Ethno vs. civic nationalism

In response to an user who was complaining that our identity has been irremediably destroyed by immigration from Muslim countries, I wanted to reply but the thread was archived, so I'm making a post because it's an important point imo for the "civic vs. ethno nationalism" debate:

The sense of national pride is one thing that has proven to be remarkably enduring and persistent throughout history, and even if the content of national pride has changed (and is different for every country, perhaps for everyone), the form has always remained the same: the question is "what is my personal relation to the country where I live".

I see four possible answers : 1) I reject my country and choose globalism (the whole no-boarders none sense, which is both childish and neurotic, and it's the latter because it's the former).

2) I'm from another country and I reject the country in which I live. This in time can only lead to conflict, civil war and maybe even the balkanisation of Europe into e.g. muslim vs. non-muslim sub-countries / regions.

3) I don't care. This still kind of puts me in the first category, because today the world is PC and leftist, even though it's changing fast.

4) I care about my country, and am thus confronted to the civic- vs. ethno- dilemma.

And of course there are all the nuances and combinations between these 4 possibilities.

But I personally am a civic nationalist, because ethno nationalism is simply unrealistic without a violent takeover, which would result in civil war between natives. That's the opposite of trying to make your nation thrive.

Efficient civic nationalism means the end of mass immigration and the mastery of boarders and currency. This will in time lead to more homogenous populations ethnically speaking. But more importantly, efficient CN is also full integration of minorities to our values and our life-styles, and the ability to deport those who cause problems. Seems more realistic.

>pic obviously unrelated

shameless self-bump

There's no such thing as civic nationalism. That's globalism.

How ?

Live in a country where people aren't segregated by race, where people not your race try to ruin your country but supplanting their third-world ideals over your working, first-world government, and then maybe you'll understand.

Yes I get that. But my point is that we can make our ideology stronger than foreign ideologies in a peaceful manner.

Imo ethno nationalism is doomed to fail, it's the equivalent of the "no boarders" thing, except on the national level.

I think you have a common misconception about how "unrealistic" ethnic nationalism is. It is not unrealistic and does not require the sort of "violent takeover" you are talking about. A country governed and maintained by citizens who recognize the untenability of achieving a cohesive national identity and mission through a means other than ethnic nationalism will not unreservedly spurn immigration from related races or even races to which they have no traditional/cultural common ground. However, they will be highly selective, heavily limiting immigration to such groups, and choosing only those within such groups who have a high degree of genetic vigor and societal value (and no, the H1B is not this - it is overused and has no regard for genetic excellence or even technical excellence; instead, it is sensitive only to "on paper" skills) a track record of successful assimilation.

Eventually, the assimilation has to be genetic as well.

If the aforementioned condition about how conscious the population is about the value and supremacy of ethnic nationalism is satisfied, immigrants will not be breeding with the ethnic majority (this has to look like a 90%+ supermajority of the population, not any 51% bullshit) because the ethnic majority knows the value of maintaining ethnic homogeneity.

Immigrants/minorities cannot be allowed to form enclaves that are resistant to assimilation after reaching a critical mass (as European countries were foolish enough to allow - to be fair, the USA is guilty of this to a degree too). The middle ground, I suspect, is that the low tier of the ethnic majority will breed with the immigrants, who are of a high genetic quality (due to the aforementioned genetic vigor screening criteria) and exhibit a high societal contribution, and thereby improve the chances of the bloodlines of the ethnic supermajority that was potentially lagging behind.

Consider how harmonious this is with nature - how humane. Hitler did nothing wrong.

So the problem between ethno- and civic- nationalism is actually a matter of which comes first in the reasoning, right? If you put ethno nationalism first in order to achieve civic unity and remove minority enclaves, that's one thing. If you put civic nationalism first in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity (as I was arguing), that's another thing.

In any case, it seems we must make a choice between one of those possibilities. Again, putting ethno nationalism first to achieve ideological and cultural unity seems to be a mistake, because most of the brainwashed population would never accept it. Yet the majority could want (and actually does want) more nationalism.

I keep thinking CN is a better option, but cheers for your input.

>So the problem between ethno- and civic- nationalism is actually a matter of which comes first in the reasoning, right?
The problem is, there's no such thing as ethnic-nationalism. There's nationalism, and there's globalism. If you're too cucked to believe in nationalism, feel free to take in people that will replace your countries race with theirs.

You're not grasping that ethnic ties are the only true bonds people within a nation can have. Your race will never live harmoniously with other races in the long run. That's why anything other than an ethno-state is doomed from the start.

>a matter of which comes first in the reasoning, right?
Kinda, but at the same time, the USA has a chance at achieving ethnic nationalism without adopting civic nationalism, if we are smart. And we are currently not an ethnostate by any stretch of the imagination.

>remove gibs, thereby bottlenecking the shit tier minority reproduction rate
>educate the white majority population (and really all citizens) about the importance and supremacy of the ethnic nationalism paradigm - CRITICAL STEP
>give ethnic majority incentive to reproduce above replacement (this might be achieved by just removing gibs since now populace can keep more of what they're earning with lower taxation)
>limit immigration as proposed in
>natural consequence will be trend toward supermajority of the white race in America
>harmony with nature

What do you think?

