The Correct Explanation of Nationalism

For all of you Civic Nationalists out there, please watch this video. This is probably the best and most concise definition of nationalism that I have come across. Civic nationalism is nothing but blue-pilled nationalism being sold like snake oil by grifters who want to spread the left wing message of celebrating diversity while making a buck off those who lean right.


Civic Nationalism is just a meme perpetuated by edgy cowards and exploitative financial profiteers who want to set themselves apart from mainstream right wing politics. They are simply cuckservatives masquerading as nationalists and thus refuse to acknowledge that the fundamental basis of identity is race, thus I have no respect for them.


I agree. Civic nationalism is a meme also because it doesn’t believe in CULTURE as a source of national cohesion. Multiculturalism is a common concept in civic nationalist circles. It’s why I cringe when Trump says we need MORE legal immigration. Unless the countries that these legal immigrants are coming from is Europe, and they are ethnically European, then the last thing the US needs is more immigration of any kind.

1 Like

Nationalism is about loving your country and history. I don’t care about color, race or religion just fit in and respect us.

But what do you do when you wake up one day and realize these two things:

  1. In-group preference is real.
  2. Other in-groups aren’t going anywhere and they have teamed up to take down the white European hegemon; the only in-group without the sense to realize it needs to start thinking as an in-group while it pays for all the gibs.

CivNats will wake up destitute some day soon, homeless and despised by a culturally atomized soup of Babel, on a continent their forefathers conquered. But they will at least be able to hold their heads high and say “at least I never saw color or religion”.

I’m with you in not caring about color/race. For the record, I find people who obsess about racial “purity” extremely creepy. I don’t give a fig what someone’s race is if they have no problem with me or my people, and they are not causing a problem for us.

With that said, when one looks at large groupings of people, one does need to think about big-picture considerations: crime rates, IQ, levels of education, cultural characteristics and compatibility, etc. etc. etc. My greatest concern about mass migration of Muslims to the West is actually not welfarism (although there is that too–that’s probably number two), but rather their historical animosity to the West.

Sorry, but blondie here didn’t invent a new concept of nationalism. She poorly tried to repackage the well-established definition of ethno-nationalism. The majority of political science research has found that nationalism, in general, is the primary element/foundation of extremist political ideologies that pit people against one another related to ‘lines’ that mark ‘nation states’.

I like Orwell’s distinction. Nationalism is the robotic flag-waving, patriotism is about values, conserving the ideals that you have grown up to identify with and which protect your citizenship.

Anything can become pathologized: if one pushes nationalism too far in the wrong direction, one can end up with bloody purges of “undesirable” groups, something I certainly condemn in the strongest possible terms. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed neo-reactionary, I freely acknowledge that the Liberal Nationalism referenced in this video was a profoundly de-stabilizing force in the great Austro-Hungarian Empire in particular.

On the other hand, today we are faced with a multicultural left-wing “Universalist” ideology which essentially functions as the counter-white coalition–or more accurately, I think, as the anti-white coalition. The essence of this is that the forces of the Left are more than happy to mobilize non-white identitarianisms (plural) against Western Whites.

I admire Orwell in many ways, but I think this formulation of his is fairly flawed. To my eye, patriotism and nationalism can become pathologically conformist in similar ways, and there is plenty of synergy in that nationalists generally see themselves as patriots.

With that said, nationalism can be valuable if your people have a valid interest or set of interests to express. Many people yearn for a world of perfect unity, a world without ‘tribalistic’ national rivalries, but this is a pipe dream: there will always be conflicting interests, and thus there will always be conflict. Given the threat the West faces from the left, right-populist nationalism tinged with identitarianism is essentially our last best hope.

I see a lot of common ground here. Like you, I don’t care if someone is of a different race than me. Like you, I care more about ideals and values.

However, the practical reality is that statistically speaking, the natural constituency for fiscal conservatism and broadly libertarian/conservatarian ideas is whites, particularly white males. Look at how the Dems have been turning entire states blue through immigration. California used to be a Republican stronghold, but it went blue in 1992–several years after Reagan signed off on amnesty for a number of illegals back in '86–and it has stayed blue ever since.

I do think that we should be honest about the fact that if we want Western-style liberty, we need mostly Western people. That doesn’t mean Whites only, of course–it simply means that in practice, we need to understand who we’re really appealing to. Of course, this is also a response to the integrally counter-White or anti-White nature of the leftist coalitional power-strategy.