O

Awaiting legions
please respond

sage

GO BACK TO CUCKCHAN AND THEN KILL YOURSELF

I can't help but laugh at civic nationalism - its a self-defeating meme.

Look at the US.

We hear civic nationalists talking all about these Constitutional principles that they hold dear.
Freedom of speech. Right to bear arms. Limited government.
Yet these same civic nationalist principles, they claim, demand judgement on the basis of the individual only, not as collectives… Of course, their claims are somewhat suspect, given the men who derived those princples initially were slave owners and created the US as an explicit White ethnostate, but whatever.

The point is, this hyper-individualistic outlook forces them into a cognitive box, limiting the extent of their philosophical-willpower. It does so, in that it forces them to reject judgement in the context of racial groups as a collective, despite races acting as collectives.
For example: Hispanics support gun control (60%+ in favor, 30% against). And hate-speech laws (50%+ in favor, 25% against). And expanded government (70%+ in favor, 20% against). And Hispanics overwhelmingly identify with the left-wing political parties (60%+, increasingly from generation to generation after entry to the country to upwards of 70% by the 2nd generation). AND Hispanics demonstrate an elevated fertility rate relative to White populations in the US (still above replacement levels).

Thus, by upholding civic nationalist principles in judging Hispanics as individuals instead of as a group, many Hispanics would be (and have been) allowed into the country - for example in the amnesty of Ronald Reagan - despite the fact that collectively they do not believe in the principles upon which the nation was founded… Not that they would say as much if attempting to gain entry - deception exists, and civic nationalist arguments as-goes vetting procedures are underwhelming, nevermind the prospect of enforcement of civic values after entry (let alone over generations).

And this last point about enforcement is important, because evidence suggests that, like most ethnic/racial minorities in the US, Hispanics do not demonstrate a collective belief in the civic principles of the US (certainly not to the proportional degree seen in US Whites), but they DO behave as a collective, supporting left-wing political groups in overwhelming majority. Those promoting civic nationalist ideals do not demonstrate the philosophical-willpower to enforce these civic values, have offered no methodology to alter this condition, and all indications suggest they are bereft of such a method - if they were not, the populations which have been in the US for several generations, exposed to the values of the country and civic nationalists' arguments in that vein, would espouse those positions, but they do not.

While on the subject… Why do Hispanics support left-wing groups? Are they actually more left-wing in political view? Yes, but that's not the whole story - they vote as a collective, and they do so to serve collective interests. Left-wing groups in the US are the groups in favor of serving the left-wing predispositions of Hispanics (hate-speech laws, gun control, expanding government with more programs) as well as increased immigration, which they promote loudly, and increased immigration leads to an increase in population for the respective ethnic/racial minority in question, which in turn leads to an increase in the political power, electorally at the very least, wielded by that ethnic/racial minority. Hence, regardless of their political stance, Hispanics support left-wing groups as a collective to serve collective interest. We see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Blacks and other non-Whites.
In fact, we see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Asians, who also primarily support left-wing groups in the US (50%+, increasing generationally), even though polling of their political views suggest they may not actually be left-wing politically - they're merely acting as a collective in serving their collective interest.

Left-wing groups are, for whatever reason (ideology, personal desire for power or wealth, etc), very happy to assist in this endeavor, and in fact, the left-wing political party of the modern US is an amalgam of minority groups acting collectively in their own interest despite an absence of shared political belief betwixt the tribes. They are, effectively, a collective composed of collectives, each acting to serve their own interests, and a great deal of their effort is maintained in securing each individual collective's support and avoiding conflict among those groups where their perceived collective interests conflict. Further, these left-wing groups - aided by left-wing political/social organizations (several particularly influential examples bearing an overt Jewish composition or philosophy) - explicitly advocate for, and support the explicit advocacy of, the respective non-White minority collectives, whilst simultaneously doing everything in their power to silence, slander, demonize and deplatform any and all explicit White advocacy groups through accusation of association with 'racism', 'White supremacy', 'Nazism' and/or 'anti-Semitism', amongst others.

That is to say, the left-wing in the US, particularly the influential Jewish wing, advocates against explicit White advocacy. Which is why no such explicit White advocacy organizations exist in the US today which are not so slandered, and certainly none which exhibit institutional power and perceived legitimacy as might be claimed on behalf of other ethnic/racial groups' equivalents (the latter of which often exhibiting a far more seedy character than the former).
Ironically, this seems to form a neat little circle for the left-wing (especially Jewish) actors: by advocating against White advocacy and White advocates using accusations such as 'racism' or 'White supremacy', Jewish left-wing organizations create anti-semitic sentiment in White advocates and White advocacy organizations, which those same left-wing Jewish organizations then utilize to further slander them through accusation of 'anti-semitism' or 'Nazism'!
Its important to note that the left-wing political factions and their accomplice political organizations in the US also employ such accusations in opposition to any efforts to inhibit left-wing political aims at increasing immigration into the US from non-White sources, promoting globalist multiculturalism and miscegenation, and degrading national borders, even national sovereignty.

The left-wing has been so successful in their efforts in this regard, that the US population demographics are beginning to disintegrate. The White population - the only population which demonstrates anything close to majority support for the ideals which civic nationalists claim to hold most dear - is being displaced.

