Counter-Currents
Dimitar Pandilov, Harvesters, 1936.
2,226 words
Let’s talk about nationalism.
You’ve probably been told that there are two kinds of nationalism: ethnic and civic. This is true. You’ve probably been told that nationalism is a Left-wing phenomenon. This is partially true. If you’re an American, you’ve probably been told that America is a nation of immigrants since birth. If you’re not, the notion of a nation of immigrants is probably more recent to the official propaganda.
You’ve probably been told that there is a difference between good and exalted civic nationalism, which is centered on ideas and values; and bad, stinky ethnic nationalism, which relies on blood and soil. You’ve been told that civic nationalism stands for freedom and prosperity, whereas ethnic nationalism stands for slavery and socialism (pronounced soshulism). I’m here to tell you that most of what you’ve been told is right. It really is like that, factually speaking. It’s just that the framework of thought you were born into distorts the very facts so horribly that they form a coherent picture that is disturbingly false.
Let’s start with a historical episode.
Towards the end of the 18th century, the two brands of English and French liberalism were reaching their apogee. They were challenging what was left of the traditional order in Europe, questioning the position of the church, the place of the aristocracy, and the divine right of kings to rule. In two revolutions, liberals triumphed over the English and French monarchies. In France, the metropolitan nation was seized by liberals who executed the king and forced a radical reorganization of society. In England, the thirteen North American colonies waged war against the monarchy and seceded, forming an independent republic, the United States of America.
The two new states, the USA and the French Republic, are the quintessential modern states. They are models of democratic republics, completely reimagined to have not an ounce of the old left in their constitution. And yet their developmental paths diverged significantly, even as the two Republics saw each other through thick and thin in joint opposition first to England and then to a rising Germany.
The United States did not choose a unified identity for itself. Recognizing itself as a federation of thirteen distinct nations, it tried for a while to have no central state identity. It is famously a secular state, having no official state religion. In its initial form, it was one of the world’s loosest confederations of states, united only by military and diplomatic opprobrium from Britain and later Spain/Mexico and the tribes of American Indians. But as Carl Schmitt says, the concept of the political is reducible to the distinction between friend and enemy. Thus, opprobrium creates political entities by designating otherwise loose congregations of people and tribes “the enemy.”
It may seem strange to us from this late stage, but at one point, there was no American identity to speak of. People were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Georgians, New Yorkers, and Connecticutters, but there were no Americans to speak of. George Washington was introduced as a “Great Chief of the Thirteen Fires” to a tribe of Native Americans. However, the dream of the decentralized confederation of state died — or, more precisely, was brutally killed in the Wars of Yankee Aggression against the Confederate States of America (also known as the Civil War) and Deseret (also known as the Mormon War). In these bloody and violent conflicts, Yankee puritanism subjugated the recalcitrant and refractory regions of America that purported to be free, extinguishing the cultural and religious pluralism of the United States and cementing Yankee-style progressivism (a toxic blend of English liberalism and Calvinist fanaticism) as the unofficial state religion of America. The new nation was finally unified under the banner of progress.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Here’s the Thing here.
The French Republic took a different path. The victorious revolutionaries found themselves presiding over a people even more diverse than the inhabitants of the thirteen American colonies. There was no unified language, no unified culture, no unified identity. There was only one religion, but it was the hated and retrograde Catholic Church that soon found itself replaced with the Cult of Reason and later with the Cult of the Supreme Being. How could Jean-Paul Marat claim to be the “friend of the people” if there was no people? How could the popular will be determined if there is no determinate people? Who is to will this popular will? La France found itself ruling over a motley multitude — Burgundians, Savoyards, Provençals, Aquitanians, Vendeans, Gasconians, Basques, Alsatians, Corsicans, Bretons, Normans, Occitans, and all sorts of strange tribes — but there was not a single Frenchman in sight. And so, the French Republic set out to make for itself a French people. And the process was no less brutal than the Yankee Republic’s bloody annexation of Dixie and Deseret, including among other things the Vendée genocide. For many people, it entailed learning a new language, adopting a new culture, and swearing allegiance to the state in Paris. The French revolution is better described as a Parisian annexation of France, followed by a Reconstruction to rival the American one in Dixie. Loyalty to the state and language became the primary markers of identity. The modern nation-state was born.
