Sunday, November 13, 2016

Ian Boyne: Jamaican Gleaner article on Trump

Ian Boyne's article is certainly a different view than how most of the Churches of God groups are reacting to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.  Almost all COG splinter leaders are reacting to his election as a good thing to bring back credibility that they think was lost under the rule of a gentile President.  That view is deeply entrenched in the British Israelite thought processes and white superiority that is still pervasive in the church in 2016.

The world is a different place than when the church was evolving during the 1940's - 1980's.  Globalization, the internet and world populations immigrating to most Western Nations has led many Church of God groups to proclaim propehtic melt down of civilization and the dilution of the white race.

Ian takes a different approach to this belief, particularly with observations and a perspective that is outside the United States and as a person of color, two things that do not sit well with so many in the church.

Ian Boyne | White  Power  Trumps  Good  Sense

It is not enough to say that Donald Trump's victory is a 'whitelash' against eight years of a black man's being in the White House. It is, indeed, true that Trump's ascendancy as American president-elect is the culmination of the Tea Party insurgency started just one year after Obama's first victory in 2008. White people, particularly marginalised white males, swept away by the tide of globalisation, have risen up to take back their country and to put America first.
No election in American history has left in its wake so much resentment, bitterness, anger, disappointment and fear - not just in America but around the world. Jamaicans at home and in the US are terrified of the consequences of this Trump victory which, they catastrophise, is likely to torpedo their dreams of a better life. Jamaicans, various minorities, and progressive, forward-thinking people are being counselled that "it's not the end of the world," but for many, Trump's victory certainly seems like that.
'Stunning', 'shocking', 'astonishing' are just a few of the adjectives being used to describe the victory that was not seen by pollsters and pundits. Almost everyone had written off Trump. Except the Silent Majority. Yet, hidden in academia were some books that speak plainly about the phenomenon that the media are now widely reporting on after the fact. One book that narrates the crisis of the white working class and its alienation from the elites is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-year Untold History of Class in America (2016). Before that, in 2012, the well-known social scientist Charles Murray had published his Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.
In September, the respected Atlantic magazine did a long piece titled 'The Original Underclass: Poor, White Americans' Current Crisis Shouldn't Have Caught the Rest of the Country as Off Guard as it Has'.
Then there is also Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (2016) by J.D. Vance, whose views are now being sought belatedly by American journalists to understand what escaped them. But if you want one book that grippingly and comprehensively explains the Trump Phenomenon, you have to get The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics. I notice it is now being featured as 'One of the Six Books to Help Understand Trump's Win' and it has been given the thumbs up by the most intellectually astute media host in America, GPS's Fareed Zakaria.
There is a lot of hasty, half-baked commentary being dished out, but this Trumpism deserves a serious and surgical analysis. Yes, white power has been asserted in a most ferocious and aggressive way, and Trump, like all neo-fascists, was able to exploit the fears and anxieties of the majority against "the deplorables". But remember, that's the same country that voted for a black man as president not once, but twice. Barack Obama did better than Trump's opponent among white voters. Did those white people temporarily lose their ingrained racism when they voted Obama? What happened between 2008 and 2016?
In a review essay titled 'The Great White Nope: Poor, Working Class and Left Behind in America', in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, which features "The Power of Populism", History Professor Jefferson Cowie says: "Most Americans are optimistic about their futures but poor and working-class whites are not. ... Poor African-Americans who face higher rates of incarceration and unemployment - are nearly three times as optimistic as poor whites". He quotes one economist as saying poor whites suffer from "unhappiness, stress, and a lack of hope" . Says he: "That might explain why the slogan of the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Make America Great Again! - sounds so good to so many of them".
 The rest of the article can be read here:  Ian Boyne | White Power Trumps Good Sense


Anonymous said...

