Stirpes Definition of "Nationalism"

[Zyklop]

From the rules:

Stirpes is a project which aims to provide a space for information on past and current affairs, as well as future trends, and discussion between the Nationalist peoples of Europe. Our allegiances and concerns are strictly with every and each of the Nations of Europe, and the doom which threatens the preservation and which endangers the very existance of the peoples of Europe and their Nations, our cultures and our heritages.

Since there seems to be confusion about the meaning of Nationalism, its etymological roots and modern interpretation, can Stirpes staff please formulate an official definition of what you mean with "Nationalism" and "Nations" in your board rules?

[Amedeo]

[Funny that you speak of the "integrity of a people" when you have justified bestiality on two other posts. Post irrelevant. Mynydd.]

[bocian]

Zyklop, what's your definition of Nationalism?

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by bocian

Zyklop, what's your definition of Nationalism?

To make it short:

Nation = A community of people sharing the same blood and culture.
Nationalism = The will to secure the survival of blood and culture.

[Faísca]

By the way, the definition will come soon.

[Menydh]

In general terms, for a people to be called a nation there must be an ancient historical ethnogenesis, a common history, and a cultural shared common background.

However what makes up a nation beyond those simple (but necessary) conditions is not the same for all nations. Further, the above conditions are not necessarily applied the same for all nations. As I will show through the post.

Language, though an unifying factor, is not a condition per se. I'll go through some examples here.

For the Hispanic Nation there are several different languages, where all share a Romance origin except for one which roots belong to the oldest substratum. Also, Castilian (Spanish) is the language spoken in most of the Americas, and that does not make them belong to a "Castilian Nation".

For the Germanic Nation, Lowlandish languages, while sharing a common origin in Old Germanic with other Germanic languages, are different enough to be considered different. And yet they are still a part of a Germanic Nation. I'm refering here to regions such as Friesland, Holland, Brabant or Flanders.

For the Slavic Nation I admit that my knowledge is very limited. But I don't see how there could be a Slavic Nation only on the grounds of a common origin in the languages, all the way from Russia to Serbia. Although I can see how this could make up a Confederation of Slavic Nations.

A confederations would also be the form taken by the so called "Celtic Nations". One can hardly see a one and only nation-state unifying Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland, Manx and Scotland. Here, a Confederation of Celtic Nations might apply.

As I've already said, the conditions are not necessarily evenly applied across all nations, and neither does the shape or the form that these nations take.

While there is a, more or less homogenous, racial commonality, nations are not sub-racially homogenous.

It is easy to differentiate, subracially speaking and even for an untrained eye, between an Alpinid Austrian and a Nordid Frisian. And the subracial differences for the Germanic Nation do not stop here. The same untrained eye can be able to see a cultural difference between a Bavarian and a Pommeranian.

Yet, despite these subracial and "subcultural" differences, the same untrained eye is able to identify them under a common group, German.. or Germanic.

Now, with regards to the Germanic Nation I will deal with two other issues which will bring in some polemics. Scandinavia and England.

While the origins of the Germanics lie in Scandinavia, the identity of the Scandinavian people differs enough from other Germanics to request a different treatment, which identifies them as a group of their own. Or at the very least a well differed subgroup. One would need a great deal of imagination to identify an Icelander, a Norwegian or a Swede, with an Austrian or a Bavarian.

In my opinion, failing to see this would endanger the identity of the Scandinavians.

With England, her past mass murders committed over other Germanic peoples, and the misery that England has brought upon Germanic countries, should be reasons more than enough to make the English people outcasts from any form of Germanic Nation.


There is also the issue of the nation-states. The nation-state should not be equated to nation.

Some nation-states are just one fraction of a nation, or incomplete nations. Portugal, Spain, Germany, Austria, ...

Other nation-states are actually artificial states forced about on components of different nations. Such is the case of France, which is made up of parts of the Germanic Nation, the Breton Nation, much of the Occitan Nation, etc. France is merely a State, not a Nation.
Italy is another example of a state, though the differences are not as big in the case of Italy as they are in the case of France, and a self-styled confederation is a possibility there.

Another case would be Russia. There we have a nation-state which encompasses one entire nation, the Russian Nation, plus a number of peoples which do not belong to the Russian Nation.. not even to Europe. Or perhaps it is not an entire nation since there is Bielorussia and Ukraine left out of the equation.

