Christian Nationalism as an ideology has been growing amongst the right-wing since 2017, mostly from figures like Nicholas J. Fuentes, and with it comes some challenges; for example should we look to past examples of far right movements like in the 1920s-40s and copy from them, or look to a totally new and unique form of politics. This debate is mostly between what I call the “futurist” camp, which advocates for unique plays in politics never before seen, and the “antiquist” camp, which advocates for a copy of essentially 20th century fascism.
When understanding this faction, you have to pay attention to the content of what is being said by a member of the Futurist camp. Some Antiquists and outsiders would call this camp too “technocratic” to be in any way be considered Christian Nationalist. However the argument posed by Futurists is simple: Why should we look to past movements of far right politics, which whilst may of had short term success, ultimately failed long term?
Futurists are big supporters of Russia, and most would be respectful or even supportive of China as well. They see these countries as adopting their position of not repeating the past and accelerating the goal of a multipolar world order, which in a Futurist’s opinion would create relative global and domestic security rather than a unipolar world order.
A Futurist is more likely to support technological developments like AI, cryptocurrency and Web 3.0, and is likely to be younger, mostly in the 18-24 category, more than other Christian Nationalists. Most Futurists believe that being one step ahead everyone else in terms of exploiting the potentiality of technological development will greatly accelerate Christian Nationalism into the mainstream.
The Antiquists, or a would-be considered “old guard” of not just Christian Nationalism but of far right politics as a whole, should be understood as a powerful player in Christian Nationalism, always questioning the Futurists on the viability of using the spoils of a modern world to their advantage instead of looking to tried and tested examples of Christian Nationalism.
Antiquists in terms of global policy would mostly be reclined, and taking a backseat on world affairs. They would most likely support a Detente with China and Russia (though not exactly supporting both countries), abolishing NATO, and would mainly focus on domestic or local issues. An Antiquist would likely condemn Christian persecution across the world however, and would work with countries to prevent it from happening.
An Antiquist would be skeptical of technology, not to the point of being a luddite, but would remark on past movements and their successes despite there being little to no exploitation of the “current thing” when it comes to technological advancement. They would see any beneficial technological advancement as a nicety, not a necessity. Antiquists would mostly be 24+, including older Gen Z, Millennials, Boomers and Gen X.
I wrote this article not to form an argument of which side is best, but to help people understand the differences between those who would be considered an Antiquist or a Futurist, and try to remain neutral in my approach. There are benefits to both camps, and drawbacks as well, and a discussion must be had on the future of Christian Nationalism as we head into 2024, head into a time of possible World War, and head into disparate economic instability.
I would like to make it clear, if you do identify more with what I considered a Futurist/Antiquist, but support some characteristics of the opposing faction, that should not discard what you believe in. These are not set in stone, and others can adapt accordingly, or even give their own definitions.