Ians is a typical left wing article. The economic shambles that brought Trump to power, is the natural consequence of out of control government spending. If government wasn't playing Father Xmas with other peoples money, America would have a stable, prosperous economy.
Ian as a professed minister of Christ, should have pushed the bible line of Americas economic problems stemming from the nation breaking Gods perfect law of 'do not steal' via the political process of 'passing the wealth around.'
Breaking Gods law of do not steal, has consequences. If you play, you, as a nation pay. That should have been Ians message.
Ian defames God by portraying him as a left winger. He should be a minister of religion or a politician. But not both.

Miller Jones said...

I enjoyed Ian Boyne's analysis of the election of Mr. Trump, and I think that he was spot on in his assessment of some of the economic and cultural factors behind it. His divergence from most Armstrongites on this one is refreshing. What a difference the absence of Anglo-Israelism makes on ones perspective!
Personally, I finally understand how my conservative and/or Republican friends and family have felt for the last eight years. It is a phenomenon that was wholly unfamiliar to me before this election. Through fifty years of both Republican and Democratic administrations, I've never felt like a president was illegitimate and antithetical to American values. I feel that way now.
Even so, there are some sound reasons not to be too apocalyptic about this result. In spite of her own flawed candidacy, Hillary Clinton still received a greater share of the popular vote than Donald Trump. In fact, about fifty-two percent of the American people did not vote for him. Thus, it is not too much of a leap to regard this election as the last gasp of a shrinking demographic. Moreover, there is the strong temptation to overreach in these kind of contests - which Trump and the Republicans will probably not be able to resist. If they try to erase the last eight years, I believe they will face the wrath of a majority of Americans in 2020.
Where does God fit into all of this? I have recently posted two pieces on my own blog (God cannot be contained!) that debunk the flawed theology that makes God responsible for Trump's victory. As Mr. Boyne has skillfully pointed out in his piece, an angry minority of Americans is responsible for this one!

Anonymous said...

The Ian Boyne church of social justice, pastored by chief social justice warrior Ian Boyne. Helped out by his band of merry men MBAs, who help him out with difficult questions, and his social justice articles.

Anonymous said...

The morning of election day, CNN (the Clinton News Network) ran a headline story explaining how the white vote in America would be the lowest ever recorded and how unimportant "whites" had become in deciding American elections. That was just the latest in a series of similar articles promoting the same idea all during the election cycle.

SO it is rather amusing to witness an abrupt shift after the elections to cries of "Whitelash" and "White Power" by a stunned, perplexed media. Suddenly "unimportant whites" had somehow become decisive to the election results.

Perhaps an answer is in the word "inexplicable" which was being used a lot in the media. They simply didn't have a clue and probably still don't.

Clinton lost the election in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania where polls had her ahead for months. Those were her "impenetrable firewall states" that always vote Democratic. Those states voted for Barrack Obama twice. They aren't racist. They aren't bigots.

If any media reporter had bothered to take a drive through the countryside in those states - they'd quickly come to understand why they voted against the current establishment. And as smart as Ian Boyne is - I'm not sure he can see those states clearly from Jamaica.

Anonymous said...

typical of the CGI problem...they are so liberal in so many things, they even get involved in politics...

Ian missed an opportunity to point out the real cause of Americas problems, but instead took the "social justice/racial" avenue.

and by the way, the final electoral count was Trump 306, Clinton 232, and in the popular vote, Trump 62.9M vs. Clinton 62.2M

so Trump took the popular vote & the electoral it for yourselves.

we'll see if that gets reported in the popular media (dishonesty is a major problem in America...Ian could have pointed that out too)

Opinionated said...

Ha, ha, ha! Ian it seems is a raciest!

Anonymous said...

WHITE POWER! I'm not racist, I loves me some hot Latina women and other hot foreigner women!

But seriously-
Thanks Ian for your well thought-out article. Although I disagree with you on various Biblical and political points, your article stands above and practically alone among others of the ministerial COG persuasion who have addressed the topic of this latest election.