Of course, that’s not the whole of the story. The idea of nationalism based on language and loyalty to a state spread through the continent of Europe like wildfire, resulting in revolutions against monarchies, some successful, others less so. Even the Danes got in on the fun when they tried to take Schleswig from Prussia in the disastrous Second Schleswig War, believing it entirely possible to “educate” the German population of Schleswig into becoming Danes.
There’s an old German joke that Danish is not a language, but a disease of the throat. Suppose the German Air Force saturated Copenhagen in a great cloud of aerosolized cough syrup. Will that turn the Danes into Germans?
The nation-building projects grew ever more ambitious. After the resounding successes in France, unification movements arose in Germany and Italy, although these states were forged not so much with unification as with one state annexing all the others. It is a testament to Bismarck’s ability as a statesman that he managed to get one over on the German nationalists by actively imposing Prussian culture and mores on the Kaiserreich, although this Preußentum did not survive Bismarck himself. His Savoyard counterparts in Italy were less skillful. The tale of Italian “unification” is more sordid and wrought with criminality than even the American Civil War. Italy is to this day dysfunctional because of the shortsighted attempt to force the North and South to live in a single state.
And of course, the crown jewel of the nation-builders was Yugoslavia, on which subject I’ve written extensively in the past. Suffice to say, it did not end well.
That’s a brief history of nationalism for you. Well, then which is which? It is obvious from the history of the concept that the modern form most closely approximating historical nationalism is civic nationalism. Indeed, the idea that Burgundians, Savoyards, Provençals, Aquitanians, Vendeans, Gasconians, Basques, Alsatians, Corsicans, Bretons, Normans, Occitans, and other strange tribes can be educated, bullied and brainwashed into becoming French, primarily by means of changing their first language and securing their loyalty to the state in Paris, is not at all different from the idea that Algerians, Somalis, Guatemalans, Vietnamese, Afghanis, Moroccans, Nigerians, Salvadorians, Hmong, Arabs, Bosnians, Han, Venezuelans, Kenyans, Irish, and other strange tribes can be made into Americans, primarily by them claiming symbolic loyalty to the regime in Washington and accepting “American values” which are so vaguely defined that they don’t really mean anything.
Now, let’s contrast this to nasty, smelly ethnic nationalism.
I’m Macedonian. I was born Macedonian. I will die Macedonian. Any of you could move to Macedonia, learn the language, convert to our religion, and pledge loyalty to the regime in Skopje, but none of you would be Macedonian. In fact, I recently ran into a Swedish person who did exactly that. He’s not Macedonian, and neither are his children by his Macedonian wife. I know a half-German woman who’s a native speaker of our language, born here, raised here. She’s visibly and palpably foreign. Maybe her children will be Macedonian, maybe their children, but certainly not if she marries a German. The Macedonian tribe is a closed club. There’s no way in or out, except by becoming “a citizen of the world.” This identity limits me and limits our number — we can only grow the old-fashioned way. But that’s okay. All identities limit, most of all a biological identity. I can no more stop being Macedonian than I can stop being male. I can try cutting my dick off and implanting fake tits, but all I’ll be is a dysfunctional male.
The Macedonian diaspora around the world is unmistakably Macedonian. The Australian preferred slur for my people is “blockheads,” because apparently, our heads are square. Macedonians in Australia have a Macedonian rather than Australian behavioral profile. There are so many things I want to share with you, dear reader, but I can’t, not just because of the linguistic barrier, or the cultural barrier, but because your flesh and blood do not resonate with the hymn of our great wooded mountains, the cruel poetry of the blood-soaked dawn, the great weight of our historic agonies which bear down upon our backs like the merciless sun on an August day. And that’s okay, because your people have their own songs of both sound and flesh, their own dreams of place and yearning which are themselves inaccessible to me and that makes them special.
The second kind of nationalism, of blood and soil, is primal. You can call it primitive, and I accept this designation. It’s not even traditional or Traditionalist. It predates tradition. It is a biological category, stemming from the natural human tendency to associate with like, to protect kith and kin, to bind to a place, to nurture and love both people and places. Blood and soil nationalism is the belonging to a great chain of being, which is both historic, going back to ancestors and forward to descendants, and present, extending to all who are of our tribe, who can effortlessly join in our tribal song. It accepts no “values” but survival. It is both practical and romantic, fitting for people who live in the world and yet yearn for the transcendent. It is less an ideology and more a disposition towards one’s own. It seeks to defend, but not to aggress against others, whereas civic nationalism would gladly grind cultures and peoples into dust to fuel its value machine.
