By Davis Carlton

I occasionally watch clips from Catholic Answers Live on YouTube because I find some of the conversations on theological topics to be interesting. My primary interest is typically on Catholic justifications for the authority of the Roman Magisterium (which I find to be weak but nevertheless still interesting). I ran across a particular episode of Catholic Answers in which the first question fielded in the second hour was on the topic of white nationalism. The relevant clip spans from 1:02:59 to 1:17:06. The show is hosted by Cy Kellett who typically fields questions that have cleared a call screener and turns them over to a guest apologist who is either a layman or a priest.

The caller states that he has a Catholic friend who is attracted to the Alt Right movement and is interested in white nationalism. The response by the host Cy Kellett was fascinating and a study in how average people typically respond when even the most benign form of white nationalism is presented to them. After the caller states that a friend is an Alt Right sympathizer he simply asks for a Catholic perspective on the issue. The reaction of the host was consistent with how many whites respond when presented with white nationalism. Cy responded with obvious hostility and couldn’t restrain himself from offering far more of his own opinions than is typical of the show. Typically the question or topic is simply clarified and immediately turned over to the guest apologist, but Cy had incredible difficulty withholding his disgust with the perspective being presented. It’s not clear whether the caller was actually asking for a friend, or whether the caller himself harbored white nationalist sympathies that he was seeking to clarify in light of Catholic teaching. Regardless Cy couldn’t understand how a white person could possibly want to live in a white country without being a hateful bigot who harbors an unjustified animus against non-whites.

I pondered doing a point for point rebuttal to the comments made during the relevant segment, but it wouldn’t really matter. The case for nationalism has already been established, and nothing that either the host Cy Kellett or the guest apologist Fr. Paul Keller said even remotely challenged that. I believe it is more productive to reflect on how average white people react to white nationalism and what that means for Kinism going forward. I’ve learned to keep many of my opinions to myself and my close friends precisely because so many people react the way that Cy the host did when this question was posed to him. How would I try to follow up with Cy if he were someone that I knew well and was trying to persuade him of the justice and goodness of traditional ethno-nationalism?

First, I would address the arguments that there offered against ethno-nationalism. It is obvious that both Cy the host and the priest who addressed the concept of white nationalism had no real counter-argument. The host and guest predictably trotted out Gal. 3:28 after the caller had left the conversation¹, and two incredibly weak arguments were offered while the caller was on the line. The first was offered by the guest apologist who stated that “The Israelites are told that all the nations will come live with them.” No citation is given but we can infer that Fr. Keller is referring to the several prophecies in the Old Testament that state that the nations will come to Mt. Zion to worship the true God of Israel.² It doesn’t take much effort to see how strained this argument is in terms of defeating ethno-nationalism.

The language of all nations coming to observe the feasts in Jerusalem proper is obviously hyperbolic and metaphorical. No one really believes that everyone on the planet is supposed to take up permanent residence in Israel in order to worship the true God. Furthermore all nations coming to worship the true God certainly doesn’t preclude the continued existence of these nations as nations either in the future eschaton or today. The language of the prophets and apostles is the exact opposite of what we would expect if all people were going to dwell in Israel or at the very least combine into one body politic. I’m certainly not holding my breath in expecting Catholic Answers to advocate for open borders for Israel so that everyone can take up permanent residence.

The second argument was given by the host Cy Kellett in response to the assertion that “If you went to a Viking town in the 10^th century there’s a lot of conflict there and they’re the same race as each other.” Ok. Not a lot to go off of with a hypothetical example. Were all Viking towns rampant with violence? The Vikings certainly have a reputation for violence against opponents during raids, but this would be an example of different tribes warring with one another. At best all that can be said here is that racial homogeneity isn’t the sole condition for peace and prosperity and that other conditions must be met as well, a mutual commitment to Christian ethics being chief among them.³ This doesn’t address much less rebut the point that the caller made that ethnic and racial dissolution leads to degeneration and conflict, because it is true.

After addressing Cy’s arguments, I would try to help him see how other statements he made during the discussion indicate that he isn’t open to being persuaded. Cy casually dismisses the arguments presented as “discredited theories.” The priest who is the guest apologist expressed concern for hatred of others who don’t share our “striped eyes and polka-dotted skin,” implying that racial differences only exist in the imagination as opposed to reality. This doesn’t adequately address the reality of actual racial differences. The caller mentioned The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein towards the end of the call. Cy simply rejects any notion that the races are unequal in any way.

“The Bell Curve, from the moment it was published was extremely controversial. If the argument is being made that there is a difference qualitatively between human beings because of race, I can tell you there is no scientific or social evidence of that nor is there ever going to be because it’s clear that every human being is a child of God capable with intimacy with God. There’s no scientific theory that’s ever going to disprove that.”

The question of intelligence is an interesting one that isn’t necessarily crucial to the question of ethno-nationalism because all ethnic groups would have the right and duty of self-government even if particular aptitudes like intelligence were equal among all ethnic and racial groups. I would probably avoid discussing the issues of these kinds of differences when trying to introduce someone to the concept of ethno-nationalism, but I would also point out that Cy’s response doesn’t demonstrate an openness to learning about the real differences between people and how this impacts the ability of masses of non-whites to assimilate into white countries. When introducing the topic of inequality with someone like Cy I would point out that Thomas Aquinas, who is admired by many conservative Catholics, also argued that inequality was built into creation by God and did not simply arise from the Fall.

Finally, I would try to address Cy’s fear that ethno-nationalism, specifically white nationalism is an outworking of hatred. Cy mentions that he couldn’t be comfortable in a white ethno-state because he enjoys being around black people, Mexican people, Cuban people, and even Iraqi people (as a jest towards the call screener Andrew who evidently is from Iraq). I would use the analogy of separate households as an illustration. The Bible clearly teaches that people are to normatively live in separate households with their respective families. This certainly doesn’t imply hatred for other families or unwillingness to fellowship with other families.

Christian nationalism simply recognizes the concentric loyalties of human relationships radiating outwards from families to clans, tribes, nations, and peoples. An unapologetically white Christian nation (which is what America used to be) need not be hostile to peaceful visitors and guests. Nationalism simply clarifies who owns the house or in a larger sense the country. Taken to its logical conclusion, Cy and Fr. Keller’s position requires them to seek the abolition of all national boundaries and distinctions. While this seems to be in line with the agenda of the Pope, most white Catholics who are traditional or even moderately conservative would not countenance such a radical proposal. Pointing out the implications of opposing ethno-nationalism might help some come to terms with the problems of their worldview and to see the merits of nationalism.

I’ve learned not to press the issue too much with those who are encountering white nationalism for the first time. Kinism is certainly a tough pill to swallow for those who have been thoroughly inculcated with the anti-white and anti-nationalist spirit of the age. Helping people come to a better understanding on these issues isn’t easy and takes time. It’s quite possible that many won’t be receptive at all, and the only practical course is to shake the proverbial dust off our feet and move on. But many will be increasingly more receptive as racial violence directed at whites becomes more common and accepted in the chaos of the modern world. Our task is to gently instruct our fellow whites so that they will be prepared for what’s ahead, and Lord willing, to rebuild the ruins of civilization upon a firm foundation once this present conflict is finally over.