The Case for Christian Nationalism
Epilogue: Now What? | I. The New America (Part 3)
Previously:
Those who oppose the [globalist American empire] will be will be deemed “right-wing extremists” and marked for elimination. When it is too late, however, Ukrainians of the older sort - after waking from a drunken slumber induced by GAE consumption - will learn that they chose not a new identity but a sort of liberal soft occupation…
America is just as much under the GAE as countries like Ukraine.1
Wolfe paints the forces of globalization, which in reality are far too international to be labeled an “American empire”, as a nearly-unstoppable leviathan. There is much to be concerned about the soft-totalitarianism that has swept across the West in the last decade. There is hardly anyone who does not, to some degree, self-censor out of fear of economic repercussions should they be seen as expressing ideas contrary to the three centuries of conclusions derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s statement that man is naturally good.
There is a real threat from the left, just as there was a real communist threat in Italy in the early 1920s and Spain in the 1930s. But, like Gentile and Primo de Rivera, Wolfe would have you believe that the solution to repressive leftism is an equally repressive rightism. This is the false dichotomy of the authoritarian proposition. Thankfully, Christians are not governed by the dictates of worldly politics, but by the commandments of Scripture. Again, Paul give us a clear direction for how to react to ideological belligerence, from either side:
And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
The “liberal internationalists”, that Wolfe names as the enemy are essentially no different than the enemy of early-20th century rightist authoritarians, the “international banker”, which often took on a Jewish stereotype. He further delves into a paranoiac variant of this worldview, when he writes, “The fact that they look and sound like us does not mean they are of us.”2 This is the same thing most die-hard communists would tell their others about “capitalists”, or a cult leader about “suppressive persons”.
Why are large corporations, the entertainment media, academic institutions, educational institutions, social media companies, and other powerful entities so interested in sexualizing and injecting gender questioning among kids five to eight years old?…
They want child warriors. Kids with gender confusion is to the GAE what a child with an AK-47 is to third-world warlords. They fight their battles and lose their souls, but they also pledge life-long loyalty.3
It is absolutely true that the recent injection of Queer Theory into elementary education is an attempt at ideological subversion, though most who push it are not cynically looking to indoctrinate children, as Wolfe alludes to. Our nation is polarized on nearly every front, but none more so than the ultimate Rousseauian endpoint, complete and utter sexual-liberation. Over several generations, our universities - and hence our most educated citizens - have been convinced of the sexual revolution of Wilhelm Reich, the utopia of eros of Herbert Marcuse, and the purposeful sexual transgression of Michel Foucault. This includes those among the world’s most wealthy who, along with sexual-liberation, push their own transhumanist agenda in search of immortality through technology. All around us, our fellow human beings are futilely attempting to achieve an escape velocity from the death and despair that are a result of the fall. Using the French philosopher Albert Camus, Francis Schaeffer expertly explained both the humanist’s despair and the Christian response; it is worth quoting him at length.
Consider further Camus in The Plague. Nothing is better for understanding modern man’s dilemma. Modern man asks, “Where does justice come from? How can I move?” Camus says, “You can’t. You’re really damned.” The more you feel the tension of injustices, the more your damnation as modern man and the modern rationalist increases… And poor Camus died with this dilemma upon him. He never solved it.
In contrast, of course, you have the magnificent account in the Bible. Jesus Christ who is God and claims to be God in the full Trinitarian sense stands in front of the tomb of Lazarus. As he stands in front of the tomb, he is angry. The Greek makes that plain. As Jesus stands there in his anger, we may notice something. the Christ who claims to be God can be angry at the result of the Fall and the abnormal event which he now faces without being angry at himself.
It is titanic. Suddenly I can fight the injustice knowing I am not fighting what is good. It is not true that what is is right. I can fight injustice knowing there is a reason to fight injustice. Because God does not love everything, because he has a character, I can fight injustice without fighting God.4
Jesus wept for the death of Lazarus, who was a sinful man, just as we are (John 11:35). The Christian can be angry about the results of the fall without damning those fully mired in its results, even when they are attempting to indoctrinate our children into a Marcusian worldview. We have been purposefully given the example of forgiving those who would go as far as to murder us (Luke 23:34, Acts 7:59-60), therefore we have no moral excuse to respond differently. We can use our still functioning system to advocate for Christian values, most especially the protection of children, without hating our opposition. If you truly love your neighbor as you love yourself, you will be far more concerned with exhibiting and sharing the love of Christ, as an example to your enemy, than you will be with actively suppressing his hatred of God.
Next:
Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 441.
Ibid., 442.
Ibid., 442.
Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), 24.