We live in a singular time in which concepts that were once treated with gravity and rigor have now been emptied of meaning through abusive and careless use. Among them stands out the term extremism, frequently employed to label any and all affirmations of national identity, cultural continuity, or political sovereignty. Such trivialization not only impoverishes public discourse but also undermines the intellectual clarity indispensable to a truly free and mature society.
Defending national identity is not equivalent to promoting racism. Racism is based on the hierarchical classification of human beings according to biological or ethnic criteria and inevitably leads to unjust exclusion and the denial of human dignity. The defense of national identity, on the contrary, is grounded in the preservation of a historical, linguistic, cultural, and institutional heritage, built over centuries by a concrete people within a specific historical space. Deliberately confusing these realities is not a mere conceptual error.
It represents a serious distortion of civic debate.
A country is not an administrative fiction nor a mere economic space regulated by technical norms. A country is, above all, a historical community. It is collective memory. It is continuity between generations. In ancient nations such as Portugal, this truth manifests itself with particular clarity. Portuguese identity did not arise from recent circumstances nor is it reducible to legal instruments. It was formed through language, tradition, faith, law, literature, and a worldview shaped over time. Preserving this heritage does not imply rejecting others. It simply means refusing to renounce oneself.
The historical experience of the United States offers a complementary lesson. It is a nation built through successive waves of immigration, yet unified not by the dilution of identity, but by a strong civic patriotism. Those who arrive are called to integrate into a common order based on the primacy of the law, respect for institutions, and adherence to a clearly defined set of shared values.
Diversity does not constitute a threat when there exists a moral and cultural axis that sustains the political community. The problem arises when peoples are required to abandon their historical memory in the name of a vague and poorly understood conception of tolerance.
A society that refuses to define who it is and what it values does not become more just or more open. It becomes merely more vulnerable and more unstable. The defense of national identity is not an act of exclusion. It is a duty of responsibility toward those who came before us and toward those to whom we will bequeath the future. I have never defended, nor will I ever defend, any form of racial discrimination. I do, however, defend the right of peoples to remain recognizable to themselves. I defend sovereignty as a legitimate expression of democratic self-determination.
I defend culture as a living heritage, transmitted and renewed, not as a disposable object subject to the fashions of the moment. If such positions are today classified as extreme, perhaps the true warning sign lies not with those who uphold them, but with an era that has lost the ability to distinguish between moral firmness and intolerance. A healthy democracy requires pluralism, but it also requires clear limits. It requires openness, but not collective amnesia. It requires inclusion, but not the dissolution of identity.
National identity does not constitute an obstacle to civil coexistence. It is, many times, its silent and indispensable condition.
César DePaço
Entrepreneur and philanthropist
Honorary Consul of Portugal from 2014 to 2020
Founder and CEO of Summit Nutritionals International Inc.
Founder and Chairman of the Board of the DePaço Foundation
Unconditional defender of law enforcement and conservative principles