A global information war crisis. Ukraine, the far right attack on Abortion and Attacks in favor of Racial segregation all co ordinated by Putin.
It is not just Ukraine which is ablaze. The far right in America, i.e. the anti abortionists are backed by Putin and the Kremlin mafia. So are outlier forces petitioning the US Supreme court to re instate racial segregation by invalidating the SCOTUS 1954 ruling which desegregated US education.
In a word, Putin, and the far right in America have merged , and the critical datum is to wreck nation states by any means necessary. The US Supreme court rulings are backed by those whom are seeking to tear America apart in a new Civil War. Behind the appointment of Kauvanaugh and also the other two supreme court Justices, i.e. especially Barrett was a plan to make the court so out of sync with public opinion as to wreck the United States
Behind Barret, and her appointment to the US Supreme court was a desire to enforce the permament disunion of the United States, and boys and girls it is all KREMLIN originated and hot housed
The challenge before NATO is stated next
quote
Despite Ukraine not being a member of the Alliance, the outcome of the war is critical to NATO, European security, and the principle that aggressors cannot redraw international borders by force. NATO has now stated that ‘A strong, independent Ukraine is vital for the stability of the Euro-Atlantic area’, and it must follow through with action. However, the announced enhancements to NATO’s defence and deterrence posture will come at an eyewatering cost to NATO common funding, which will fall on national defence ministry budgets that are already under strain when it comes to delivering extant equipment budgets. Moreover, with economies hit by the coronavirus pandemic, the cost of living, and inflationary pressure, the ability to sustain political will on NATO funding will diminish.
Critical to this will be the ability of governments to communicate the Russian threat to their populations clearly and transparently. They need to effectively bring to life national security risk assessments to make the case for sustained higher spending, and ‘Putin equals bad’ messaging is insufficient.
end of quote
That is the NATO problem
The USA problem is to clearly understand that the backers of the mis named Federalist society are often financed by Kremlin money, or the money of those in sync with the Kremlin for the explicit purpose of wrecking the American nation
See this
quote
On the Sunday after the Supreme Court reversed a decades-old ruling that legalized abortions in the U.S., Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert spoke to a crowd at a church in Colorado. Among other things, Boebert complained that faith communities have long had to deal with laws in the U.S. that they don't agree with.
"The church is supposed to direct the government," she said. "The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I am tired of this separation of church and state junk. It's not in the Constitution."
Of course, the Constitution does explicitly ban the establishment of a specific religion. It's in the First Amendment.
Republican Reps. Mary Miller of Illinois, left, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado appear at a Save America rally with former President Donald Trump at the Adams County Fairgrounds on June 25, 2022, in Mendon, Ill.
end of quote
Bluntly put, Boeberts friends are backed by Putin and the Kremlin Mafia. i.e. this talk by Boebert is as deadly a threat to America as the assault by Putin in Ukraine and needs to be understood as such
It is all one unified threat. Boeberts friends report to the Kremlin. Don't believe it ? Shut your eyes if you will but playing Ostrich will NOT make the problem go away. The Mis named White evangelicals, shrinking in population which to shear the US Nation apart, much as the Boers wish to do in South Africa, to establish their own mini states, with crazy pseudo Christian fascist dictator governments. And all these blessed and backed by the Kremlin. We need to wake up and face it, much as NATO has to wake up. For much the same reason.
New Concepts but Old Problems: NATO’s New Strategic Concept
Ed?Arnold1 July 2022
9 Minute Read
SHARE
The plans for NATO outlined at the Madrid summit include some major changes to the Alliance’s posture. But the real work starts now in translating political rhetoric into action.
NATO has unveiled its new Strategic Concept, which defines the Alliance’s purpose to 2030. It’s the eighth in its history and comes at a decisive time for the Alliance, as large-scale land warfare returns to the European continent. Even excluding the war in Ukraine, this week’s Madrid summit would have been significant.
