CivNat

In theory, values nationalism should be sufficient. But in practice it means an open society with no regards to "superficial demographic characteristics" which thinks it will simply integrate the newcomers to their values after they arrive. Whereas a society which defends and maintains its blood and its soil will have no issue expressing its values in that territory. People who think said superficial demographic characteristics matter, if even just as a proxy for values, tend to be sympathetic to blood and soul. And practice some version of it, even if they think absolute purity is an overcorrection.

There are benefits to individualism, it's a good mindset for prosperity when self-expression is more of a priority. When you're at the top of the hierarchy of needs. It is not a good value when you're trying to survive or deal with a threat. In fact, just the opposite.

>how civic nationalist works
By proclaiming without evidence that values are independent of the people holding them while the present sociological reality shows that values can be broadly delineated among groups. At least any values system with any standards can be

Even if he wants to say it isnt genetic, it practically speaking is practiced by these racial groups differently with no way to convert them out of it. And ethnic/racial chauvinism was the norm for the West until the 60s or 70s, and it worked out fine while the new deviation isn't.

Rights are just an abstraction people try to divorce from BLOOD & SOIL which is the only tangible thing which can lastingly and practically secure the rights your group expresses as good. You need to own an area with a group which can reproduce itself to enforce your values, which will probably be muddled by competing and sometimes contradictory ideas as these things often are.

Explain to me  how you can practically separate values from those who hold them? Because everything you said is just an assertion by you which hinges on that idea. I also didnt actually say they are an abstraction FROM blood & soil, merely that they can be divorced from it, this is the only standard needed to point out the insufficiency of "values".

If you could do this then assimilation should be no issue, but since it is, the efficient method of preserving values and conceptions of rights is by adhering to a blood and soil ethos.

>partition leads to war
What about the times where it hasn't? Like the collapse of the USSR and the following partition or the Paris Peace Accords? Which are more relevant to our situation than something like India-Pakistan where people cant leave because they are tied to their land?


He could say "what about ThatGuyT?" (as a stand in for any minority who shares my values), but that argument would only mean absolute racial purity is an overcorrection and not that deracination & demographic blindness are good ideas.