Hey Sup Forums, I've seen a debate running around on here for a little while between ethnic and civic nationalism. Mind suggesting some authors for me to read to get more info on both types?
I've read some stuff by Ernest Renan and what he had to say on civic nationalism, and Johann Fichte and Johann Herder and their writings on ethnic nationalism. Mind suggesting some other good authors or works? Especially for civic nationalism, I am far less well-versed in that field.
Civic nationalist makes no god damn sense to me. The ethnicity is what creates the culture and nation.
How do we explain countries like France, the United States, Switzerland, China, or Russia then? These are all far from ethnically homogeneous states. Hell, Switzerland and China aren't even linguistically homogeneous.
Also, c'mon Sup Forums, real political discussion, please participate. We could all likely stand to learn something, and I really kinda wanna learn more.
Bump
>I can't be united with my neighbors and proud of my superior system of rights and government
I'm not saying ethnic nationalism is bad, but civic can make sense, and ethnicity does not always define culture.
I think that there are states where ethnic nationalism works best, and states where civic nationalism is the only thing that's gonna be able to hold the nation together. It depends on the nation I think.
Unless you're as homogeneous as korea or japan, or willing to create a bullshit myth about ethnic purity like slavs do, ethnic nationalism is absolutely untenable and there's no point discussing it seriously. Civic nationalism is realpolitik.
Civic Nationalism is better for larger more powerful civilizations like America, Ethnic nationalism is all nice and cute for little eurobean villages since it can actually work there.
Civic nationalism, IMO, only works in the event that the population is moral. I believe this concept was related by your own founding fathers. When the moral bond breaks down, as does the nation.
Ethnic nationalism is rooted in something much deeper and is therefore able to weather even immorality.
E. Michael Jones gives some valuable insights on this idea. I'm not sure he'd consider himself an ethnic nationalist or any kind of nationalist for that matter but he certainly has a keen understanding of the importance of ethnicity and morality to the welfare of a nation.
ethno-nationalism only makes sense in historic ethno-states.
I started civic nationalist but it's almost as much of a fairytale as multi-culturalism. It's nationalism for people who don't want the negative buzzwords associated with them but still want some sort of cohesion.
>Also, c'mon Sup Forums, real political discussion
tip from a leaf: always insert some kind of bait or a meme in your OP if you want replies.
Example you could imply that richard spencer is the leader of ethnic nationalism so 5-6 autists will get triggered and contradict your claim. Eventually with all those free bumps and (you)s some people will give you good replies
Civic nationalism isn't the problem, non-whites are. If we exterminated all non-whites from the planet, we would be able to safely practice civic nationalism without the fear of being overrun by subhuman parasites.
the difference between the 2 is civic nationalism is color blind right ?
how is killing everybody who isnt white civic nationalism. also you obviously wouldnt need an ethnostate if everybody had the same ethnicity
Only Europeans are able to look beyond tribe and swear allegiance to a constitutional order. Civic nationalism is not viable if non-whites are included, since non-whites are biologically lacking in civic virtue.
An unapologetic tribalism is the only way we can survive into the next century.
Do you have any suggestions on any works by E. Michael Jones in particular? Just reading a blurb on the guy makes him sound interesting. Also, the ideas of the implication of societal morality playing a role in the possibility of civic nationalism is certainly an interesting idea. Where there is a strong moral societal bond between the peoples, then that helps tie everyone into a civic system. Religion and cultural values play into morality heavily as well, so shared religious and cultural values, even when coupled with ethnic differences, definitely could lead to a stronger unified state.
Thanks for the advice leaf. I kinda want to try and maintain a higher standard though, although I do realize that probably doesn't work too well.
I'm not so sure it's a fairy tale. If it were, then nations like France, Russia, and the United States wouldn't really exist in the form that we find them.
Asians seem to be able to practice civic nationalism quite well, so perhaps leave them in the equation as well?
While I agree with you to a certain extent, there are examples that show other races are capable of civic nationalism. Granted, those other races are usually Asians, although the Amerindians and Mestizos have, in some Central and South American states, interesting and semi-functional forms of civic nationalism going on.
