Civic Nationalism: The CivNat Discussion Station -

The Pink Panther

It eeez what it eeez
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Ok, here's my whole spiel.

I'm a CivNat. Ethno-nationalism is dumb. Most countries aren't ethnonationalist, nationalism was always focused on the national identity spiritually, not ethnically in most cases, and ethnonationalism is a stupid idea because race, in general, is such an overgeneralization of people. Plus, most ethnonationalistic countries are shit except something like Israel, I guess, and they're still a pretty shitty country because they're always involved in conflict and shit because most ethnonationalistic countries are very militaristic and hell, most ethnonationalists are militaristic too, so yea. Dumb shit.
 
Last edited:

The Last Stand

When you see all the bullshit unfold...
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Plus, most ethnonationalistic countries are shit except something like Israel, I guess, and they're still a pretty shitty country because they're always involved in conflict and shit because most ethnonationalistic countries are very militaristic and hell, most ethnonationalists are militaristic too, so yea. Dumb shit.
What about Japan? Or was that for different reasons?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Christ on a crutch

Learned Hand

kiwifarms.net
you're not wrong, but in time everything fails. How did the US constitution stop the great depression? The US has been lucky with its geography and parasitic relationship with the old world which continues to this day. Because of those two things the people of the US haven't lost faith in the constitution. Americans have had a very prosperous republic to put their faith in with only one major hiccup, that being the great depression.

I praised republics for having an already built thing for the people to worship, that doesn't mean it is better than a monarchy. The citizens of a monarchy build up trust with their ruling house over generations, and often times their faith in the house doesn't break with one or two bad monarchs. It is not uncommon to see republican societies lose faith in their republic over one generation. This is what happened with Weimar Germany and Italy.

A functioning civnat country is undoubtedly good because it can mobilize everyone from all facets of society to work for the state, but the relationship between the citizen and that state is fragile. Your imagined America would be a powerful force, but without totalitarian measures to keep everyone enthusiastic about the regime how long ?

This also brings me to totalitarian countries and their relationship with the citizens. Totalitarian governments sack their citizens of all wealth and use some of that wealth to brainwash everyone to love dear leader and only the purest communism, fascism, national-bolshevism etc.
There are facets of monarchism as a form of government I appreciate, some of which you've talked about in your post. I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is fine, and can even benefit a people group and country, but for nations like the United States it would be a bridge too far. Some always fire back and bring up political dynasties like the Kennedys or the Bushs, but that's hardly the same thing.

I think many Americans would support a civnat system if they were educated on what it meant and what it would provide. The far left has worked diligently to undo the lessons of civics and undermine confidence in our system, but the federal form of government which the US has continued to develop and invest in over time lends itself well to civic nationalism.

Practically speaking, this would simply require two things to occur, both of which can take advantage of the pendulum swing as the public recoils from radical leftist policies like dismantling of police powers, and the rise in mob rule.

The first is purging the traitors and radicals out of the academic professions. Even among the people we've arrested for recent acts of anarchy can't explain a coherent ethos -- most of the time they're privileged youth simply radicalized by even more radical professors and grifter, invalid theories taught in public schools. Replace this with systems of thought that preach support of the common defense, common good, and the state.

Second is an end to extreme tolerance that is brought forth by rampant liberalism gone too far. People need to be taught that it's fine to have enemies, it's fine to hate certain things, and the natural revulsion we feel when people talk about tearing down our shared culture and values is to be embraced. A certain level of xenophobia is healthy and welcome. Looking to the health of nation, its okay to look at exploitive, uncontrolled capitalism as bad, and it's okay to mock race grifters and virtue signalers and shame them constantly. Citizens should be taught the value of love, comradery, and unity as much as the usefulness of hate and disgust.

Those aren't far fetched things. They're attainable states of being if people are willing to learn and put in the work.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: The Fool

Fek

What could possibly go wrong?
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Look, it's not that I'm outright opposed to what you're suggesting here (even if you've been quite smug about it at times). I actually used to fall (sort of) in line with your thoughts on this matter. It's just that..over time? Reality has a funny way of making you realize this shit just won't work. Humanity very naturally forms itself into in-groups. Babies naturally form their own in-groups, for fucks's sake.

Sooner or later, certain in-groups will subvert your society to deliberately shit it up and make it easier to control - and you know what an awesome way to split people up is? Race relations. Whether you want to admit it or not, certain differences between people are going to be exploited and cannot just simply be overridden through nationalist propaganda.

And you speak of merit winning the day. Okay, well..what if, after meritocracy has truly taken hold (and since you think race/genetics is a non-issue), Mexicans hold all the highest income positions (lol) and Asians are almost entirely ditch-diggers? How will you deal with the reality of meritocracy pissing certain groups of people the fuck off? "Remember - we're all Civ-nats, brother! Almighty Merit has put you in your place for a reason!" isn't gonna put food on that Asian family's table at night.

What about groups of people retaining their classic in-group preference yet outwardly denying it? Collectivism is gonna chew this idea up in a hurry, and I'd love to hear how you'd somehow prevent that from happening. How will you prove a 90% in-group business is not hiring based on merit? How hard are you willing to press the boot down on your people's collective neck to keep people from being people?

I'm just not convinced the idea of people moving beyond shit like race/ideology/creed/etc can work anymore, and nothing you're bringing up is really getting very deep into how you're going to make this grand civnat idea work out. Especially given the contrary evidence spread throughout America's history, in particular. You can see this in every single large city in America to this day, even. Most people willingly segregate themselves to get the fuck away from their out-group. Do you think self-segregation is healthy to a national identity? Yes, some people are capable of moving beyond things like creed/race/class to see others are fellow citizens..but I'd argue most can't do it or can't be made to for long.

You're adding a very, very complicated (and frankly, unnecessary) layer onto a nation by trying to get people to ignore their strongest and most blatant differences in favor of their common "homeland." It'd take at least a couple generations to really get your ideas to take root, and in the meanwhile you'd still be dealing with differences in race/creed/culture because people won't suddenly forget their heritage just because you want a civnat state. Are you going to make every citizen turn in any item related to their family's heritage and give them a little "Civnat nation best nation" picture to put over their fireplace instead? Make it illegal to pass down stories and traditions from great-grandma back in the old country?

There's already plenty of division in a more ethno-centric state as it is, and yet you want to dump a whole fuck load of extra bullshit into the pot and pretend it'll all work out simply because you indoctrinated the youth.

Again - I'm not necessarily against your idea, I just don't think it's possible. I think the most ideal civnat situation would ultimately just end up looking like a bunch of mini-nations built along their old ethnic lines all "united" under your civnat nation's banner. People can't handle it very well otherwise.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: littlearmalite
Tags
None