There are many people today who describe themselves, or are described by others, as civic nationalists. Some of these people include Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. These people claim, or are claimed by others, to be fighting against globalism using the weapon of civic nationalism. It all sounds good, but there’s just one problem. Civic nationalism is a disgusting fraud which cannot save whites, those of European descent, from replacement and extinction. Those who promote civic nationalism are either ignorant to its shortcomings, cowards or controlled opposition.
Civic nationalism, also known as liberal nationalism, is the idea that people of all different races, cultures and languages can form a nation based upon shared values. These values could include democracy, free speech and gender equality. Under civic nationalist ideology, anyone who accepts these values can be part of the nation.
For example, a English civic nationalist would say that anyone can be part of the English nation, regardless of race or culture, just as long as they accept “English values”. These “English values” could include the English language, democracy, common law, capitalism, free speech and gender equality.
I. This brings us to the first and most obvious fraud of civic nationalism. Being that, by its very definition, civic nationalism isn’t even nationalism.
A nation is a group of people who share common race, culture and language. The word “nation” itself is actually from the Latin word “natio”, which literally means “birth”. This origin of the word heavily implies that a nation is something we’re born into and don’t choose to be part of ourselves. In other words, it’s shared race, not values, that forms the core of a nation. While nationalism is the desire to preserve, protect and bring prosperity to one’s own nation, which is best achieved by the nation having its own homeland.
Therefore, under the true definition of a nation, the English nation is those white English people who practice English culture and speak the English language. While the goal of English nationalism is to preserve, protect and bring prosperity to the English nation, which is best achieved by the English nation having its own homeland, which it does, the country of England.
You see, civic nationalism isn’t even nationalism because it isn’t even concerned with the preservation of a specific people, but is instead concerned with the preservation of values. A nation is made up of people, not values. A nation is a biological entity, not a political, economic or legal system. The English nation isn’t democracy, capitalism or common law, but is, in fact, the English people themselves.
The true dishonesty and stupidity of civic nationalism is best exposed by taking the civic nationalist definition of the English nation to its logical conclusion. For example, imagine that, in England, all English people have been replaced with Pakistani people, all pubs and taverns have been replaced with curry shops and all churches have been replaced with mosques. In other words, the English people have been racially and culturally replaced. Well, under civic nationalist ideology, the English nation still exists just as long as the Pakistani people believe in “English values”, such as democracy and gender equality. How absurd is it that the English people can become racially and culturally extinct but yet, under civic nationalist ideology, the English nation still exists? The truth is that the English nation is the English people themselves. If they become extinct, there is no English nation anymore.
That’s not to say that values aren’t important, of course they are, but they don’t determine the existence of a nation. The existence of a nation, just like the existence of a person, is measured by biology, not values. Just because a nation changes its values doesn’t mean it becomes a different nation, it’s just the same nation with different values. The same way a person who changes their values doesn’t become a different person, they’re just the same person with different values. The English nation has made many changes to its values over the centuries but it still remains the same nation because it’s comprised of the same people who share the same race, ancestry and history.
It must be understood that it’s people that give identity to values and not the other way around. It’s the English people that give identity to “English values” and not the other way around. The English people aren’t English because they believe in “English values” but “English values” are English because they’re the values of the English people.
Even the term “civic nationalism” sounds inherently dishonest due to the existence of the word “civic”. For if civic nationalism were in fact true nationalism, there would be no need for the word “civic”. It would just be nationalism. In reality, the word “civic” contradicts the meaning of nationalism by trying to change it into something completely different. In this way, the term “civic nationalism” is just as ridiculous and hypocritical as the term “meat-eating vegetarian”.
