Well said. If Fuentes spent more time encouraging (and embracing) a life of virtue, and less time making puerile insults at people, he could become an actual (and intergenerational) political force with an actual future.
I, for one, have made a promise of celibacy, in answer to my vocation. I can assure you that holiness extends far beyond celibacy. It is a good thing of itself, but to think "it doesn't get much holier than that." is plain silly.
No I don’t think so, Catholic morality is all about regulating male sexuality. There is no higher proof of commitment to Catholic moral codes than what Nick has displayed.
Look. One day Catholics will have to wake up and be honest. Nick Fuentes IS CORRECT that there’s a large, global attack on any one and everyone considered “white”, that current political programs seek to replace those people with “minority groups” in their own countries, and that any protest against this is considered either racist or, in Catholic Pat’s case, “unchristian”.
That’s the issue.
Until you acknowledge that, no, actually there is no moral imperative to maximize the amount of melanated skin in a country or a Home Depot commercial, you’ll continue to lose young white guys because you’re advocating policies that actively hurt them.
The Church is maybe the worst offender on this front btw.
And what does human dignity entail? Racism as a term is a century old, and Fuentes' arguably takes a more pre-modern view of race than many others. Are you saying every Catholic prior to the dawn of the term "racism" was committing "racism"?
Also, we just want the countries our ancestors built to look, act, and believe like us man. We, as White guys, just want what every other race demands and gets. That's it. That isn't a sin.
Human dignity entails the immeasurable value of each human person. Because we are made in the Imago Dei and further sanctified by the Incarnation, every person must be treated in charity.
As I answer below, yes the term racist is modern. That's because race theory is modern. In actuality, there is only the human race, but in modern parlance we understand that term to be addressing ethnicity.
The goal you mention sounds nice, doesn't it? But if the steps to achieve that goal involve committing evil, then it's not nice. Also equating skin color ("look like us") to religion ("believe like us") is unreasonable.
Consider the St. Patrick's battalion. Catholic Irish men realized that they had more in common with Catholic Mexican natives than the WASP. Well, their skin color was closer to the European -descended Americans, but the English for a long time abused the Irish on the basis of religion and ethnicity.
With respect Fr, I do not think remigration is evil. I think flooding countries with immigrants who, at best, simply don't assimilate well, or, at worst, actively try to undermine its host country, is evil.
There is so much talk from the Church about "welcoming the immigrant" without any chiding of the immigrant to actually behave once he's here. People dispossessed in their own country have dignity too, do they not?
I am in agreement with you on several of these points. Yes, immigrants are and should be bound to right conduct, as everyone should be. Yes, there is a real problem when people come into a country bringing violence. To my understanding, Europe is suffering because many Muslims act criminally and are not held accountable.
But, as I mention below, I live in the USA and although I am white, I am a descendant of 20th century immigrants. Most white people here are. Most black people here have descendents in America from the 18th or 19th centuries. Looking at places like Texas, NM, Arizona, the Mexican people have deeper roots there than white people. Who was dispossessed from that land by immigrants? Is your suggestion for white people to leave from non native lands? Or does that only apply to non white people?
But you fail to understand that it’s actually committing evil to ethnically replace people from their native homelands.
That’s an actual evil, actively being done to millions of white people, yet you don’t even notice it. You completely don’t see it, I suppose because you have a broken moral compass. You just worry about them getting mad at being dispossessed.
I, for one, live in the USA. White people are not native here. The majority of white people here today are not descended from the original colonies, but immigrants in the twentieth century. So based on your logic, most White people do not belong here. That's antithetical to "America first".
Also, I acknowledge that racism is evil even when committed against white people. For example, the English oppression of Irish in Ireland. That's evil because it involves acts of evil (abuse, murder, stealing, etc.)
People moving to a new place and having children is not an evil act. Claiming that it is evil solely based on the color of their skin is a racist claim.
Okay so would you say there was nothing wrong with 10 million whites moving to Haiti over the next decade, becoming a voting majority, and radically altering that place’s culture, politics, religion, and economy?