Perhaps Greece would be the case of a nation-state which is the homeland of one complete nation, the Hellenic Nation. Although there is Byzantium left out of it, the ethnic composition of the modern Byzantium does not make it Hellenic by any stretch of the imagination. And, of course, there is also the issue of Cyprus.


Finally, in simple but much exact terms I define nationalism as the will for preservation of a nation. That is the preservation of the cultures and the peoples (ethnos). Notice that I've used the plural here, since I argue that for a true nationalist, the preservation of the subcultural and subethnic varieties within his own nation must be central to his ideology together with the preservation of the common ethno-culture of the nation. Needless to say, nationalism does not stop at preservation and, further, nowadays and into the future the common space of all nations, Europe, has to be strongly taken into account.

To end, notice how when a "nationalist" is for a state and not a nation, preservation is substituted by chauvinism.

[Theobald]

- First I think we should refer to "Patrie" (in French, Fatherland), that is "Fathers' land", the heritage we got from our ancestrors (material, spiritual, moral), the soil, the territory, the land. A Patrie is a land where successive human generations have cultivated fields, exploited mines, built houses, castels, universities, roads, factories, law courts, cemeteries, churches and cathedrals.
According to Maurras : "What is a Fatherland ? Fields, walls, towers and houses, churches, cemeteries and tombs . Nothing is more concret." Fatherland is therefore a product of History and a people.

- A Nation can't be defined without this heritage. It is the whole of its heirs, those who were born on this land. A Nation is the living community of the heirs, dead, currently alive or to come. The idea of Nation also implies a community of fate and a solidarity in time and space.
A Fatherland is rather a heritage whereas a Nation is a community of the heirs of this heritage. Then there are many other things : a common language, a common culture, common habits and way of life, common interests, a common history, a common ethnical background, common heroes and glorious historical events.
To end, I would say self-identification is a very important thing - perhaps the most important element - since for people to express nationalism it is first necessary for them to identify themselves as belonging to a Nation.

- Some definitions from important French Nationalist leaders :

According to Maurice Barrès, national identity is "la Terre et les Morts" (i.e. "one's land, soil and the deads, those who died to defend it, one's ancestrors) : Blood & Soil, and also "a common way to feel and act".

According to Charles Maurras, a Nation "is not a dense cloud, it is the abstract representation of a strong reality. It is the largest existing community, solide and complet." He also shared the idea that the Nation is more important than all other groups - and that the Nation's interests shall be more important than anything else.

According to Le Pen : "The Nation is a community of language, interests, race, memory and culture where a man can 'bloom'. He is linked to the Nation with his roots, his ancestrors, his past, his heredity and his heritage. What the Nation gives him at his birth has already an inestimable worth."

- Codreanu's definition of the Nation is also very interesting :

"When we speak of the Rumanian nation, we refer not only to the Rumanians currently living on the same territory, with the same past and same future, the same habits, the same language, the same interests. When we speak of the Rumanian nation we refer to all Rumanians, dead or alive, who have lived on this land of ours from the beginnings of history and will live on it also in the future.

The nation includes:

1. All Rumanians currently alive.
2. The souls and tombs of the dead and of our ancestors.
3. All who will be born Rumanian.

The nation possesses:
1. A physical, biological patrimony: the flesh and the blood.
2. A material patrimony: the country's soil and its wealth.
3. A spiritual patrimony, which includes:

A. Its concept of God, people, and life. This concept constitutes a possession, a spiritual patrimony.
B. Its honor
C. Its culture: the fruit of its life, the product of its own efforts in thought and art."

- Finally Nationalism is :

- 1 - The belief that one's primary duty and loyalty is to the Nation, the will to glorify national virtues and the concern with national self-interest first and above all other interests

- 2 - The will to preserve and secure what makes a Nation (cultural, "racial", ... identity)

- 3 - The will to defend the independence and sovereignty of one's Nation (against supra-national organizations such as EU for instance)

- 4 - The will to maintain the unity of one's Nation (against separatism, individualism or foreign agressions)

And...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Italy is another example of a state, though the differences are not as big in the case of Italy as they are in the case of France, and a self-styled confederation is a possibility there.

The opinion of a Spaniard - or of any foreigner - in French and Italian internal affairs is of zero importance. Hence ...

5 -The reject of any foreign influence in one's Nation (whether it be Jewish, American, Free-masonic or from a hostile neighbouring country).

[Nerthus]

- Codreanu's definition of the Nation is also very interesting :

"When we speak of the Rumanian nation, we refer not only to the Rumanians currently living on the same territory, with the same past and same future, the same habits, the same language, the same interests. When we speak of the Rumanian nation we refer to all Rumanians, dead or alive, who have lived on this land of ours from the beginnings of history and will live on it also in the future.

