The Folly of Civic Nationalism

Civic nationalism — the idea that a nation is little more than an abstract set of ideas and not a group of people bound by blood. The idea that anybody, anywhere, can one day become an American. The idea that America is a homeland for all, and that we are all immigrants. The idea that if you replace the founding stock of the US, or any Western nation for that matter, with alien migrants, so long as the ideas remain, so too will the nation.

Civic nationalism: perhaps the largest gamble of all time.

The principal fallacy of civic nationalism is that the American and European ideal can be taught to non-Europeans. The principles and ethics that made our civilization great arose from European DNA. It was no mistake and no magic dirt. There is a reason certain ideals and political forms appeared in the Occident and nowhere else through the world. There is a reason non-Whites do not accept the truths we hold to be self-evident.

We can look at hard data to support the idea that there are big differences between Whites and non-Whites on a wide range of issues, and in particular on the fundamental question of the proper role of government. Non-Whites are more likely to believe that government control is more important than individual rights. A 2015 study found that 50% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks in the US support hate speech laws that would make it illegal to make offensive comments, compared to 36% of Whites that would support such legislation.

Pew Research asked the question “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?” 75% of Hispanics and 66% of Blacks felt that gun control was more important than protecting the right to own firearms. On the other hand, the majority of White Americans — 54% — answered that gun rights were more important than gun control. Sorted by party we see that 70% of Republicans, compared to 30% of Democrats answered that protecting gun rights was more important than gun control.

From these surveys we see very clearly that the ideas put forward in our Bill of Rights are upheld far more by the White majority than by Blacks or Hispanics. It is thus quite reasonable to think that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights can survive a non-White majority. The Founders understood this type of high-trust nation that afforded individuals tremendous freedom was predicated upon a White society. The phrases “for ourselves and our posterity” of the Constitution and “free white persons of good moral character” from the Naturalization Act of 1790, are quite explicit in envisioning a White future for the U.S.

Non-Whites are also far more likely to favor a government that provides lots of free stuff. Pew asked if people would prefer “a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services.” The results were striking. Of Blacks, 68% reported they would prefer a larger government with more services, compared to 35% of Whites. First-generation Hispanics answered at a colossal 81%, second-generation Hispanics at 72%, third-generation and greater, 58%, thus showing continued divergence from White norms. Second-generation Hispanics are actually more likely to identify as Democrats than first-generation Hispanics — meaning that the Republican pipe dream that migrants will someday be just like them is not based in reality.

So it’s reasonable to think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will not survive a non-White majority. As it stands, the current greatest threat to fundamental liberties and our way of life as Americans is not an opposing ideology, but an unnatural shift in demography.

There is a common misunderstanding that policy, not population, determines the outcome of a city or of a nation. The neo-Marxists liberal policies of San Francisco are not all that different from Camden, New Jersey. The type of ideology that governs Portland, Oregon, is arguably quite similar to that of St. Louis. While San Francisco and Portland are relatively safe, clean, and functioning, Camden and St. Louis are among the most dangerous cities in the world. This is not a result of politics, but a result of population. Functioning societies, like the one our forefathers designed, were predicated upon a high-trust, high-IQ, and hard-working population.

The heart of civic nationalism is the idea that a nation is a proposition, that we as Americans, are nothing but a disparate group loosely bound by the Constitution is a laughable notion both in theory and in practice. In theory, it means that any of the world’s seven billion inhabitants are simply Americans that have not yet migrated here. It means so long as their paperwork is filled out properly and they “believe” in the same values the nation was founded upon, anybody can become an instant American. In practice, we see that the majority of non-Whites do not even meet the most minimal of standards of what it means to be an American. Per their own admission, most do not believe in some of our most foundational principles, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms. These very basic ideas are often ungraspable abstractions to the foreign mind. In a sense, this can be articulated to mean that the descendants of our nation’s founding stock are the only true Americans, all others are paper citizens, mere guests in a foreign land.

Expansive liberties and minimal government intervention are predicated upon a White population. The type of liberty we were granted requires a certain level of self-reliance and tenacity. These are things that cannot be taught to the global masses. Foreigners are never going to be all that interested in free speech, or limited taxation and limited governments, or in the right to own firearms, because none of these things are a part of their culture, as they are not part of their DNA. These Western values are not mere abstractions or propositions, they are things that only exist in the West because they come from the Western mind.