The Haitians should have no problem with that?
You see what you’re implying is that it’s okay to invade and conquer a place so long as you do so without fighting. The local population isn’t, according to you, allowed to be against your moving there, or take any steps to stop you from doing so, so essentially you have erased the idea of state sovereignty.
Is it racist to want Ireland to remain ethnically Irish? Or Germany German? If so, then we must conclude that either racism is not a sin or your definition of it is faulty.
Racism is to mistreat another person on the basis of ethnicity. Yes, the term is modern because "modern race theory" is a modern invention. Truly, we all belong to the human race despite different ethnicities.
For our moral compass, we have "Love your neighbor as yourself.", "Whatsoever you do to the least of these...", and every other teaching of Christ.
Sin is always a failure in charity. The sin of "racism" is to fail in charity out of prejudice for someone's ethnicity. And to mistreat people because of ethnicity is wrong.
Jesus was also pretty clear that "who is my neighbor?" Included people of different ethnic groups. The Samaritan is the neighbor of the Israelite. Likewise the Gentiles, etc.
To pivot to the second question, this desire to keep a country ethnically pure is not a Christian value. Patriotism is a virtue. Ethnic purity is not.
Sorry, I simply do not believe that we are duty bound by “Christian Morality” to give away ancestral homelands. If that’s church teaching then the church is wrong.
If there is no moral way to resist millions of people coming into your country and participating in your voting elections, there is no moral way to resist them taking control (at least partial, and perhaps near total) of your country.
2) the devil also quotes scripture for his purposes, as you well know.
How is questioning a historical narrative, which itself has changed significantly several times, in conflict with the exercise of virtues or the Beatitudes?
One has only to listen to Fuentes for three minutes to recognize he is not merely "questioning a narrative". This is a weak defense to avoid any kind of responsibility for his assertions. In his interview his Piers Morgan, for example, he defended the blunt statement that women need to shut up and most blacks need to be imprisoned. That is not virtuous, does not reflect the Beatitudes, and is not "questioning a historical narrative".
No, sir. I engaged your question, or rather, your implication posed behind rhetorical question. You have now changed to a different question. Now to answer the new question:
Asking questions is neither virtuous or unvirtuous. A person's conduct is either virtuous or vicious. The same action can be conducted virtuously or viciously.
I asked the same question twice, though worded differently the second time. I also asked it of the OP who made the statement that it conflicted the virtues and the Beatitudes to question the historical narrative.
Thank you for confirming that it is not vicious, nor contrary to the Beatitudes, to question the narrative of an historical event.
We also buy into the false dichotomy of VICE<->VIRTUE, which exacerbates the problem stated in this post.
Liberal minds tend to see the goal of virtue like this:
VICE->->->->VIRTUE->->->->
But vice is at the bottom of a mountain, and virtue is at the top.
At the bottom of that mountain are two vices, a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess.
The goal of living a virtuous life is a balance not a sprint away from vice in one direction.
VICE OF DEFICIENCY -> -> VIRTUE <- <- VICE OF EXCESS
Conservative minds have their own error, where they create an opposite force in reaction to the liberal mind that sometimes leads them into deficiency rather than balance:
<- <- <- <- VIRTUE <- <- <- <- VICE
In both liberal and conservative errors, motion continues past virtue rather than stopping when balance is reached. This isn't physics; there doesn't need to be an equal and opposite reaction for every action. The polarization causes almost everyone to overshoot virtue.
Can you speak more to how asking the right kinds of questions (a la Phil 4:8) would produce a different kind of outcome online? Wouldn’t Groypers just interpret those “better” questions as no less fake and mealy-mouthed than the ones borrowed directly from secular liberalism, at least until their objections to western liberalism are addressed?
You're like a neutered dog. You just don't get it. Those boys are rejecting the liberal multiculturalism and feminism that the Church has bought into. They are mad as hell at the dystopia liberalism has created and the heavy systemic biases against them. Marketing is not the problem. They fiercely reject the church lady lectures and finger wagging about how they need to "step up" and join the multicult for Jesus. Back to hell with that!