>Asians seem to be able to practice civic nationalism
See
youtube.com
>Asians seem to be able to practice civic nationalism quite well, so perhaps leave them in the equation as well?
Which Asians are you talking about? As far as I know, all East Asians have extremely exclusionary ethno-states. In addition to being extremely disloyal tribal colonists in white countries.
unz.com
>asians
>civic nationalism
I've had a heart to heart with a Chinese guy who admitted that if their races interests would be served they would kill us all, white, black, hispanic. They have racial loyalty above all else
Japan and Korea are effectively ethnostates and have been for their entire history. Their resistance to a form of civic nationalism is acceptable and expected, due to their homogeneous nature. Trying to force civic nationalism on ethnically homogeneous ethno-nationalistic states is wrong. China on the other hand, as well as Singapore, Thailand, and India, all practice civic nationalism semi-efficiently, to a certain extent. Enjoying the video btw
China is not at all ethnically homogeneous, there are upwards of ten relevant ethnicities and three relevant languages. They are unified by the civic idea of "Chinese" just like the Picts, Occitans, Francs, Corsicans, and Bretons are unified by the civic idea of "French"
Also, does anyone have any authors they'd suggest reading?
Dunno for civic stuff, but try Fichte's addresses to the German People for some ethno stuff
Reading is good, and evidence is always good, but first and foremost let us use basic reasoning because the case for ethnic nationalism is extremely strong and basically the natural position everything takes as a consequence of DNA existing.
Science so far heavily implicates that BEHAVIOR & INTELLIGENCE are both 100% hereditary, as a consequence of DNA being copied in varying amounts of both parents. This is indisputable and the standard behavior that guarantees the continuation of every species. Denying this suggests rabbits can turn into something akin to a bear in 1 generation, without selection or an outside trigger and sufficient time to select many, many generations based on these new conditions. Call it evolution, data is copied from 2 locations and merged into one new organism containing traits of both, usually in the form of one dominant parent's DNA being copied while the other fills in the DNA holes that came from tearing it in half. The rather violent nature of DNA replication is why we are so diverse as a species I recon.
So what does this wall of text actually imply? It stipulates that the CAPACITY TO LEARN is hereditary. It determines the POTENTIAL of this person. The behavior is just a consequence of all the building blocks already put there. Recently we've been able to identify certain genes that indicate whether someone is likely to have violent tendencies, thanks to the American prison system providing the world with an endless stream of convicts.
In an experiment with thousands of adopted children vs not adopted children, research showed that not only did the CAPACITY of the children match their parents, so did their BEHAVIOR despite having never met in many cases!
This is why I love pokemon go so much. It is teaching kids, "this pokemon has no potential, I better not spend my resources on leveling it up as it will never amount to anything" before the news tells them
>China is not at all ethnically homogeneous
>They are unified by the civic idea of "Chinese"
The Chinese are no less ethno-nationalist than the other East Asians. The entire legitimacy of their state is based on furthering the interests of the Han race.
>President Xi Jinping said in 2014: “Generations of overseas Chinese never forget their home country, their origins or the blood of the Chinese nation flowing in their veins.”
>China today is extraordinarily homogenous. It sustains that by remaining almost entirely closed to new entrants except by birth. Unless someone is the child of a Chinese national, no matter how long they live there, how much money they make or tax they pay, it is virtually impossible to become a citizen.
>The conflation of Han and national identity underlies the uneasy relationship between that majority and China’s ethnic-minority citizens. Officialdom theoretically treats minorities as equal and even grants them certain privileges. Yet in practice ethnic groups, particularly those from China’s borderlands, who are visually distinctive, are discriminated against and increasingly marginalised as ethnic Han have moved into their home regions. Through state-sponsored resettlement the Han population of Xinjiang rose from 4% in 1949 to 42% today; Mongols now make up only 17% of Inner Mongolia.
>In the eyes of the Chinese government, these responsibilities extend beyond cultural ties to a demand for loyalty, not just to China but to the Communist Party. Many foreign Han say they are made to feel it is their duty to speak up on China’s behalf. Earlier this year Chinese immigrants to Australia were urged to take “the correct attitude” to support “the motherland” in its claims to disputed rocks in the South China Sea.