What conclusion do we reach from such analysis of circumstance?
We can discern that the civic nationalist position is philosophically-unequipped to combat this hazard, in that their civic nationalist ideals demand they make judgements on strictly individual grounds such as to ignore ethnic/racial behavioral trends. They will thus seek to argue in favor of judging a long line of individuals, as individuals, on principle, who can and will present themselves as sharing a belief in the principles civic nationalists claim to seek to uphold if such is required to gain entry to the country, and who will subsequently act collectively in their own interests once in the US such as to create new demographic conditions within the US that are no longer fertile substrate for the individual - and thereby societal - espousal of civic nationalists' proposed ideals.

tl;dr: Non-Whites don't care about civic duties or virtues, they act as collectives to serve collective interests, and civic nationalists do not have any mechanism at their disposal to change, nor combat, this state of affairs, even as they vehemently protest, on the basis of their civic nationalist principles, White advocates attempting such a feat. These civic nationalists are thus demonstrating that they are operating from an obsolete playbook, attempting to espouse civic nationalist ideals of individualism that were only able to be maintained in homogenous White nations bereft of competition from myriad non-White collectives (each serving their own interests), and yet, despite this failure, demonstrable throughout electoral politics in the US (and the West overall) over the last 30+ years, civic nationalists continue to suggest the old playbook is valid. The conclusion is thus that, if civic nationalists are allowed to attempt to carry out their proposed policies in the US, there will cease to exist a substrate for civic nationalists' beloved Constitutional principles and these principles will cease to exist in application in the US.

Self-defeating meme.

Finally, I'd like to sink one last nail into the coffin of civic nationalists' hyper-individualistic ideals, specifically surrounding the conceptual notion of individual judgements in the context of immigration.
Regression to the mean.
This is a well-documented phenomenon in population genetics whereby the offspring of outliers within a population tend to gradually 'shift' toward a state more in-line with the average of their ethnic/racial group. The result is that judgement of individuals is an entirely static exercise.
Typically, those promoting such a methodology of selection will dictate a set of standards which are non-biological in origin, but which effectively act to indirectly ensure that only the outliers amongst non-White ethnic/racial groups will be able to gain entry. Of course, this is innately faulty in practice, in that the individual's offspring are not necessarily going to espouse the traits which meet those standards, particularly if the individual being judged initially was an outlier amongst their kind, which will be the case by-requisite as regards non-White ethnic/racial groups, yet those offspring will be granted voting privileges if born within the US.

This warrants addressing.

The United States was 80-90% White until the 1980s, which was a direct consequence of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965.
Its important to note that the people in the 1960's WOULD NOT have supported that legislation - and they weren't given a choice. But if they were, if there had been a referendum, they would have voted it down, doubly so if they knew what the US would look like today as a result.

And that's the real kicker: The people who pushed through the Hart-Cellar act EXPLICITLY stated that none of these things - demographic displacement most of all - would happen. They said it explicitly, "This will not happen". They said that if you said it WOULD happen, you were just doing that because you are a racist.

Now, post-1980's, after the consequences of those policies began to be felt, the response has changed. Now, when its pointed out that all these things HAVE HAPPENED, ARE HAPPENING, the answer now is, "Well, if you CARE, you're a racist".

Its also worth noting that American values prior to 1965 were very ethnocentric - Whites didn't espouse a mentality of opening their country to the world in majority. But effectively, that culture was changed with the 1965 act, and in the 2 decades that followed before serious effect ws felt, great effort was put into arguing that this new state of affairs was American values as they'd always been.
Now, whenever someone attempts to levy opposition to demographic displacement - the same sort of opposition which was offered, and would have been offered more greatly with foresight, by White Americans - its thrown in their face that these new values are America's values.

Basically, we were lied to, and when you try to call someone out on the lie, they call you a racist and tell you those lies are America's values and always have been.

Your professed ideals require a substrate of individuals who believe in those ideals in order for those ideals to be espoused in society, and non-Whites do not represent such a substrate, such that demographic replacement of White populations by non-White populations eliminates such substrate, resulting in a cessation of populational espousal of those values at the individual, and thus societal, levels.

Except that the founders of the United States made it a White ethnostate, which doesn't follow.
The reality is, civic nationalisms' hyperindividualism was valid in the context of a homogenous White population, but that societal ecology no longer exists, such that to espouse those principles in that context is utilizing an obsolete playbook, espousing a survival strategy geared towards an environment that no longer exists, and consequentially, espousal of that mindset in the context of the new social ecology will invariably result in the complete dissolution of the values which people such as yourself claim to desire to uphold.

IOW: The ideals you propose don't work in a multicultural system in direct competition with non-White collectives that behave as collectives, and if you continue to try to maintain that stance you will allow, by requisite, such conditions to emerge such that there will be no social substrate upon which your ideals will be espoused.

yep it's the Russians
poised for resurrection of knighthood

Not exactly, its about controlling all groups, people isnt stupid, so they are being replaced by muslim nigs, meanwhile they have to control everything and stay in the shadows.

Biology before social sciences always.