3,055 words
A Nation is not a language
The fact that language is a secondary criterion of no importance is demonstrated by the simple observation that learning and mastering a new language does not make you a different person. In fact, almost all languages have different words for the same concepts, except for a residual percentage of exceptions which in any case are easily circumvented by resorting to loanwords. It is therefore absurd to base nationalism on idiomatic criteria. It is not languages that define the borders of Nations.
As for the practical implications of such an idea, it is necessary to mention that there are about 7,000 languages in the world. A world in which language would be the defining element for a population to become a State would mean that some 6,800 new countries would have to be created, as at present there are barely more than 200.
Moreover, the immediate geopolitical consequence would be that a few superpowers would remain intact or even increase in size (as is the case with English, Spanish, and other languages with an imperial past), while most of the rest of the world would be fragmented into an infinite number of taifas that would be so small in size and so easily controlled by larger powers that their sovereignty would be no more than a fiction.
Another implication is that any invader who wants to come to our land would only need to learn our language in order to claim citizenship — something that this destructive system we suffer under would be delighted to do.
A Nation is not a religion
Religion makes no fundamental difference in the way human beings live. It effects them more than languages, for it is something more directly related to values, but its importance is overshadowed when compared to other factors such as Race. Christian blacks are always going to murder and steal more than atheist whites, no matter how much the fifth and seventh commandments forbid it.
Likewise, atheists do not commit crimes in greater numbers than believers among members of the same race. This is not surprising, for people already knew that stealing and killing were wrong before any enlightened prophet came along to tell them so. People only comply with religious precepts that are irrelevant to them, or that they were already predisposed to comply with. In fact, when comparing believers and atheists there does not seem to be any significant difference even when it comes to things that are seen as sinful, such as divorce. The role that religion plays in affecting people’s behavior is negligible, if not non-existent. Some studies estimate that its effect is even counterproductive, probably due to the psychological bias that Jean Decety calls “moral licensing,” which holds that those who fulfill certain religious obligations, such as praying or going to church, relax their moral behavior in the conviction that, in the divine accounting, they already start with a balance in their favor that allows them to take license.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Not only do most people not take religion seriously enough for it to make a difference in their lives, but even when religion was considered to be far more important than it is now, the “holy scriptures” have always been reinterpreted at will to match the interests and preconceptions of the believers, and have always been applied in conformity with the Zeitgeist and the elites’ vision at the time. Our current situation is just one more iteration of that.
Of course, everyone always that his own particular interpretation is correct, but the same religious texts that were once used to justify the separation of the races, slavery, the stoning of sodomites, and other such things were likewise used by their detractors to justify what they were doing. Just as religions do not mold the individuals, religions do not mold the thinking of peoples; it is peoples that invent religions in accordance with their mentality and customs. In cases where the religion of one race is exported to another, what happens is that the neophyte race transforms that religion into something closer to its own mentality, regardless of the fact that the same sacred texts are used.
The domestic political implications of dividing the world into religious nations would be the categorization as second-class citizens of all those who are agnostic or less religious than required, and surely their persecution. In the international sphere, this would mean the creation of vast states, constantly engaged in wars of conquest, given that many of them would be inherently imperialistic and expansionist because they would often be based on proselytizing religions that aim at converting the whole world (such as Christianity and Islam), or on supremacist religions (such as Judaism, which prescribes that the Jews should dominate the other Nations of the world and seize their wealth).
Such wars would not only occur between States, but civil wars might also take place as a reflection of the schisms that recurrently appear in History within each religion. Millions of Europeans exterminated each other because of contradictions in “the Word of God.” A paradigmatic case is the Thirty Years’ War, in which not only did various countries wage war against each other, but the German people themselves massacred each other by the millions because of the struggles between different Christian sects. Although religion does not determine people’s values, it has been effective in making brothers fight among themselves, since sometimes schisms are nothing more than a pretext for pursuing political interests, as in the case of Henry VIII’s Anglican Reformation. Another example, but in reverse, would be the counter-schism of “Positive Christianity” that Hitler had in mind in the early years of the Third Reich whereby an independent German National Church would have been created, purged of the more Jewish elements of Christianity, and with the Protestant and Catholic sects being merged into a single body. This project was gradually abandoned, however, in favor of a return to more indigenous religious conceptions.