NATO has struggled to articulate its purpose since the end of the Cold War and especially since the 9/11 attacks, after which terrorism dominated the international security agenda. Since the previous strategic concept the Alliance has had to weather rising political tensions – on both sides of the Atlantic – during the Donald Trump presidency, including French President Emmanuel?Macron accusing the organisation of becoming ‘braindead’. Operationally, NATO experienced strategic failure in Afghanistan – its most ambitious mission – brutally underlined by the 2021 fall of Kabul and the chaotic withdrawal of Western forces. The 2011 intervention in Libya produced no better outcomes. Fighting these expeditionary operations has bent the Alliance out of shape and made it more difficult to reconfigure towards conventional warfighting in Europe.
Combined with the war in Ukraine and renewed Russian aggression, the Madrid summit was an opportunity for NATO to draw a line under a 20-year period of ‘out of area’ crisis management operations, and a chance to go back to basics and focus on its core purpose: the collective defence of the Euro-Atlantic area.
Reprioritisation not Revolution
The?new strategic concept?is the first since the Lisbon summit 12 years ago and reflects the changes in the strategic environment in several ways. First, Lisbon assessed that ‘the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace and the threat of a conventional attack against NATO territory is low’, whereas now the ‘the Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace… We cannot discount the possibility of an attack against Allies’ sovereignty and territorial integrity’. Second, Lisbon described a desire ‘to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia’, a country now identified as ‘the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area’. Third, China did not receive a single mention in 2010; now, it is described as a ‘systemic challenge’ to Euro-Atlantic security. Furthermore, the relationship between Russia and China is described as a ‘deepening strategic partnership’ which is also likely to threaten the Alliance. And then, the latest strategy document declares that ‘hybrid operations against Allies could reach the level of armed attack and could lead the North Atlantic Council to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty’ – a mention which, although hazy, features for the first time in an official document.
The wording has changed, but the core tasks remain broadly the same: defence and deterrence (previously collective defence), crisis?prevention?and management (previously just crisis management), and cooperative security. The document reprioritises away from crisis management and towards defence and deterrence. Surprisingly, given the importance of environmental issues, ‘resilience’ does not become a core task, but the cross-cutting importance of technological innovation, climate change, human security and the ‘Women, Peace and Security agenda’ all support the core tasks.
The Defence and Deterrence of the Euro-Atlantic Area
While it dominated the discussion, the Madrid summit was not just about the Strategic Concept.
While a lot of effort has gone into building consensus for Madrid, in many ways the hard work starts now
Operationally, NATO has announced a significant hardening of its defence and deterrence posture to be able to ‘defend every inch of Allied territory’ and recommitted to a 360-degree approach to security through several enhancements. First, there is a?doubling from four to eight multinational battlegroups?in Eastern Europe, which has already led to a near-tenfold increase in troops deployed to the Eastern flank. Moreover, these battlegroups will soon include brigade headquarters to rapidly scale up posture if necessary, with associated NATO reinforcement plans at ‘short and no notice’. Second, the?NATO Response Force (NRF) has been expanded from 40,000 to over 300,000 troops, to be held at higher levels of readiness. Third, in a complete antithesis to President Vladimir Putin’s intent, Sweden and Finland will now be able to join the Alliance, after Turkey withdrew its objections in time for Madrid, significantly enhancing political unity.
The eventual accession of Finland and Sweden will expand the Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s (SACEUR) land area of operations by over 866,000 square kilometres. It also changes the European security architecture in more subtle ways. For example, it means that seven out of eight Arctic Council members will also be NATO members, changing the dynamic at a time when NATO needs to?cooperate with Russia on climate security, which is also heavily stressed in the new Strategic Concept. Moreover, NATO and the EU are now more closely aligned in terms of their membership – only Austria, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta are members of the EU but not NATO – at exactly the moment when European states need to step up defensively.
These announcements are politically momentous, but also entail a huge risk. The big troop increases will be very expensive as member states experience increasing spending pressures. If these statements are not backed up (there are a total of 71 ‘we will’ commitments across 11 pages), the Alliance could lose trust and credibility, and therefore effective deterrence. There is also the real possibility of opening old wounds on burden sharing, especially between the US and European allies, which could further destabilise the Alliance, especially if a Trump-like character is able to secure election to the White House in 2024. European security documents and communiques, both from NATO and the EU, are graveyards of unrealised rapid reaction force ambitions which were luckily never tested by the security environment. It is politically unacceptable to Eastern members to continue to tolerate this risk. There are already?reports that cast real doubt on the ability to realise the new force model.