In response, some civic nationalists may point to the term “ethnic nationalism” and try to make the same case. Being that, if ethnic nationalism were in fact true nationalism, there would be no need for the word “ethnic”. But they’d be wrong. This is because the term “ethnic nationalism” is used in response to the fake nationalism being promoted by civic nationalists. It’s used in an attempt to bring people’s understanding of nationalism back to its true meaning, being the preservation of a specific people. The word “ethnic” is used because, like a nation, an ethnic group is made up of people who share common race, culture and language. This means that the word “ethnic” is in fact an affirmation, not a contradiction, of the true meaning of nationalism. In this way, the term “ethnic nationalism” is the same as the term “vegetable-eating vegetarian”.
II. The second fraud of civic nationalism is that it’s just globalism by another name.
Civic nationalism and globalism are almost identical ideologies. They both seek to create utopian societies whereby people of all different races, cultures and languages unite under a set of shared values. With the only difference between the two ideologies being their scope. Globalists want this utopian society to cover all of planet Earth while civic nationalists only want it within the borders of an existing country. When looking at it this way, civic nationalism is just proto-globalism.
For example, imagine that, in England, there resides members of every single racial and cultural group in existence and that the size of these groups is in exact proportion to their global population. In other words, within England resides an exact replica of the global population. Well, under civic nationalist ideology, they’re all part of the English nation just as long as they believe in “English values”. So much for opposition to globalism.
Sadly, the adoption of civic nationalism inevitably leads to a no-win situation. For if it’s tried and it fails, there will be instability, conflict and bloodshed as society fractures and eventually collapses. While if it succeeds, its success will be used as justification for globalism. After all, if all the diverse peoples of the world can manage to live together under one government in England, why can’t they live together under global government?
In this way, the ideology of civic nationalism is essentially a Trojan horse for globalism. It allows globalists to test their ideology on a smaller scale all the while posing as “nationalists”. The success of civic nationalism, though its chances being slim to none at best, will inevitably lead to global government and the end of nation-states. The proto-globalism of civic nationalism will be replaced with true globalism.
Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, is inherently opposed to globalism due to its racially exclusive nature. Humanity cannot form one global society based upon shared race because humanity is made up of many races.
Whether they know it or not, civic nationalists are some of the most loyal and dedicated foot soldiers of globalism. Not only do they promote an almost identical ideology, but they frequently demonize ethnic nationalists, the true opponents of globalism. And when you think about it, what better way is there to ensure the victory of globalism than by having its so-called “opponents” support it?
III. The third fraud of civic nationalism is that it’s extremely vague and practically impossible to enforce.
Imagine that an African man moves to England and, after completing the necessary requirements, obtains citizenship. Now, imagine that after obtaining citizenship, the African man immediately renounces “English values”, such as democracy and gender equality, and begins to actively campaign for their replacement with “African values”. Under civic nationalist ideology, he’s no longer part of the English nation because he doesn’t believe in “English values”. But can he be removed from England?
Most civic nationalists will struggle to answer this basic question due to the vague nature of their ideology. For example, some would say “no”, because “English values” includes free speech and therefore he should be allowed advocate for the replacement of “English values”. While some would say “yes”, because he no longer believes in democracy, which is a core “English value”. Whichever way it’s decided, civic nationalism looks utterly ridiculous. For if the man is allowed to stay, he’s legally allowed to undermine the English nation. While if the man is removed, his right to free speech, which is a core “English value”, has been denied.
Furthermore, what if people like this man, through a combination of immigration and high birth rates, become the majority of the population and use democracy to abolish “English values”? They could hold multiple referendums and vote to abolish gender equality, free speech and even democracy itself. Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? Again, civic nationalists will struggle to answer these basic questions.