Finally, it is also possible for a Nation to change religion at any time. Since religion does not determine a people’s particularity, allochthonous invaders of incompatible mentality and behavior can enter a country under the pretext of having converted to its “national religion.” This is undoubtedly not a good criterion for deciding to grant citizenship to foreigners or to consider other peoples as compatriots.
The problem with any form of nationalism that claims to be based on individual values is that, in addition to excluding citizens who do not follow the norm and favoring foreign invasions, it also ignores the fact that individuals are not isolated entities, but belong to biological groups. This means that the descendants of the immediately subsequent generations are subject to a phenomenon called “regression to the mean”: even if an allochthonous individual behaves like a good citizen in all matters, the power of blood or, expressed in more academic terms, regression to the racial mean would cause his offspring to be more similar to the average individual of his race than to this particular ancestor.
A Nation is not a State
As Joaquim Bochaca used to say, “The current Nation-States have been made by cannon fire and copulations” — that is, by means of wars and dynastic liaisons. The fact that we have inherited geographical boundaries as the result of such trivial reasons as who a monarch chooses to marry, or how many of his children inherited and shared his kingdom, does not seem to be a very reasonable criterion for defining what our Nation is. This was precisely the main difference between early Italian Fascism and National Socialism. The former believed that the State preceded and determined the Nation, while the latter, on the contrary, held a racial-völkisch view of the national subject; i.e., that the Nation is genetic and the State must adapt its geographical borders to the biological borders, not the other way around. Both Fascism and National Socialism sought national unity: religious, geographical, linguistic, and so on. However, while one wanted to achieve it through the homogenization of all the elements within the State (through miscegenation and assimilation — faccetta nera, sarai romana” — thus pretending to repeat the same mistake that led to the fall of the Roman Empire), the other sought to adapt the State’s pre-existing arbitrary borders to the German people itself, uniting the territories where it was present and encouraging the immigration of Volkdeutsche from other countries while favoring the emigration of allochthonous elements elsewhere.
Since the belief that the State determines the Nation is the predominant criterion in the world today, it implies maintaining the status quo. Whoever possesses or obtains a passport from a particular country is considered a legitimate citizen of that nation.
A priori, the formula of State nationalism (civic nationalism, passport nationalism, or whatever we want to call it) might not seem problematic, since, although it does not affect those aliens who might already be within its borders, at least supposedly limits the infiltration of aliens from outside. And it was like that at one time, since, consequently, anyone who did not belong to the same State as oneself, and who therefore did not have a passport, was considered a “foreigner.” The main problem comes when our governments fall into autocidal hands, which have not only decided to give away passports to the entire Third World but have already allowed the entry of many millions of aliens to the point that we will become a minority in our countries unless we expel them. These sepoy elites have come to allow many new ways of achieving such State citizenship, such as by breaking the immigration laws, giving birth to “anchor babies,” and so on. But since granting a passport does not change the character of an “immigrant” or his offspring, it is as ludicrous as any of the other criteria already mentioned — or even more so, since it is not based on any criteria related to the preexisting population).
On the other hand, when we say that this implies “maintaining the statu quo,” this does not mean maintaining the current borders but maintaining the current globalist centripetal trend that seeks the unification of all the countries in each continent as a step towards the creation of a “World Nation.”
Logically, the characters of two highly differentiated human groups cannot be magically twinned by the mere fact of cohabiting within the arbitrary borders of the same State. On the contrary, coexistence in the same national home and under the same government tends to bring to the surface — and exacerbate — differences, provoking conflict between them in the same way that coexistence in the same house, even among those who originally had a good relationship and who seemed predisposed to respect and understand each other.
The greater the difference, the greater the division; and it is an outrage against common sense to claim that such a thing strengthens any society. Throughout the world, most civil wars arise precisely on racial or ethnic grounds, and they tend to be the most vicious of all. This is why the pseudo-pacifist mission of those globalists who support a World Nation as an alleged remedy for wars is absolutely fallacious. Who believes that putting two very different people in the same house is a way for them to automatically begin loving each other? Being part of the same State does not prevent such conflicts, but rather sparks them. And such conflicts do not always take the form of wars, but can manifest in the form of crime and delinquency, mistrust, social disorder, political instability, chaos, terrorism, and so on.
The well-being and internal peace of a State depends on an identitarian unity, and on the quality of that identity’s population. Nothing can be done about the latter in the short term, but we can do a lot about the former.
