Why ethno-nationalists don't even understand what civic nationalists believe

I'm making this thread to answer this video posted by our ethno-nationalist friend Carl :

Wow, so civic nationalists are actually globalists? So an ideology that defines itself as opposition to globalism...is actually globalism itself? Mind= blown. Logic too.

I'll adress it point by point. Overall, that video is a series of strawmen and misconceptions. If you think there's any truth to that video, you clearly don't understand our ideology.

- Civic nationalists are "Liberal Democrats" -> nope. We want illiberal democracy, since we put personal freedom over classical liberal ideology when the two are in conflict.

- Civic nationalists are "Moral relativists" -> that's a straight up lie. We're against people imposing their moral views on others. That doesn't mean in any way that we think every moral view is equal. Civic nationalists are typically known for being anti-Islam, so they clearly think Islam is a worse value system than their own. In fact the very basis of civic nationalism is rejecting cultural relativism, and stating that the West is the best. Frankly this meme of putting "Christianity = Islam" for civic nationalists is utterly ridiculous.

- "The only issue they see with mass immigration is Islamization and they see no problem with other ethnic communities" -> completely false. The issue with mass immigration is allogenous (=non-assimilated) populations who see themselves as a member of their race/religion before seeing them as an individualist member of their country. This includes black tribalism (= fake grievance industries like BLM), and Hispanic tribalism (= cities where Spanish is the most spoken language, more fake grievances). Any non-assimilated ethnic group is a problem.

- "All nations will be the same" -> nope. It's about defending the traditional culture of said nation, so all nations will remain just as culturally different as they are now. Just because race-obsessed ethnonationalists don't care about culture doesn't change this fact.

- "What is the need for nationalism" -> if you even ask that question you don't know what the word means. The need is to free your country from foreign influence, by definition, duh. The only difference is to see the problem as ideological and not racial.

- "If you don't care about white identity then your criticism of globalism is mostly symbolic" -> Total nonsense from race-obsessed people who think anything not related to race is irrelevant. Globalism has many manifestations in cutural subversion or economic takeover, most of which have nothing to do with race.

- Canadian guy wants immigrants to "Adopt Canadian values like the equality of men and women and tolerance for diversity" : Okay, that guy went full cuck. He does not represent us tho, being part of the mainstream right does not make someone a nationalist.

- "The double standard of banning the Hijab while keeping Christian symbols in public places -> If you think that's a double standard then you don't know what secularism even is. Secularism is opposition to religious *power*. The Hijab, or forcing people to dress a certain way under threat of violence, rape or at least eternal damnation, is a clear example of religious power. Having a cross or a nativity scene in a public place, however, has nothing to do with religious power, it's simply preserving a religious heritage in a non-religious society, it's no different from Egypt funding the restoration of statues of ancient Egyptian gods for example.
Oh, and didn't that guy say that civic nationalists are moral relativists? If they're moral relativists, then why do they want to ban the hijab while keeping crosses inside their public buildings huh?

- Opposing the "human rights theology"? Wow, such a revealing expression. Yeah, you know what the West needs? More anti human rights autocrats.
Oh wait, who created human rights? Enlightenment white people. Which is something these self-professed "pro-white" blokes want to tear up. How very pro-white of them.

- "You're ill-equipped to fight transgenderism, the only thing you've been doing is removing their special privileges under the law...and defending the free speech of their critics...and making criticism of their lifestyle mainstream..."
...And preventing them from taking children away from their parents. And preventing them to have children undergo sex change operations. And exposing people who use SJW ideology to justify being pedophiles, voyeurs or other perverts. Etc.
What's that guy's solution? He doesn't have any? But he's still lecturing us. It probably involves taking away their free speech or something.

- "There is no real intellectual foundation for white identity" : Erm, no, it's not that, it's just that white identity has no place in the government. But in a free society you're free to develop all the "intellectual white identity" you want (I didn't know making babies was so intellectual), as long as you don't force your views on others.

Authoritarians are such a hurdle sometimes. Why do so many people hate freedom?