Perhaps define racism. Is in-group preference racism? When an NFL star buys a home in a white neighborhood because there is low crime is that racism? All people behave this way. Asians prefer to hire Asians because it’s a known culture and common way of life. Same with blacks or hispanos. Every construction crew where I live is hispanic. Not a single English gringo. Are they racist? What Fuentes perhaps is saying, albeit poorly, is young white men can have high hopes n-group preference like all others. This is normal and natural. The only group demands are made of is white men, who comprise approximately 12% of the world’s population. Fuentes hit a nerve because you boomers are clueless. Look in your parish pews, you drove away all the men with your lame theology.
My family think he’s hilarious. I disagree. They listen to him because they think he’s simply hyperbolic for the sake of being hyperbolic. I disagree. When they were defending him and saying “women just aren’t funny anymore” because we don’t laugh at the things Nick Fuentes says. I asks them one simple question… if Jesus or Mary or Joseph or any Catholic saint were sitting in the seat opposite Nick, would he still be saying the things he says? Would they think of them as obvious jokes or even jokes at all? I think no. That’s how I approach Fuentes followers of encounter them.
Well said. If Fuentes spent more time encouraging (and embracing) a life of virtue, and less time making puerile insults at people, he could become an actual (and intergenerational) political force with an actual future.
The guy has talent....but he needs to grow up.
He’s a literal celibate, it doesn’t get much holier than that.
...what?
Nick demonstrates commitment to Catholic morality
I, for one, have made a promise of celibacy, in answer to my vocation. I can assure you that holiness extends far beyond celibacy. It is a good thing of itself, but to think "it doesn't get much holier than that." is plain silly.
No I don’t think so, Catholic morality is all about regulating male sexuality. There is no higher proof of commitment to Catholic moral codes than what Nick has displayed.
Nice, so you're just talking out of your ass. 😉🙏🏻
Wow, first reasonable take on the topic I’ve seen online
Thank you sir!
🔥
This won’t stop Fuentes either.
Look. One day Catholics will have to wake up and be honest. Nick Fuentes IS CORRECT that there’s a large, global attack on any one and everyone considered “white”, that current political programs seek to replace those people with “minority groups” in their own countries, and that any protest against this is considered either racist or, in Catholic Pat’s case, “unchristian”.
That’s the issue.
Until you acknowledge that, no, actually there is no moral imperative to maximize the amount of melanated skin in a country or a Home Depot commercial, you’ll continue to lose young white guys because you’re advocating policies that actively hurt them.
The Church is maybe the worst offender on this front btw.
Skin color does not have moral value. Human dignity does. Racism is a sin; whether directed against someone "white" or not.
Sorry that the Church offends you, but as has been established, being offended wins no points.
And what does human dignity entail? Racism as a term is a century old, and Fuentes' arguably takes a more pre-modern view of race than many others. Are you saying every Catholic prior to the dawn of the term "racism" was committing "racism"?
Also, we just want the countries our ancestors built to look, act, and believe like us man. We, as White guys, just want what every other race demands and gets. That's it. That isn't a sin.
Human dignity entails the immeasurable value of each human person. Because we are made in the Imago Dei and further sanctified by the Incarnation, every person must be treated in charity.
As I answer below, yes the term racist is modern. That's because race theory is modern. In actuality, there is only the human race, but in modern parlance we understand that term to be addressing ethnicity.
The goal you mention sounds nice, doesn't it? But if the steps to achieve that goal involve committing evil, then it's not nice. Also equating skin color ("look like us") to religion ("believe like us") is unreasonable.
Consider the St. Patrick's battalion. Catholic Irish men realized that they had more in common with Catholic Mexican natives than the WASP. Well, their skin color was closer to the European -descended Americans, but the English for a long time abused the Irish on the basis of religion and ethnicity.
With respect Fr, I do not think remigration is evil. I think flooding countries with immigrants who, at best, simply don't assimilate well, or, at worst, actively try to undermine its host country, is evil.
There is so much talk from the Church about "welcoming the immigrant" without any chiding of the immigrant to actually behave once he's here. People dispossessed in their own country have dignity too, do they not?
