ATHAENEUM-"The White World's Future"

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by yllica

Mynnyd, we may be talking at cross purposes, so to clarify my position, for our purposes race should be seen as different lines of ancestral history politicised in the present. It’s clear that race (on the continental scale – Whites, Blacks, Amerinds) is the major barrier to a common American identity, and not at all clear that such an obstacle will be overcome (and if it is overcome there, why not here? goes the argument). I don’t think you should get hung up on the word “White” - race is only ancestry after all, and therefore an intrinsic element of most nationalist models. And it is on racial (ancestral) lines that the definition, history, and future of America is split, and the same is true for European nations.

Defining race here as ancestry in absolute terms is clearly a bit far fetched. Before equating race to ancestry we should first analyze how much of ancestry is race ancestry. This is important because, just like race is in the line of ancestry, so is species. And if so, by the same token, we might have to consider species as ancestry just as well.

Race is a stage in the scale of the evolution. And so is nationhood or, if you prefer, ethnos. But then again, so is species. We are therefore left to analyze very carefully how far in the scale each one is so that they can be seen as a factor of immediate importance by themselves. And the truth is that both species and race are, each on their own, more far from the identity of the individual than they are close to him. Admittedly, species is farther away than race yet both still far away enough in terms of identifying identity when compared to nationhood and ethnicity.

As a consequence, race as an element of definition of ancesty or, if you will, of identity, offers no value on its own and its value as a sub-element --i.e. as a component element of ethnicity and nationhood-- varies in degrees otherwise.

So, when defining identity for the purposes of identification we must look into concepts that are closer to the basic unit, the individual, such as ethnicity or nationhood -- which they overlap in many instances. Or, still closer, family and lineage. True that here race offers an identity value as a sub-element of nationhood and ethnicity since the foundations of such concepts lie in race. But, unlike race, ethnicity is evolutive and nationhood is one step higher in the evolutive process of individuals. And so, clinging up to race may result easily in involutionism.

Perhaps one day the value of nationhood and ethnicity will not be enough for identity just like race now. But on a natural evolution process without artificial and external factors involved, we may be speaking here of 10,000? 30,000? 50,000 years down the line of the history of evolution?

Further, parallel and connected to ethnicity and nationhood there are other concepts and elements. While I'm not going to expand on these here, I will however say that it is the space where ethnopolitics meet geopolitics. And here, Europe acquires one meaning whereas America acquires a much different meaning. Ditto for their populations.

>>You don’t answer my basic question:

I thought I had. Maybe I did not expand enough on it or I didn't make myself clear. I'll return to this on a later post though.

[Kernunnos]

I wish Russia could lead the whole Europe out of the quagmire we are.

I liked the interview with Buyan/Tulaev.

With Nato we are going the way of the United States, that will soon be lead by a mestizo majority and a black president (Obama), or by a multiculturalist woman (Mrs. Clinton).

His ideas seem to be bridging the gap between the german nationalists and the slavic ones, putting an end to the hatreds of Ww2.

[yllica]

Mynydd,

I'm not quite sure whether you see race/nation/ethnicity as different levels on a sliding scale or as different classes of thing altogether. It goes without saying that race is relative, and that "relative" and "nation" both share a common etymology in ideas of family. I would have thought it went without saying too, that the major fissures in American identity are along different lines of ancestral history politicised in the present - race for our purposes.

The appropriate level at which to seek formal "national" status is a matter for the individual and his people. Any attempt to deny such a right by an outsider to that self-defining group should be objected to, particularly by other nationalists whose own efforts toward attaining ethnic self-rule, sovereignty, and particularism are challenged.

[Menydh]

Yllica, I checked on the etymology of race and it is blurry. Some believe that from Latin radĭus, others from Old Norse ras, and yet others from Arabic ra's or Hebrew rosh. But this is hardly the point as you will see in a few lines later.

How I see race it depends on what we are trying to define with the word race. If it is identity --and you refered to ancestry, which is the inherited element of identity--, then I see it without any doubts as on a sliding scale of identity evolution. This is not hard to see as it is not hard to see that species is too on the same scale. But this I would have believed that it was obvious from my previous post.

