On the other hand.
I think we must always distinguish between the "two types" of nordicism.
Forget about the angloUSA-trash term, there is nothing to discuss here (sorry I'm repeating); many have already said it: it's just an upside-down afrocentrism. Just remember Rockwell chosing his motto "white power", just imitating his negro "country-fellows" with their "black power". Is it not delirant?
I would like to support Nordicism, understood as the preservation of one subracial type of caucasian people; but without any more reason, not because they are better than other non-nordic European people and so on.
It's a fact blond people are vanishing, and just nordic people can stop that.
What is inmoral in this? Besides I fight for the preservation of my own people, How could I oppose to others just making the same thing than they do?
I know there is a problem in separating one subracial type from its country, because, for example, two cultured German people-one nordic and one alpine-would have more in common than two nordid people-one cultured German and one American fan of Arthur Kemp. Right?
I see certain contradiction here, it's good preservation of subtypes, but I think between some limits like common heritage. What do you think about this?
