thoughts on nationalism.

[lunulae]

hi all

lately i've been very perplexed about politics and so on. i've had an early interest in intellectual pursuits and i feel confident with fields like biology (evolutionary biology), ethnology (i am an ethnology-student myself), anthropology, sociology, some psychology etcetera. i have a profound passion for my country. i love to study the folk culture, customs, traditions and so forth, though i don't support any form of chauvinism or national supremacy. my problem is that i don't feel my nationalistic views go hand in hand with the consensus of the science of today. lets take an example. richard dawkins is a secular humanist and i've agreed on much of his stuff (almost every of his stuff), but how can my views on politics be compatible with these (his) views? i mean, i should obviously be a secular humanist if i agree with dawkins. or am i misunderstanding something? the only modern intellectual who publicly defends nationalism is the english conservative philosopher roger scruton and i don't lend him all my trust, since my view on religion always has been very skeptical. as you can hear, i am quite confused. if you have any thoughts on my situation or have similar experiences, then please post in this thread.

thank you

[Menydh]

I don't see why you should be confused. You are not a rara avis if you had felt like one. The vast majority of the core members here at Stirpes feel pretty much the same as you. Or at least those who are Nationalist.

Nationalism lies first and foremost in the concept of ethnicity. And in the goal of preservation. The confusion arises from Rac[ial]ists who label themselves "white nationalists". Which is a swindle because no such thing as a "white" nations exists nor every "white" belongs to a defined nation, and in the reality they are simply white supremacists.

That is an American perversion that has polluted certain fringe groups in Europe. Much unfortunately, especially in the times that we are living. How it was introduced in Europe is another story.

For one thing, Rac[ial]ism defines a relation among different races, like anti-racism does, but along the lines of superiority and inferiority. This makes Rac[ial]ism most alien to Nationalism in Europe, since from the standpoint of the concept of ethnic nations, any relation between races comes only in the chapter of each nation's foreign affairs.

Along the ideal of Nationalism runs that of Europeanism (notice, not pan-Europeanism), which defines the relations between the sovereign nations of Europe, and a common idea of preservation of the ethnic diversity of the peoples of Europe.

[lunulae]

i'm glad im not the only one, then. but do you mean that the core members are confused about (vaguely) the same problem as me or do you mean that they fuse nationalism with whatever view on life they might have (my view being evolutionary biology, evolution, darwin, genes etcetera).

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by lunulae

i'm glad im not the only one, then. but do you mean that the core members are confused about (vaguely) the same problem as me or do you mean that they fuse nationalism with whatever view on life they might have (my view being evolutionary biology, evolution, darwin, genes etcetera).

I'm not an expert in your filed but you should be aware that science is ever strongly influenced by the political dogmas of the times it is made and written.

It is a well known historical law.

There are marginalized scientists that still believe in the concept of ethnicity, in Italy the anthropologist Ida Magli is at the forefront of this difficult battle.

Since she started it she silently lost her status and slipped from first position in prestigious newspapers' pages to a solitary website (ItalianiLiberi).

[Menydh]

I can't speak for everyone. But speaking for myself and my views on nationalism are combined with a more spiritual understanding of the nation. There are, in this matter, far too many things that cannot be explained through science, simply because they do not pertain to the fields with which science is concerned. In my opinion, the attempt to apply a secular humanist vision to nationalism corrupts the very essence of nationalism, for secular humanism is a highly materialistic understanding of things.

Give God what is God's, Caesar what is Caesar's, and Science what is Science's. And give Man what is Man's.

Science is there to serve Man, not the opposite. That a given event or fact of life can be rationally explained through science, does not mean that it should be automatically and strictly applied to our lives. It is there where doctrines like secular humanism become a contradiction, as they ultimately pretend to make of science a religion.

But I'm not sure if we are following the argument..

[lunulae]

well, why don't most scientist believe in ethnicity? there must be some rational explaination. or perhaps they are aware of the different races, but don't see it as a neccessity to keep them seperated and preserved.

my biggest problem right now is the apparent globalistic and internationalistic thought of (secular) humanism that stands as a direct opposite to nationalism. i just want to know why these scientists, biologists etcetera think the world would be better place as just one nation; earth. and my other problem is technology. seems like they put all their energy into science's prevail without thinking about aesthetics. for what is the world without aesthetics?
i agree that technology has given us many good things but i also feel it doesn't correlate with my romantic view of life. it is these dichotomies that ultimately confuses me the most.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by lunulae

well, why don't most scientist believe in ethnicity? there must be some rational explaination. or perhaps they are aware of the different races, but don't see it as a neccessity to keep them seperated and preserved.

