The modern concept of race was introduced as a part of "Enlightenment" ideology in the 18th century.  It has only been around for a couple of centuries.  It was not part of Catholic thinking but was associated with an anti-Catholic movement.  (Virtually every social evil of our time can be traced to "Enlightenment" philosophy.)  This is a relatively short period of time compared to the history of the Church which is why I said it was not historically important.  For most of Christian history it never even occurred to anyone to divide up humanity based on physical characteristics like skin or hair colour.  

Magisterial teaching about race appears in Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

We can see from this that the concept of race, while not intrinsically wrong, is capable of being distorted and perverted into something evil.

Love of one's country is a good and patriotism has long been recognized as a virtue within Catholic thinking.  It is also good to honour one's ethnicity and culture.  But only up to a point.  When these things become a person's highest value, they take the place that rightfully belongs to God alone.  In that case, they have become a form of idolatry.

The Spaniards had a racial caste system in their colonies in the 1500s. Not to say that their system was just, but it shows race predates the Enlightenment by quite a while. 

Before the New Covenant, God gave salvation only to the early Hebrews who lived His Word. This fact proves that race matters. 

This way of using the word "race" is not what is typically meant by the term.  The way "race" is normally used is to refer to division of humanity by physical characteristics, primarily skin colour.  The Hebrews were an ethnic group; they shared common blood, common customs and culture, and common language.  These things can matter very much.  They play a key role in social relationships.

Jєωs aren't white (European-descended Caucasians).

They appear "white" to most people because most people are deceived by the world. That's why Jєωs pretend to be white as they try to convince real white people to abandon their preservation & self-interests, then they switch back to being Jєωιѕн

True race is not based on the appearance of the complexion of skin. Rather, it's genetic. The phenotype is largely determined by the genotype. That's why a German Jєω doesn't look like a real ethnic German. Same applies to all ethnicities in the Caucasian race. A Jєω is quite obvious, if you're awake to what they are... An awake person can usually identify a Jєω.

This thread is not about the Church, it is about the nation. A nation can have policies that discriminate based on ethnicity(e.g immigration policies) without denying that all ethnicities are equal in Christ. Hence ethno-nationalist. You implied that a Christian country ought to not care about ethnicity at all and used that verse to back it up, but the verse doesn't prove it.

Immigration policies are typically about law not ethnicity.  Expecting people to follow a country's laws concerning who may enter a country and under what conditions they are allowed to live there has no intrinsic connection to ethnicity.  Everybody, regardless of ethnic group, ought to obey such laws.  (I suppose, theoretically, a country could make laws that allowed only certain ethnic groups to immigrate, but that is not part of any current discussion of immigration policies.)

A Christian state would care far more about its citizens being Christian than what ethnic group they came from. I think that just follows logically from the nature of a Christian state. 

The Spaniards had a racial caste system in their colonies in the 1500s. Not to say that their system was just, but it shows race predates the Enlightenment by quite a while.

The caste system was not based on physical racial characteristics (as in the Enlightenment understanding) but on ethnicity and other factors.  For example, the illegitimate child of a Spaniard and a Native was considered part of the mestizo caste. If the parents were married, however, the child was categorized as either Spanish or Native, depending on which culture he was raised in.  

Well yes, it's not in the current realm of discussion, right now we're too busy trying to stop open borders to focus on particulars. What I'm saying is that it's within a nation's rights to do so, and that it is not immoral.

I see what you're saying now.  I was confused because I thought it was a reference to current events.  I even have an example of what you are talking about within my own family.

My husband is the child of immigrants from Lithuania. He was raised with a strong ethnic identity and sense of his cultural heritage.  We tried to pass that on to our children.

Lithuania has an immigration policy that grants virtually automatic citizenship to direct descendants of people who were citizens of Lithuania before 1940.  Under this law, our eldest daughter moved to Lithuania and became a citizen.

