[Erik P]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

Would you mind expanding & explaining this topic (or supplying a link with more info)? I don't exactly understand what you mean, but that might have to do with my lack of understanding of the terms.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

• 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.

There are people even suggesting creating some new common language for "Aryans", which to me is simply ludicrous. However, I feel that in these days and times, it might lie in our interest to focus on what unites us, instead of what separates us, while maintaining both local, national and regional identities. But how does your advocation for separation differ from "Nordicists" (I might be using this term completely wrong, so I hope we don't "talk across" each other too much)?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

• 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.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

Well, I am. So I am definately not advocating Nordicism, in fact I am very much trying to form my own opinions. In my beginning as a nationalist I found Skadi through an Indoeuropeanist Swedish blog (Oskorei), but by reading old Swedish social democrats (who I might think are leaning more to some kind of corporativism than other European social democrats, being very much influenced by Sweden's special history of peasant's having a big influence while not striving toward a "revolution", etc), I got more focused toward nationalism and regionalism than some kind of Indoeuropean or Paneuropean thoughts. Now as I discuss with you at Stirpes, I am getting more and more out of touch with the majority of Swedish nationalists, who are either White Supremacists or (a growing minority) Indoeuropeanists (disregarding crap like liberalist national democrats like the Sweden Democrats or neocon:ish "anti-immigrationists"). I am not against Indoeuropeanism per ce, I simply do not know enough about it or PCT or whatever to take a position. Many people seem to very hastily do exactly that though, and become dead certain their theory is correct and base their politics on that, instead of on some kind of "gut feeling" like I guess I am.