[ Warning: This discussion is not intended to be moderated by any member of the Staff at Stirpes. However, a good standard of civic behaviour is expected from all participants. For the sake of a well argued, responsible and of a fair standard level discussion, I strongly discourage any non European (read Colonial, Creole, whatever) from taking part in the discussion, and their removal from it will be enforced. ]
This is an old issue but it is also an unsettled issue. Rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it does not exist, I believe that it is preferable to let any wounds open bleed, than bleeding from the inside. If it can be settled, it will be good. If it cannot, then well, such is life..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Puke
So called "white nationalism" is just another kind of multi-(or rather mono-)culturalism, which is one of the many reasons I oppose it. That is obviously not the case with "Nordicists". Is it that they focus too much on race, or what is it that you object to with these separatist "Northern Europeans"?
|
Personally, I do not object to people advocating an idea of Northern European separatism. If you follow my lines of discussion with attention, you might observe the following consistent patterns:
- I present a definition of Europe based on the most strict reality for Europe, which is geopolitical, rejecting any suggestion or speculation around any presumed common grounds, based on genetics or otherwise.
- I put forward an idea of ethnic (and national) diversity throughout Europe. Which means that even if the idea of a common race of origin was right, it supersedes the idea of race to focus on what more clearly and consistently separates us one from each other.
- I advocate a strict and uncompromising preservation of the aforementioned ethnic (and national) identities, both on physical as well as spiritual grounds, of their traditions, as well as their right to full sovereignty.
- I object to any interference or aggression from any European ethnic (or national) group over another, in any form.
To balance all of the above within an idea of European common ground, a compromise of sincere and loyal fellowship is an absolute requirement.
If you define Nordicism as "Northern separatism", I have nothing to object to it but I do demand that you (you as in anyone advocating it, not particularly you) are fully consequent with it.
I am nothing of a newcomer into the sphere of nationalism myself. As such, my background origins are nothing europeanist in any form. Nor anti-europeanist for that matter. And it is not as if we thought of ourselves as "separatists" or anything. Simply explained, we did not see the need to identify ourselves beyond our borders. Nor did we want to forsee the need for it. Well, I will not argue if that was right or wrong at that particular time. We live in a different time, for better or for worse.
I still know enough people from my own political entourage and origins here, who are not interested in the least in any idea of Europe. Some have never been and probably never will be; while others got more recently deceptioned by meeting "fellow Europeans". What I can assure you is that they are truthful in their feelings, and that they don't mean any hostile feelings with it.
I also know people elsewhere who draw a line that puts limits to what they consider a too inclusive idea of Europe. This not only based on historical but also on meta-cultural facts. And I can assure you that I have a very hard time to counter their arguments, for how solid they are presented. Their ideas are extremely well reasoned and often highly interesting and thought provoking.
The bottom line is that --whether I agree with them or not, or to which extent I may agree or disagree-- none of the above has ever presented such ideas in a hostile form or even with rude manners.
So never mind what I may believe, it is not a matter of acceptance or rejection to me but of agreement or disagreement. What matters most to me is that they are coherent in their ideas and that they are consistent with them. You won't see them one day presenting themselves under one form, and the next day under a modified form. In fact you won't even see them at all, since there is no point to them in getting any close to "strangers".
Well, that is impeccable separatism, even when many will not even consider the word "separatism" of any significance. And they won't accept any "-ism" label. You can object to it, but you cannot in all honesty accuse them of any misdeed.
Is that the same case with Nordicism? If it was, I would respect it fully regardless of any other considerations. If you believe that it is, by all means you should present your case in its favour and contrast it with others' views and discuss them.
There is no better way to solve perceived conflicts than to confront the parts involved.