I found this insightful comment a week or so before the election:
"This is the first presidential candidate who's been endorsed by the KKK, KGB, and the FBI."

SC said...

Ian Boyne is a man with a left leaning man who hates white people.

In case he doesn't realize it, Hillary isn't black either. Would that also have been white backlash? The very term is stupid. Blacks and Hispanics voted Trump as well.
People are sick of the huge deficit, no jobs, broken promises, etc.
Americans voted for Obama. His black skin had no effect on that.
Obama did nothing as president but sink the nation into more debt, ruin international relations and help unemploy more Americans.
People are sick of it. His color didn't enter into it.

Byker Bob said...

I'm not sure that attributing the results of the presidential election to "whitelash" fully accomplishes an accurate post-mortem, although liberally-biased elements of the media attempt to subtly paint it as such in an effort to make the selection of Donald Trump appear ignorant, and hillbillyesque. The fact most representative of the American public is that President Obama enjoys perhaps the highest rating of any retiring president in recent history, and if the term limits for the presidency were not in place, he undoubtedly would be elected to a third term in office.

I am embarrassed to report that I did not vote. The fact is that neither candidate was acceptable in accordance with my own standards. Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton was a failure as Secretary of State, and her lapses in judgement with her email communications demonstrate that her standards in matters of national security are at best lackadaisical.

The Tea Party is or was a movement of fiscal and social conservatives, in favor of small government, balanced budget, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and strong American foreign policy. The Trump movement represented a repudiation of the Tea Party values, and a rejection of the prominence of the religious right in the Republican party platform. The favored Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz, was considered to be a maverick, more radical in his approach in many ways than Donald Trump. There was great dismay amongst the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the Rush Limbaugh "ditto-heads" and the evangelical right over the rejection of Cruz in favor of the often vulgar and seemingly morally valueless Donald Trump, whom they saw as degrading the expected decorum of the primaries and associated debates. It was only the impassioned reasonings of the key players in conservative talk radio such as Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, and Mike Gallagher that extracted Donald Trump's bid for the presidency from the jaws of certain defeat.

It is only now, in the light of Trump's victory that the repudiated Tea Party candidates who had cried "never Trump!" are rejoining in the effort to exert some influence in the processes which will lead to a Republican administration, with Republican control of two, and possibly soon three, branches of the US government.

As for the bursting of the housing bubble and banking industry which led to the great recession, the seeds for that were planted by the well-intentioned Bill Clinton, who ordered changes in long standing bank policies to facilitate home ownership by a segment of the population who would by traditional standards, not have been sufficiently credit worthy. The unintended consequences were that the banks needed to write many of the loans "creatively" in order to avoid catastrophic losses, and a high level of default on unfairly written mortgages resulted in massive foreclosures. Since the bubble was financed by international banking interests, when the bubble burst, it had global implications.

Much could be written on this topic. As time and space become available, I'll probably have more to contribute.


Anonymous said...

"The economic shambles that brought Trump to power, is the natural consequence of out of control government spending."

I'm not sure if that's not due more to Trump's salesmanship, based on what played into what many white people wanted to hear, because Mr. Trump's plans, if enacted, will cause a great deal more government spending than Mrs. Clinton's would have.

(And that's not even taking into account the fantastically yuge cost of rounding up all illegal immigrants and deporting them- not to mention the destabilizing effect that would have on our agriculture sector.)

Miguel de la Rodente said...

7:38: ROF-LMAO! Are you saying that you're only half a racist, because you only hate the guys?

nck said...

Excellent comments all.

I saw Conrad Black commenting on the Cruz segment aswell. Good you brought that up.

A lot of people have not benefitted on a personal basis from the economic rational that the USA is going to have to transfer some of its wealth to other peoples. Hopefully only comparative terms and not in absolutes. However internal/domestic distribution of wealth is an internal matter. And the people have seen that relatively few benefitted and they have voted accordingly.

Perhaps a few additions.
"bubble was financed by international banking interests"

I'm curiuous what is meant by that?