How Much Does the Strategic Concept Actually Matter?
Politically, the Strategic Concept and the unity it represents are very important. However, militarily and operationally, it is less significant. The 2010 Strategic Concept had been moribund since at least 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but of course NATO has still been operating effectively since. While a lot of effort has gone into building consensus for Madrid, in many ways the hard work starts now.
There is a coherence issue. The Strategic Concept, as NATO’s strategy, comes after the two main plans – SACEUR’s?Concept for the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area?and the future?NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept?– have already matured. There was tacit acknowledgement at the Madrid summit that many underlying operational plans would have to be revised. However, with NATO’s strategy transforming, mere tweaks to plans do not seem sufficient, and their core assumptions should be revisited. For NATO’s Warfighting Capstone Concept – how it fights in the future – it is imperative that analysis of Russia’s military performance in Ukraine now becomes the backbone for its development.
Moreover, despite the collective might of NATO, it cannot do everything, and the commitment at the 2015 Warsaw summit to a ‘360-degree approach’ to security – both thematically and geographically – risks overstretch. In a hardening world, the Alliance must take the opportunity to go back to its roots and seek support from other actors, such as the EU. It is still expected that a NATO–EU joint declaration will materialise before the end of the year.
NATO’s Russia Problem
The new Strategic Concept identifies and defines the Russian threat for the remainder of the decade. But threat identification is only half of the job, and ‘threat mitigation’ – or the actual activity – is the priority. In this regard, the document lacks the vision and a realistic timeframe for understanding the parameters of the NATO–Russia confrontation.
With economies hit by the coronavirus pandemic, the cost of living, and inflationary pressure, the ability to sustain political will on NATO funding will diminish
This is not just a NATO issue, but its self-declared ‘unique, essential and indispensable’ role in European security is important in influencing and managing Russian behaviour. The Strategic Concept states that ‘Strategic stability, delivered through effective deterrence and defence, arms control and disarmament, and meaningful and reciprocal political dialogue remains essential to our security’. To achieve this, it is first critical to understand which key tenets of European security, or parts thereof, are still in play; what can be built on; and what must be discarded. This applies to the?Washington Treaty 1949; the?Helsinki Final Act 1975; the?Charter of Paris for a New Europe 1990; the?NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997; the?OSCE Istanbul Document 1999; and the?Vienna Document 2011. Moreover, the?Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 1990, the?Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 1987, the?Treaty on Open Skies 1992, and the?Chemical Weapons Convention 1993?all appear moribund, albeit for different reasons.
It is important that future engagement with Russia is designed in a way that incentivises cooperation and builds a structure for dialogue that reflects the future strategic environment, rather than the context of the Cold War. The fundamental problem is a lack of trust on both sides, and therefore a low likelihood of compliance if an agreement could be achieved. Collective security is not necessarily dead, but it might have to take a back seat for a while as we return to balance-of-power politics for the foreseeable future. NATO members need to be prepared for the consequences.
In for the Long Haul
Despite Ukraine not being a member of the Alliance, the outcome of the war is critical to NATO, European security, and the principle that aggressors cannot redraw international borders by force. NATO has now stated that ‘A strong, independent Ukraine is vital for the stability of the Euro-Atlantic area’, and it must follow through with action. However, the announced enhancements to NATO’s defence and deterrence posture will come at an eyewatering cost to NATO common funding, which will fall on national defence ministry budgets that are already under strain when it comes to delivering extant equipment budgets. Moreover, with economies hit by the coronavirus pandemic, the cost of living, and inflationary pressure, the ability to sustain political will on NATO funding will diminish.
