"Nordicism", racial preservationism, and ethnonationalism

In a comment at majorityrights.com, Guessedworker identifies what he claims are the "four possible positions for an ethnically- or racially-aware member of our people(s) in respect to European preservation", described in terms of two binary variables: does the individual belong to "[a single] one of the European ethnies" or not; and is the individual "concerned to preserve his ethny while desiring the preservation of Europe’s ethnies as a whole" or does he see "no intrinsic value in ethny at all, and desires only the preservation at a combinative level". GW claims the latter "is the position of the Nordicist and the pan-European." While I believe GW's entire schema here is off base (with, for example, the rather glaring omission of an "advance my ethny at the expense of other European ethnies" position, despite the fact that almost the entirety of Europe's history [and likely prehistory] has been characterized by intertribal and interethnic competition), I'm concerned here primarily with GW's claim that "Nordicists" deprecate "ethnies". I find the claim so bizarre and wrongheaded it's hard to know where to start in refuting it, but defining terms is as good a place as any.

"Nordicism", particularly as the term is thrown around by Rienzi- and diabloblanco-types, encompasses various distinct schools of thought with divergent purposes, emphases, and interpretations. Here, I'll simply define "Nordicist" as someone who recognizes the existence within Europe of racially distinct type(s) associated today primarily with Northern Europe and her offshoots and who favors the continued existence of these type(s).

I'll let Frank Salter--from whom GW borrowed the term--define "ethny":
ethny

A population sharing common descent. 'Ethny' is a preferable term to 'ethnic group' because members of such a category rarely form a group. Ethnies are usually concentric clusters of encompassing populations, such as tribe, regional population, and geographic race. The term 'ethny' used in this book usually means 'a named human population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more elements of common culture, a link with a homeland and a sense of solidarity among at least some of its members'.2 However, it sometimes has a more general meaning, and thus corresponds most closely to the biological concept of the population.

[From On Genetic Interests, Appendix 2; my emphasis.]

What should be immediately clear is that not only is "Nordicism" compatible with the preservation of "ethnies", to the extent the Nordicist correctly discerns relative kinship, Nordicism is synonymous with a desire to preserve a particular ethny or ethnies.

I presume when GW writes "ethny" he has in mind traditionally-defined ethnicities or nationalities. Frank Salter, as we see above, sometimes uses "ethny" in a similar manner. And indeed we should expect present-day national and linguistic borders to play some role in structuring genetic variation in Europe; but it's an empirical question (yet to be investigated adequately) how large that role is. Sir Arthur Keith argued nations are "races in the making" and I agree--but that process of race formation is, I think, far from complete in most European polities. Some "Nordicists" have critiqued elements of nationalism (e.g. "fratricidal" wars), but none of the major Nordicist thinkers I'm aware of ever called for abolition of national borders, customs, languages, or so forth--nor are they desirous only of "preservation at a combinative level." In fact, the ethnonationalist is more like the "pan-Europeanist" in that respect. The "Nordicist" almost by definition recognizes and values the existence of racial variation within national borders. The single-minded nationalist, on the other hand, would seek to minimize regional and class differences to promote national unity (at the likely expense of regional genetic interests). The "Pan-Europeanist" merely expands that mindset to cover an entire continent.

GW's belief that America is not a "real" country is again on display. I'll probably have more to say about that later, but for now I'll note that the genetic distance between SW and NE Germans (FST = 0.00054) is five times that between Americans reporting "western European" ancestry and those reporting "central European" ancestry (FST = 0.0001). No doubt the "ancient" nation of Italy (est. 1861) is even more homogenous.

6 comments:

Guessedworker said...

Anon,

A slightly naughty beginning to your post, I think. I did not "glaringly" omit the supremacist or aggressive tribalist position. Tribal aggression or aggrandisement is not a precondition for preservation. For example, you do not have to seize my home and enslave my children to protect your own home and children.

Please stick to the terms in which the four positions I listed were set out: as the range of attitudes on preservation - and only preservation, not conquest - that broadly inform racially- and ethnically-aware men and women.

You then reify Salter's cautiously capacious formal definiton of "ethny". You write:-

I presume when GW writes "ethny" he has in mind traditionally-defined ethnicities or nationalities. Frank Salter, as we see above, sometimes uses "ethny" in a similar manner.

Now, you are bring a plain naughty again. There's no "sometimes" about Salter's usage. He writes:

The term 'ethny' usually used in this book means "a named human population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more elements of common culture, a link with a homeland and a sense of solidarity at least among some of its members."

He does not, of course, place the preceding reference to capaciousness in bold type - as you do. And while he says he "usually" means the narrow definition of the Hutchinson and Smith formulation of 1996, I don't know anywhere in OGI he conflates "ethny" with a large-scale regional race in the Nordicist sense. On the contrary, he speaks of "concentration of kinship", and ethnic grading bounded by language and geographical barrier.

Salter is not your friend, anon.

Now, I can't see any problematic difference in our respective views within the European context. Nordicism has nothing useful to add to ethno-nationalism. The comments in the latter half of your penultimate paragraph are too stretched and nitpicking to be worth my attention, and certainly don't justify your present ire.