But nation is defined in terms of ethnicity and not in terms of race. True, however, that on the scale ethnicity derives from race. But it is also true that on the same scale race derives from species. And so, if one admits race as a sole element for defining nation (e.g. White America?) he may just as well admit species for defining nation (e.g. America?).

At this point I would suggest you that you look into the etymology of species. You may be surprised that it too shares the same etymology. This too should have gone without saying but it has been overlooked.

Next you accuse me of denying the right to self-definition, which I suspect that it was the point which brought you to attempt to define race as nation in the first place and further link it to the efforts of other nationalists. "Other nationalist" assumes gratuitously that I and everyone else acknowledges that they [White Americans] are nationalists and consequently America is a nation.

At the end of the day, they will define themselves whatever they wish to define themselves. A different matter is whether their self-appointed definition is real or if it is yet another product of their infantile imagination. I do not deny them the right to self-definition. But neither you nor them can deny me the right to see things for what they really are.

Your argument should be judged as fallacious with the intention of raising a false accusation.

[yllica]

Mynydd,

I didn't comment on the etymology of "race," what I meant to suggest is that race is a relative term, and, rather nicely, all about family too - so that the way you are defining race and nation and ethnos (on a subjective sliding scale) means you will struggle always to say who is a "race," who is a "nation," and who is an "ethnos." Perhaps I'm wrong and you can categorise every group to everybody's satisfaction... but I don't think so, and it's never an outsiders place to do so.

I do not think race as you use the term is quite everything that American WNists see as their motive. It just happens that the histories and myths and identity of the Big Three American groups - Whites (whose America is the promised land of freedom and prosperity), Blacks (whose America is the land of forced transplant, slavery and subjugation), and Amerinds (whose America is the lost homeland of ancestors and their continuing disposession) has always been inherently racialised and remains so today.

You don't need to psycho-analyse, I'll say what I mean - just respond with goodwill.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by yllica

>>You don’t answer my basic question:

It isn't a question but a personal statement and it is answered throughout the thread. If you wanted a direct and extended answer, you should have written a direct and clear question. But if you wanted to pretend that I was dodging a question, I can understand why you didn't pose any question.

To answer your non-question, you leave the concept of nation open to almost any louse group of people who wish to define themselves as such. Under such conditions the use of nation as a concept loses its value. On a scale, it would be like admitting that the whole neighbourhood where you leave are a family. You can say that they are like a big family to use a parallelism. But they are really not a family or, are they.

That (white) America is a young nation, or formed from a more than usual number of disparate groups is no reason to deny the principle of self-rule, or to refuse to recognise a commonly held group identity.In your eyes.

The underlined statement would fall under the category of politically correct. Congratulations.

That America may be on the course of its formation as a nation, it is something that I do not deny. However, to be on course does not equal to actually being. Being the young country which it is, the outcome of this process is still to be decided and all we can do is speculate. But at such young stage one should not purposedly ignore the elements which are involved in this genesis. In other words, a Mestizo "nation" is one more than just one outcome possibility in the future.

Whatever it will be is of relative concern to me. And, as such, I do not deny (nor do I have the power to do it even if I wanted to) their right to be whatever they choose in the future. At present I choose to call things by their real names and not to deform the facts in order to suit anyone's agenda.

But on what objective principle do you deny the course of nationalism to some or other disenfranchised people – especially one whose disenfranchisement is based on their common ancestry?

With the objectiveness given by the concept which defines a nation. As argued earlier, that louse conception of ancestry of yours might as well be used to support a common ancestry given by their belonging to a same species.

I’m trying to put across the arbitrariness and subjectivity of your point.

In my opinion you are trying something else but you are failing at it.

Some people argue that because of human cultural and ancestral commonality NO nations exist and others say all that is required for a nation to be recognised is the fact that multiple people consider themselves a member of that nation. How do you defend your position at a certain point on that arbitrary scale. I tend to think we can ignore some claims but must recognise others, and that the judgement is political and not scientific.

The first argument is ridiculous and the second is loose enough to make America fit as a nation. Neither one nor the other are correct.

As I said above, I think the challenges American WNists face are precisely the same as those European nationalists face (in fact in your comments on AWNism you mirror the most common arguments that we hear in Europe: If those are the arguments against the validity of AWNism - and they are easily seen as identical to those against European ethnic nationalism - I hope they do not carry the day.