A Nation is not merely a self-determined community
Self-determination is necessarily a fundamental aspiration by which a Nation takes shape. Even so, we must be aware that, ultimately, self-determination as such is an illogical concept based on the premise that one can choose what one is. That, obviously, is nonsense. Identity is precisely that which cannot be changed, let alone decided. Although cultural Marxism and its “transgender,” transformist propaganda try to make us believe that surgically altering one’s genitals means “changing sex,” the truth is that one does not decide to be black or white, human or dog, mammal or a reptile. One does not become smarter or stronger simply by wanting it. One doesn’t become Superman by believing that one is and then jumping into the void.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here
Similarly, a people’s identity is not determined by voting. It is possible to speak about self-government and independence, regardless of the motivations that lead a group to want to obtain it, but one cannot properly speak of self-determination as such.
Self-determination is based on the feeling of belonging. This can not only be detached from reality, but it can also be manipulated to a great extent by those who control the media, to the point that it is possible to intoxicate a people and make them sick to the point of self-hatred. When one tribe controls the media consumed by another, it is easy for the former to convince the latter to act against their own interests, and even that it does not in fact exist as a distinct subject. Indeed, the “non-existence” of races is the modern version of the Emperor’s New Clothes — and has become the principal dogma in the white world. None of them exist, except for that of the exterminators themselves, who may have their own Racial State — but that is rarely acknowledged. The white race, as a result of systemic propaganda, is the only one that lacks a strong racial sentiment today, and the only one that is mostly unaware that race is the main defining factor of a people. Of course, if the white race is freed from the media yoke, it will return to normalcy.
The strongest argument in favor of “self-determination,” “self-perception,” or the need for a feeling of belonging is that it is impossible for a people to become a State except through the will of a collective subject; ergo, it is the only possible nationalism. Without a sense of belonging, there can be no Nationalist cause, and any other type of nationalism is doomed forever to failure and marginalization. This is not an argument concerning the identification of the national subject, however, but is only relevant as far as the planning and strategy involved in achieving its practical implementation is concerned. Or, to put it another way, it only indicates that we must succeed in instilling that national consciousness in the collective subject that we know actually makes up a Nation.
As far as geopolitics is concerned, States are generally not in favor of giving up any of their territory, even when they claim to be pro-democracy, for the sake of the principle of self-determination. On the other hand, the practical implications of a nationalism truly based on this criterion would be of two types, since it can be conceived as an individual concept (a foreigner claims that he has determined that he is our fellow citizen) or a collective one (by the inhabitants of a society that has already been established and conceived as a bloc, regardless of who comprises it).
Leaving aside the role of the media, as happens in all nationalisms based on presumed values, it is never possible to know if one who claims to experience such a feeling of belonging is being genuine or is simply motivated by economic factors, convenience, and so on. In any case, even if it is sincere, it does not change anything, because Identity is something alien to anything that can be voted on or any individual belief. There are amusing survey results which show that almost everyone claims to be smarter or a better driver than the average. Self-perception is therefore irrelevant.
The important thing to understand is that, since the feeling of national belonging is manipulable, it can be built from scratch, even if it does not yet exist at present. For example, several nationalisms, such as that of the Basque, did not even exist as significant social forces until well into the twentieth century. In the case of the Race, it has always existed and remains in a latent state in our very genes; it only needs to be awakened.[1]
Thus, we should not proceed from the opposite perspective: looking at one’s purported sense of belonging and “deciding” the national subject based on it. Our task is, first, to correctly identify our national subject, and then to consciously create the conditions that will make that subject become aware of itself — and then create a feeling of belonging around it.
A Nation is not social class, sex, etc.
Social class is never something fixed and immovable, and is even less so today. It is possible to change one’s social class; in fact, it happens more often than we realize. Similarly, money does not change people, but only shows what would otherwise remain latent in them, just as a politician shows more of his own personality when he has more power.
The only reason I include social class here is because of Karl Marx’s famous statement that the fatherland is an invention of the bourgeoisie and that, if it existed, the worker’s fatherland would be his social class. Logically, he never intended for this statement to have an actual political meaning, since it is obvious that class can never be a Nation. From the historical moment in which the social division of labor took place, the existence of a society in which different classes do not coexist is impossible, given the specific talents of each. A Nation composed of a single social class is as unfeasible as a single-sex Nation — something that we could also include in the list — and that some of the most unrealistic androphobes and MGTOW types will surely come to defend. But it is something that hardly requires further elaboration.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended 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.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Note
[1] The feeling of racial belonging is so naturally instilled in our genes that by the age of three months, many babies begin to prefer the faces of people of their own race to those of a different race. See here.
