblaze.com/news/marcellus-wiley-delivers-passionate-argument-against-nba-painting-black-lives-matter-on-courts?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202020-07-03&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days
Caution: the language is coarse in this article and interview. https://www.theblaze.com/news/rapper-decries-blm-george-soros?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202020-07-03&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days
 See Thomas Sowellâ€™s brilliant discussion in, Intellectuals and Society (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 479-482.
 Sowell, Intellectuals, 479-480.
 Sowell, Intellectuals, 463.
 See also Carl Wielandâ€™s discussion in, One Human Family: The Bible, Science, Race and Culture (Atlanta: Creation Book Publishers), 246 ff.
 Sowell, Intellectuals, 476
 Sowell, Intellectuals, 477
 Sowell, Intellectuals, 465, 471
 R. J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1995), 17,19.
 See the recent laments of the Archbishop of Canterbury: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/06/28/justin-welby-rewriting-principles-hold-societies-together/