The nation includes:

1. All Rumanians currently alive.
2. The souls and tombs of the dead and of our ancestors.
3. All who will be born Rumanian.

The nation possesses:
1. A physical, biological patrimony: the flesh and the blood.
2. A material patrimony: the country's soil and its wealth.
3. A spiritual patrimony, which includes:

A. Its concept of God, people, and life. This concept constitutes a possession, a spiritual patrimony.
B. Its honor
C. Its culture: the fruit of its life, the product of its own efforts in thought and art."

I've always found this definition of Codreanu's interesting myself but I think this best applies to the nation of Romanians than any other, especially concerning the concept of God (Romanians are generally a religious people - and Codreanu's movement also strongly supported Christianity). One important point, which is often not mentioned or left out - not the only though - and which can universally apply, is the respect for the dead, for the forefathers who sacrificed themselves for the people.

Concerning nation and nationalism, I think many people confuse the 'nation' with 'state'. There is also confusion between 'state' and 'fatherland'. The Federal Republic of Germany, for example, is a state while the German nation is spread outside the artificial borders of the FRG (e.g. in Austria or Prussia). No true German nationalist feels he has an allegiance to the FRG. The German nation is atemporal, while the state is temporal - the FRG could collapse any time but this doesn't also mean that the nation will collapse itself along with it.

I also think that even if we can define nationalism in Europe, this would be a generalized definition. One would have to further study each particular case if one wants to talk about these so-called 'nation-states', borders and so on.
But the definition regarding the survival of blood and culture is the one which makes most sense, if one wants to commonly define nationalism.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Theobald

According to Le Pen : "The Nation is a community of language, interests, race, memory and culture where a man can 'bloom'. He is linked to the Nation with his roots, his ancestrors, his past, his heredity and his heritage. What the Nation gives him at his birth has already an inestimable worth."

The "white race"? Or perhaps he think that there is a "French race"?

The opinion of a Spaniard - or of any foreigner - in French and Italian internal affairs is of zero importance. Hence ...

Fine. Only that I have not interfered in the internal affairs of the French and/or Italian States. Instead I have given a rough introduction to an universal definition for "Nation", with some examples in Europe to better understand it.

That you would like "Nation" to be something different doesn't mean that I have given any opinion on France's internal affairs.

5 -The reject of any foreign influence in one's Nation (whether it be Jewish, American, Free-masonic or from a hostile neighbouring country).

Hopefully you don't refer to Spain, since the only hostility known between Spain and France is that excercised by France. Just to name a few: the support of the Ottoman Empire against Spain (and consequently Europe), or the constant support to Morocco against Spanish interests.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

I've always found this definition of Codreanu's interesting myself but I think this best applies to the nation of Romanians than any other, especially concerning the concept of God (Romanians are generally a religious people - and Codreanu's movement also strongly supported Christianity).

Agreed, but I think it could also apply to some other European countries where religion is rather important and a part of national identity (for instance Croatia or Ireland for Catholicism; and Russia or Serbia for Orthodoxy).
In France Nationalism is also strongly linked to Catholicism, since the Catholic Church is intimately bound up with French history (myth of "Elder Daughter of the Church") and was seen as the mortar helding the nation together ("A society without religion is like a ship without a compass"). And although society is almost totally secularized, people generally admit strong Catholic influence in our national History.
In countries that are religiously divided (Germany being the best example) it could not apply though.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The "white race"? Or perhaps he think that there is a "French race"?

"Race" in its old meaning :

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Fine. Only that I have not interfered in the internal affairs of the French and/or Italian States. Instead I have given a rough introduction to an universal definition for "Nation", with some examples in Europe to better understand it.

That you would like "Nation" to be something different doesn't mean that I have given any opinion on France's internal affairs.

You have given an opinion on Italian internal affairs ("a self-styled confederation") here, and you have given an opinion on French internal affairs in many other threads, you can't deny it.
On the other hand I don't think I have ever said Spain was not a Nation, Basque Country should be independent or Galicia should be given to Portugal.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Hopefully you don't refer to Spain

I have only given a rough introduction to an universal definition for "Nationalism".

Originally Posted by Mynydd

since the only hostility known between Spain and France is that excercised by France.

