The Ethnic Compass and the Question of Europe

[Menydh]

[ Warning: This discussion is not intended to be moderated by any member of the Staff at Stirpes. However, a good standard of civic behaviour is expected from all participants. For the sake of a well argued, responsible and of a fair standard level discussion, I strongly discourage any non European (read Colonial, Creole, whatever) from taking part in the discussion, and their removal from it will be enforced. ]

This is an old issue but it is also an unsettled issue. Rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it does not exist, I believe that it is preferable to let any wounds open bleed, than bleeding from the inside. If it can be settled, it will be good. If it cannot, then well, such is life..

Originally Posted by Erik Puke

So called "white nationalism" is just another kind of multi-(or rather mono-)culturalism, which is one of the many reasons I oppose it. That is obviously not the case with "Nordicists". Is it that they focus too much on race, or what is it that you object to with these separatist "Northern Europeans"?

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.
• 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.
• 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.

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. As such, my background origins are nothing europeanist in any form. Nor anti-europeanist for that matter. And it is not as if we thought of ourselves as "separatists" or anything. Simply explained, we did not see the need to identify ourselves beyond our borders. Nor did we want to forsee the need for it. Well, I will not argue if that was right or wrong at that particular time. We live in a different time, for better or for worse.

I still know enough people from my own political entourage and origins here, who are not interested in the least in any idea of Europe. Some have never been and probably never will be; while others got more recently deceptioned by meeting "fellow Europeans". What I can assure you is that they are truthful in their feelings, and that they don't mean any hostile feelings with it.

I also know people elsewhere who draw a line that puts limits to what they consider a too inclusive idea of Europe. This not only based on historical but also on meta-cultural facts. And I can assure you that I have a very hard time to counter their arguments, for how solid they are presented. Their ideas are extremely well reasoned and often highly interesting and thought provoking.

The bottom line is that --whether I agree with them or not, or to which extent I may agree or disagree-- none of the above has ever presented such ideas in a hostile form or even with rude manners.

So never mind what I may believe, it is not a matter of acceptance or rejection to me but of agreement or disagreement. What matters most to me is that they are coherent in their ideas and that they are consistent with them. You won't see them one day presenting themselves under one form, and the next day under a modified form. In fact you won't even see them at all, since there is no point to them in getting any close to "strangers".

Well, that is impeccable separatism, even when many will not even consider the word "separatism" of any significance. And they won't accept any "-ism" label. You can object to it, but you cannot in all honesty accuse them of any misdeed.

Is that the same case with Nordicism? If it was, I would respect it fully regardless of any other considerations. If you believe that it is, by all means you should present your case in its favour and contrast it with others' views and discuss them.

There is no better way to solve perceived conflicts than to confront the parts involved.

[Engelbrecht]

With the risk of beeing seen as naive I´ll give my view on this matter.

In my belief Nordicism is about seeing and promoting a common ancestry, history and culture from a slightly different and wider scoop than the national state. Scandinavia and northern Germany has all these parameters, and I can´t see it as nothing but a logical consequence that friendship is sought, especially in times like these.

But as soon as it is done on behalf of the wider European interests, or starts to include non-European interests, it´s out of bounds.

But those are just my personal opinions and they may at times be a little naive.

[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.

[Ferran]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

In my belief Nordicism is about seeing and promoting a common ancestry, history and culture from a slightly different and wider scoop than the national state. Scandinavia and northern Germany has all these parameters, and I can´t see it as nothing but a logical consequence that friendship is sought, especially in times like these.

Aren't you defining Nordism here? "Nordicism" is hardly based in anything else than sub-"racism".