What Matt Walsh And Stephen Wolfe Have In Common

Matt Walsh the cultural Marxist Answers;

“I don’t believe our unifying principle was ever race, skin color, ethnicity. Our unifying principle was essentially a doctrine. It was a doctrine of human rights… It (the questioner’s position) sounds like bigotry.”

John Jay (One of the founders) tells Matt Walsh he is a man whom wisdom have forever chased but never caught;

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

For Pete’s sake, is Walsh so stupid that he flies right past the language of the Constitution where they talk about “for us and OUR POSTERITY.” Just exactly whose posterity were they talking about?

Look, while no one can doubt that Walsh has done some fine work with this response it is clear that Walsh is the enemy. Walsh is a neo-con and the kind of propositional Nation that Walsh believes in is not the unifying principle of the nation as it was founded. Walsh is an idiot and as long as he holds this view he will never defeat who he thinks is his enemy since at the end of the day they share the same foundational worldview principles.

Some of you think that the “Daily Wire” is a conservative redoubt. I am here to tell you that the “Daily Wire” is just another Trotskyist neo-con webzine.

Matt Walsh is not our friend, or is at least only intermittently our friend.

All of this reminds me of some analysis that I read by Darrell Dow when wrote an article that in part was dedicated to explaining Stephen Wolfe’s view of Christian Nationalism. Dow’s analysis of Dr. Wolfe offered this;

“In two additional chapters, Wolfe discusses the Christian nation.  Rather than a historical analysis he offers a phenomenological approach to the nation, focusing on the lived experience of everyday life.  Ethnicity is therefore something primarily (but not exclusively) experienced subjectively through shared manners, stories, and rituals rather than defined by blood.  Common social norms and customs along with attachment to place are foundational, says Wolfe, to the highest aspirations of earthly life.  What “…is most meaningful to our lives and what is required to live well is particularity and sharing that particularity with others.”

Now, if Dow’s analysis is correct in the paragraph above, we see Wolfe making the same kind of mistake that Matt Walsh makes above. Walsh would have no problem saluting the idea that “ethnicity is therefore something primarily (but not exclusively) experienced subjectively through shared manners, stories, and rituals rather than defined by blood.” Indeed that is the very point that Walsh is making above. Walsh insists the shared point of unity is allegiance to common propositions, while Wolfe insists that the shared point of unity is shared manners, stories, and rituals. However both agree that the point of unity in a nation/ethnicity is not blood.

Now, we can agree that blood relations as being the foundational point of unity for a nation/ethnicity can indeed be and has been in history fetishicized and/or idolized. But it is no fetishicizing or idolizing to recognize that the primary point of unity that makes a people a people and a nation a nation is having a common blood inheritance in conjunction with a shared faith. To place blood relations in a secondary role as if it is an afterthought to other considerations like shared propositions or shared experiences is to give up the idea of ever living in a nation or sharing an ethnicity.

It really is no different than family. Nation/ethnicity is merely family said at a broader level. If someone were to ask what was the shared foundational point of what makes my family my family the answer is a shared blood inheritance in conjunction with a shared faith. Now, there might be exceptions to that idea but it serves as the general rule. My family finds unity not primarily in shared propositions nor in shared experiences (though those will likewise be present in a secondary manner). My family finds its primary unity in having a common ancestor.

Wolfe and Walsh are just in significant error.