Sounds like you are a WN then but you don't like the label of WN so you try to distance yourself from that even though that's what you are. At the end of the day if you want your nation to be mostly White people only, you're a WN.
If that's all there was to it then yes, but that's not how the term is understood by the vast majority of people, and not just CNN viewers but people firmly on the right wing as well. There's a reason why the word "wignat" is used by people on the right, even groypers.
You are 100% right though that being all White is necessary but insufficient. A big problem I have with many WNs is that too many of them think all-White is the only necessary thing to fix the country.
I think religion in the end matters a lot less than race. The White Catholics were less of a problem than the jews or Africans.
I would say religion is slightly more important than race, because of the long-term effects. Christianity brought Europeans up from barbarians into world powers.
White Catholics worked, contributed, etc, but the Catholic attitude towards charity and third worlders helped usher in the welfare state and mass immigration. Phillip Hart, the other half of Hart-Cellar, was Catholic. Most invaders from South America are Catholic and the Vatican definitely takes that into consideration. The climate change world domination plan of the current pope is characteristic of the institution, not just himself.
Paulie from the Sopranos defined "Elvis country" as "any place there are no Jews or Italians" - aka a nightmare for him. Sure, it's a TV show, but that was a real attitude and it speaks to a mindset in those ethnic groups towards founding Americans.
If you scroll down you can see the breakdown between White, Hispanic and Black Catholics and Protestants regarding whether they want more border security or path to citizenship for immigrants.
The White Catholics and Protestants are very similar in their beliefs. It's the Hispanic Catholics that have a significant difference in belief wanting path to citizenship over better border security.
These stats would support my view more than yours that race is far more important than religion.
I don't doubt that the USA would be better if it was just the founding protestants but that's because they were White. If all we took in were White Catholics, I don't think that would have had such a detrimental impact on society. The real overall negative impact was jews and Africans and now Hispanics. They are ultimately what is killing the country. The non-Whites.
I'm not going to argue the point that race is much more influential at the present moment, because it is, but a 2010 poll is not descriptive at all of the long history of Catholics in America. Catholics have complained about discrimination for decades, and Catholic pluralism laid the groundwork for Hart-Cellar. Hart-Cellar, in turn, laid the groundwork for the destruction of the ethnocentric character of America.
Religion is the ideological unification of the country. When religious practice is hollowed out, there is a vacuum in the national character that makes it vulnerable. In this case, consumerism and globalism filled the void, and here we are. You're talking about the short term, I'm talking about the long term.
The immigration act was happening regardless of the religious makeup of the country. This was already decided post WWII as the plan for all western countries. It's no surprise almost all White dominant countries passed similar laws in and around the same times.
You may have a point for the Catholic Church (Vatican) having a part to play in multiculturalism worldwide and perhaps the Vatican used its influence to help push these types of laws globally but the Vatican seemed to have supported fascism in Italy and perhaps even supported the Germans. The Vatican has been fighting its own war internally and losing with Vatican II sealing the Catholic Church's fate also. The problem IMO stems more from the money and power of the bankers and their influence in the late 1800s and early 1900s than it has to do with the Catholic Church specifically.
I think you overplay the impact of the Catholic Church on our overall outcome these days. The Catholic Church hasn't done enough to oppose things from getting to where they are today but neither has any group of anyone.
The immigration act was happening regardless of the religious makeup of the country. This was already decided post WWII as the plan for all western countries. It's no surprise almost all White dominant countries passed similar laws in and around the same times.
Maybe so. I don't think it's a surprise either, but that's entangled with the overwhelming domination of the US in the Western sphere.
You may have a point for the Catholic Church (Vatican) having a part to play in multiculturalism worldwide and perhaps the Vatican used its influence to help push these types of laws globally but the Vatican seemed to have supported fascism in Italy and perhaps even supported the Germans. The Vatican has been fighting its own war internally and losing with Vatican II sealing the Catholic Church's fate also. The problem IMO stems more from the money and power of the bankers and their influence in the late 1800s and early 1900s than it has to do with the Catholic Church specifically.
