Ethno vs Civic

In order to justify ethnonationalism or racialism I need to make 1 of 3 claims: Race is more important than culture or values, race strongly influences or carries predictive power toward culture and values, or that the most effective way to defend culture or values is to defend race because cultural faultlines correspond highly with race (and race is easily identifiable).

And I shall do my best but the civic nationalist has to prove he can produce an effective, reliable, and generalizable way to make racial groups more or less equal participants in a unifying culture. That burden of proof is on him, and in failing to do so the last of my 3 points is made, and I only need one.

To recap, as it stands, only one racial group comes close to identifying with and practicing the values of Western Civilization, and in the absense of correcting this in a way which is widely and quickly generalizable then racialism is justified. And the burden of proof is on the civic nationalist to do this, that is a requirement of their system and the primary criticism from an ethnonationalist: that non-whites won't go along in large enough numbers to justify their empty talk of assimilation and culture. And I'd posit further that civic nationalists arent even aware that they don't know how to fix this or even the scope of this racialized disconnect in values. Blood and Soil societies will keep their blood and soul...and values (sans normal transformations)