22 comments
This was possibly the most nihilistic and contradictory article I’ve ever read. Language and religion don’t form a nation? Of course they do. They form the firewall that facilitates ethnogenesis. Do you know how difficult it is to learn another language? Do you know how rare religious conversion actually is? You parents, grandparents and great-grandparents etc were likely of the same religion or different sects of the same religion. All of this occurred because of the insularity of language and religion.
And I don’t buy this ‘whites have the least in-group preference’ nonsense anymore. There is actual data now by Eric Kaufmann demonstrating whites have the most in-group preference precisely because it is understated, which is why nonwhites call it ‘white privilege.’
What this anti-clerical screed also conveniently leaves out is the fertility cult (‘go forth and multiply’), which indisputably benefited every race more so than atheism because religion is synergistic, transcendent and thus collectivist.
Would the Amish not be their own nation if not for their esoteric religion and language isolation, not to mention having the highest birthrates in the world?
There is actual data now by Eric Kaufmann demonstrating whites have the most in-group preference precisely because it is understated, which is why nonwhites call it ‘white privilege.
The gaslighting in this statement is impressive. Unable to openly declare any racial affiliation, Whites are reduced to fish for like-minded souls with plausibly deniable signals. This is not ‘White privilege’. ‘White privilege’ is the envy non-whites feel at not being white in a white country where they don’t belong and where Whites hold all the power. The envy is real although the White power is substantially illusory. With obvious caveats it’s like Arab privilege in Arabia, Singaporean privilege in Singapore, Indian in India, Chinese in China and of course Jewish in Palestine.
‘Gaslighting’
Nice Psychoanalysis, Chaim. I know English isn’t your first language and you think language is just a ‘social construct,’ but reread it again. I said nonwhites call it ‘whîte privilege’ because whites have such a strong in-group preference that is UNDERSTATED, meaning it is so prevalent yet none dare say it aloud. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268
I despise lazy paranoid WNs.
Oh dear, now we’re treated to your shotgun ad hominem rhetoric. Which am I: ‘Chaim’ or a ‘lazy WN’?
Non-whites call it ‘white privilege’ because they’ve been encouraged to do so and also to believe they have a right to anything more than fair treatment as well-paid servants in countries where they don’t really belong.
I hope you feel better soon.
‘We’
I can’t take you extremely online ‘activists’ seriously. You call THIS being productive.
There is nothing “nihilistic” about it, and if there is a single contradiction, I would like to know what it is.
If language and religion formed a nation, then in Africa there are many people who would be part of your “nation”.
If there is one thing that does not help ethnogenesis at all, it is precisely a universalist religion, which, therefore, seeks proselytes on all continents. And as soon as a people becomes imperialist and exports its language, it becomes a tool of miscegenation.
I speak several languages, some at a native level, and there is nothing unusual about that. Most European citizens know at least one second language. But, anyway, its difficulty has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Blacks in the USA or Gypsies in Europe have our languages as their mother tongues. That does not mean that they are part of our Nation. It is irrelevant.
Conversion was always an easy matter. It was enough for the leader, the tribal chief or the king to convert to a new religion for it to be imposed on the people. Or do you think the Roman Empire would have become Christian if it were not for the decision of the emperor? But again, hard or easy, it’s not related to the point. To speak of “insularity of language and religion” when there are many more non-Whites than Whites speaking our languages and already more non-Whites than Whites practicing our majority religion makes no sense.
If Whites didn’t have the least in-group preference, we would not be in the current situation, evidently.
The birth rate is just another example that goes against your own thesis. Birth rates depend much more on Race than on religion. Blacks and Arabs, regardless of religion, have always had much higher rates than Whites, whether Christian or Muslim. You only need to compare the rate of each country.
I really hate to use the Reddit line, but cite your sources for the birthrates. I actually have tables that I collated myself and I can tell you that nonwhites do not in fact have higher birthrates than whites in white countries. In the beginning they do as immigrant minorities, but then rapidly converge to the white majoritarian mean or even below it.
I can even cite you newer data that really puts to shame the UN alarmism of African birthrates. All continents are hurtling towards below-replacement birthrates, including Arabs. So please stop using ‘conventional wisdom.’ I’m really tired of it.
As for religion…each country has its own variant of Christianity that forms even more particularity. It just assimilated the paganism of said nation.