I am in agreement with you on several of these points. Yes, immigrants are and should be bound to right conduct, as everyone should be. Yes, there is a real problem when people come into a country bringing violence. To my understanding, Europe is suffering because many Muslims act criminally and are not held accountable.
But, as I mention below, I live in the USA and although I am white, I am a descendant of 20th century immigrants. Most white people here are. Most black people here have descendents in America from the 18th or 19th centuries. Looking at places like Texas, NM, Arizona, the Mexican people have deeper roots there than white people. Who was dispossessed from that land by immigrants? Is your suggestion for white people to leave from non native lands? Or does that only apply to non white people?
But you fail to understand that it’s actually committing evil to ethnically replace people from their native homelands.
That’s an actual evil, actively being done to millions of white people, yet you don’t even notice it. You completely don’t see it, I suppose because you have a broken moral compass. You just worry about them getting mad at being dispossessed.
I, for one, live in the USA. White people are not native here. The majority of white people here today are not descended from the original colonies, but immigrants in the twentieth century. So based on your logic, most White people do not belong here. That's antithetical to "America first".
Also, I acknowledge that racism is evil even when committed against white people. For example, the English oppression of Irish in Ireland. That's evil because it involves acts of evil (abuse, murder, stealing, etc.)
People moving to a new place and having children is not an evil act. Claiming that it is evil solely based on the color of their skin is a racist claim.
Okay so would you say there was nothing wrong with 10 million whites moving to Haiti over the next decade, becoming a voting majority, and radically altering that place’s culture, politics, religion, and economy?
The Haitians should have no problem with that?
You see what you’re implying is that it’s okay to invade and conquer a place so long as you do so without fighting. The local population isn’t, according to you, allowed to be against your moving there, or take any steps to stop you from doing so, so essentially you have erased the idea of state sovereignty.
Do you have an answer to this? I would like to make progress here.
See answer below. I only check Substack a couple times a day.
What is racism, specifically?
Is it racist to want Ireland to remain ethnically Irish? Or Germany German? If so, then we must conclude that either racism is not a sin or your definition of it is faulty.
Racism is to mistreat another person on the basis of ethnicity. Yes, the term is modern because "modern race theory" is a modern invention. Truly, we all belong to the human race despite different ethnicities.
For our moral compass, we have "Love your neighbor as yourself.", "Whatsoever you do to the least of these...", and every other teaching of Christ.
Sin is always a failure in charity. The sin of "racism" is to fail in charity out of prejudice for someone's ethnicity. And to mistreat people because of ethnicity is wrong.
Jesus was also pretty clear that "who is my neighbor?" Included people of different ethnic groups. The Samaritan is the neighbor of the Israelite. Likewise the Gentiles, etc.
To pivot to the second question, this desire to keep a country ethnically pure is not a Christian value. Patriotism is a virtue. Ethnic purity is not.
Sorry, I simply do not believe that we are duty bound by “Christian Morality” to give away ancestral homelands. If that’s church teaching then the church is wrong.
You are jumping to something I have never said.
Also, you may notice I did not quote to you just "church teaching", but the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel.
1) you are saying that.
If there is no moral way to resist millions of people coming into your country and participating in your voting elections, there is no moral way to resist them taking control (at least partial, and perhaps near total) of your country.
2) the devil also quotes scripture for his purposes, as you well know.
How is questioning a historical narrative, which itself has changed significantly several times, in conflict with the exercise of virtues or the Beatitudes?
One has only to listen to Fuentes for three minutes to recognize he is not merely "questioning a narrative". This is a weak defense to avoid any kind of responsibility for his assertions. In his interview his Piers Morgan, for example, he defended the blunt statement that women need to shut up and most blacks need to be imprisoned. That is not virtuous, does not reflect the Beatitudes, and is not "questioning a historical narrative".
One day you’ll figure out what time it is.
Your own deflection avoids answering my question.
Is it a violation of the virtues and Beatitudes to question a historical narrative?