The Vatican played both sides of WWII. There's a reason that some anti-Nazi Catholic partisans are up for sainthood.
To what extent the bankers control the world is a very complex topic. I'm certainly not writing that off, I'm learning in bits and pieces. However, the immense secrecy and power of the RCC cannot be written off either. These are people with their own state and almost no outside scrutiny who are accustomed to world domination, playing strategic games over centuries, and wield influence over more than a billion people.
If that's all there was to it then yes, but that's not how the term is understood by the vast majority of people, and not just CNN viewers but people firmly on the right wing as well. There's a reason why the word "wignat" is used by people on the right, even groypers.
I would say religion is slightly more important than race, because of the long-term effects. Christianity brought Europeans up from barbarians into world powers.
White Catholics worked, contributed, etc, but the Catholic attitude towards charity and third worlders helped usher in the welfare state and mass immigration. Phillip Hart, the other half of Hart-Cellar, was Catholic. Most invaders from South America are Catholic and the Vatican definitely takes that into consideration. The climate change world domination plan of the current pope is characteristic of the institution, not just himself.
Paulie from the Sopranos defined "Elvis country" as "any place there are no Jews or Italians" - aka a nightmare for him. Sure, it's a TV show, but that was a real attitude and it speaks to a mindset in those ethnic groups towards founding Americans.
Here's an example of some stats in 2010.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2010/09/17/few-say-religion-shapes-immigration-environment-views/
If you scroll down you can see the breakdown between White, Hispanic and Black Catholics and Protestants regarding whether they want more border security or path to citizenship for immigrants.
The White Catholics and Protestants are very similar in their beliefs. It's the Hispanic Catholics that have a significant difference in belief wanting path to citizenship over better border security.
These stats would support my view more than yours that race is far more important than religion.
I don't doubt that the USA would be better if it was just the founding protestants but that's because they were White. If all we took in were White Catholics, I don't think that would have had such a detrimental impact on society. The real overall negative impact was jews and Africans and now Hispanics. They are ultimately what is killing the country. The non-Whites.
I'm not going to argue the point that race is much more influential at the present moment, because it is, but a 2010 poll is not descriptive at all of the long history of Catholics in America. Catholics have complained about discrimination for decades, and Catholic pluralism laid the groundwork for Hart-Cellar. Hart-Cellar, in turn, laid the groundwork for the destruction of the ethnocentric character of America.
Religion is the ideological unification of the country. When religious practice is hollowed out, there is a vacuum in the national character that makes it vulnerable. In this case, consumerism and globalism filled the void, and here we are. You're talking about the short term, I'm talking about the long term.
The immigration act was happening regardless of the religious makeup of the country. This was already decided post WWII as the plan for all western countries. It's no surprise almost all White dominant countries passed similar laws in and around the same times.
You may have a point for the Catholic Church (Vatican) having a part to play in multiculturalism worldwide and perhaps the Vatican used its influence to help push these types of laws globally but the Vatican seemed to have supported fascism in Italy and perhaps even supported the Germans. The Vatican has been fighting its own war internally and losing with Vatican II sealing the Catholic Church's fate also. The problem IMO stems more from the money and power of the bankers and their influence in the late 1800s and early 1900s than it has to do with the Catholic Church specifically.
I think you overplay the impact of the Catholic Church on our overall outcome these days. The Catholic Church hasn't done enough to oppose things from getting to where they are today but neither has any group of anyone.
Maybe so. I don't think it's a surprise either, but that's entangled with the overwhelming domination of the US in the Western sphere.
The Vatican played both sides of WWII. There's a reason that some anti-Nazi Catholic partisans are up for sainthood.
To what extent the bankers control the world is a very complex topic. I'm certainly not writing that off, I'm learning in bits and pieces. However, the immense secrecy and power of the RCC cannot be written off either. These are people with their own state and almost no outside scrutiny who are accustomed to world domination, playing strategic games over centuries, and wield influence over more than a billion people.