You should seriously consider reading this Steve Sailer post:
unz.com
>Where there is a strong moral societal bond between the peoples, then that helps tie everyone into a civic system.
Exactly right. And you have to remember that civic identity demands a far greater amount of mutual trust and faith than ethnic identity does. It's really the only thing that holds people together: trust in one another and trust in the laws of the land. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of unrelated people living in close proximity to one another, which is a recipe for absolute destruction normally.
Some of Jones' books and short writings that might interest you: Ethnos Needs Logos, Slaughter of Cities, Libido Dominandi. The first two deal largely with the issue of ethnic identity and the third is a pretty eye opening documentation of the destructive capacity of sexual liberation and the breakdown of morality in the west.
Also, you might want to listen to some of his interviews to get a feel for the guy. There's plenty on Youtube.
This. Also, take note that the Jap said 'anti-Japanese' gooks. Obviously some Japan hating gooks do some shit to piss these folks off and I don't blame them lol. If you immigrate to another country, either adapt and assimilate, or gtfo.
In any case, ethnic nationalism is dangerous and dumb because it reduces nationality to just race.
Civic nationalism has its faults too, as it reduces nationality to a membership to an ideology, which is subjected to change throughout a nation's time.
But, currently, for country like US, civic nationalism is the only practical and pragmatic solution to this nonsense of 'diversity is strength'. UNITY is strength. We need to indoctrinate immigrants and tell them 'you left your country, which is a tacit implication that you think our country is better, so here's why our country is better than your shithole, so subscribe to these ideas or kindly gtfo'. We never had this sort of civic nationalism so far. It took me more than a decade to come to grasp what it really means to be American, and some end up not figuring it out.
t. citizen by choice immigrant.
I'd be an ethno nationalist if it was realistic. It's literally LARPing the ideology.
As of now, i can confidently say without a shadow of a doubt that given a choice between saving a person who has the same American values and beliefs of freedom as I do and a person of my homeland that share the same physical appearance I do, I'd save the American any day.
Race (unless you're a sub Saharan nignog or a muzzie) is just physical appearance. If you have the capacity of mind to entertain and grapple with the philosophically freeing and equally damning idea such as freedom, and still subscribe to choosing freedom and all its burdens and responsibility over cowardly security, you're my brother.
Reversion to the mean. A few individuals from different races may be fine, but if they establish themselves in your country and start breeding, you won't be as lucky with their descendants. Culture is largely a product of race.
Ethnic nationalism>civic nationalism. Civic only works in prosperous times, but it will collapse if you ask each group to give up some of its wealth to help others. If everyone is already within the same group, they're much more willing to help one another in the face of adversity.
Then how come half of the white population in the US are such beta cucks? Guess that is largely a product of race too huh?
Ethnic nationalism falls apart under the smallest scrutiny...
Massive Jewish indoctrination. Why do you think that university-(((educated))) people are so far left?
The cucking isn't inherent; the susceptibility to indoctrination is. Whites are naturally more 'moral,' and virtue-signalling/cuckery just takes that to an extreme.
France, the US and Russia started homogenous and diversified as they grew larger.
The Chinese are genetically collectivist, always have been. On top of that, every single Chinese empire rose out of military conquest.
Switzerland started as a confederation of villages, which explains why it started out as lingually diverse as it did. Moreover, a theory states that Switzerland only came to be thanks to the excommunication of the Knights Templar who used it as a refuge, which explains which Switzerland is so diabolically good with money and why it could defend itself against all sorts of invaders out of nowhere.
ideological indoctrination and teaching plays a large part of culture too then by your admission.
As for whites being nicer, more moral and compassionate, I'd have to agree there. Not sure if it's natural or not though, hard to tell.
>Reversion to the mean
High intelligence is not a prerequisite for having the mind to adhere to societal ideologies of freedom, personal responsibility, accountability, and empowerment.
Ay Ya, the laowai knows.
Ethnic nationalism means I can't blanda up with cute black chicks. No thanks.