Critical to this will be the ability of governments to communicate the Russian threat to their populations clearly and transparently. They need to effectively bring to life national security risk assessments to make the case for sustained higher spending, and ‘Putin equals bad’ messaging is insufficient. This struggle goes beyond Putin, and we need to ensure we don’t make the mistake of assuming that what comes next is automatically better.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea was a wakeup call that the Alliance didn’t fully grasp. Some modest transformation did occur, such as the creation of the NRF and Enhanced Forward Presence, as well as the recommitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence by 2024 at the 2014 Wales summit. However, the political rhetoric was not backed by commitment, which weakened NATO deterrence and might have inadvertently influenced Putin’s decision-making calculus towards Ukraine. If NATO fails to translate words into action now, it could be fatal for the Alliance.
The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.
Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to?[email protected]?and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found?here.
KEYWORDSTopics
Regions and Country Groups
Research Groups
WRITTEN BY
end of quote
This is tandem to the deliberate nation wrecking calculus whom works for Putin, in the misnamed Cultural wars, i.e. see this
https://dailysoundandfury.com/senator-wants-return-of-segregation/
quote
Senator wants Return of Segregation
July 1, 2022?
After the devastating reversal of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS this week which prohibits women from having bodily autonomy, US Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) used the opportunity to make another request from the US Supreme Court; reverse Plessy vs. Ferguson/Board of Education and reinstitute legal segregation of races.
Homer Plessy, a biracial Man, was arrested in 1892 for sitting in the Whites-Only section of a passenger train that was taking him from New Orleans to Covington, a short journey by standards of the day. The conductor of the train demanded Plessy move to the section reserved for Black people even though the White’s- only section of the train was empty, so Plessy refused.
Mr. Plessy deeply disapproved of segregation of the law instituted two years prior which included segregation on train cars. This led him to test the limits of the law itself and demonstrate its abuse and unconstitutionality.
He was charged and convicted in court by the presiding Judge, John H. Ferguson. Ferguson claimed in his ruling that segregation of the races was a constitutional law that still favored the “Separate but Equal” doctrine.
Mr. Plessy then sued Judge Ferguson for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Plessy and other Black activists and allies at the time had been attempting to mobilize the community to fight back against the avalanche of Jim Crow laws that were legitimizing bigotry and weaponizing legislation to harm Black Americans.
领英推荐
And he lost.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that “Separate but Equal” functioned in a way that satisfied the constitution, using that as justification for continued segregation and discrimination.?According to History.com; “The Court denied that segregated railroad cars for Black people were necessarily inferior. “We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy’s] argument,” Justice Henry Brown wrote, ‘to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.’”
Only one Judge dissented from the ruling, Justice John Marshall Harlan who had, himself, disagreed that slaves should be free or be granted any civil rights. However, he changed his position on the case largely because of the atrocious acts committed by White Nationalist groups like The Ku Klux Klan who have often created and taken the law into their own hands where it concerned the Black community throughout the South.
It wasn’t until 1954 when the Landmark ruling for Brown vs. Board of Education came down that the US Supreme Court revisited Plessy’s case from nearly 50 years prior when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his ruling that “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and that segregation in public schools had been “inherently unequal.” The majority of the Supreme Court Justices sided with the plaintiff’s in the Brown case and had determined that the Black community was indeed being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
Overturning Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education means segregation would be returned to the individual states to determine instead of a Federal law.
I’ve frequently spoken about how profoundly emboldened Trump acolytes serving in the highest echelons of government have become with their bigotry, but Senator Cornyn’s public missive, enthusiastically expressing his desire to use the majority Conservative Supreme Court to legitimize discrimination by enshrining it into law once again should absolutely terrify everyone. This archaic attitude regarding race should never be tolerated, especially from a lawmaker.
This is where we are, with the new Supreme Court comprised of Trump-Era conservative Judges willing to revoke rights to suit a religious ideology and show off their intolerance like a boy scout badge they’re proud of. This is unforgivable and certainly makes it evident what Cornyn’s intentions are.
Justice Clarence Thomas has signaled that he is?urging the Supreme Court to also revisit other landmark rulings with the intent to overturn them, including equal marriage, contraception access and the decriminalization of gay sex. With all that’s happened, this should be considered an inevitability now that all laws not codified are the target.
