Sunday, 7 March 2010

Whats in a name? Perhaps some confusion, even on my part.

There is a question which keeps being put to me regarding different definitions of nationalism, and once again, just yesterday, I found a discussion about it.

Although I have been around a fair while thinking about a lot of different things in Nationalist principles, over the last two years or so I think I have suffered a bit of burnout and have lacked the patience and dedication to go digging into things deeply to confirm or deny my own feelings. So, without diving around any great ideological archives or even breezing though the lazy man's definitions (Wikipedia) I thought I would offer my own thoughts and feelings on two different labels that float about the scene.

Those names or labels are Racial Nationalism and Ethno-Nationalism.

On the question that was posed the other day, it was suggesting that the two things were not the same, that the former should be removed from our associations because it was an advocacy of a Pan-European'ist and imperialist strand of thought that desired to create a kind of "collective" transnational European unification of European peoples.

On the other hand, ethno-nationalism was seen to be the better choice, and I felt the question was framed along the lines that we should not look outside of our own situation here in Britain, not care about other people's and their countries (in Europe) - and that if one was to do those things, they are therefore falling into this "Pan European'ist" categorisation and should be {kind of} rejected or disassociated with.

However, I do not believe that the issues and the different labels are clear cut. I think there is another layer to these definitions which can overlap, because nothing is ever one or two dimensional, everything on this earth is three dimensional and multi-faceted.

A circle drawn on a plain piece of paper with a pencil is three dimensional although most people would define it as two dimensional or 'flat'. However, to be truthful about the matter, it can be argued that the drawing is a three dimensional object - the paper has a thickness to it, despite it being very thin, the lead of the pencil which marks out the shape of the circle has a thickness to it, the microfibres and the atoms which make up the paper and the lead are three dimensional. I do not believe there is even such a thing as "one dimensional" or "two dimensional", although common word usage compels us to differentiate things using these terms so that we can be easily understood.

Although it is a poor analogy, the point I try to make here is that things are not always what they seem and when looked at in an abstract way you can pose concepts which are perhaps not immediately apparent by common definitions. Perhaps another one is the old question of 'how many faces does a coin have?' - most people will initially say it has two sides, the heads and the tails, but of course they will later say it has three, i.e. the face around the side.

I sometimes tend to look at life this way, and see it as multi threaded. So when it comes to labels and compartmentalising things I do get a bit wary. I am not suggesting my own views of the differences of Racial and Ethno Nationalism are correct; I can only put forth my own views on what I cursorily understand them to be from my own experiences and perspectives. As I say, I have not ventured into the deep rationales for quite some time so I may now be a bit out of date because things do move on.

In my view, Racial Nationalists are an extension of Ethno-Nationalists, but they do not automatically have the desire to be a collective under a single unified banner, movement or power. They need not fulfil the presumption raised by critics that they desire such a pan European 'grouping' - for in my view they are simply traditional Nationalists in the wider sense of the world around us, and therefore seek their counterparts in Europe to be masters of their own houses and remain intact ethnically, culturally etc in their respective homelands. Separate from ourselves, respected as our counterparts and acknowledged as fellow upholders of our European civilisation which we have collectively created and enjoyed as different nation states until quite recently.

I feel the plight of the Danes, Swedes, Germans and French etc, for they are in the same collective boat as ourselves and as such I personally will defend their positions to remain Nation states and for European peoples within those Nation States to retain their ethnicities and their societies; and likewise I argue the same for ourselves - and therefore put my own nations situation first, thus making me primarily a British Nationalist and anything else 'second' in the tiers of ideological hierarchy.

I cannot help but share the sorrow of what is happening to European countries and the Occidental world in general at the hands of third world immigration, Islamification, and ever increasing federalism of the international Marxists who desire the New World Order and the EU building block that bridges the gap between Nationalism and the final New World Order structures - but my first and immediate concern is with ourselves and our own situation.

I find it hard to understand why there would be a necessity or a desire to go beyond this loose collective so, perhaps naively, I believe that should the concept be true {that some desire some form of unification} then it is more aligned with some kind of extreme Racial Supremacy Movement.

However, I do not necessarily or personally place "racial nationalists" under that banner. I think that when we wind out the telescope and assess the order of the situation unfolding, we have a need to put ourselves in the context of the 'make up' and direction of the rest of the world around us (especially our neighbouring European nations), and I also think that a true "Nationalist" worth their salt will support and defend the rights of all other Nationals and Nations to retain their own ethnic identities and own Nation States as much as possible - whether that be Denmark, Serbia, or Tibet.