International banks were required by American law to invest percentage of their profits in mortgages (the "housing bubble"). Something they would not have chosen if it were not required by law. It led to the near distruction of some fine foreign banks doing business in the USA.

Or do you mean the "service rendered" by American banks in cloacking the Greek debt and profiting heavily by the near destruction of Greece?

In any case.
The people have spoken and it seems only one person was really able to hear what the people was calling for. Deliberately waging an atrocious campaign defying all established rules to be the people's champion promise to defy the establishment.

Now let's pray popular short term policies will not destroy the long term prospects of the constituency that counts on his support.

(For example the Saudis are finding to their detriment that pumping unlimited supplies of oil has brought the prize of oil down which in turn has brought their economy to near destruction.)


Anonymous said...

Anon 7:35 AM claims that Trump won the popular vote and suggests googling this issue.

Yes, please google "popular vote". You will find articles such as this:

Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Will Grow, and Grow, and Grow

Black Ops Mikey said...

By parroting and regurgitating the liberal media analysis of the election, Boyne seems reasonable, even brilliant, but the truth is much more mundane in this wrong-headed analysis he plagiarized.

Pure and simple, Hillary Clinton lost the election through her hubris and sense of entitlement. It's that simple. She didn't bother to do the work to confirm the usual supporters, particularly in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She was too full of herself -- she just knew she couldn't lose.

But she did.

And she has no one to blame but herself.

And all this lack of respect she had should teach the ACoG leadership, including Boyne, a lesson: Arrogance and lack of respect will alienate people and you will lose.

We shouldn't miss the opportunity to teach the arrogant fools an important lesson.

And by the way, those voting for Donald Trump weren't all uneducated hicks either: Surprise, surprise, many of them had college and university degrees.

And here in Tacoma, was another surprise: In a city and county generally Democrat, in the Western part of Washington State as liberal as they come, 45% voted for Donald Trump in yet another show of how tired of doing business as usual with arrogant politicians the electorate is.

Anonymous said...

I did not state that Trump would solve the out of control spending. The voters are too addicted to their freebies, to allow any politician to take them away.

Anonymous said...

Byker Bob wrote, "ROF-LMAO! Are you saying that you're only half a racist, because you only hate the guys?"

No and no. Apparently your response is tongue-in-cheek, or else you've misinterpreted the comment I wrote.

Byker Bob said...

Leading up to the elections, the hosts of the major AM radio talk shows kept reiterating the fact that white men alone can no longer elect a president. It was stated over and over and over again that Republicans needed to reach out and to get their message to women, gays, and the members of various minority groups much the same as the Democrat party already does for their inclusive bigtop tent, and to make these targeted groups aware that the Republican party wants them, and is really looking out for their best interests. Now, certain segments of the media are stating that something that was considered impossible has happened: that enough white people got out and voted, and in an angry backlash, elected Donald Trump as president.

Where is this information coming from? Is it based on a sound scientific analysis of the races, genders, and sexual orientations of the people who actually voted, or is it simply liberal think tank theory? Were the election results the rejection of a "black" president and his policies, (and by extension, the rejection of all minorities) or rather the realization that his party's chosen successor was corrupt and not trustworthy? Guess what! President Obama is half white. He is not stereotypical in any way. On the world stage, he is respected, and has held his own. This is partially because he attempted to recast the USA in the European mold, but in articulating the slightly left of center point of view, he was every bit as effective as that other "great communicator", Ronald Reagan. There were attributes and ideologies that people of all races admired and respected. This is why the opinions expressed by most typical ACOG leaders were so gauche, and out of touch with reality.