One of the many serious flaws of civic nationalism revealed by this example is the almost total reliance on the honesty of strangers when it comes to immigration. Civic nationalists would have you believe that they can tell who’s a good immigrant and who isn’t. But in reality, they have absolutely no idea. This is because despite obvious red flags, such as criminal records, there’s no real way of telling who an immigrant really is and what they truly believe. Despite the best wishes of civic nationalists, there’s no such thing as a “values detector”. Every immigrant will simply say and do whatever it takes to gain entry. If they know they have to believe in “English values” to get in, then they’ll say they believe in “English values”. No immigrant will ever tell you what their true values, beliefs and motivations are if they know it will bar them from entry, especially if they’re poor and trying to enter a welfare state. To believe otherwise is to be wilfully stupid. Furthermore, immigrants only have to pretend to believe in the values of the nation for a short period of time until they get citizenship. Thereafter, they can reveal their true values without fear of consequence as they cannot be stripped of citizenship and deported if it would make them stateless. This creates a one way street whereby enemies can infiltrate and conquer the nation from within with little or no resistance.
In reality, there are literally tens of millions of non-white immigrants, and their descendants, throughout white countries who’re actively pushing for the overthrow and replacement of traditional Western values. And due to the vague nature of their ideology, there’s next to nothing that civic nationalists can do about it.
Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, doesn’t suffer from this problem of immigration. This is because, when it comes to sustaining the population, ethnic nationalists believe in the creation of children and not the importation of foreigners. They also believe that if there’s to be any immigration at all, it should be very small and be comprised of fellow ethnics returning to their homeland or of closely related ethnic groups.
Another serious flaw of civic nationalism revealed by the example is the effect of clashing values. For instance, is democracy more important than free speech or is free speech more important than democracy? It has to be one or the other. Shockingly, most civic nationalists cannot answer this question. This is especially worrying when considering the very foundation of a civic nationalist society is its values. If they aren’t stable then neither is society itself. Furthermore, values are usually one the only things that people share in common in a civic nationalist society. So if there’s a clash of values, there isn’t much left to unite people. Such a lack of unity can, and often does, lead to the collapse of society.
Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, doesn’t suffer as severely from this problem of clashing values. This is because the foundation of an ethnic nationalist society is its people, not its values. Its values are simply a means to an end, with that end being the preservation, protection and prosperity of the people. Furthermore, values are just one of the many things that people share in common in an ethnic nationalist society, along with race, culture and language. So if there’s a clash of values, there are still plenty of things left to unite people. Such unity can, and often does, prevent the collapse of society.
IV. The fourth fraud of civic nationalism is that it’s born from cowardice and cannot save whites from replacement and extinction.
Wherever you find whites you find European society, wherever you find Indians you find Indian society and wherever you find Africans you find African society. This is because societies are a product of people. People with high intelligence, discipline and work ethic create peaceful societies with high standards of living. While people with low intelligence, low discipline and low work ethic create chaotic societies with low standards of living.
The implication of this relationship between people and society is that if you wish to preserve a society you must preserve the people who created it. In fact, there’s not a single example in all of human history where a racial group has been replaced or been reduced to a minority within its own society, but yet the culture and character of that society has remained unchanged. Not once, not ever. The racial replacement of a people always has, and always will, lead to the replacement of its society.
If current demographic trends continue, whites will become a racial minority within America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles and much of continental Europe long before the end of this century. Furthermore, if whites don’t bring their fertility rate back up to replacement level, they’ll be faced with the real possibility of extinction over the coming centuries. This replacement and extinction of whites will inevitably lead to the collapse of Western society, for they’re the people who created it and currently sustain it.
The only course of action that will avert this tragedy is the complete ending of non-white immigration into white countries, the gradual repatriation of non-whites back to their homelands and the restoration of white fertility back to replacement level. This, and only this, can save whites from replacement and extinction, and Western society from collapse.
However, civic nationalists, whose ranks are almost entirely white, like to say otherwise. They like to say that race doesn’t matter at all, and that Western society can be preserved independently of the people who created it. After all, according to civic nationalists, Western society is just a “collection of values”. That’s it, nothing else. This opinion is often expressed through such cringeworthy phrases as, “I don’t care if people are purple, just as long as they believe in our values”, or, “I don’t care if France becomes majority black, just as long as they believe in French values”. When expressing this sort of opinion, civic nationalists like to think all high-minded of themselves. They like to think they’re morally superior to all those “racist” ethnic nationalists. But the truth is, it’s all just a cover for their own cowardice.