That is what Nationalism is, after all, a concept which does not stop beyond the shores of our own island.

On that score, again, it is hard not to have tiers of hierarchy, for we are naturally going to support those most like us first rather than shed all our tears for a decimation that may be happening in the horn of Africa or perhaps a divide which may be taking place within Indonesia.

It is within this wider scope of Nationalism as being an international phenomena/ principle of all indigenous peoples that I feel there is a third way between what people allocate as being different strands of ideologies. I think the two overlap in some areas, but I would certainly distance myself from ideas that racial nationalists desire to unify with collective powers and structures.

I think it is perfectly feasible for a British Nationalist to have a hierarchy of levels within which he or she operates and thinks when it comes to the rest of the world around us and its structure and integrity. Ethno British Nationalism need not conflict to any severe degree with racial nationalism as I see it to be, because I don't believe 'racial nationalism' seeks to forge the ties mentioned above, just care for and preserve our fellow Nationalists and European peoples by supporting their right to do what we are trying to do.

A calm and rational approach to looking after ourselves first whilst keeping an eye out and an interest in (and a support to) our European counterparts and the order of the world around us is no bad thing in my view, but yes, of course, we have to be careful of what others commonly perceive the definitions to be, and ensure that we split off what to me is "traditional" Nationalism from anything that aims to go further than that.

Does caring about their plight and the wider European nation states and the dwindling European racial presence on planet Earth make me somehow beyond the pail or some wild extremist or supremacist? I do not believe so.

The trouble with labels and definitions is that it restricts movement of thought, and pigeon holes people into being either one thing or another when there are bound to be elements of many things all in the mixture, as we are all different, we all have our own thresholds, our own levels of interest, our own hearts and minds as to what we deem to be of importance or of loss.

I classify myself as an ethno-nationalist, a British one, but recognise that we are not alone on the planet and that we should not entirely limit our thoughts to matters which solely lay within our own shores, and then proceed to label those which do view things in a wider hierarchical order as being extremists.

There are elements out there, as we all know, which have a disturbing view of the world and a disturbing attitude to other races and cultures - and ultimately I believe they have hatred in their hearts and minds for all the wrong reasons and that they have completely the wrong attitude to their fellow mankind. The people who I see and feel to be "gutter racists" who simply see other races to be laughed at, ridiculed for their looks, bullied (and otherwise chastised for their differences) seek actions of behaviour which are not fitting of civil society and thus deserve no support whatsoever. I think we all know who those types are, and I do not even tend to think of them as Nationalists. I think all of us know why modern ethno-nationalists are very careful not to be seen as fraternising or flirting with their ideological outlooks and therefore we quite rightly seek to distance ourselves from such unsavoury associations and gutter racist attitudes.

Life is a complex web, and finding a path that sorts the wheat from the chaff is a long search, but it can be done.

(9th March: Post edited for topic relevancy and brevity, the second half will be no doubt be archived for use another time. Some comments deleted for clarity)


  1. I can't disagree with any of this.

  2. Glad you found your way through it all Michael, so cheers for the response. I do not tend to get a massive readership or many/any replies so it is always good to hear somebody has waded through my (often far too excessive) ramblings and let me know what they think about something, especially if it is supportive :).

  3. Good stuff, BA - though I don't think it's befitting to swear in a political essay of such importance.

    I would say that I broadly agree with your definition of ethno- and racial-nationalism. You stated 'However, I do not believe that the issues and the different labels are clear cut' - can one not be both. Does being a racial-nationalist automatically imply that one wants some sort of formal union between different nations? Would you object to the inter-marriage of a Pole and a Scot? If not is it not because racially (though not ethnically) they are the same ie. Europeans?

    'I am now finding myself cringe on two sides, one from the gutter racists on the grubbier side of nationalism and their approaches, for I cannot align myself with that' Again I agree. I definitely find the SF type 'nutzis' a bit too much. However the BNP cannot make any more concessions, IMHO. Though I can and will support them in their current guise.

  4. Hello Unrepentant, good to hear from you.

    I take your point on the expletive and have removed it, along with some of the article to make it more concise and 'on topic'.

    As for the definition, that is what I am saying, I think you can be both, without the desire of a formal union. Regarding the other matter, we should have a natter about it sometime.