Christian nationalism in the US advocates policy positions that worsen poverty through tax policy, cuts to social services, etc. Christian nationalists are poor in part because they largely support a politics that keeps them entrenched in poverty.
My number one complaint about the extant Left is there total unwillingness to resolve the huge problem of the chronically homeless, the vast majority of whom are addicted to drugs and/or profoundly mentally ill. The only real solution is forcible institutionalization if they have no family that will become responsible for them. Their constant presence hurts the poor far more than anyone else, especially the temporarily homeless. People who oppose forcible institutionalization of the schizophrenic living on the sidewalk simply do not care about poor people. They just don’t.
They also take up the relatively limited resources for the homeless, and most of them will never be anything but homeless unless they just get put in a mental hospital. If they’re actually cured of their problem or family will take responsibility, then you let them out. It can easily be done, it’s just a matter of doing it. It is 100% the best thing for everybody.
The proles that are looked down upon for being "nationalist" are also the ones who suffer the most from underclass immigration. Wealthy people interact with immigrants by using them to drive down servile labor costs, and their kids go to school with the immigrant software engineer's kids. Where I grew up, immigrants move in and play loud Reggaeton constantly, drive down my peer's wages through competition, form gangs, and weaponize their race to get opportunities at Heritage American's expense.
I appreciate you posting this because it opposes the Replacement agenda, and I know that's an unpopular opinion among the powerful. Thank you.
Who are the Christian Nationalists who are acting in good faith (or at least *good enough* faith) that the Church ought to engage with? And what ought to be the first move of bishops (other than Barron and Dolan) or the Vatican?
The precise grounds of your disagreement with Schmitt is unclear to me. Uniting around shared loves requires the ability to define who is an enemy to those loves. And that is all that the concept of the political amounts to. Friendship and enmity are two aspects of a single phenomenon. It seems to me that you actually agree with Schmitt, even while you are denouncing him.
My criticism of Schmitt is that he does not adequately describe what friendship is outside of uniting against an enemy. The error is not in the distinction as such, but in the principle of national unity being the identification of an enemy.
They are not, the Church has condemned both socialism and liberalism on multiple occasions. Using a whataboutism to deflect from the issue of nationalism doesn't actually solve the issue.
No. Christian Nationalists are not just poor. They are thriving in all denominations and they are sucking in a certain type of Catholic. You think Christian Nationalists will tolerate Catholicism if they are allowed to deeply root? Nope. There is nothing about Christian Nationalism that is compatible with Catholicism. I will not sympathize with them. I will not rally with them. Ever.
Why is nationalism not compatible with Catholicism? Since when have the “college educated, apolitical, suburbanite” Catholics assumed magisterial authority, or to presume that the question needn’t be asked, let alone answered?
I think the unique issue with Christian nationalism is that, besides the name, its priorities are so hopelessly misaligned with the Gospel. The primary Christian nationalist grievance that you articulate of “social/national integrity” is just not a part of Jesus’ teaching. He doesn’t give sermons about it, caution His followers regarding it, or even discuss it at all. The grievance of socialism, as you put it, (inequitable distribution of resources) is far more aligned with Jesus’ teachings on wealth.
The Somalians and their parallel culture were apparently over 80% on government assistance after what, 10 years? They had a chance to become citizens and failed. And we really need to have a conversation about whether any Muslims should be allowed I'm, given their wild words about taking over the country. If they want it to be a zero sum game, they got their wish.
Also, I predict that Catholic Charities and their role in this migration will give our church another black eye.
The fact that it’s poor-coded is underdiscussed.
They're the "wrong type" of poor people unfortunately
Christian nationalism in the US advocates policy positions that worsen poverty through tax policy, cuts to social services, etc. Christian nationalists are poor in part because they largely support a politics that keeps them entrenched in poverty.