If we remove our shared culture, which stems from race, our shared history, and our shared traditions, we no longer have a nation. We are left with nothing but a multinational corporation inhabitant by deracinated, atomized, and amorphous proles, meandering through life without an identity except perhaps as the fan of a certain football team or the owner of a certain model of car.


My views are often confronted with questions such as, “what about minorities (non-Whites) that voted Trump?” and “what about migrants that do very well in the USA such as Indians and East Asians?” I always reply, “what about them?” Citing to Indians, East Asians, Blacks, or Hispanics that fall on the far end of the bell-curve in no way repudiates their collective ethnic groups, nor can they make amends for the significant drain their people pose to our nation.

“Based” Latinos that voted Trump and champion “legal” migration are not our our allies. Legal migration is a globalist fiction to convince the European peoples that so long as it was government-sanctioned, the invasion of our homelands is justified. If 200 million “legal” Mexicans come to the USA, does that somehow make it any better when we are forced to live in North Mexico? Not at all. The English became a minority in London through “legal” migration, mind you. What those “based” Latinos are really saying, is they want to come to our homeland, benefit from the society we created, and ensure the erasure is slow enough that they do not experience the detrimental effects.

The idea that “high-skilled” migrants should be allowed to come to the US or Europe to work or to get an education is equally as absurd both in theory and practice. Indians, Africans, and Asians coming to the US to obtain advanced degrees are seen by most as a wonderful thing, and it is far from it.

I was struck by the incredible irony when a friend of mine described her recent trip to Africa as a part of a Doctors Without Borders group, to provide humanitarian health care. I asked if the group that she went with was mostly White. She was at first struck by the question, as most people are when anybody speaks candidly about race. The truth is, the majority of people who travel to Africa, India, and Asia to provide humanitarian aid, are White. The irony is that the top African, Indian, and Asian students routinely flock to the US, leaving behind their own homeland, abandoning their own people, so they may earn more money in the states. The same people that are often used as examples of American “success stories” are not only displacing native-born White Americans in medical programs at universities thanks to diversity quotas, they are also exacerbating the problem in their home nations. They leave behind their own tribe, simply to make more money. Motivated by pure greed. And then, the shortage of medical professionals all over the third world is supplemented by altruistic Whites, when the people who should be offering free medical care in those nations left years before so they may enjoy the material trappings of a White nation, live in a White neighborhood, and send their children to White schools.


Civic nationalists believe in the Emma Lazarus-Israel Zangwill-Emmanuel Celler-Horace Kallen version of America — no surprise, because they and people like them created and promoted the idea throughout the twentieth century. They promote the image of America as a melting pot or, more recently the idea that non-Whites retain their ethnic identities. They have the bizarre idea that the Founding Fathers mutually pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to each other to create a “homeland for all”. By doing so, they explicitly reject the Founding Fathers view of what it means to be an American, as well as nearly 175 years of law that limited immigration to Europeans.

At best, civic nationalist are people who think that paying taxes, which most migrants do not do, and feigning belief in a set of values will make you an American. At worst these soft-globalists believe that the Mexican kid born in Texas after his 9-month pregnant mom jumped the border, is every bit as American as somebody whose family fought in the Revolution.

The end result of civic nationalism is White families, paying a third of their income in taxes, so they can feed, house, clothe, and educate a family of seven Somalis, which will have twice the voting power as the White family that funded them. Civic nationalism is an ideology that suggests Somalis that fly into JFK airport, are picked up by their HIAS representative, and driven to their newly furnished apartment, are just as American as the person whose family came here on a 50-day boat ride from England with a few pence in their pockets.

Nobody, not even the most ardent open-border, globalist, rootless Liberal, would honestly suggest that Japan or Israel is merely a set of ideas and beliefs. Japan is the homeland of the Japanese people and Israel is the Jewish state. This seems rather obvious. Yet the same axiomatic truism is entirely abandoned when it comes to European nations. Decades of multicultural propaganda, suicidal immigration policies, and a widespread cover-up by the media and political elites have convinced several generations of Europeans that our ancestral homelands, are in no way ours. We are being told that the nations our forefathers created, defended, and died for, belong just as much to us, as they do to any of the world’s seven billion people who manage to wash upon our shores.

So-called conservatives are still hopelessly holding onto Leftists platitudes, “we are a nation of immigrants” and “diversity is our greatest strength.” These platitudes claim that because Europeans once migrated to the US, after a nation was created specifically for Europeans, by Anglo-nationalists, that we should allow unlimited Third World migration.