You see, civic nationalists are terrified of being called racist by non-whites, globalists and the political left. In fact, so much so that they’re literally willing to go along with the extinction of their own race just to prove they aren’t racist. This pathetic act of virtue signalling is the same as drowning your own children just to prove you don’t love them more than other children. Not only are you supposed to prefer your own race, just as you’re supposed to prefer your own children, but by going along with the extinction of whites, civic nationalists will guarantee the destruction of the very thing they claim to be preserving, Western society.
This extreme fear of being called racist is also what drives civic nationalists to crave approval from non-white “conservatives”, such as Candace Owens, and Jewish “conservatives”, such as Ben Shapiro. By gaining approval from such people, civic nationalists hope to prove just how “anti-racist” and “anti-Nazi” they are.
The sad truth is that civic nationalists have this extreme fear of being called racist because deep down they’ve already surrendered to leftist morality when it comes to race. This morality holds that any attempt, whether implicit or explicit, by whites to preserve their racial existence and homelands is disgusting, evil and wrong. You see, civic nationalists might actually want to save whites, but in their hearts and minds, they must only do so within the boundaries of leftist morality. However, there can be no victory, as trying to save whites while trapped in the straitjacket of leftist morality is like trying to break out of prison while following prison rules. Just as prison rules exist for sole purpose of keeping prisoners trapped in prison, leftist morality exists for the sole purpose of destroying whites.
Civic nationalists are too cowardly to oppose leftist morality and fight for their own race, but at the same time, too proud to admit such cowardice. Therefore, they rationalise their cowardice by claiming that race doesn’t matter and that only values do. This allows them to abandon their own people in need, without any sense of shame or guilt, all the while posing as “noble defenders” of Western society. The whole ideology of civic nationalism is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at disguising cowardice as virtue. However, there’s no virtue in cowardice. Nor is there any virtue in committing racial suicide in the name of appeasement. Those who value their enemy’s opinions more than the existence of their own people have no credibility and deserve no respect.
Ultimately, whether born from cowardice or not, civic nationalism cannot save whites from replacement and extinction because, at its core, it holds that race doesn’t matter. Therefore, it holds that whites are racially disposable and that the replacement and extinction of whites is of no concern or consequence.
Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, is born from love, not cowardice, and, at its core, holds that one’s own people, which includes one’s own race, not only has value, but is precious and must be preserved. You see, only by embracing ethnic nationalism can whites be saved from replacement and extinction.
V. The final fraud of civic nationalism is that it’s never worked and it never will work.
Civic nationalism, as mentioned previously, is the idea that people of all different races, cultures and languages can form a nation based upon shared values. And like other utopian fantasies, such as communism, it’s always ended in failure. Some of these failures include the Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Civic nationalist societies, such as the ones just mentioned, have always failed, and will continue to fail, for two main reasons.
The first reason is that they don’t account for ethnic loyalty. Given that shared values are the foundation of a civic nationalist society, and not shared race, culture and language, or in other words, shared ethnicity, there can be no room for ethnic loyalty. For if people have greater loyalty to their ethnic group than to shared values, it will undermine the very foundation of society itself. If just one ethnic group begins working as a group for its own exclusive benefit, it will force other ethnic groups to do the same. Because if they don’t, they’ll be dominated by the ones that do. In reality, people are naturally tribal and will almost always favour their ethnic group over other ethnic groups. The same way that families will always favour their members over strangers and parents will always favour their children over other children. It’s simply human nature, and societies whose foundations aren’t based on human nature, such as civic nationalist societies, are destined to fail.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which contained many ethnic groups, such as Czechs, Germans, Hungarians and Poles, was torn apart by ethnic loyalty. Each of these groups placed their ethnic interests before the shared values of the empire. The same thing is happening in America today, with African, Asian, Hispanic, Jewish and Native Americans all placing their ethnic interests before the shared values of America. Each of these groups judges government policy, not on whether it’s good for America as a whole, but on whether it’s good for their group. And once white Americans start doing the same, which they’ll have to if they hope to survive, America will be torn apart.