As for language, once again, these people do not speak the King’s English. They speak their own bastardized dialect. I can tell what race I am speaking to on the phone almost without fail. How is that possible? How are gypsies still so unassimilated after all these millennia?
If whites have the least in-group preference, then why when I look out my window do I see neighbors who look just like me and yet have never had a conversation? Why does every member of my family in every location all across this region have the same neighborly dynamics? How is it possible that white people flee in the same centrifugal direction away from diversity and then sabotage any means of public transit or HUD ferrying them into these exurbs?
I see this same argument again and again from people who claim to be white nationalists always underestimating white people. Could it be that this unspoken tactic we use is like its own coded language? ‘Good school, sketchy area, nice neighborhood etc?’
But why are we allowing them to invade our countries if we have such a strong in-group preference? Well, we don’t control our countries do we? England voted three different ways to ratify Brexit and it only made immigration worse. They did so at the risk of disuniting the United Kingdom.
We use these understated tactics because we have to. We are survivalists. They are putting restraints on us and we are wriggling out of them any way we can.
I am going to ban you if you make one more comment with this level of snideness
Snide or otherwise, I think you raise some interesting points. The White advocacy community must be open to challenging accepted facts if there is evidence to the contrary. James Dunphy has also written about the declining birthrates of blacks in European nations.
Language definitely acts as a border since most people are unable to learn multiple languages fluently, through lack of time, intelligence, or simply will! Perhaps a group sharing a language may not start out genetically distinct or homogeneous but become so partly because of the isolation created by it? Gene-culture coevolution theory suggests that would be the case.
His point might be interesting, but it is totally wrong. Birth rates are declining EVERYWHERE in the world, but that is not an obstacle to the fact that almost all dark races countries are well above replacement rate while our case is the other way around. The top 40 countries with the most children per woman are almost all Black, regardless of religion. On the contrary, at the opposite extreme are the White (and Yellow) countries, which shows that race is an extremely more important factor than religion also as far as reproduction is concerned. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate)
This issue has been studied by prominent scientists such as Philippe Rushton. Blacks simply innately follow a more “r” reproductive strategy, and Whites a much more “K” strategy.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to believe that the UN (or the CIA World Factbook, or the World Bank, or INED, for they all got similar data) are “alarmists”, as if the intention of those agencies was to alarm Whites, rather than the opposite.
And yes, languages act as frontiers… but only until they are imposed on other peoples. Since then they act as the opposite, and they favor mixing with other peoples. However, this mixing always occurs very differently in each region where the language is spoken, especially in large areas.
Languages start out being spoken by homogeneous groups, and when they are exported to other parts, heterogeneous mixtures are formed throughout the territories. The result is a complete lack of concordance between religion, language and state for any ethnicity. That is why it is not possible to be a nationalist of all these things. It is necessary to choose only one. And the most relevant is the genetic one.
You are wrong. You aren’t paying attention to secondary metrics of population dynamics.
Are African birthrates higher than ours? Yes, but IN AFRICA. The moment they leave the dark continent their fecundity rapidly assimilates and even falls below the mean TFR of white countries. An interesting case study are the tiny Caribbean islands because they are almost entirely black for centuries now, and are contracting from negative growth the past decade. So even Africans subconsciously understand carrying capacity.
You’re also leaving how how we have much longer lifespans and lower infant morality. Moreover, the data from Africa are merely estimates. Nobody has any idea or ability to actually tabulate these populations. One of the most sparsely populated areas in the world is the southern part of Africa. A lot of this ‘alarmism’ is just scaremongering to ironically encourage African migration, most of whom are middle class princelings who never worked a day in their lives and only want an even higher standard of living.
This is a Hundred Years’ Kulturkampf. We are going to lose some battles. That’s like expecting not just a perfect season, but also a perfect game every match. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand. Our own backyard is the theater of culture war. Believe it or not, low-birthrates are actually more optimal in this social conflict because remember that whites/Europeans are the lodestar, which everybody assimilates to. That means less births for every demographic, including crossbreeds.
Are we losing market share? Yes, but that’s part of the ups/downs of battle. We are in a postmodern bottleneck. That is why everything is awful. We have to just outlast them like we always do. We did it during the Bubonic Plague and we will do it through this Cultural Marxism nonsense.
As for linguistics, I give up. Your mind is made up.
None of that has anything to do with the topic of the essay, but… why would we focus on “tiny Caribbean islands” when we have the example of a fairly representative Black country like Haiti, the main entirely Black country on the Americas, except for the fact that you are cherrypicking examples to match your wishes and preconceived ideas, instead of looking for the truth?