Democrats understand very well that they will never convince Whites to pass “hate speech” laws. The only way is to import enough non-White voters to get their agenda in place. The Left understands this on a visceral level. They know with no doubt in their minds, that the way to recreate this nation in their image, is to alter the demographics and to eviscerate the founding stock. Anybody on the Right that believes in the idea of civic nationalism, or any other nationalism aside from ethnic-nationalism, is either willfully blind or at heart nothing but soft-globalists.

Everything in politics and policy — and I mean everything — falls in the end comes down to race. Everything else is really quite secondary. Nations can survive famine, communism, plagues, war, pestilence, but they cannot survive mass-migration.

Beliefs alone do not make up a nation. We are a people bound by history, culture, heritage, and blood. If we are replaced, if the founding stock of America, or any other European nation is replaced with those who are nothing but paper citizens, mere visitors, and welfare tourists, the nation dies alongside the founding stock.

26 replies
  1. Rehmat
    Rehmat says:

    “The idea that America is a homeland for all, and that we are all immigrants.” Well – that’s a historical fact that Christopher Columbus never landed in North America. He incidentally discovered Bahamas, Cuba and some other Caribbean islands. Before the European settlers came to the Americana – the continent was home to tens of millions of Africa, Japanese, and Irish people.

    On May 24, 2012, Charles Garcia, Jewish CEO of Garcia Trujillo, in a CNN Op-Ed claimed that Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón in Spanish) was a secret Jew whose 1492 voyage was funded by a couple of rich Jews and not by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella as the Christian historian want the world to believe.

    Garcia also claimed that Columbus voyage was not meant to reach the spice-rich India but to liberate Jerusalem from Muslims.

    • Stan Burns
      Stan Burns says:

      “When there were no more than 400,000 Indians in the entire territory of the United States, it was much too small for them. All the tribes, with the exception of some degenerates in part of California, lived in perpetual warfare with each other for the sheer joy of it.” — Revilo P. Oliver; “To See Ourselves”

  2. Karlfried
    Karlfried says:

    “Nations can survive famine, communism, plagues, war, pestilence, but they cannot survive mass-migration.”
    I agree. There is one exception, under special circumstances: In Germany we have had during the last two years millions , maybe two or more (!), of the Third-World-Non-White-people flooding in, invited by Frau Merkel and the German state. That has of cause very negative results.
    In every small German village we have negroes walking and standing around. German women cannot (or only at very high risk) go “jogging” in the wood. And all this serves as a “wake-up-call”. Germans have now almost no opportunity to avoid the conflicts, to go away and to shy away. We are like cornered rats now and we have to fight. Everyday this thought grows in Germany, and the results shall be seen in the near future.
    Without that wakeupcall we would have been replaced by Turks/NorthAfricans within a few decades (by the production of Turk/Marocco children in Germany with a German passport). But now we have to fight. It is a “Now or Never” situation.

  3. Dave
    Dave says:

    It all comes down to biology and the immutable laws of evolution. In a social species like ours, bigger groups defeat and dispossess smaller groups, so all groups want to get bigger. Idea-based groups can grow faster than blood-based groups, but tend to fall apart when they promiscuously recruit people who only pretend to accept those ideas or lack the intelligence to understand them, or the ideas themselves run out their warranty.

    Yugoslavia was a perfect example of an idea-based society suddenly reverting to a blood-based society, except that they didn’t have welfare ghettos, feedlots full of fatted, slow-moving, slow-witted livestock, to see them through the long winter after collapse.

  4. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Civic Nationalism might work IF all groups were equally committed to Rule of Law. Also, Civic Nationalists would have to call out on EVERYONE who violates the principles of their creed.
    But they don’t. The very white civic nationalists who denounce white identitarians are totally supportive of the ethno-nationalism and even ethno-supremacism of the Tribe. Also, they never denounce black tribalism or La Raza brown nationalism.
    If indeed white civic nationalists denounced ANY sign of ethno-nationalism(especially among very powerful Jews), they would have a somewhat compelling case.
    But the ONLY nationalism they denounce is the white kind. Indeed, white civic nationalists have more problem with white identity politics(that is not supremacist) than with Jewish supremacist politics. I mean AIPAC is clearly Jewish-globalist-supremacist. It says all Americans must put Israel UBER ALLES and must aid Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. White Civic Nationalists eat that stuff up.