But you’ve been told that belonging to an exclusive club is evil. You’ve been taught to worship mobility, the ability to pick up and leave and go to another, strange place. You’ve been taught to recoil at the notion of being born into a web of obligations and privileges, into a club from which you can never leave. In short, you’ve been taught to hate your nature, to feel guilty for belonging to this club.
That is the trick to the demonic inversion which presents the meat grinder of civic nationalism as the viable alternative to the normal and natural sense of ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism would have us pour all the nations of the earth into the gullet of the globohomo empire to strip them of their ingenuity and labor in order to fuel itself — to what end? Certainly nothing good. You’ve been tricked into worshiping Mammon in the guise of Christ.
Now, don’t take this the wrong way. I am not advocating for insularity of tribes, here. Obviously, I am on this site, working with nationalists from all over the world because we’ve been designated as “the enemy” by the external force of globohomo. We weren’t white people. We were all sorts of Europeans, even Americans. I’ve heard unconfirmed and disturbing rumors that even Australians read Counter-Currents. But by declaring war on whiteness, they’ve made us into a concrete political group. By naming us as the enemy, globohomo has made us. If we are to survive, we have to organize as such. But organization starts at the local level, the tribal level. These tribes form alliances for common defense and elect a warlord and chief diplomat. That’s how nations are born naturally, not through nation-building, not through education, certainly not through “values.”
Practical matters of security and survival grow into romantic attachments as nations defeat their enemies — that forms the Dasein of a people. And that’s what we’re here to do.
* * *
On Monday, April 19th, Counter-Currents will be extending special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
As an incentive to act now, everyone who joins the paywall between now and Monday, April 19th will receive a free paperback copy of Greg Johnson’s next book, The Year America Died.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
45 comments
Did you mean Austria? It’s hard for me to understand why Australians would have any particular interest in your country or it’s people?
Largest diaspora on a per capita basis iirc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Australians
Almost every Australian that I’ve met here in the US is a more authentic American than the average citizen, they actually have balls between their legs unlike the estrogenic progressive “men” we’re inundated with these days. I can almost always count on a strong sense of kinship over our shared love of the outdoors, guns, alcohol, fast cars and politically incorrect humor when I encounter one here. If I could I’d replace every shitlib living here with rugged Aussies, God bless those cunts.
Almost every Australian that I’ve met here in the US is a more authentic American than the average citizen
That doesn’t speak well about American identity. If some anglo-saxons from the Antipodes can easily become 100% authentic Americans then what really is the treshold for becoming an American? National identity cannot subsist merely on “love of the outdoors, guns, alcohol, fast cars and politically incorrect humor”. Even Russians in broader sence (Россияне) share a bigger, imperial identity/mythology.
“If some anglo-saxons from the Antipodes can easily become 100% authentic Americans then what really is the treshold for becoming an American?”
Being inauthentic?
The threashhold for becoming an American is being ‘a free white person of good character’, as stated in the original 1790 Immigration Act.
In other words, white civic nationalism.
American Nationalism
No. American White Nationalism. Versus, say, Finnish White Nationalism. ‘White’ in America came from fighting the American Indians. They were the enemy that make the ‘New World Europeans’ into White men and White woman.
American White Nationalism isn’t ‘civic’. It’s Schmittian.
I can vouch for this. I visited Melbourne in 2006 and it was like being in Alabama in the 1930s, minus the blacks. They were the most openly “racist” whites I’ve ever seen. At the same time, I was clubbed in the head with relentless “multicultural” propaganda from the Aussie media.
And Melbourne is probably the most multicultural city in Australia. I was born in Sydney and generally, the further North one goes up the East Coast, the less multiculti it is. Regarding cities, Brisbane is my favorite. If you ever go back, try visiting Darwin in the Dry Season for a few days. Some funny and strange shit goes down there in the tourist season.
I tried going back the next year. They wouldn’t let me in.
https://jimgoad.net/index.shtml?theonlyconvict
Yes, despite our colonial and convict past, Australia is also filled with some petty bureaucrats and androgynous gate-keepers on power trips.
The way to beat this to cover all bases prior to travel. Obtain a Visa from the US in advance, and perhaps also a letter from the Australian Embassy if possible (on official letterhead of course).