We must also realize something about our friend Ian Boyne. As a journalist, he lives, functions, and must primarily resonate with his public, in perhaps the most advanced of the Antilles island nations. Often our attitudes, how we process things, are influenced by the regional realities which surround us. One can certainly realize that U.S. elections have great implications around the world. Many world citizens do not realize the extent of checks and balances inherent in the American system of government. While I am certain that Ian has great comprehension of this, perhaps many in his audience do not. When an American presidential candidate makes somewhat scary pronouncements, the remarks do not carry the same implications as those of a Kim Jong Un, or a Rodrigo Duterte. POTUS is not a unilateral office. Mr. Trump is responsible to the legislative and judicial branches of our government, and also to the policymakers of his own party. Not even President Nixon was able to go rogue and to nuke Hanoi or to burn his tapes as he most certainly wanted to do. Our system worked, and purged him, although it was a painful, damaging process.

Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have exhorted the American people to give President-elect Trump their support, and to allow him to do his job. That's probably sound advice for the entire world at this point.


Anonymous said...

I wonder what Mr. Boyne might have to say about Ted Nugent's comments on the election, over at youtube.

Questeruk said...

Anonymous November 14, 2016 at 7:35 AM said...
"and by the way, the final electoral count was Trump 306, Clinton 232, and in the popular vote, Trump 62.9M vs. Clinton 62.2M

so Trump took the popular vote & the electoral it for yourselves."

Well, Anonymous, I just did google it, and get a completely different answer to you! In fact the results are still being counted, nearly a week after the event.

An article published yesterday states that ‘at least four million votes are yet to be counted in the Democrat-leaning state of California.

Nate Cohn, an election analyst at the New York Times, estimates that once all votes have been counted, 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Mrs Clinton and 61.2 million for Mr Trump, giving the Democrat a ‘winning’ margin of 1.5 per cent, and that total would be more than the votes received by any other presidential candidate in history except for Mr Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Somewhat different figures to the figures you quote, and, if correct, gives Hilary Clinton a popular vote majority of more than 2 million.

So who really won?

Anonymous said...

Google "controlled media".

Connie Schmidt said...

Ian = The COG Bernie Sanders!

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right,Connie. I am the Bernie Sanders of Armstrongism. . Who would have even thought that possible ???.What truly amazes me is that there are so many right-wingers on this anti-Armstrongite site. I am surprised there are apparently so few here who question the received capitalist wisdom we have been brainwashed with in the West, and that so many ,
including the strident Black Ops Mikey, who have rejected British-Israelism, are apparently so uncritical of bourgeois,white America.Perhaps a scholar like Greg Doudna,one of the finest minds we ever had in Armstrongism ,could explain how people so passionate in rejecting British-Israelism , are so apologetic about right-wing ideology .And while he is at it he could perhaps proffer a theory of how a black Bernie Sanders avowed Armstrongite from the Third World could possibly still be a part of a movement with such a racist history.And I am a non-salaried Minister who as a journalist has no need for an audience. .Over to you,Greg .Incidentally I enjoyed every page of your Showdown in Big Sandy book.Pity our intellectually wasteful movement could not retain you. Ian Boyne

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats did themselves in by rigging the primary to assure Hillary was the candidate. That turned off millions of voters, including my wife and I, who voted for Jill Stein. Others voted down ticket but didn't vote for either major candidate because they couldn't stand either of them, assuring the election of a fascist narcissist instead of the female narcissist who stole the primary. As a comment about a sign I posted on my Facebook page stated, "What part of 'or bust' didn't you understand. Bernie would be the president elect today if that primary had not been stolen!

Allen C. Dexter

Anonymous said...

all of this talk about the "popular vote" is a total waste of time.

the popular vote is meaningless in presidential elections.

it is not the people that choose a president, but the states.

the states choose electors, who cast their votes for president.

the states can choose their electors any way they want...the governor can appoint them, the legislature can pick them, or they can have the citizens of the state vote for them.

it is done at the state level....and to prevent a small number of large population centers from controlling the entire country.

totaling up the number of votes nationwide that a candidate receives is nothing but a red serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to rile up the uneducated.

the USA is a union of independent, sovereign states, which choose a president every 4 years.