Ethnic groups share civic values. Civic values can't hold together disparate groups, only force can do that.
Help stop Jewish safety violations against Montana goyim.
>muh dick
Ethnicity does define culture. If ethnicity means race, and race means the genetic makeup and fitness of a given peoples, and culture sprouts from the minds of those people, then it's obvious that 'ethnicity' is indeed the root of culture.
Race affects the type and scope of indoctrination possible. Without said indoctrination, natural culture takes over.
Reversion to the mean isn't just intelligence. It's also about values, like what you listed. Of course you can find outliers in any race who don't hold the same general values, but it won't last over generations.
Also, whites in the US are nice, I'd guess, in part because our country has not been in any sort of continued trauma, like Europe was for thousands of years. I still hold that whites are more compassionate regardless, but it's more noticeable here.
Reversion in values would only happen if that person still identified as a person of their ancestry. There's nothing in genetics that says values are inherited on a genetic level.
The "natural culture" for European whites are the same as every other cultures. The West was an authoritarian shithole either via monarchy or oligarchy, like every other civilizations on Earth.
All you have to do to show civic nationalism is inferior is look at voting trends among the demographics.
Non-whites overwhelmingly vote for the left and more government involvement. Do you honestly believe a group of people that constantly complains how this country was built on slavery and "genocide" will respect the values and founding principles of this country?
Even if we did implement a perfect immigration plan that let in people from all over the world, as long as they believed in American values, it would still lend itself to a majority of white immigrants, because whites are more likely to vote to the right than the left.
Yes, because they have the mentality of your first-gen colonists that thought authoritarianism is perfectly alright. These immigrants have no historical connection to the founding principles of this country, and are from big-government shitholes (although US is also a big-government shithole in 2016), and are subjected to anti-American kike subversion propaganda, just like 2/5 of whites.
>Even if we did implement a perfect immigration plan that let in people from all over the world, as long as they believed in American values, it would still lend itself to a majority of white immigrants, because whites are more likely to vote to the right than the left.
Any civic nationalists would be fine with that. If that happens, let it be.
Don't get me wrong, humans are all naturally corrupt, and authoritarianism is a way to control it to an extent. But take notice of which group developed the most 'humanitarian' values, and which groups are still in the dark ages.
Values are part of culture, m8, and that is an outgrowth of race.
>But take notice of which group developed the most 'humanitarian' values, and which groups are still in the dark ages.
>Values are part of culture, m8, and that is an outgrowth of race.
No I agree with that 100%. All I'm saying is that let's not discount the flexibility of the human race regardless of race to adapt to different environments if given the proper guidance, because freedom, personal responsibility, accountability, and empowerment is not a race thing, it's the highest state of being that only the most mature of persons can handle.
Excellent calf development to be honest. Hundreds of years before (((body dysmorphia))) and (((genetiks))) White people knew an aesthetically pleasing body went hand in hand with a well developed mind.
Is the Golden Age truly gone forever?
It's not entirely race, but it largely is. Ethnic nationalism should be practiced until other races can catch up in development---we can help educate the better ones among other groups to that end (proper guidance). But as it stands now, it isn't practical to expect pure civic nationalism.
Anyway, I enjoyed this chat, but I have to sleep.
Ethnicity is a construct just as much as culture. Exogamy is a part of human nature.
Common language and common beliefs/values matters more than common ethnic in regards to social cohesion anyhow.
Ethno-nationalists want a caste system where they are entitled to get what they want because of birthright. It's like the southerners in the US who still cry that they can't just sit on their ass having black people pick cotton for them anymore who are now considered legally equal in every way to them. They hate that.
it's not practical to expect ethnic nationalism in any form in America, it's just not going to fly.
If we're talking just how capable a race is, going just by pure reaction-time and raw processing speed, Jews and East Asians rank above whites, but you can't argue they created a better world for a free soul. It's a complex issue once you get past the shittiest tier of race such as Sub Saharan nogs and muzzies who are the oldest and most backward people. It's not just entirely about race when it comes to relevant state of things today.
Any american who argues for ethnic nationalism is an actual retard.