Lanterns: White Supremacism vs. Patriotism: A Clear Distinction

Blog

White Supremacism vs. Patriotism: A Clear Distinction

The outrage over comments made by Congressman Steve King (R-IA) via twitter has allowed for the resurfacing of unsubstanitated attacks launched by advocates for illegal immigration. King, who was responding to a tweet praising Dutch politician Geert Wilders, had the following to say about the direction of American culture: 

Obviously, context is desperately needed to interpret these comments. And unfortunately, too many took the tweet wildly out of context. 

CNN reported on the matter, graciously allowing King to explain the thought which led to the statement. They then went on to publish an article depicting their interpretation of the “white anxiety” which apparently drove King to make such racist comments. 

“We must find a way to resist the white nationalism of Steve King,” Issac Bailey wrote for the Clinton News Netowrk. “If Americans are to handle this massive demographic shift rationally and properly, we must resist the urge to conflate those distinct reasons at the root of white America's anxiety.”

The New York Times, a former newspaper with a globalist agenda, also came after King through an editorial titled, ‘Into the Void, With Steve King.’ Penned by “the editorial board,” the piece focused in on painting a dark picture of America, one which they claim results from a “breakout” of intolerance. 

What the Times neglects to mention much at all about Wilders, the Dutch politician whom King is referring to in his tweet. In their one-sentence summary of the nationalist, the article mentions a time during which Wilders referred to some Moroccan immigrants as “scum.” The story then jumps straight to King, creating the impression that the Congressman’s views are in lockstep with those of Wilders, and that every comment made by the leader of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom would be supported by King in any context. 

Often times, the left has a way of confusing racism with patriotism, a mistake which stems from a habit of impulsively reacting to comments which appear to involve race. They will then find every statement made in the past to will support their blind claims of “white supremacism,” throw in illegal immigration, mention Donald Trump, and voila. Virtually the entire public will chastise the one who made the misinterpreted comments and the leftist fake news networks will have successfully redirected the minds of the public to think a certain way.

A logical approach to objectively examining King’s comments without going on a witch hunt would be to allow the Congressman to explain his reasoning behind what he said, since after all, a 140 character tweet rarely tells the entire story. 

Thankfully, King was given the opportunity to do just that, on CNN of all places. 

“There’s been this effort we’re going to have to replace that void with somebody else’s babies. That’s the push to bring in much illegal immigration into America, living in enclaves, refusing to assimilate into the American culture and civilization,” King elaborated. Critics will claim that King’s hostility towards “replacing that void with somebody else’s babies” is based on race. They say that anybody other than a white male citizen poses a threat to the ideal America in the minds of these “white supremacists”, and that we therefore need to fight these sentiments by becoming as multicultural as possible. 

Of course, this wasn’t exactly what King was talking about. Legal immigration was not something the Iowan touched upon, nor was race or religion of any kind. However, King did refer to illegal immigration, something that any reasonable American would condemn, as well as those “refusing to assimilate into American culture and civilization.” Clearly, a far cry from “I don’t want anybody who isn’t a white male to come into the country.”

Plus, since King was referring to Wilders in his tweet, he was most likely touching upon Islamic immigration from the Middle East, and the welcoming of terrorist infiltratied refugees in Europe and the United States. This is safe to assume since Wilders’ popularity in the Netherlands is mostly a result of his hard line stance on Islamic immigration. Therefore, there is no reason to believe King was showing any intolerance towards Blacks, Hispanics, or minorities of any kind besides radical Islamists who seek to destroy American culture and kill Americans. 

King went on to say, “There’s an American culture, American civilization. It’s raised within these children in these American homes. That’s one of the reasons why we require that the president of the United States be raised with an American experience. We’ve also aborted nearly 60 million babies in this country since 1973.”

Bringing up abortion in the midst of all of this confuses most, but it is in reality extremely relevant. The multiculturalists and globalists wish to minimize American-born citizens, because they are more likely to be white and to speak English. Since the utopia of these leftists is to have as many cultures as possible and to destroy traditional American Judeo-Christian values and culture, aborting within the country is an effective method of controlling American population, clearly beneficial towards their agenda. Support for abortion in general goes far beyond a woman’s “right to choose” (AKA, right to kill), as the deteriorating of American morals and values is an inevitable result of a decrease of American-born citizens. 

Evidently, the issue King is attempting to broach goes much deeper than color. Tragically, leftists and many other Americans of any kind are conditioned by the media to sound the race alarm any time they hear of an anti-immigration remark. This pevents them from seeing the true reasoning behind the desire to keep a select group of foreigners out, reasoning which comes from a love of America and the common sense that would indicate that the American people aren’t physically safe with members of the Islamic State roaming amongst them. 

The distinction to make here is a clear one, but one which liberals still can’t seem to understand. There is racism, white supremacism, white nationalism, whatever the term is for it now. This is a train of thought based on color, the idea that one’s physical appearance makes them inherently superior to another. In this case, the argument would be made that many white people fear a future majority-minority America, because there won’t be enough white people. 

And then there is patriotism. This is an America first, common sense approach to this issue, which suggests that placing a temporary ban on immigration from terrorist-dominated areas is logical and beneficial. It keeps America safe, and it prevents the United States from merely becoming a safe spot for refugees to flee to, compromising our values which makes us the greatest country in the history of the world. 

Ultimately, the desire of King and all Americans who wish to see the borders finally secured stems from a true and genuine patriotism, not a prejudice of any kind. The left may never understand, but the distinction couldn’t be clearer: Those who love America don’t want our culture compromised by foreigners. This isn’t racism, it’s patriotism. 

Written by Jonathan Goehring

0 Responses

leave a reply


login to reply to thread