It probably has something to do with our English past and well, obeying rules like White people generally do. Don’t despair though, despite a few wankers, the majority of Aussies are nice people and I think you would enjoy tripping around the Great Southern Land on vacation if you can come.
The “god” of the US is not IHVH, nor Y’shua bar Joseph haNazir, but rather Mammon, tje demon of unnatural blind lust for money.
All our options are Jewish?
In European tradition, the child took the ethnicity of the father. If a Roman brought home a Gaulish wife, their children were Romans. The son of a male German and a Slav girl, joined the Germans. Genetically, Europeans are much closer than previously thought. I know there’s a poor, little known tribe from the middle east who based nationality on the mother, but that probably had to do with promiscuity of its females and uncertainty of male parentage.
Thank you, Mr. Jeelvy, for another excellent exposition on an important topic. Most who are even nominally ‘right’ are confused by the distinction between the different types of nationalism. Even those who seem to accept HBD and many other dissident right precepts confuse superficial cultural assimilation with genuine tribal nationalism. Commenters at a recent John Derbyshire post at Unz (I know) were celebrating Mr. Derbyshire as an “American.” He may or may not be many things, but he is and always will be an Englishman, albeit one holding American citizenship. This is no criticism of the man, merely an unalterable fact.
I’ve commented at multiple sites about the fallacy of ‘assimilation,’ how a mere change of clothing or eating habits denotes nothing of lasting significance in the short term. Even with host country cultural pressure, the Ellis Island European immigrants could never be fully ‘American’ through no fault of their own. Even their American-born children retained habits of nature and nurture tied to their ancestors’ European homelands. I have argued that with host pressure and intermarriage, a White European Christian can be considered an ‘American’ after 3-4 generations, i.e. after there is no family living who remembers the ‘old country’ or language, or who was raised by anyone not completely American by birth and nurture (i.e. no one with immigrant grandparents). Yes, there are exceptions, but I would argue the pattern holds. Those who move away from immigrant enclaves and intermarry may help hasten assimilation and certain patterns of thought, but one’s genetic proclivities are not so easily altered. Genuine identity change takes time, an area in which Americans historically lack perspective. This does not mean those first-generation ‘Americans’ who fought in the WWI or WWII were not patriotic, but neither were they in any sense genuinely American.
There are always exceptions, of course, but they don’t disprove the rule. My husband (half Italian by ancestry) had a 5th cousin 3x removed who was the American-born son of Italian immigrants. At age 19 circa 1900 he abandoned his family in New York and lived and died in Alaska. Yet even someone so obviously independent in spirit could not manufacture blood ties to any of the founding generations. Yes, principles matter, but so too does blood. Ideally, the combination of time and pressure – needed in nature to create a diamond – can also create a different man. I don’t believe many would argue that America’s White population, with so many dating their American ‘ancestry’ back to the 1850s-1900, is the same as the settlers. It is, as one controversial blogger termed it, an America 2.0 (there are various quibbles about the precise terminology). Either way, today’s White Americans are a mixture of nature and nurture and marriage and time, and yet still regional and generational differences remain. Human nature is a stubborn thing (typical of anything designed by God) and those who disregard this are always proven wrong.
Hi Nicholas,
Great article. Also love your description of the Socialist system in the ex-Yu. In your previous article about breakup of Yu) I am curious if you read Hazony’s The Virtue OF Nationalism (reviewed by CC a couple of years ago). If not it’s highly recommended.
Btw I served JNA in Skoplje 1984.
From the reviews, both here on C-C and on the Z blog, I can surmise that it’s not a book worth my time. Cheers on having seen Skopje, it was a nicer place in the 80s and 90s.
It is never classy to allege that your audience is full of monsters created by propaganda and other evil means after their basic national soul has been destroyed, whereas oneself is the real thing.
I am pretty sure one could say very bad things about modern Macedonians as well. I did a quick picture search and what I saw was not a very pretty sight. If they have preserved their national soul, why do they wear the same garbage clothes like everybody in the West? And I am sure that the Macedonia youth does not sing the song of their ancestors while they annoy as expats others in the West (why did they emigrate, if they have preserved their blood-and-soil-nationalism?).
But I am not here to denigrate you, since I think you are a half decent writer, but this stupid bragging was a bit much.
Yea, the Macedonian arrogance thing was laughable.
Also, this guy seems to be unaware that America was a mixture of different European ethnicities at it’s founding.