People who are not ethnically Lithuanian must follow more complex procedures if they wish to live there. It is reasonable for Lithuania to give preferential treatment to ethnic Lithuanians as immigrants.  They want to foster the connection between ethnicity and nationality.  I agree with you that this is a moral policy.

Under Soviet rule, the opposite happened.  Soviet policy was to destroy Lithuanian ethnic identity. One method was forced immigration of people who were not ethnically Lithuanian, many Russians for example.  They wanted Lithuanians to think of themselves as members of the Soviet Union rather than as Lithuanians.  They did not want people to have patriotism toward Lithuania.

This situation also shows the difference between race and ethnicity.  Russians and Lithuanians are the same race.  Both are white Europeans and look fairly similar.  But they have different languages, histories and culture.  It makes sense to speak of preserving Lithuanian culture or Russian culture, but not white culture.  There is no "white language" or "white cuisine" or "white customs".  

They appear "white" to most people because most people are deceived by the world. That's why Jєωs pretend to be white as they try to convince real white people to abandon their preservation & self-interests, then they switch back to being Jєωιѕн

True race is not based on the appearance of the complexion of skin. Rather, it's genetic. The phenotype is largely determined by the genotype. That's why a German Jєω doesn't look like a real ethnic German. Same applies to all ethnicities in the Caucasian race. A Jєω is quite obvious, if you're awake to what they are... An awake person can usually identify a Jєω.

Many Jєωs do not appear white.  One branch of Jєωs, the αѕнкenαzιm, appears white.  Other branches do not. 


Because of this, one of the social problems occurring in Israel is tensions between so-called White Jєωs and Black Jєωs.  (I hope we will not be accused of anti-semitism for suggesting that there are any problems in Israel. :) )

I wonder if Bas Congo V can identify the race of this person:



Here's a clue.  This is a portrait of Venerable Francis Liebermann, the second founder of the Spiritan order of missionaries of which Archbishop Lefebvre was a member.

Fr. Liebermann was born to a Jєωιѕн family.  He was even the son of a Rabbi.  But he ceased to be Jєωιѕн when he was baptized at the age of 24.  He was also disowned by his father.

This is one of the main reasons that it does not make sense to consider Jєωs a race.  In virtually any other context, people have no choice concerning what race they are.  But some people who are not Jєωs become Jєωs and other people, who are Jєωs, stop being Jєωs by accepting Christ.

Judaism is a false religion of which one of the main tenets is the rejection of Christ.  This is what is wrong with it, not some supposed defect of Jєωιѕн blood or peculiarity of their appearance.

Jєω is both a race and a false religion.

The racial Jєω who sincerely converts to Christ and is baptized into Him is saved, and his racial curse is lifted, yet, he still remains a racial Jєω.

I kind of feel like you are a Black-Pilled edgelord. Cool, but I agree with the more moderate posters on this thread. God created all men in his image and likeness, he doesn't care what you look like or who your dad is. But to answer the original question that OP posed. I think it is a very dangerous place to be in if you identify yourself as a Ethno-nationalist. There were some bad people who were Ethno-nationalists. I do NOT agree with open borders or the importance of "diversity" but there is a difference with being conservative and being an ethno-nationalist. If you want to preserve your culture (I.E. western Culture) you convert whoever deserves to enter your country to it. You cant keep people out just because of their skin color or nation of origin. If they pose a threat due to their CULTURE or criminal background etc they shouldn't be let in. What i mean by threat to your culture is something like radical Islam, they want to make western civilization into a Medieval Hell-hole like Iraq currently or Iran. I am down with keeping that sort of threat out, but like I said before when you say ethno-nationalist I see a severe problem with that. Ethnicity or race should not be a decision making factor in a Catholic's mind. You have to look at the individual rather than a whole group.   

I’ve gotten more pro ethnonationalist in the past year.  IQ and cultural differences are real.  Yes all are equal in Christ, but that doesn’t preclude the reality of differences between people groups.  I think modern liberalism has a lot of influence here