It should be noted that the Texas GOP submitted a resolution to reject the results of the 2020 election and live in a fantasy world where the former President is still the President. They’ve also discusses seceding from the US, claiming that “Woke Culture” is destroying the country.
At this point, if Cornyn’s vile comments represent the entirety of the Texas political body, I’d be happy to see them go. They do not represent America, and it’s becoming more evident by the day.?It’s also quite staggering that a man saturated by privilege and holding one of the most respected seats in the nation can boast about such divisive and hostile beliefs yet somehow still serve from that seat without a shred of shame.
We’ve normalized this behavior from our leaders now. They’re emboldened by their impunity. We as a people have accepted more than any population of any country ever should. We are lied to, manipulated, referred to as teams emphasizing their polarizing efforts to appeal to only one ilk of the American melting pot. Today, a Trump-endorsed candidate for Illinois state Congress, Mary Miller, told those at her rally that “Hitler got one thing right… Whoever has the youth has the future.” She said, referencing the necessity of recruiting youth into the GOP movement.
They aren’t even being discreet about their prejudices anymore because they’ve never seen one of them pay any political consequences. America is a country where a President can attempt a coup by manipulating millions of people into believing they are victims, carry on with the big lie of a stolen election, commit more crimes than a Chicago gangster in the 30’s…. and run for President again. We have come to expect and accept this corrosive behavior from powerful men. We feel powerless as a community, we’ve witnessed unthinkable assaults on our better sensibilities only to see no one pay any consequences. This has resulted in these politicians feeling incredibly brave- fearless even- because… what are you gunna do about it?
And I suppose that’s a fair question.
Until then, I’ll leave you with more commentary from this sitting Senator who will be running for re-election.
Just pondering Mussolini…
Disappointed at the shifting demographic of his State means white people won’t always be the majority.
More cops, more guns, pushing that Texas rumor that the State motto is actually God, Guns and Glory.
On the reversal of Roe v Wade:
Oh, the horrors…
Senator Cornyn’s supporters have defended the lawmaker’s tweet claiming that he was simply using those cases to remind the public that there had, in the past, been rulings that were reversed. Brown vs. Board of Education overrode the previous Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling, once and for all abolishing segregation. But, that was a positive move by the Supreme Court. Senator Cornyn, merely hours after the brief was handed down that revoked Roe v Wade, tweeted “Now do Plessy vs. Ferguson/Brown vs. Board of Education” in a response to the first Black President. I don’t believe for a moment Cornyn was simply enlightening us, I believe he was rallying a call to action in hopes of reinstituting segregation. “Now do…” is a directive. Not everyone believes the excuse.?BET.com says, “…the comparison is puzzling considering Roe, similar to Brown, established rights for people, while its reversal removed them.” Others agreed across social media.
Liked it? Take a second to support Jake Jackson on Patreon!
end of quote
Also see this
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/01/1109141110/the-christian-right-is-winning-cultural-battles-while-public-opinion-disagrees
quote
The Christian Right is winning in court while losing in public opinion
Former President Donald Trump gives the keynote address at the Faith & Freedom Coalition during its annual "Road To Majority Policy Conference" at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center June 17, 2022, in Nashville, Tenn.
Seth Herald/Getty Images
There's an influential minority of Americans who envision the United States as a Christian nation. Lately, this group has been making significant progress in its mission. Recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court reversing?Roe v. Wade?and?protecting prayer in schools?are chief among these victories.
These legal wins for the Christian Right, though, are happening at a time when a growing majority of Americans are strongly opposed to their views.
"This is the most disproportionate power that the Christian Right has had in my lifetime," says Robert Jones, CEO and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute — a nonpartisan group that conducts research on the intersection of politics, culture and religion.
Church and state
More and more white evangelical Christians are now talking about the U.S. as a Christian nation in ways that verge on or outright embrace Christian nationalism — the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation and its laws should be rooted in the Bible.
On the Sunday after the Supreme Court reversed a decades-old ruling that legalized abortions in the U.S., Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert spoke to a crowd at a church in Colorado. Among other things, Boebert complained that faith communities have long had to deal with laws in the U.S. that they don't agree with.