No, sir. I engaged your question, or rather, your implication posed behind rhetorical question. You have now changed to a different question. Now to answer the new question:
Asking questions is neither virtuous or unvirtuous. A person's conduct is either virtuous or vicious. The same action can be conducted virtuously or viciously.
I asked the same question twice, though worded differently the second time. I also asked it of the OP who made the statement that it conflicted the virtues and the Beatitudes to question the historical narrative.
Thank you for confirming that it is not vicious, nor contrary to the Beatitudes, to question the narrative of an historical event.
Yeah, but it does matter how we interpret it.
This is a test to see if you moderate comments.
You’re not dealing with people who actually care about societal health. They care about subjugation.
The common good has been weaponized.
We also buy into the false dichotomy of VICE<->VIRTUE, which exacerbates the problem stated in this post.
Liberal minds tend to see the goal of virtue like this:
VICE->->->->VIRTUE->->->->
But vice is at the bottom of a mountain, and virtue is at the top.
At the bottom of that mountain are two vices, a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess.
The goal of living a virtuous life is a balance not a sprint away from vice in one direction.
VICE OF DEFICIENCY -> -> VIRTUE <- <- VICE OF EXCESS
Conservative minds have their own error, where they create an opposite force in reaction to the liberal mind that sometimes leads them into deficiency rather than balance:
<- <- <- <- VIRTUE <- <- <- <- VICE
In both liberal and conservative errors, motion continues past virtue rather than stopping when balance is reached. This isn't physics; there doesn't need to be an equal and opposite reaction for every action. The polarization causes almost everyone to overshoot virtue.
This is the subject of our podcast VirTrue
https://socialcatholic.substack.com
Can you speak more to how asking the right kinds of questions (a la Phil 4:8) would produce a different kind of outcome online? Wouldn’t Groypers just interpret those “better” questions as no less fake and mealy-mouthed than the ones borrowed directly from secular liberalism, at least until their objections to western liberalism are addressed?
You're like a neutered dog. You just don't get it. Those boys are rejecting the liberal multiculturalism and feminism that the Church has bought into. They are mad as hell at the dystopia liberalism has created and the heavy systemic biases against them. Marketing is not the problem. They fiercely reject the church lady lectures and finger wagging about how they need to "step up" and join the multicult for Jesus. Back to hell with that!
Did you read the article? I say exactly that, albeit in less confrontational language
Yes, I did read it and no that's not what you said. You're still not getting it.
Okay
Perhaps define racism. Is in-group preference racism? When an NFL star buys a home in a white neighborhood because there is low crime is that racism? All people behave this way. Asians prefer to hire Asians because it’s a known culture and common way of life. Same with blacks or hispanos. Every construction crew where I live is hispanic. Not a single English gringo. Are they racist? What Fuentes perhaps is saying, albeit poorly, is young white men can have high hopes n-group preference like all others. This is normal and natural. The only group demands are made of is white men, who comprise approximately 12% of the world’s population. Fuentes hit a nerve because you boomers are clueless. Look in your parish pews, you drove away all the men with your lame theology.
I forgot the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not question the post-war historical narrative.
Groypers hate moralizing, even if done with the right morals. They know that even Catholic moralizing services secular ends.
You need to understand the incentive structure that Fuentes is tapping into that makes him so compelling to so many.
This lilyhanded "WWJD" could easily be spun by Fuentes as well. He's ultimately an iconoclast, as was Christ Himself in many ways.
My family think he’s hilarious. I disagree. They listen to him because they think he’s simply hyperbolic for the sake of being hyperbolic. I disagree. When they were defending him and saying “women just aren’t funny anymore” because we don’t laugh at the things Nick Fuentes says. I asks them one simple question… if Jesus or Mary or Joseph or any Catholic saint were sitting in the seat opposite Nick, would he still be saying the things he says? Would they think of them as obvious jokes or even jokes at all? I think no. That’s how I approach Fuentes followers of encounter them.
Piers: “I need you to care about my liberal social norms!”
Fuentes 9000: “I'm sorry, Piers, I can't do that.”