If a Bulgarian read this article, he would just say, that there are no Macedonians, but they are only a part of Bulgarian people.
And Bulgarians themselves are the mix of Slavs and Türks (not only elements of the Anatolian Osman Türks, but of the ancient Türkic tribes, which came from the Steppe behind the River Edil (“Volga” has got its name from the Bulgars, and the modern Qazan Tatars are direct succession of the Türkic Bulgars).
Bulgaria got its name from the Bulgars and its language from Slavs, but they are the same people more or less who’ve lived there for centuries – i. e. Thracians.
Is Vlado Çernozemski still respected by Macedonians, as he is still respected by Bulgarians?
A very nice Bulgarian lady told my husband, in all sincerity, that if not for the Turks, Bulgaria would have been the home of the Renaissance.
Every nation has its solipsistic boosters.
You can say a lot of bad things about modern Macedonians and I probably won’t object – I see a lot of it firsthand. Still doesn’t mean that it’s not a closed club, which is the main point. There’s no way in and the only way out is to become a globalist “citizen of the world”, which is the same thing as a gender transition – you become a nonfunctional man instead of a woman.
Being a closed club, is not the same as having a national soul. The mafia is a closed club too. I thought you were talking about a meaningful nationalism based on blood on soil and a national soul and a national culture.
We are here discussing the problems of White people. And from my observation (I am a German living in Germany, which after 1945 was turned by the victors into a dumping ground for the riffraff of the world) the people of the Balkans often are somewhat Mischlinge between Turcs and Europeans proper. The occupation of the region by Turcs for centuries clearly had an influence on the gene pool, and at the end to Antiquity there was a fertility crisis of epic proportion, so I assume some Mischlinge from the East settled in that vacuum. So it would be very wrong to think the ancestors of your people fought in a phalanx with Alexander the Great.
So for me it is an open question what role the people of the Balkans can play in a discussion of a nationalism of White people. I don’t want to be divisive. So perhaps one can avoid this discussion.
But when someone from the Balkans comes along and denies Europeans in a very al fresco discussion of history their national identity (you seem completely ignore the fact that regional identity can coexist with a national identity), this will provoke some reaction from someone who knows a thing or two about your people.
I don’t deny anyone’s national identity. I merely point out that our concept of nationalism is broken and focuses too much on language, loyalty to a state and “values”, whereas we should focus more on blood and soil.
Maybe Nationalists should finally distance the wheat from the chaff and give civi’s
a new designation. How about “Constitutionalists”, since they think that a few lines of prose on a piece of paper can bind different races and cultures together.
They are the “Trad” Constitutionalists and we are the Hereditarian Nationalists.
They wallow in stagnate creeds and we develop on the mountain of our ancestors
biological inheritance.
So-called Civic nationalism is not nationalism at.
“Suppose the German Air Force saturated”
Luftwaffe for sh*ts sake!
Look, I don’t expect from my favorite political writers to have encyclopedic knowledge of Hs-129 variants or anything like that but the “German Air Force” stuff is highschool-ditz-who-only-watches-makeup-tutorials-and-doesn’t-read-anything-more-than-product-labels level of military history ignorance.
I will be forever envious of those whose blood sings the “hymn” of the mountains, those whose eyes gaze every morning on the wooded hills. I can’t imagine the sight getting tiresome. An enjoyable and clarifying piece.
There´s nothing better that the Steppe. Limitless, borderless, forever free. With Eternal Blue Sky (Tengri) above. Forest is a prison for me. How can one live in the forest if you do not see what is behind the next tree? It is like a box.
“It may seem strange to us from this late stage, but at one point, there was no American identity to speak of. People were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Georgians, New Yorkers, and Connecticutters, but there were no Americans to speak of.”
This is patently false. Surely regional identities existed but in the case of America they referred to themselves as Americans long before the War for Independence. In a lot of letters they are called Americans by the brits and they called themselves Americans.
In the case of France there has been a linguistic homogenization but France has had fairly stable borders and identity for centuries. There was a French identity even with regional differencies.
You make some excellent points, but I derive a slightly different conclusion from them than I assume you do (please correct me if I’m wrong).
It seems that the best way to preserve the various national identities is not to fracture every one of them into their own independent state, but within the framework of empire.
To my knowledge, Louis XIV never mandated that all denizens of his empire spoke the same language or adopted the same mores, as long as they swore fealty to him as the supreme monarch, paid their taxes and provided troops when needed. This seems like a pretty good deal to me.