Every lib becomes a bootstraps meritocrat when it comes to white people lmao
My number one complaint about the extant Left is there total unwillingness to resolve the huge problem of the chronically homeless, the vast majority of whom are addicted to drugs and/or profoundly mentally ill. The only real solution is forcible institutionalization if they have no family that will become responsible for them. Their constant presence hurts the poor far more than anyone else, especially the temporarily homeless. People who oppose forcible institutionalization of the schizophrenic living on the sidewalk simply do not care about poor people. They just don’t.
No, you need to let violent drug addicts sleep on the bench outside libraries in poor neighborhoods or else you hate the Gospel
They also take up the relatively limited resources for the homeless, and most of them will never be anything but homeless unless they just get put in a mental hospital. If they’re actually cured of their problem or family will take responsibility, then you let them out. It can easily be done, it’s just a matter of doing it. It is 100% the best thing for everybody.
Even if this were true (it’s mostly not) this has nothing to do with what I said.
The proles that are looked down upon for being "nationalist" are also the ones who suffer the most from underclass immigration. Wealthy people interact with immigrants by using them to drive down servile labor costs, and their kids go to school with the immigrant software engineer's kids. Where I grew up, immigrants move in and play loud Reggaeton constantly, drive down my peer's wages through competition, form gangs, and weaponize their race to get opportunities at Heritage American's expense.
I appreciate you posting this because it opposes the Replacement agenda, and I know that's an unpopular opinion among the powerful. Thank you.
Who are the Christian Nationalists who are acting in good faith (or at least *good enough* faith) that the Church ought to engage with? And what ought to be the first move of bishops (other than Barron and Dolan) or the Vatican?
The precise grounds of your disagreement with Schmitt is unclear to me. Uniting around shared loves requires the ability to define who is an enemy to those loves. And that is all that the concept of the political amounts to. Friendship and enmity are two aspects of a single phenomenon. It seems to me that you actually agree with Schmitt, even while you are denouncing him.
My criticism of Schmitt is that he does not adequately describe what friendship is outside of uniting against an enemy. The error is not in the distinction as such, but in the principle of national unity being the identification of an enemy.
Fraternity created nationalism not fascism. Fascism is an ultranationalism that tries to eliminate liberalism and moderate socialism.
They are not, the Church has condemned both socialism and liberalism on multiple occasions. Using a whataboutism to deflect from the issue of nationalism doesn't actually solve the issue.
No. Christian Nationalists are not just poor. They are thriving in all denominations and they are sucking in a certain type of Catholic. You think Christian Nationalists will tolerate Catholicism if they are allowed to deeply root? Nope. There is nothing about Christian Nationalism that is compatible with Catholicism. I will not sympathize with them. I will not rally with them. Ever.
Why is nationalism not compatible with Catholicism? Since when have the “college educated, apolitical, suburbanite” Catholics assumed magisterial authority, or to presume that the question needn’t be asked, let alone answered?
“The Catholic correction is that immigration will and should happen”
Why exactly should it happen?
Because people move, refugees need shelter, etc. Doesnt mean you need massive federal programs to move hundreds of thousands.
Catholicism isn't compatible with Nationalism.
Nor socialism nor liberalism but the church manages to do what I said in the article with those ideologies
I think the unique issue with Christian nationalism is that, besides the name, its priorities are so hopelessly misaligned with the Gospel. The primary Christian nationalist grievance that you articulate of “social/national integrity” is just not a part of Jesus’ teaching. He doesn’t give sermons about it, caution His followers regarding it, or even discuss it at all. The grievance of socialism, as you put it, (inequitable distribution of resources) is far more aligned with Jesus’ teachings on wealth.
The Somalians and their parallel culture were apparently over 80% on government assistance after what, 10 years? They had a chance to become citizens and failed. And we really need to have a conversation about whether any Muslims should be allowed I'm, given their wild words about taking over the country. If they want it to be a zero sum game, they got their wish.
Also, I predict that Catholic Charities and their role in this migration will give our church another black eye.
With your pope inviting all the wrong crowds. I dont think the your church will engage them.