The second reason, which in many ways is similar to the first reason, is that they have no identity. In order for people to commit to a society, and be willing to defend it, they must feel a sense of belonging. This sense of belonging usually comes from shared race, culture and language, or in other words, shared identity. And identity requires exclusion. If any colour can be blue, then there’s no such thing as blue. If any animal can be a dog, then there’s no such thing as a dog. And If any shape can be a square, then there’s no such thing as a square. This logic also applies to societies. For example, if anyone can be part of English society, regardless of race, culture or language, then there’s no such thing as English society. You see, civic nationalist societies fail to give people a sense of belonging because they have no identity, and they have no identity because they fail to exclude people.
The Soviet Union, whose citizens were known as Soviets, suffered from this lack of identity. A Soviet could be Armenian, Chechen, Estonian, Jewish, Kazakh, Latvian or Russian, among many other ethnic groups. With each of these groups having their own unique identities and histories. This lack of a single Soviet identity made it hard for people to feel a sense of belonging. This eventually led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, breaking up into fifteen different countries. Again, the same thing is happening in America today, with its citizens becoming increasingly diverse. Alongside white Americans, the people who founded America and comprise its shrinking majority, there are African, Asian, Hispanic, Jewish and Native Americans. With each of these groups having their own unique identities and histories. This lack of a single American identity makes it increasingly hard for people to feel a sense of belonging. This will eventually lead to the disintegration of America.
Ethnic nationalist societies, on the other hand, suffer from neither of these problems. This is because shared ethnicity is the foundation of an ethnic nationalist society, not shared values, and therefore the overwhelming majority of citizens belong to one ethnic group. This means that almost everyone has the same ethnic interests and identity. Although not officially declaring themselves ethnic nationalist societies, for all practical purposes, the societies of Iceland, Japan, Poland and South Korea all function as one. With each society being overwhelmingly comprised of one ethnic group and having a strong sense of identity.
When civic nationalists are asked to provide examples of successful civic nationalist societies, they’ll often include America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But what they fail to recognise, or deliberately ignore, is that these societies were founded as explicitly white societies and have only recently become civic nationalist societies. They all had immigration policies designed to create and sustain a majority white population from the time of their settlement up until the mid-to-late twentieth century.
America had the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted citizenship to “free white persons of good character”. Canada had the Chinese Immigration Act and the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, designed to prevent Chinese immigration into Canada. Australia had the White Australia Policy, created by one of the first acts of parliament, the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, designed to prevent non-white immigration into Australia. And lastly, New Zealand had the Chinese Immigration Act 1881, designed to prevent Chinese immigration into New Zealand.
Not only were these societies founded as explicitly white societies, but they also favoured specific groups of whites. America had the Immigration Act of 1924, known as the “Johnson-Reed Act”, which strongly favoured immigration from the British Isles and Germanic Europe, where most Americans at the time originated from. While Canada, Australia and New Zealand, being British colonies, strongly favoured immigration from the British Isles.
It’s also important to note that most, if not all, of these immigration policies were populist in nature, with lawmakers acting in response to public demand for race-based immigration restrictions. This demand was also largely shared by the elites, with many influential figures in these societies praising the benefits of racial and cultural homogeneity. For example, John Curtin, the Australian Prime Minister who led Australia throughout most of the Second World War, said of the White Australia Policy, “This county shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British Race”.