    Now, some white civic nationalists might argue that IF white people act like good civic nationalists, it will be so inspiring that Jews and non-whites will eventually follow and emulate whites. But whites look WEAK as civic nationalists, and people don’t respect weakness. When Rand Paul goes around as a Detroit Republican, who’s buying it? He just looks stupid.

    Also, non-whites, especially ‘immigrants’, resent that the Rule of Law clause in Civic Nationalism and America-First will mean MORE for those already in America and LESS for those who want to come to America. Since non-whites want more of their own kind to come to the US, they hate civic nationalism even when it is well-intentioned for Americans. These demographic imperialists, especially from Mexico and India, identify more with their folks back home than with other Americans.

    Also, Civic Nationalism fails to address the anti-white thrust of Political Correctness that is the reigning ideology of Jewish-controlled America. Virginia race showed that so many whites voted against the GOP. Their only identity is smug & sneering self-righteous virtue-signaling by bashing other whites.
    If more whites voted for Gillespie, he would have won. But even though majority did vote for him, 40% voted for the other guy. And among educated and the young, it was even higher, even a huge majority.

    Whites must address Jewish power and how it’s been used to deracinate and disenfranchise whites. #PowerSoJewish must be the hashtag.

    Whites must bring down Jewish Power first. While Jews are immensely powerful, it is ONLY because the white gentile population is willing as craven collaborators. Without white support and submissivism, Jewish power will collapse overnight.
    This is why Jews fear Alt Right and White Identity. Jews call it ‘supremacist’, but what they really fear is that Jewish Supremacism will come to a screeching halt once Whites adopt White Racial Disobedience. Thoreau was the original theorist. Gandhi picked it up. Gandhi and fellow Indians realized that British Rule in India would be finished IF Indians united to disobey. After all, India was mostly Indian, with Brit ruling class making just a tiny percentage of the population. So, without Indian submissivism to British Imperial power, the Brits were finished in India.
    Jews feel the same way in the US. While Jews are immensely rich and own so much media, they are still only 2% of the population. If whites refuse to submit to Jewish power, fight Wars for Israel, and enforce pro-Jewish Agenda(like silencing BDS), Jewish power will collapse.
    If whites stop going to Jewish casinos, Las Vegas is finished. If whites stop watching Hollywood trash, Hollywood is over. If white politicians stop serving Jews and begin to criticize Jewish power with courage and honesty, Jewish power will begin to crack and fall almost overnight.

    This is why Jewish Supremacism needs White Submissivism to be its litter-bearers.

    So, when uppity white identitarians call for white self-determination, white sovereignty, white independence, and white liberation, Jews throw a fit. It’s not that they fear white supremacism. After all, most of Alt Right is NOT into supremacism. What Jews fear is that White Independents will not worship and obey Jews…. and that means the end of Jewish Supremacism.

    This is why Jews seek to destroy gentile identity by race-mixing the whole world. Ugly Agenda.

    Race-mixing is destructive.

    Whereas it’s SO EASY to create a mixed-race person by interbreeding, it’s NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to create a mono-racial person from mixed-breed population.
    It’s like it’s simple to mix juices but impossible to extract one juice from a punch-bowl of mixed juices and other flavors. Race-mixing is permanently damaging because it’s irreversible.

    It took 10,000s of yrs of evolution to create the precious reality of diverse separate races.
    But this wonderful product of 10,000s of evolution is to be destroyed in a few decades or centuries with massive globo-racial sausaging. The various steaks of humanity are to be tossed into the globalist meat grinder and turned into generic-genetic hotdogs all around the world.
    Who thinks a hotdog is better than a whole steak?

    The simplicity of creating mixed-race people via interracism proves that racial mixture is dime-a-dozen. All you have to do is have different races have sex. It’s easily done.

    But if the entire world were mixed-race, it would be near-impossible to breed mono-racial people from the mix. It would be like trying to extract only orange juice from a bowl where orange juice has been mixed with apple juice, grape juice, prune juice, pineapple juice, and etc. Now, all these juices are fine, but if all juices were mixed into a single bowl, then forget about having single juices anymore. All the flavors have been mixed to all eternity with little or no chance of recovering the original juices.