"The church is supposed to direct the government," she said. "The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I am tired of this separation of church and state junk. It's not in the Constitution."
Of course, the Constitution does explicitly ban the establishment of a specific religion. It's in the First Amendment.
Republican Reps. Mary Miller of Illinois, left, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado appear at a Save America rally with former President Donald Trump at the Adams County Fairgrounds on June 25, 2022, in Mendon, Ill.
Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images
But Timothy Head, executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says he thinks that part of the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with religion.
"Not to keep anybody that holds a religious view out of government," he said. "All of us have certain kinds of worldviews. Some of those are based on college professors, or your favorite philosophers, or a comedian somewhere. It just so happens that some people base their worldview on biblical teachings."
Jones said even though the Christian Right is currently as emboldened as it's ever been in a long time, it is not winning over public opinion.
"White evangelicals in particular have lost a lot of ground," Jones said.
Moral minority
Since at least 2008, white evangelicals have been shrinking in population size, and median age – now 56 – has been climbing. During the Christian Right's heyday in the 1970s and 80s, though, Jones says it was aligned with most of the country.
"When they said things like 'We are the moral majority,' there was a kind of truth to that – even if it wasn't a demographic truth," he said. "If you look at some of the issues, for example, like same-sex marriage, most of the country agreed with them."
But those days are gone. Jones said about seven in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage now – and that number also keeps growing. And about six in 10 Americans say abortion should be legal in the U.S.
Amelia Fulbright, a progressive pastor at the Congregational Church of Austin, said religious communities should not expect to see their particular theology reflected in the country's laws.
"I don't think it is the role of faith communities to use politics to impose their worldview on others," she says.
Fulbright has spent almost a decade advocating for the rights of LGBTQ people, as well as abortion rights, in Texas. She said in the past few years Republican state lawmakers have been crossing a line — making the case for laws by citing Christian ideas.
"There is not even an effort to conceal that these are theological ideas – that there is just a full-throated unapologetic attempt to impose a certain Christian worldview on everyone else.
Fulbright said for years she relied on the Supreme Court to block laws in Texas that were explicitly rooted in Christian theology. But since Republicans secured a conservative majority on the court, Fulbright and others say those guardrails have been knocked down.
A spiritual battle
Tim Whitaker, creator of a group called The New Evangelicals, says this is how the Christian Right has decided to respond to waning public opinion — instead of embracing changing views.
"White evangelicalism rejects pluralism – completely," he said. "They do not see themselves as coexisting with other religious views or other sexuality ethic views. They see it as a spiritual battle and they are on God's side."
Whitaker, who created his group to counteract less tolerant strains of evangelicalism, said decades of this sort of campaigning has amounted to an immense amount of influence, particularly in the Republican Party.
"When they start getting a taste – a small taste – of just making room for other viewpoints, that's perceived as a loss of power," he said. "And then they campaign on that."
Donald Trump put three anti abortion-rights justices on the Supreme Court in his four years in office, delivering on an essential campaign promise to the Christian Right. These groups have also galvanized power in state legislatures across the country.
Head dismissed the assertion that Christian conservatives are trying to push their views on everyone.
"I don't think that religious views or Christian people should be given special positions," he said, "but they also shouldn't be excluded from the public discourse either."
And while Whitaker said not all Christian conservatives support extreme views like Christian nationalism, an influential number of them do.
"It truly does concern for the future of the country because ultimately Christian nationalism is not about democracy," he says. "It's really about – I hate to use such blunt language – but it's really more about theocracy."
Jones said he also sees the Christian Right beginning to part with democratic norms. For example, many Christian conservatives have been supporting voting restrictions and backing Trump's election lies. Jones said it's one of the ways they can make sure their country is a Christian nation.
"I think we are seeing the last kind of desperate grasp – that by the way includes violence – that is kind of a desperate attempt to kind of hold on to that vision of the country and to hold on to power," he says.
Ultimately, Jones said, this period in American history could be a hingepoint for democracy.
"I think if we can protect our democratic institutions and we can weather these attacks on it, then I think there is light at the other end of the tunnel," he said. "But I do think we are in for some dark days."
end of quote
Andrew Beckwith