Ethno-Nationalism: Where The Problem Lies


Aside from leftist state repression, nationalism has always had one big thorn in its collective proverbial side: unity.

People often refer to ‘strength through unity’ as a fascist or nationalist slogan, but the truth of the matter is that there has been very little in the way of united nationalist movements in any European nation since the 1930s. All nationalist movements have ultimately failed as a result of this internal squabbling, which encompasses a wide range of disagreements from social policy to economic direction.

A key issue that divides nationalist movements today is that of race and ethnicity. This is a major problem with identity politics that crops up  more often than not, and it will not be resolved anytime soon because nationalists keep making the same errors in their thinking on this matter.

There are many versions of nationalism: civic nationalism, white nationalism, Nordic nationalism and so on. The clear divide amongst all is on this issue of race and ethnicity.

White nationalism is perhaps the most conflicted and error-ridden of them all, as it proposes that only white people are welcome in their territory or nation. The problem is – as we have seen in the UK – that the topic of immigration often has nothing to do with colour. For example, the impending EU referendum has seen a rise in sentiment against immigration from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria etc, nations that one would accept as being white. So immediately, white nationalism hits a buffer and then it is the internal debate that prevents the movement getting off the ground. There is also a massive cultural issue here, which you will see later on within the debate on ethnic purism.

Civic nationalism is perhaps the most intellectually flawed nationalist ideology of them all. Civic nationalism proposes that the people should promote and pursue the cultural aspects of their nation, irrespective of ethnic origin. This doesn’t work, as it operates on the basis that people are easily mouldable and can simply adapt and fit into whatever culture they are placed. In fact, cultures develop as a result of thousands of years of separate development, hence them being so different from one another. To visualise this, imagine swapping the populations of Japan and China: Do the displaced Japanese people become Chinese? No. China becomes Japan and visa versa. Civic nationalism is in fact the fastest method of cultural dilution there is.

Then we have the ethnic purists, who believe in living amongst only those of the same genetic background, such as Nordic or Germanic or Slavic. The issue here is that they then cannot decide who meets this criteria, and then we get into a tangled debate over hair colour and head shapes which is futile and very unhelpful. This is highlighted as being a particularly flawed ideal when we look at migration patterns and the genetic origin of Europeans, as many Nordic genes originated in the area which is now Ukraine after the last Ice Age, and what we accept to be Celtic genes are not Celtic at all, but rather they originate in the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore, these ethnic groups were not totally pure 2,000 years ago, so it is difficult to expect them to be now. It is only true that some ethnic groups have a greater prevalence of certain genes than others.

The other issue with ethnic purism is that it does not account for the differing cultures amongst sub-ethnic categories, which is also a problem for white nationalists. For example, the English are by and large considered to be a Germanic people, but the cultures of England and Germany are remarkably different, as are the languages English and German.

The ideal that nationalists should strive for is a combination of civic and ethno-nationalism, putting their country and its native peoples first. Every nation has an indigenous people who, over time, have developed into their own ethnic group. These people have roots in their homeland that are thousands of years old, and it is these people that come first in their own nation. Then, the debate on immigration and who’s who is relatively simple: It becomes about space and integration. It becomes also about culture, and if a perspective immigrant can realistically be expected to adapt and slot into the host culture. So for example, a lowland Scot or a Dutch person is much more similar culturally to the English than say, a Romanian, therefore the former would be a more favourable immigrant.

Having said this, in order to put your own nation and people first it must be desirable to keep your ethnic group largely (95%+) homogenous, in order to avoid social tensions or cultural deviation, and a massive influx of migrants from Spain would be just as undesirable as a massive influx of migrants from the Middle-East. But immigration is only a small part of the debate about what ‘version’ of nationalism one should follow.

What is crucial is that nationalist groups get their own house in order as it were, and do it quickly. The Marxist culture of the 20th century is back with a rabid ferocity in the 21st, and is quickly destroying the nation states and cultures that have been carefully crafted over the last 15,000 years in Northern Europe. If we’re not careful, we’ll still be squabbling over head shape and eye colour as the entirety of what we wish to preserve is torn down around us.

Now is the time to focus on the bigger picture and save our once-great civilisations from the jaws of defeat in this epic battle for the future of our societies.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s