[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

Interestingly what would happen if the "descendants of the people of your nation" can't pass as "people of suitable European sub-racial identity"? Could they legitimately become citizens of that nation?

To be perfectly honest, when I read "people of suitable European sub-racial identity" I was thinking in terms of "people of suitable European ethnic identity".

In my post I mention that I could point those who have been historically assimilable in Spain. That could help to understand what I mean. This has been limited to the Atlantic peoples (Irish and Bretons) and the Occitans (aka S. French). Anything else has not been ever achieved without an impact. Even in the case of the Gothic peoples who were part of the ethnogenesis in Hispania, the assimilation was not smooth and it did not lack of consequences.

Having said that, I do have sub-racial preferences but these are of a secondary importance.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Mynydd, this doesn't mean that you care less about race. There is nothing in racialism that would require you to welcome all members of your race to your country.

However, you correctly believe that race is an aspect of national identity and categorically object to the presence of racial aliens in your country and that makes you a racialist.

Ideologically speaking, I am not a racialist. I do acknowledge race as an element for national identity. But I too acknowledge culture, spirituality, history and heritage continuity as elements for national identity. As an [ethnic] nationalist none of those elements alone could ever replace my identity. In other words, I don't see other option but national integrity.

This is different with, for example, Americans. Failing to have an ethnic identity, they clinge to ideas constructed around broader concepts often rather blurry and unreal.

For me, the question of fellow Europeans immigrating to my country is purely practical, not ideological. Does it help my nation? Does it help me? Economic considerations are also important.

Economic considerations are what politicians have used to excuse the phenomenon of immigration.

Make no mistake here. If Europe is ever to get out of this chaos it will require strong and long sacrificing in terms of economics. And the way that things are, I can tell you that Europeans are not willing to do that. This is more true in the West than in the East, which is why some perceive that Russia might be the nation where things might explode first. But, unfortunately, this is likely to be only a mirage as in Eastern Europe they have been "catching up" with Western Europe.

You think that sub-race is important? Which Europid sub-races are unwelcome then?

Similarly in the way as Nordicists believe that Nordics are an endagered species, I too believe that Atlanto-Mediterraneans are an endangered species (notice here that just like they limit it to Nordo-Germanics, I limit it to Ibero Atlanto-Mediterraneans). But, unlike Nordicists, I don't use this as an excuse to practise retarded hostility against fellow Europeans one day, and to beg charity through affirmative action the next day.

But this really should be an issue for another discussion.

There's nationalism and then there is bigotry I referred to as ultra-nationalism. For example, there are a lot of Finnish "nationalists" who hate all Estonians Russians and Swedes.

Oh.. but that's got another name: jingoism. I understand now. I could point to the example par excellence of jingoism, but I'll better keep quiet here.

Jingoism is a disgrace and it can only bring in misery.

I am also an Elitist and I could care less if unemployed drunkards whine that Estonians are stealing their jobs.

There are two things that I meant with Elitist. Let me explain it.

First, and directly related to the issue being discussed on this thread, I not only believe that limited numbers of Europeans from an off-limits ethnicities but of excellent qualities may not only be welcomed, but they should be thought of as an enrichening element. I have argued times before that Europe as a whole did not rise above the rest of the people of this planet in monolithic groups, but that it was through the exchange of knowledge and skills of many individual groups and sub-groups.

The other way in which I mean Elitism is in opposition to Prolet-Aryanism. I had an argument time ago with a former member of the Staff of Stirpes who argued that would consider any element from the nation above anyone else, negative as this element was. No comments..