    • Rehmat
      Rehmat says:

      I never heard of a Black or a American Muslim carrying dual nationality (US + Israel) – but I can name hundreds of Jews and White American holding that honor. Why?

  5. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    I didn’t read this, but I agree that civic nationalism is a folly. Better stated, it’s a folly for true believers. How about we all sing along and use it as a coverup for ethnic nationalism?

    Just today I had the glorious grace to be failed in the exam by a committee of five. Only one member against me, pretentiously. My advisor said to me “anybody would have failed if grilled that way.” It actually has something to do with tribal interest, but cannot elaborate too much here.

  6. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Interesting piece. But I wish you’d said more about Jews. You didn’t even spell out what HIAC means in the USA – the ‘Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society’. You didn’t say that the Bank of England was crucial in funding the USA when it was new, and as far as can be worked out, in funding subsequent wars and such events as transAtlantic slavery. And so on. It’s imperative to tease out Jewish activities from everyone else’s.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      Maybe clearer — you say The principles and ethics that made our civilization great arose from European DNA. It was no mistake and no magic dirt.
      What you don’t say is that for 2000 years European DNA has been corroded, harmed, infiltrated etc by so-called ‘Jews’. And they’ve had a big effect. You don’t mention this. You’re like someone talking about health and diseases before bacteria were discovered.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        The present fixation on bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc. is the worst thing to come down the pike – and, yes, like countless other things, we just gobbled it all up; we are childishly blaming these invisible entities for our physical ills. But in more intelligent forms of medicine they say, “Germs don’t cause disease; disease causes germs.”

        Pasteur VS Bechamp. Gotta get to the root of things.

    • Rehmat
      Rehmat says:

      The organized Jewry did all that “good work” – believing that United States was the biblical promised land for the Jews.

      Jewish historian Hasia R. Diner in book, ‘A New Promised Land: A History of Jews in America’, has claimed that the US is the land promised to Jews in the Bible.

      Stephen Richer agrees with Diner. He wrote at ‘Gather the Jews com’:

      “We Jews have always looked to Israel as our promised land. The dates 586 BCE and 70 CE (the destruction of the first and second Temples and the start of the Diaspora communities) are etched into the collective Jewish mind, and we end each Yom Kippur and Passover with the saying: “Next year in Jerusalem.” But in many respects, we Jews found our promised land when we first stepped foot on American soil (Boston, 1649, Solomon Franco), and later when we came in larger numbers during the 1800s (250,000 Jews by 1880). For the first time, Jews had a home country devoid of a history of Jewish expulsion or systematic Jewish bloodshed. For the first time in history, Jews had a country that – from the beginning – gave de jure acknowledgement to the right to practice to Judaism and the right to be an equal citizen as a Jew.”

  7. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    typo error in article above”They leave behind they own tribe, simply to make more money.”

    “left years before so they may enjoy the material trappings of a White nation, live in a White neighborhood, and send their children to White schools.”

    And when they follow Islam or Judaism, they also make sure their children go to the mosque/temple in whatever white city they live in. And despite their children going to white schools, the only friends their children have outside school are STRICTLY from their own religion, and also from their own race, and if possible with muslims, some further subset of the race. Most muslim children in Britain attend the mosque for 2-5 sessions a week (some Mon-Fri after school, and others Sat & Sun). (Blacks are the exception and hang around with whites, so they are used mainly in TV commercials and films for promoting race-mixing as the other races would be offended – other races can be used but require more egg shell treading than with blacks).

    Their children are even more loyal to their countries of origin than their parents are. They idolise their country of origin and call it ‘my country’, even though they have never been there, or when they do go, just visit for holidays.

    And the children monitor each other’s behaviour (‘You can’t have nuggets from MacDonald’s as they are not halal – go to KFC’). This shows that the way humans slavishly follow culture is fully developed in a 7 year old child. This suggests that whatever processes are going on they operate fully at an age when reason and ability to assess are not developed at all, therefore reason and logic and intelligent thought must PLAY NO PART in culture-obedience in the young and it is 100% free from input of higher thoughts, ie thinking about the merits or the rights and wrongs.

    This suggests that if the same process is going on in adults, that it is still logic and free form input of higher thoughts. This explains the strange phenomenon of whites now adopting readily a culture of self-hate. The only explanation is that logic and thought play no part in the process of culture-following.

    We can see how this would help a group in some situations as it leads to unity. But the same mechanism can cause harm for the group, eg when the whites today adopt a culture that is anti-white.