Anonymous said...

Ian, God says 'choose life or choose death.' By contrast, you like many slivers, are fence sitting with some hybrid of Armstrongism, plus bible cherry picking, plus liberation theology. You have rejected the narrow gate. Consider what that means?

Black Ops Mikey said...

"so many, including the strident Black Ops Mikey, who have rejected British-Israelism, are apparently so uncritical of bourgeois,white America'"

Huge misrepresentation there. He didn't read my book.

Some people like Ian don't seem to have adequate perception to get anything right.

Black Ops Mikey said...

There's something I don't understand and maybe you can help.

All these Armstrongists are actually revolutionary anarchists waiting for the overthrow of all governments on earth, right? After all, Jesus is supposed to return and not one government will be left standing, no?

Then why would anyone support anyone running for a government of this world? Doesn't that violate the charter of Armstrongism? Isn't that irrational, seeing as how it's all going to be destroyed and replaced anyway?

At the same time, why is it that the Armstrongists at the same violate the very core principles laid down by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13? If there is someone in office they don't like, there's no hesitation of slander and libel and the calling of names. Why is that? Isn't that terribly inconsistent?

Perhaps someone somewhere can explain this.

Or is that too hard -- trying to make sense out of insanity?

Anonymous said...

"This is the first presidential candidate who's been endorsed by the KKK, KGB, and the FBI."

The KKK now has less memberships than armstrongism does. The hard-working people, which includes the bulk of the FBI, NSA, DOJ, and Homeland Security did NOT vote for Hitlery. It was the top-dogs in those departments who choosed, or were blackmailed, to collude with Hitlery and the MSM. And then there was Veritas and the rigging of an election! Need I reemind you what happened when Matt Lauer decided to ask HRC a good question?

“If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished...and if I lose it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.” HRC

But Trump got no love or support from the incompetents, SJW's, liars, thieves, criminals, LGBTransgenders, NAMBLA, child-traffickers, pedos, murderer's, and satanists!

Poor Trump :(
but let's make America great again! :)


Anonymous said...

Allen C. Dexter said "The fact of the matter is that the Democrats did themselves in by rigging the primary to assure Hillary was the candidate. That turned off millions of voters, including my wife and I, who voted for Jill Stein."

Exactly. I'm glad H. A. Goodman's daily reports on wikileaks got through to some people.
He wanted to vote for Sanders but Hitlery stole his freedom to do so. He voted for Jill. I have a relative in the FBI, so I voted for Trump because I knew how dispicable her campaign was. Plus, he was more of an anti-globalists than any other candidate. Even Lionel Nation voted Trump.


Byker Bob said...

There are reports out there right now to the effect that Hillary had a total meltdown the night of her loss. She is said to have gone on an extended crying jag for hours, totally inconsolable. I'm betting that her angst and fury will be vented in some way at some future time.


Anonymous said...

well, i am curious to see what kind of scapegoating and excusing all you donald drumpf supporters will be doing when it becomes clear that this person of poor character, who happens to fit the description of Daniel 11:21, will fail and bring economic trouble upon this nation, picking up where the last german descended potus left off in 2007-08...

it is no surprise that the supporters of this site are closet donald drumpf (drumpf being his original family name, a good german name, yah?) enthusiasts...

didnt mr. armstrong teach that germans would be punishing the children of israel...did not george busch, a man of german descent, do a dry run on the destruction of this nation???

are any of you ready spiritually to go without a few meals, and be exposed to the elements??? go ahead and scoff; it only makes the inevitable that much more significant and justified...#hunger #perilfromthugs #slavery

Anonymous said...

"well, i am curious to see what kind of scapegoating and excusing all you donald drumpf supporters will be doing when it becomes clear that this person of poor character, who happens to fit the description of Daniel 11:21, will fail and bring economic trouble upon this nation, picking up where the last german descended potus left off in 2007-08"

The Bush's and neocons supported Hitlery.