Back to your post.
>put civic nationalism first in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity (as I was arguing)

OK, I did not understand that this is/was your point. Your proposal in the OP didn't stand out as an attempt to achieve ethnic homogeneity. My interpretation of your OP proposal is as follows:

>let's have a racemixing party so we are all "the same"
>this new mongrel majority will somehow be sensitive to and advance the implementation of the ideals of the previous majority
>now we have a ethnostate of mongrels
>it's still ethnic nationalism

My answer to that is pretty much "no" - no need to tear down the roof when we can patch the leak. We are not so far gone that Hitler's vision for a place and state for every race working in harmony with the gifts endowed to them by nature, by their creator, must remain merely a dream.

Yes.

Wow, racist and sexist much?

>What do you think?
I find that very good, but I remain skeptical that we can educate the white majority. The conditioning is strong. How would you do that (outside of here) ?

>now we have a ethnostate of mongrels
Kek. But I was actually trying to argue that we're all white again, which is conceivable if minorities' birthrates diminish due to no more welfare as you rightly argue, and ours goes up because we're motivated and guilt-free again.

>We are not so far gone that Hitler's vision for a place and state for every race working in harmony with the gifts endowed to them by nature, by their creator, must remain merely a dream.

Nicely said.

WELL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED

SERIOUSLY

>I remain skeptical that we can educate the white majority. The conditioning is strong

You are right about this. What I have laid out is an ideal. In the end, we cannot treat a group as separate from its individual constituents. Taking an average individual of the white race as an example, what do we see?

We often see that due to the abundance culture and history of prosperity, the white race has stared to rest on its laurels. In its complacency, degeneracy has creeped into the cultural pool in which the white race swims, because complacency is contrary to vigilance, which is ESSENTIAL in resisting (((their))) influence. A side effect of this is a degeneration and subversion in the education system, where a young child is not given an education in philosophical or religious texts.

Whether or not you agree with mandated religious education, you cannot deny that religious texts are philosophically profound and that the tradition of Western Philosophy (whether expressed through the works of occidental Christian philosophers or the ancient Pagan philosophers who inspired the former) points to a common end - the ideal of a harmonious hierarchical human constitution in which the intellect presides over the activities of the lesser functions of the admixture of spirit and matter.

It is not until this sensitivity is revived in the white race (and any majority race in their respective nation) that ethnic nationalism will be tenable. Great observation about a very real obstacle to reaching this ideal.

My point is not to poke holes in your theory. Your heart is in the right place and the Lord has awakened in you an inquiry about nature and the just ordering that nature supports and rewards. Let us aim for the highest so that if we fall short we will have no regrets about not reaching far enough.

America(and maybe less than a handful of other non-european nations) is the only country where "civic" nationalism would work, and that is owing to the fact that she is built on an ideal rather than the history of her people. That is not to say that her history is not important, but rather that her history itself is an embodiedment of that same ideal. Sure it says "white" in that original document, but if you were to go in to a room full of "white" people back then and tell them that they were all the same, you would be beheaded by the gaulois and quartered by the anglos.

Amen. Thanks.

Surely "white" didn't mean the same then as it means today. Really makes you think.

>owing to the fact that she is built on an ideal rather than the history of her people
"no"

Do you think America could survive if all the "ideals" were still there but we became 90% niggers overnight? Ideals live in people and must be within their reach. American ideals were born from the yearnings and experience/heritage of the white race.

Culture and ideals are the blooming flowers born out of a cohesive racial experience, history, and constitution.

Yes maybe the idea of "white" that is common now would not be amenable to those who made up the USA back then, but you can't seriously be arguing that if you give American ideals to niggers in Africa that something like the USA will arise there.

In case this was subtle b8, 10/10. I can see a lot of people falling for this meme.

Aye, but not much.

>Do you think America could survive if all the "ideals" were still there but we became 90% niggers overnight?
No, but nothing I said would contradict that. I did not say that all peoples can come under this ideal. It may be that only a nation of white people can achive the ideal. If the "ideal" is fully realized as a nation, I couldn't say if it was a white nation for sure, but I would not be surprised if it was.
What I am sure of is that America in her current state has strayed from the ideal.

OK, so you're sensitive to the fact that only the race(s) that is/are up to the task of fully realizing the ideals can have the majority population position in America. I don't disagree with that, I just have a prejudice about what I suspect is the only race that fits the bill.

Again, I don't think that immigration is bad per se, it just needs to be heavily regulated and limited to select only those members of other races who are similarly up to the task and are willing/eager to do so. Cf. Trump's comments regarding "we want the people who LOVE us and our country."

I agree. Do you know that annoying shit like
>"See? Jimmy Patel(who was born and raised in the western gestalt) can mosey like our own, ergo we can flush them unto us!"
MY GOVERNMENT RUNS ON THAT SHIT.

So, yes, I am very sensitive. I will admit to not fully agreeing with North American ethnic nationalists, but fuck I can see why they want it that way.
"There are very few things in this universe less annoying than an Anglo Montrealer" is an expression here.