I would like to think about that calmly. Most of us are pre-programmed to take some things for granted. Scientists are no different. Science "proves" that all races are the same because its approach is strictly materialistic. But if you take a spiritual approach to history, and you analyze the achievements of every race and how they "evolved" throughout history, you will crearly notice different ways of interpreting reality and interacting with it --and you cannot justify all that differences solely with environment.
But what I just said is not scientific and cannot be scientifically demonstrated --therefore is false.

my biggest problem right now is the apparent globalistic and internationalistic thought of (secular) humanism that stands as a direct opposite to nationalism. i just want to know why these scientists, biologists etcetera think the world would be better place as just one nation; earth.

I think it's a consecuence of the progressive weakening of national identities. From my perspective, that's a natural process. Everything is strong and bright in the beginning (man's life, year's seasons, day-night...) and then degenerates --civilizations and national identities are no different. Secular Humanists are the outcome of this decline.

and my other problem is technology. seems like they put all their energy into science's prevail without thinking about aesthetics. for what is the world without aesthetics?
i agree that technology has given us many good things but i also feel it doesn't correlate with my romantic view of life. it is these dichotomies that ultimately confuses me the most.

I would not say "aesthetics" but "soul". To me, the triumph of technology is in straight relation to the demise of spirituality. Notice that French Revolution (humanism's final victory) and Industrial revolution happened almost at the same time.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by lunulae

well, why don't most scientist believe in ethnicity? there must be some rational explaination. or perhaps they are aware of the different races, but don't see it as a neccessity to keep them seperated and preserved.

my biggest problem right now is the apparent globalistic and internationalistic thought of (secular) humanism that stands as a direct opposite to nationalism. i just want to know why these scientists, biologists etcetera think the world would be better place as just one nation; earth. and my other problem is technology. seems like they put all their energy into science's prevail without thinking about aesthetics. for what is the world without aesthetics?
i agree that technology has given us many good things but i also feel it doesn't correlate with my romantic view of life. it is these dichotomies that ultimately confuses me the most.

Lunulae, don't be confused with the fact that some scientists are against nationalism and ethnic preservation and favour a world state. I mean, so what? They are not some high priests and unquestionable authorities that must be trusted in just about everything they say. If someone is an expert in molecular biology, it does just mean that his views have to be taken into consideration when molecular biology is concerned and not when policy is concerned. The modern West tends to make a fetish, a religion out of science and that is called scientism and scientism is not scientific at all.

Exactly my thought concerning aesthetics: aesthetics have been neglected in favour of technological efficiency. That has gone too far and now we have a gneralized reign of ugliness in the modern world.

And as for those, whom you call, "secular humanists", who are in fact vulgar materialists and view man as a mere machine and - what is much worse - want to shove their superstitious views down everybody's throat, for them I feel just scorn and don't think they could be an authority in politics whatsoever (although they may have some merits in their respective fields of scientific research).

In fact, you don't have to think that your views on life are somehow "romantic" or "unrealistic" as opposed to theirs which are - supposedly - very realistic. It is them who are naive and unrealistic, because they tend to view everything in oversimplified schemes and reduce relations between humans to purely mechanic principles, while people like you ask deeper questions and try to think life in all of its beautiful complexity.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by lunulae

Hi all.

Lately i've been very perplexed about politics and so on. i've had an early interest in intellectual pursuits and i feel confident with fields like biology (evolutionary biology), ethnology (i am an ethnology-student myself), anthropology, sociology, some psychology etcetera. i have a profound passion for my country. i love to study the folk culture, customs, traditions and so forth, though i don't support any form of chauvinism or national supremacy. my problem is that i don't feel my nationalistic views go hand in hand with the consensus of the science of today. lets take an example. richard dawkins is a secular humanist and i've agreed on much of his stuff (almost every of his stuff), but how can my views on politics be compatible with these (his) views? i mean, i should obviously be a secular humanist if i agree with dawkins. or am i misunderstanding something? the only modern intellectual who publicly defends nationalism is the english conservative philosopher roger scruton and i don't lend him all my trust, since my view on religion always has been very skeptical. as you can hear, i am quite confused. if you have any thoughts on my situation or have similar experiences, then please post in this thread.

Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to the forum.
Much like yourself, I was intrigued by the very same questions, some time ago. All I knew about the nationalism was what various media have presented to me. Even today, the word "nationalism" has negative connotations in the minds of many, because today's media tend to promote multiculturalism and liberalism(as opposed to nationalism), so nationalism is often regarded as something bad, inappropriate, and even obsolete.
I'd even dare to call it brainwashing, where people are constantly exposed to: "we're all equal, we have to share, be tolerant, live in a modern cosmopolitan society.." etc.
Which reminds me of propaganda in the ex-Yugoslavia, that said: "Ne talasaj druže", which means that you should never go against the mainstream, otherwise you'll be alienated from the society, or even banished or killed(which was common in that time). Many people were sheep then, and many are now.
As for the science and nationalism, these are two separated terms which do not exclude each other. My view is that science should exist apart from politics, because scientists should be independent and think without any biases.

You said you're keen on studying folk culture, customs and traditions, and this is all about that. It's about preservation of these treasures, and refusal to discard them just because of current degeneration trends, as well as refusal to blend into a common identity, and lose our own.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by lunulae

well, why don't most scientist believe in ethnicity?

It's pretty simple, really. I think that this summarizes it pretty well:

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

But what I just said is not scientific and cannot be scientifically demonstrated --therefore is false.

Much on the line of what I said earlier: they take science to the level of a religious belief. And, incidentally or not, to a much fundamentalist religious belief.

Contradictory as this sounds, coming from self-appointed secular humanists. But, isn't secular humanism a contradiction in itself? If we consider the spiritual need in the nature of humans, and that the adjective secular here hides the true meaning behind this secularism, which is materialism.

[lunulae]

thanks for all your replies!

regarding "why scientists don't believe in ethnicity", i thought it was scientifically demonstrated that humans are split up into subraces etcetera.
why would they have no interest in preserving these races and the manifold of homo sapiens sapiens?
i eventually found out that two scientists that actually agree on the same scientific theories, have two different political orientations. matt ridley is a libertarian and richard dawkins is a social democrat (and/or secular humanist), eventhough they both agree on a gene-centered view of evolution.
many people also ask me why we need nation states. it seems to be a very easy question to answer, but i don't think it is. on the other hand, if we reject nation states, then we must automatically favour globalism (which is very dystopic, if you ask me).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by lunulae

regarding "why scientists don't believe in ethnicity", i thought it was scientifically demonstrated that humans are split up into subraces etcetera.
why would they have no interest in preserving these races and the manifold of homo sapiens sapiens?

I suppose that the study of any life fact should entail an interest for its preservation as well as for its dissectioning, or even its transformation. It should not surprise you that human nature is seen as a test lab for some scientists. Especially for so-called social scientists, but not just. It was also like this with III Reich scientists. Only the directions seem to change between ones and the others.

i eventually found out that two scientists that actually agree on the same scientific theories, have two different political orientations. matt ridley is a libertarian and richard dawkins is a social democrat (and/or secular humanist), eventhough they both agree on a gene-centered view of evolution.

There surely are others.

many people also ask me why we need nation states. it seems to be a very easy question to answer, but i don't think it is. on the other hand, if we reject nation states, then we must automatically favour globalism (which is very dystopic, if you ask me).

Nation-states are part of the evolutive social structure of human beings...in Europe. Up from more primitive structures like the tribe. They are also an extended concept of the primigenial family structure, therefore a part of the natural order of human social interaction.

This means that whatever alternative option is forced upon us, no matter the name that they wish to give it, the dismantling and ultimate destruction of the natural social structures of a people or peoples results in chaos.

[lunulae]

breha, is it possible that you could tell me some more about ida magli? she seems quite interesting, though i can hardly find anything in english about her. what is her situation like? she's a supporter of the new right and has then been abandoned by the rest of the academic elite?

[Jejunity]

Originally Posted by lunulae

regarding "why scientists don't believe in ethnicity", i thought it was scientifically demonstrated that humans are split up into subraces etcetera.
why would they have no interest in preserving these races and the manifold of homo sapiens sapiens?

Even if racial differences were scientifically proven, Hume's "is-ought" problem, the discrepancy between the descriptive and the normative, would still apply. Deriving ethics—and, by extension, politics—from science is a logical cul-de-sac.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Jejunity

Deriving ethics—and, by extension, politics—from science is a logical cul-de-sac.

I can only agree with that.