The challenges are of an ethnopolitical nature and as such they show strong signs of difference in Europe and America, both ethnically and politically. This should be nonetheless an issue for further discussion once we conclude on the analysis of the identification of America.

And again, I choose to define White Nationalism as nationalism for peoples who happen to be White.

It is your choice as you well say. Not that that means that it is realistic.

edit: Michael Hart wrote a piece about the partition of America that, better than we can hope to, portrays a true picture of the race based national divisions among Americans:[/quote]I will not deny that he does an effort to define himself as an element from a nation. But since it is in his agenda, that was to be expected. On other occasions, [White] Americans do similar efforts to stress on the diferences between themselves. That depends on the page which they have marked on the agenda for the day.

It must be an entertaining excercise for them, but I find it uninteresting.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by yllica

You don't need to psycho-analyse, I'll say what I mean - just respond with goodwill.

I will. As soon as I see goodwill on your side and you don't point to me with an accusing finger. Or, if you cannot refrain from it, please do try to substantiate it with more solid accusations.

[yllica]

Your english is terrific but I think language is part of our problem M, certainly if you suspect ill will on my part.

I begin to think that your chosen understanding of the terms "nation" and "nationalism" are too narrow for me to go along with. As you know, in the literature on nationalism there is nearly as much debate about definitions as there is description of the variety of expression.

Politically, the attempt to limit recognition of nationalist will to those who meet some subjective criteria is a non-starter. Morally, the denial of freedom of association and self-definition is objectionable. And logically, well, I don't know what your argument is, but I don't think it will fly - it's the principles you must argue to beat the anti-nationalist argument, and they will apply equally to all peoples everywhere. And it is to every nationalist's advantage to support any and all separatist and nationalist cause in principle. Particularly, as I said before, when opposing arguments are precisely those that are used against one's own group.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by yllica

Your english is terrific but I think language is part of our problem M, certainly if you suspect ill will on my part.

I begin to think that your chosen understanding of the terms "nation" and "nationalism" are too narrow for me to go along with. As you know, in the literature on nationalism there is nearly as much debate about definitions as there is description of the variety of expression.

I can understand that there is a conflict of interests here. I don't see how my understanding of nation is narrow. Or wide for that matter.

The terms of the composition of a nation are not equal to all nations. What defines one given nation does not define another in absolute terms. But some elements are inalienable from the general concept of a nation. One such is ethnicity.

Now, how can anyone think of [White] Americans as an ethnic group escapes my comprehension. It would be like thinking of [All] Americans as a racial group.

Americans created a hybrid form of state which does not fit in any conceivable way with the concept of nations in Europe. Now it seems as if it is Europe which must trasnform to adapt to Americans because someone had the bizarre idea of imagining a nation in terms of race and not of ethnicity for convenience.

The admittance of a change in what defines a nation may not seem as much of a problem at a first glance. After all, it is just a word. Or is it?

The reality is that it is not only a word. It is a concept of primary importance. Once nation no longer defines a political conformation in terms of ethnicity but it defines other concepts, the door is open to redefine the nations of Europe under different views, be they real or not. We could then even define Europe as a one nation. Incidentally that is how America is [wrongly] define.

Politically, the attempt to limit recognition of nationalist will to those who meet some subjective criteria is a non-starter.

But they don't meet the criteria unless you corrupt the basic notions which form the concept of the nation, as stated above.

Morally, the denial of freedom of association and self-definition is objectionable.

Is it morally objectionable to deny the freedom of Indians to associate with other former British subjects (including the English) and to self-define themselves as a one British nation?

And logically, well, I don't know what your argument is, but I don't think it will fly - it's the principles you must argue to beat the anti-nationalist argument, and they will apply equally to all peoples everywhere. And it is to every nationalist's advantage to support any and all separatist and nationalist cause in principle. Particularly, as I said before, when opposing arguments are precisely those that are used against one's own group.

It is not to the advantage of nationalists in Europe to associate their cause for native ethnic preservation of Europe with that of sheer racist supremacism in America. Politically there is no advantage and there are obvious disadvantages. Ethically and morally, it is wrong.