Ethno-Nationalism > Civic-Nationalism

Image sourced from Omniphi Media

This transcribed exchange between Lana Lokteff, Faith Goldy and Lauren Rose was taken from the Red Ice TV video ‘Dear Cucks Only One Kind of Nationalism Will Save the West’.

Lana Lokteff: I want to ask you two ladies, what does it mean to be a ‘civic nationalist’?

Lauren Rose: Well first of all I have to neg ‘civic nationalism’ a little bit, because I think its an oxymoron and I think it should be called something like xenophilic nationalism. It’s really not nationalism at all and the oxymoron becomes more apparent when you treat it like that.

Civic nationalism perpetuates that ‘it’s okay to bring foreign people into your country, as long as they’re a bunch of tolerant egalitarians.’ That’s how I see it personally. It doesn’t take anything else into consideration, like religion, race or ethnic group. As long as you’re tolerant and have egalitarian values that seems to be ok, which we obviously see isn’t working throughout Europe and the U.S. now as the demographics change and people see that is not the correct answer.

Demographics matter, and when you replace the founding stock of a nation you replace the entire nation, and as nationalists what we want to do is preserve our homelands and preserve the nation.

Faith Goldy: One of the leading thinkers when it came to popularising this concept of ‘civic nationalism’ was Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian who ran for Prime Minister in this country. I want to quote him on what ‘civic nationalism’ is and then your audience and the world can decide whether or not this is an achievable goal and indeed what we’re seeing play out in these ‘civic nationalist’ experiment Petri dish countries, like my own home country of Canada:

“It is a community of equal rights bearing citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values.”

So we’re all about values over here. So what he is talking about, it’s a “community of equal”. Is it really equal or are some people more equal than others? Think about things like affirmative action. Think about things like anti-discrimination laws, which myself as a European Canadian, this is how I’m meant to operate my business. This is how I am to rent out my property.

“Rights bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment”, are we? Are we all about the same patriotic attachment? Because I liked that statue over there, but some other groups don’t like it. “A shared set of political practices”, well Sharia Law has come into my country quite literally, it’s been ushered in the Federal legislature.

And “values”, what the hell values do we have in these multiculti ‘civic nationalist’ experiments? We can’t agree anymore, because that’s a by-product of the Cultural Marxism and Cultural Relativism that we’ve ushered in at the same time and saying ‘we’re all about this civic nationalism’.

For me the idea of having values without an identity is incongruent. It cannot happen, and imbued into all this debate about the ‘civic nation’ is the question of immigration, and when you’re looking at the question of immigration you have to ask yourself ‘how can this work?’

Only one answer, its assimilation. So how are you going to achieve assimilation? You have to ask yourself two questions: “Who are we bringing in?” and more and more than ever, we’re bringing in more and more people from non-traditional sources of immigration “What are we asking them to assimilate to?”

And in post-1965 America, post-1965 Canada we can’t answer that question anymore, because we don’t have a moral civic consensus anymore. We don’t have a cultural consensus anymore. So this is a doomed cultural experiment, and when you look at the ‘civic nationalism’ why did we invent this?

It was an answer to ethno-nationalism, and I don’t care what anyone thinks of ethno-nationalism, you have not properly studied history unless you can accept the fact throughout the twentieth century, more so than Communism, more so than Capitalism, more so than Democracy, ethno-nationalism was the greatest propeller of human history when you’re determining the maker or breaker of empire and civilisation.

This is what rallies men and gets them moving, and even in the civic nationalistic little Petri dishes, guess what’s happened? There’s a balkanisation that’s occurring, these ethnic lines are already forming. Otherwise why would BLM exist? Why is there a Chinatown? Why is there a little Arabia in my own hometown? The cultural enclaves, this balkanisation, is already happening. So it is a natural tribal instinct for human communities to go with their own.

So the question is ‘are we going to continue to work against nature and try to rise above it (even though we’re 40, 50, 60 years into this experiment and those partitions are only becoming more distinguished and identifiable), or are we going to say maybe it’s time to disaggregate? Maybe it’s time to we reconsider how we’ve treated our borders to date.