Although not “pure” ethnic nationalist societies, due to the presence of multiple ethnic groups, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand never were, and were never meant to be, diverse civic nationalist societies. America, the most diverse of them all, was essentially a “white melting pot”, with many white ethnic groups, mostly from the British Isles and Germanic Europe, merging together to form a new group, white Americans. Canada, the second most diverse, was essentially made up of two groups, British Canadians, who were descended from the British Isles and spoke English, and French Canadians, who were descended from France and spoke French. Although there was tension between these groups, both believed in a white Canada. And lastly, Australia and New Zealand, being the least diverse, were almost entirely made up of people from the British Isles.
Due to their relative ethnic homogeneity and abundant natural resources, these societies became some of the most peaceful and prosperous in world history. But this has since started to change. In the mid-to-late twentieth century, without a mandate and against the will of the people, the governments of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand began transforming their societies from ethnic nationalist societies to civic nationalist societies. Firstly, they began dismantling their race-based immigration policies and replacing them with so-called “skills-based” immigration policies, which resulted in huge demographic change, with whites now on their way to becoming a minority within these societies. Secondly, they began promoting fake ahistorical “values-based” identities over their real historical ethnic identities. For example, the Australian government began promoting the idea that Australian identity isn’t based on the ethnic identity of its founding Anglo-Celtic population but is, in fact, based on liberal values, such as tolerance and inclusion.
This forced transformation has led to disastrous results. In these once-peaceful societies, tribal politics is increasingly becoming the norm, usually with an aggressive coalition of non-white groups on one side and the shrinking white majority on the other. Ever-increasing diversity is causing any sense of shared identity to evaporate. Free speech, once cherished by these societies, is being gradually curtailed as it’s deemed a threat to peace and order. And political violence, almost unheard of in these societies, is on the rise. If current demographic trends continue, and whites do become a minority within these societies, the resulting power vacuum will lead to chaos and, eventually, collapse.
You see, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand aren’t examples of successful civic nationalist societies but are, in fact, examples of successful ethnic nationalist societies being slowly murdered by civic nationalism.
Like communists, civic nationalists also like to deny, or deliberately ignore, the real world failures of their own ideology, case in point being South Africa. The end of apartheid was supposed to bring about a race-blind society, whereby the different ethnic groups that make up the population were to unite around a set of shared values. In other words, South Africa was to become a civic nationalist society, whereby people were to replace their ethnic loyalty with loyalty to shared values. Racially conscious whites, and anyone else with intelligence, knew that ending apartheid wasn’t going create a civic nationalist utopia but was, in fact, just going to bring about the gradual destruction of white South Africa, and they were right. Black South Africans never gave up their ethnic loyalty and, once obtaining power, they gradually began persecuting white South Africans, the people who founded South Africa and currently sustain it.
Since the end of apartheid, thousands of whites have been raped, tortured and murdered by blacks in some of the most brutal and disgusting ways imaginable, while the black government turns a blind eye. Leading black politicians, such as Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, and Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa from 2009 to 2018, have sung “Kill the Boer” at public rallies, which is a song about killing whites. And Cyril Ramaphosa, the current President of South Africa, seeks to dispossess whites of their land, with “expropriation without compensation”, also known as theft, being a key policy of his administration.
In the long run, the future of white South Africans looks bleak. At best, they’ll exist as an oppressed minority, shut out of the economy they built and subject to state tolerated violence. At worst, they’ll be physically exterminated. Some may say that physical extermination is just a ridiculous exaggeration, but blacks in Rwanda were more than happy to hack hundreds of thousands of fellow blacks to death with machetes, so why wouldn’t they do the same to the “white devils” who took their land and oppressed them?
In conclusion, civic nationalism truly is a disgusting fraud. It isn’t even nationalism, it’s no different to globalism, it’s vague, it’s practically impossible to enforce, it’s born from cowardice, it’s never worked and it never will work. But most importantly, it cannot save our people, whites, from replacement and extinction. Please, for the sake of our people, don’t fall for this disgusting fraud.