The Case for Christian Nationalism
3. Loving Your Nation | V. Nationalism
Previously:
Given its 20th-century manifestations, theorists in favor of nationalism have an uphill battle, often having to repeatedly and tiresomely disclaim and denounce any hint of “xenophobia” and “racism”…
Though I favor [Yoram] Hazony’s account over others, nationalism in this book follows conceptually from my account… I have no need to celebrate or defend or or denounce past “fascist” regimes or “populism” and other socio-political phenomena. 1
Here are some of the claims Wolfe has made in the book, thus far, before he has even explicated the specific policies of his brand of nationalism:
That his ideal government would, in a “totality of action”, prioritize nation over individual.2
That preferring to live with those genetically similar to you (and, downstream from that, culturally similar) is “natural and good”, not “a product of the fall”, and grace “affirms and completes it”.3
That “much good would result in the world if we all preferred our own”.4
That “Our time calls for a man who can wield formal civil power to great effect and shape the public imagination by means of charisma, gravitas, and personality.”5
That the Christian nationalist, who has received a “restored image” of the Creator, rightly interprets his natural purpose of “taking dominion”.6
That the “in-group/out-group distinction” is a prelapsarian good that “preserves cultural distinctives”.7
That “differences in food sources, climate, and other factors” produce, on the macro, ethnic level, a natural variance in which some groups are objectively “more beautiful, and all ways better disposed.”8
That hierarchy is of inherent greater worth than egalitarian arrangements and, based on natural variances within humans, an aristocracy would arise in his nation.9
That this natural aristocracy will need to weigh “unpleasant trade-offs” and have the “fortitude to enact and enforce the greatest good, despite unfortunate costs involved” by “[shunning] the moralism that limits action”.10
That “the Gospel does not alter the priority and inequality of loves” among one’s genetic relations.11
That the eternal and temporal kingdoms are separated so that the former (Christ’s spiritual kingdom) is prevented from “subverting the natural order”.12
That “Western Man” faces a binary, existential crisis of suicide or revitalization (an idea he reiterates to close this chapter).13
That a deliberate, focused affection and sentiment for ethnic relations and inter-generational property is a universal, natural good (though Christ, in Scripture, directly commands us to make any such sentiment wholly secondary to Him).14
That, though some intermarriage is acceptable, “blood-ties” are integral to “ethno-genesis”, and “a ‘community of blood’ is crucial to ethnicity.”15
That the “nation is a soul, a spiritual principle”, and the nationalist views the physical land of his nation as an image of himself.16
That “The human instinct to socialize and dwell with similar people is universal, though for many today, especially Westerners, this instinct is understood as evil or pathological.”17 (Using logical deduction, it was concluded that the only social taboo that qualifies for this statement is consciously working to surround oneself with members of the same race. Wolfe’s disagreement with the belief that such behavior is “evil or pathological” speaks volumes on his views of ethnicity, and is likely an unintended exposure of them.)
That “perhaps in some cases amicable ethnic separation along political lines is mutually desired.”18
That people of different ethnic groups, including ethnically differing Christians, “cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.”19
That no people, including Christians, can find “complete good” outside of communities of similar ethnicity.20
One is left to wonder exactly why Wolfe is so averse to having his political theory compared to 20th century fascism, given that his prima facie statements, viewed as a whole, paint a near-identical picture to that philosophy. His theory even contains an implicit claim of the ethnic superiority of at least one, unnamed group, due to differences in food and climate, making him more explicitly ethnocentric than Spanish and Italian fascists. Someone who holds a doctorate in political theory, as he does, is most likely fully aware of these similarities - that he has, multiple times, made a conscious effort to shield himself from such comparisons is strong circumstantial evidence to that end.
The remainder of this section serves as a summary and justification of his nationalist views, and is mostly not of great note when compared to these earlier statements, with the exception of two claims.
But hospitality is subordinate to higher duties: no individual, family or nation is duty-bound to welcome strangers to the detriment of the good of those most near and bound it. (emphasis mine)21
Wolfe’s hubris of placing appeals to “natural law” on par with (nonexistent) exegesis once again exposes him to a direct rebuke from our Lord, who said in the Sermon on the Mount, “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you” (Matthew 5:40-42). There certainly could be a nuanced discussion on what would constitute the bounds of our duty, but his claim that no individual is duty-bound, in this regard, is categorically false.
Aquinas, following Aristotle, suggested that newcomers should not receive citizenship until the second or third generation of residence.22
This is not only a Thomasian and Aristotelian argument, but also a traditional nativist one. As Ray Allen Billington writes of nativist thought on immigration in 1850s America, “Propagandists who pointed out these supposed evils [brought to America by Catholic foreigners]… suggested… that laws of the various states be changed to limit voting to naturalized immigrants, rather than allowing any alien who had lived in the state for six months or a year to enjoy the privileges of the ballot box… countless other Americans were convinced that their nation would be saved only if voting were limited to naturalized citizens who had lived for twenty-one years in the United States and if all foreign-born were denied political office” (emphasis mine).23 This twenty-one year rule later became an official policy position of the secretive Know-Nothing party. While the general topic of immigration and naturalization, and Wolfe’s comment on it, are benign in and of themselves, it is again of note that the overall picture he is painting is in no way contradictory to the historical types of destructive, ethno-culturally obsessed nationalism he wishes us to ignore.
Next:
Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 163, 164.
Ibid., 13, 16.
Ibid., 23, 117-118.
Ibid., 25, 145.
Ibid., 31.
Ibid., 53, 113-114.
Ibid., 65.
Ibid., 67.
Ibid., 68, 72-73.
Ibid., 90.
Ibid., 101.
Ibid., 107.
Ibid., 118-119, 171.
Ibid., 125-126.
Ibid., 139-140.
Ibid., 140, 159.
Ibid., 142.
Ibid., 149.
Ibid., 149.
Ibid., 151.
Ibid., 167.
Ibid., 168.
Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade,1800-1860, First Paperback (Chicago, Illinois: Quadrangle Books, 1964), 327.