I do not see petty nationalism as a realistic path forward in a world that is more connected (for better or worse) and in which huge power blocs (e.g. Russia & China) are increasingly flexing their geopolitical muscle.
Yes, all great empires of the past have crumbled, but that is not an indictment on empire per se as much as it is a manifestation of the Spenglerian cycle of civilization.
The only way forward is a united Europe, preserving the national identities of all its people, under the banner of Imperium.
Europa Invicta.
I wonder how Counter Currents readers (and writers) feel about the term “European-American.” Of course, I prefer not to hyphenate, but in the context of ethnic advocacy as a stateless people (the sad reality), “European-American” strikes me as more accurate than “White”, ties us back to our roots, and puts us on a linguistic and moral level playing field with other groups playing this game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#Terminology
>Even the Danes got in on the fun when they tried to take Schleswig from Prussia in the disastrous Second Schleswig War, believing it entirely possible to “educate” the German population of Schleswig into becoming Danes.
This is completely wrong. It was Prussia and Austria that invaded an ancestrally Danish region, where a large proportion of the region still spoke Danish.
No the people in the region were mostly Germans speaking German and identifying as Germans. And the majority wanted to belong to Germany. How big the majority was is contested between historians, but your opinion is completely misleading.
Will that turn the Danes into Germans?
Well, the greatest German military commander of the 19th century, Moltke Sr. was Dane, turned into German.
So as the greatest Austrian “Feldherr” was a Frenchman, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen, who fought not only against Türks, but against his fellow Frenchmen.
The greatest Russian leaders were Peter the Great (Dutchman), Catharine the Great (German) and Stalin (Georgian).
Among the greatest Türkish generals, admirals, poets and politicians were many people from different ethnic background than Türkish, from Barbarossa to Atatürk and Nihal Atsiz. And Erdoğan is suspected, that he is Gürci, Georgian. The civic nationalism is OK for big and imperial nations, the ethnic – for smaller and more homogeneous, like Japanese.
Peter the Great, Dutchman? How come? Given his frequent forays into the German Quarter, he could be jokingly referred to as German, at best.
The real Peter was not German and not Dutch, his biological father was surely not a Russian Tsar, but a Georgian prince, the mother was Russian (of Türkic origin, as many Russians are, particularly in the nobility). But the man known as Peter the Great was not the son of that family, but a Dutchman Jaan Moesch, a double-ganger, used as figurehead by the ruling cabal, led by Prince Romodanovsky. This Dutchman simply despised and hated Russian people and called them animals.
Nice to see a shout-out to the brave, high IQ men who took a desert on the Western Slope of the Wasatch and made it bloom.
I should also add that the General who lead the war against these peaceful, industrious Huwites was Albert Sidney Johnson, who apparently believed in self-determination for Texas, but not Deseret.
My personal experience of what I think the author is writing about connects with family. When I first started travelling the world, I thought people in places like Canada, Australia, Germany and England felt amazingly like home. All that was knocked out of the running when I visited the small town in Maine where my mother was born. Being in Maine for me is like a family reunion of close cousins – because I actually am close cousins with the majority of people who live there, with common family DNA stretching back 400 years. Perhaps I might have a similar experience if I visit the towns in the Midlands and north east of England where my paternal grandparents came from. I am envious of the author’s 100% centered roots.
Some White Guy: Excellent comment. That lack of rootedness is one of the real curses of modern America. My husband is half Italian by ancestry, and after tracing his ancestors he turned out to be related (by blood or marriage or both) to everyone from his great-grandparents’ ancestral village and all their far-flung descendants. Don’t yet know enough about the Irish side but assume it’s similar.
He doesn’t know most of those people from Adam, of course, and doesn’t feel any particular kinship tie to them, but the realization was eye opening. Small European villages/communes/groups of people are heavily inter-related because you married who you or your relatives knew, albeit limited by consanguinity because of Christianity. There are good and bad things about these ties of blood and marriage, but the utter lack of them in the modern world leads to isolation and hyper-individualism, which puts Whites at a distinct disadvantage among a world of competing tribes.
The two new states, the USA and the French Republic, are the quintessential modern states.
I would rather say, they are quintessential free-masonic states, because the foundators of both republics were free-masons and the states were built relying on the principles of Masonry.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment