[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

You are denying that any Europoid/Caucasoid/White race exists. What we call it is not the subject of attention. The problem with saying that is that it has been widely documented with cluster maps of genetic distance and similar things - there is a Europoid race - which is manifested in a spectrum of genetic distance and various physical and craniofacial traits - which is very genetically close.

North-Africans, Levantines, Anatolians and Caucasians are also very close. And many North-Americasn and Argentinians are a perfect genetic match. That doesn't make them even one percent Europeans.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Nevertheless, if you disagree, please elaborate your theory. I dont disagree that Europeans are descendants of Cro-Magnons and other such humans, but I dont understand your claim that phenotypes from physical anthropology represent races, and I've never heard of or read of any scholar in population/race genetics, genetic anthropology, archaeogenetics etc, propose a such theory.

I don't have any theory, I'm not racialist, and most of all, I don't think that race or phenotype are so relevant regarding ethnicity. Language, culture and religion are so much important.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I am not a white nationalist. But in some respects you might as well call me a white nationalist, because I agree with many of the essential points in its ideology, when it comes to content - such as racial separatism. I just dont base my views on "whiteness". The connotations of the ideology are another subject, and I dont associate with them because of their obvious negativity. Whiteness has historically been too fluid and vague to base nationalism on, in my opinion. Which is why white nationalism isnt optimal in any way, and I am not a WN.

Well, if you say so, then the least that I can do is to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

No, and I dont agree, but I dont think you talk nonsense either. You dont have any right to decide for me which ideologies I associate or agree with, and neither do I with you. I hope you keep posting, and since we're both interested in discussing, then thats something we can agree on.

I don't pretend to decide for wich ideology you associate with. I based my negation of your nationalist claim on the definition of nationalism, because if we have two definitions for one word, that can only lead to misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

My form of nationalism, like I've said before, involves conserving individual nations and conserving their culture and tradition

Conserving nations is not quite nationalism, maybe it's rather patriotism?

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

while some "nationalists" want to dissolve them and create ethnic borders and divisions of Europe, which in my opinion is completely off.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Also, I regard national identities important, all though I see them as just that - identities, not physical laws.

We are not talking about physics here.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

But they are very important indeed, I dont think Europe or any of its countries have any chances of cultural survival if we dont incorporate nationality and national identity into the survival plan. There needs to be culture on some local-rather-than-remote plan, that people can identify with.

I think that free independant nations are still better suited for survival.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I am not saying we should do away with the political power or the rule and liberty and sovereignty of individual countries, however, we should have a European union, where no single country rules over other countries, but where the European countries can work together to support a common agenda.

A confederation system then? Well, it's still a way better system than a federation, but not quite as good as the traditional "pre-EU" Europe. Just compare the greatness of our European nations before and after the treaty of Rome. We've been down the hill since. You still give away a large part of your sovereignity when you associate with other countries. After that, it's a matter of degree, you lose less autonomy in a confederation, much more in a federation, and in a "Euro-nation" you are simply dissolved. If we take nations as a vertical identity, then we have an horizontal one as Christianism. We don't need another thing than that.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I havent said I am a proponent of the Brusellian rule. I am not saying I advocate the current system, I am saying I advocate a system, which should be based on cooperation and have less authoritative content. I advocate European unity, not merging Europe.

Cooperation is OK, but my fear is that if we take the habit of cooperating, we will gradualy loose the hability of take care of ourselves, and trigger another form of EU.