And so we come to the only arresting critique of your piece: the final paragraph.

Do I believe America is a "real" country? Well, is Haiti a country? Yes. Is Jamaica? Yes. Is New Zealand? Yes. But America? America as the exporter of cultural Americanism and a Judaised liberalism ... of homogeneity ... of self-estrangement, is the
killer of countries. That I would certainly argue. But does that argument imply that America is not a country itself. No, plainly not. Why should it?

I do think that there is a problem for nationalism in the lack of cohesion among white Americans, even in the formally cohesive antbellum South. But that is not only because of genetic distance. It is also because America is founded on individualism - liberalism in the classical sense. Nordicists who argue for greater self-identification on a Northern European basis will fail to move atomised individuals. To do that, you need an anti-liberal philosophy in your right hand, and the appeal to kinship in you left.

So there we are. I expected something a bit more substantive from you, I must say.

n/a said...

GW,

I don't follow your logic.

"Tribal aggression or aggrandisement is not a precondition for preservation."

Therefore, it is excluded from "possible positions for an ethnically- or racially-aware member of our people(s) in respect to European preservation"?

And you're begging the question of whether or not long-term ethnic preservation is in fact possible without "Tribal aggression or aggrandisement". (I realize you are aping Salter here, but pursuing "universal nationalism" is hardly the only or even the most obvious option open to someone with an understanding of EGI--just the most pat and relatively-PC one.)

I don't accept that your four positions adequately capture the "range of attitudes on preservation". I suppose I see the point you were trying to make, and may even agree with your suggestions in practice. But if you're going to mention "Nordicists", at least have the courtesy to have some idea who you're writing about and what they stand for. When you make trivial errors, don't expect "substantial" responses.

I don't know anywhere in OGI he conflates "ethny" with a large-scale regional race in the Nordicist sense

You mean besides where he notes ethnies "are usually concentric clusters of encompassing populations, such as tribe, regional population, and geographic race".

I don't know about you sometimes, GW.

All this was obvious to me before I ever heard of Frank Salter, and it matters little whose "friend" Salter is. Truth is truth.

I do think that there is a problem for nationalism in the lack of cohesion among white Americans

As contrasted to those famously cohesive Brits? Italians? Belgians? What's that Shaw said? "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman despise him."

Guessedworker said...

Anon,

You would have to be a jingoistic rogue or a criminal elitist not to appreciate the moral distinction between securing the homeland and acquisitive adventurism abroad.

Everyone normal ... every nationalist of good heart would know that adventurism abroad does not serve the purpose of turning his people away from peril at home. It is NOT a "possible position" for such a nationalist.

Now, let's act on the presumption that you are not in fact a jingoistic rogue or a criminal elitist. That leaves just one possibility. You are acting ... posting ... in bad faith. Which is why I am "aping Salter" and make "trivial errors", why I can't expect a "substantial response" and why you "don't know about me" (which is, of course true).

But I know that you see yourself as a guardian of the Nordicist flame. Those, like me, who live in ignorance of its exquisite light are to be forced to pay for their trespass.

You are attempting to force me to pay.

So you argue over Salter's definition of ethny against Salter's own use of the term. And you offer the petty hate-speech of an Irish socialist to goad me into ... what, I don't know. What do you expect to happen? Did you think beyond your desire to insult, or did you look into your own heart and wonder why such a desire lurks there?

And do any of your words, insulting or otherwise, really seem like strong arguments to you?

No, quite. But wait. Because you, sir, are well-equipped to come up with something even weaker:-

In complete contra-distinction to your own Nordicist creed, you argue that Belgians and Brits aren't any more ethnocentric than the dissonant panoply of European peoples in America. That's right, you are not even claiming "Nordic America.

I think you have extinguished your own flame there.

Look ... you let your Nordicist zeal get the better of your judgement. This whole idea was a mistake, and it's getting you nowhere.

Time to shake hands and move on to more profitable discussion.

n/a said...

Sure, I'll you to your universalist moral preening. In the meantime, groups will continue to compete.

n/a said...

By the way, I find it hilarious you would lecture me on the need for "an anti-liberal philosophy" and whine about "Americanism" while promoting Wilsonianism.

bob said...

Groups of Negroids migrated out of North-East-Africa approximately 125,000 years ago, they moved toAryan Scandinavia (West of present day Norways mountain ranges- See map:) and later to India, then Far East Asia and finally Australia. over 90,000 years In Scandinavia they evolved to Aryans (Aryan = A pure race with blonde hair, blue eyes, white but fully tanable skin, towering height and uniform attractiveness). They were able to survive the climate in Scandinavia as the early stages of the ice-age was nowhere near as extreme as contemporary science claims: See Link Blavatsky (They left Scandinavia before the ice age got to inhospitable around 35,000 years ago). As skeletal evidence has proven (see Cro-magnons at Wikipedia:). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon (Cro-magnon means Aryan). This unique race must have evolved in Norther Europe - Scandinavia because the lack of light there is the only thing that can explain the evolution of blonde hair, blue eyes and white skin. There is simply no where else where these traits could have evolved. The encapsulating mountain ranges in Norway stand out as a place of origin. http://www.thearyanrace.com