That's a quick simplification. Spain and France have been important European (and world) powers through History and therefore - as neighbouring countries - have had divergent interests.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Just to name a few: the support of the Ottoman Empire against Spain (and consequently Europe)

I don't know if you are aware of the geopolitical and strategical situation at this time but France was surrounded by hostile countries : Spain, Holy Germanic Empire, some Italian states and later England as well. Charles V wanted to steal Burgondy and had invaded the North of France. I'm not defending Francis I's choice but I can understand him. And by the way, a "minor" detail : it happened 450 years ago.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

the constant support to Morocco against Spanish interests.

As well as the Spanish support to the USA against French, German and Russian (and consequently European) interests for years.
Also see Bayerisches Mädchen's post, current Western European governments hardly represent their Nations' interests.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

But the definition regarding the survival of blood and culture is the one which makes most sense, if one wants to commonly define nationalism.

I think that the will to elevate National interests above everything else is also common to all nationalisms.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In general terms, for a people to be called a nation there must be an ancient historical ethnogenesis, a common history, and a cultural shared common background.

However what makes up a nation beyond those simple (but necessary) conditions is not the same for all nations. Further, the above conditions are not necessarily applied the same for all nations. As I will show through the post.

Language, though an unifying factor, is not a condition per se.

.....................

Finally, in simple but much exact terms I define nationalism as the will for preservation of a nation. That is the preservation of the cultures and the peoples (ethnos). Notice that I've used the plural here, since I argue that for a true nationalist, the preservation of the subcultural and subethnic varieties within his own nation must be central to his ideology together with the preservation of the common ethno-culture of the nation. Needless to say, nationalism does not stop at preservation and, further, nowadays and into the future the common space of all nations, Europe, has to be strongly taken into account.

To end, notice how when a "nationalist" is for a state and not a nation, preservation is substituted by chauvinism.

I couldn't agree more, spot-on analysis, 100% same perception of Nations and Nationalism from my part.

In certain cases (and Malta is one of them) one could also add the notion of religion which helps shape National Identities or exerts a profound and significant influence. Infact our Nazionalisti prided themselves in the motto "Religio et Patria" and the defense of the Roman Catholic Faith, differentiator from the Protestantism of the Anglo-Saxon imperialist colonisers, which is one of the founding basis of Maltese National Identity and Nationalism.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Theobald

"Race" in its old meaning :

Priceless.

You have given an opinion on Italian internal affairs ("a self-styled confederation")

Wrong again. I have said that it is a possibility. I have not made any statement as to how it should be.

and you have given an opinion on French internal affairs in many other threads, you can't deny it.

Wrong for the nth time. The internal affairs of the Ille de France are none of my business nor have ever been.

On the other hand I don't think I have ever said Spain was not a Nation, Basque Country should be independent or Galicia should be given to Portugal.

It would be suicidal to join the thesis of Freemasons and Marxists.

I have only given a rough introduction to an universal definition for "Nationalism".

By defining "Statalism"?

That's a quick simplification. Spain and France have been important European (and world) powers through History and therefore - as neighbouring countries - have had divergent interests.

That is the truth. I have avoided filling the History forums with accounts of France's hostility against Spain. But I can start from now on if you want to.

I don't know if you are aware of the geopolitical and strategical situation at this time but France was surrounded by hostile countries : Spain, Holy Germanic Empire, some Italian states and later England as well. Charles V wanted to steal Burgondy

Notice your style: "steal". Burgundy belonged to Emperor Carlos by dinastic right.

As for "stealing", let's see if these words ring the bell to you: Occitania, Breizh, the Landers, ... Elsass-Lothringen.

and had invaded the North of France.

You should review your notions of history.

I'm not defending Francis I's choice but I can understand him.

Yes, you are. And you are also making up apologies for it.

And by the way, a "minor" detail : it happened 450 years ago.

The next lines are yet another example of support to a Muslim country, and it happened... actually, it is still happening to day. 450 years ago all the way down to modern days means that there is a pattern of behaviour.

As well as the Spanish support to the USA against French, German and Russian (and consequently European) interests for years.

Thank you for the reminder. However you forgot two important details:

1. French interests were for petrol contracts. Nothing to do with Europe but greed. Germany was also promised contracts if they helped avoid the war in the security council. In any case, we are talking of the interests represented by the states which form the core EU, not of the people.
2. The Spanish people rallied against war, and eventually overthrew the Government for going to war against Iraq.

Also see Bayerisches Mädchen's post, current Western European governments hardly represent their Nations' interests.

Current? We've seen a pattern from the XVth century until today.