  8. 4thofJuly
    4thofJuly says:

    Time for mass immigration of SA whites and white Europeans who have been kept out by the unjust immigration laws. Give them welfare like DACA gets.

  9. Ron
    Ron says:

    “Civic nationalism” is not a “gamble.” It’s a LIE, and those who propagate it know this full well. They are intentional murderers, like their father, the devil.

  10. Pierre le Blanc
    Pierre le Blanc says:

    “If we are replaced, if the founding stock of America, or any other European nation is replaced with those who are nothing but paper citizens, mere visitors, and welfare tourists, the nation dies alongside the founding stock.”

    That’s exactly what {{{those}}} who dominate us want. There is no error or mistake. These people are no fools. They know very well what they are doing, and if we don’t do something about it very soon, our race is doomed… as planned. Make no mistake about it.

  11. Arthur Frayn
    Arthur Frayn says:

    Nationhood is biological reality, not political or cultural abstraction. The nation is the race and to deny this is treason. Similarly, invasion is an act of war and to facilitate an invasion of your own country is also treason. It’s time to stop making a distinction between the invaders and those who force them on us. They’re one enemy.

  12. Rehmat
    Rehmat says:

    “A 2015 study found that 50% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks in the US support hate speech laws that would make it illegal to make offensive comments, compared to 36% of Whites that would support such legislation.”

    I’m afraid the study must been conducted by some Zionist idiot. While 15 European countries have laws against challenging the so-called “Six Million Died” – no country has law to ban anti-Black or anti-Hispanic or anti-Jesus or anti-Islam propaganda being a hate crime.

    The So-called “Hate Crime” laws in the West are authored by powerful Jewish Lobby groups.

    “The public’s right to know is one of the basic principles of a genuine democracy, but in Israel it not only is curtailed by “Military Press Censorship,” but also by the frequent imposition of gag orders by the civilian courts,” says Jay Bushinsky, April 15, 2011.

    Two Jewish historians, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinnsky in book ‘Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel’ have claimed that racism and anti-free speech are part of Jewish culture. In 2009, when Jewish professor William Robinson sent an e-mail to his students in which he compared Israeli invasion of Gaza Strip with Nazis, he was chased by the ADL, AJC, ACLU, Simon Wiesenthal Center and several other pro-Israel Jewish groups for using his speech freedom. “Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw – a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians,” the professor wrote. “We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide“.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Jewish Professor William Robinson did his part. He would have crossed the line even further, had he mentioned that the local German Wehrmacht Command and Luftwaffe begged Warsaw to surrender, apparently three times and finally asked it to at least send out its women and children before the unalterable aerial attack.

      Gaza was never given that opportunity in 2014, indeed never before nor since.

  13. Karlfried
    Karlfried says:

    The word “the nation” (in German: die Nation) has its roots in the Latin word “nascere”= “to be born” (geboren werden). The words “nation” and “birth” are linked together closely.

    The word “the folk, our folk” (“das Volk, unser Volk”) has a wide range of meanings. If you want to circumscribe or define the word “das deutsche Volk” you will always find some “exceptions from the rule” or some different aspects, maybe interfering or excluding each other. The word is not defined exactly.

    Therefore, with the word “Volk” we have a word that is not exact, and it describes a thing that in itself has no clear borders and is not exact in itself.

    Should we go away from that inexact word und replace it with some well-definded terms?
    In some cases yes, we can do some science with words that describe some things exactly.

    But also we have to handle things that are not exact, not well defined, not measurable in numbers.
    In the German language the words “Unser Land, unser Volk” go directly into the heart. We Germans know, what our Volk is and who belongs to it and who not. We do not need a scientific definition. We feel our folk and we enjoy it. And that feeling and joy give birth to our strength and courage. We love our land and our “Volk”.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      You might have added the word and concept of Vaterland or Land of our Fathers, dropped from the German Anthem while leaning over too far during obligatory genuflection.

      Identically with dropping the lyrics Deutschland, Deutschland ueber Alles, ueber Alles in der Welt.

      This has been PROFITABLY and deliberately misinterpreted by our handful of detractors to mean Germany over All [ OTHERS ], RATHER THAN GERMANY — BEFORE —ALL; [ OR EVERYTHING ELSE ].

      Not a difficult slight-of-hand when optional English composition courses have given way to obligatory Holocaust classes

Comments are closed.