There are numerous Black countries doubling their population every four or even three decades and less but not to worry because “one of the most sparsely populated areas in the world is the southern part of Africa” (if there is a sparsely populated part it has more to do with the fact that… well, there is a desert there, not because there is low birthrate, and Africa is three times the size of the European continent), “low-birthrates are actually more optimal in this social conflict”, there is institutional “alarmism” regarding the population explosion of non-Whites and this is how they “encourage African migration”, etc. Well, if believing that makes you happy… Sorry to tell you, but you’re in denial.
I do wish the non-White exponential birth rates were as you say and alarmist overhype but what yesterday’s deniers do know now is that criminal anti-social implosion is occuring in more places than not, in their backyard, is grossly brazen and emboldened by hostile sycophancy in places of power. Most of the protests here against the shacking up invaders in kids’ school gyms and proposed for private homes by this disgrace of a mayor is coming from Hispanics, Africans, Asians and the occasional republican. The White flighting away to safer pastures is defensio ad infinitum and not wanting BART’s refuse in Presidio Heights or Sea Cliff is hardly a support for White reconquista of blighted territories fallen to bipoc hordes. The lack of in-group preference I believe Asier refers to is Whites not taking their own side and believing so is unforgivably immoral. The snarky coastal ones depend on and are in luv with only the stuff, comfort, and security that Whites provide for them, whom they spit on and tear down at every opportunity by the most petulant grandstand squawking and phony displays towards out-groups who despise them even more than urbanite democrat “colorblind” Whites do their own racial brethren.
Language and religion don’t form a nation?
Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not.
Washington, Franklin, Adams and other Fathers Founders were English, spoke English and were Anglicans, just like the English and Anglicans in London.
Germans and Austrians speak the same language, yes with some differences, but there are differences between Bavarian German and Prussian German too. Moreover, the Dutch is originally just a dialect of the German language. Anyway Austrians and Netherlanders are not Germans.
The whole South America speak Spanish (and Brazilians speak the Portuguese), but South Americans are neither Spaniards, nor Portugueses.
Many Ukrainians speak Russian and now they in the Ukrainian Army are fighting against Russian invasion.
The Irish, both in 1921 and later in IRA and (P)IRA, spoke and speak English. And fought againt the British rule.
There are many similiar examples, which prove that the language is important, but not the most important for a nation.
You are referring to the fact that language, and other cultural features, are important in creating national consciousness, which is not the same as determining what a Nation is. However, as in the case of gender, Nationhood can only be biological, it cannot be decided. Identity is never something that can be decided (which is what I discuss in the section “A Nation is not merely a self-determined community”). For example, the Ottomans used to take White children and educate them in their culture and train them to die for the sultan, but that does not mean that those janissaries were part of the same Nation. The media of this civic nationalist system are also capable of artificially creating a “national consciousness” that makes individuals of different races believe that they are part of the same Nation, when the reality is that the only thing they are part of is the same State, to everyone’s misfortune.
Scientifically, a pair of identical twins are the same person in duplicate. Each may be brought up in a different family, in different languages, religions and cultures, but their character remains more similar to each other than to relatives or non-identical siblings. The same is true of races. Invasions and empires can impose foreign cultures on them, even various cultures on their internal subgroups, but they maintain the same racial character, statistically measurable in the most relevant sociological metrics.
Excellent article (and one which makes me consider to donate to CC).
But the sharp distinction you make, especially in the companion article https://counter-currents.com/2023/05/identity-vs-culture/
cannot be maintained, since identity is race and “race is culture, gone to seed” (Steele) – at least to a certain degree.
Yes you can change aspects of your culture and over generations, even your DNA can change. But don’t underestimate the effect of culture on your genes.
It is a tremendous honor that you would consider donating to Counter-Currents for something I have written. Have no doubt that this site is absolutely a world reference guide for our movement and fully deserves our support by any means.
As to whether I might be underestimating the effect of culture, what I was defending is that culture is the external manifestation of a mindset determined by genes within some margins. Fortunately, the effect of the one and the other on personality has been calculated in percentage terms thanks to studies of identical twins (i.e., those who share the same DNA) separated at birth, compared to twins raised together. The same thing happens with respect to cultural groups, as the aggregates of individuals that they are.
“culture is the external manifestation of a mindset determined by genes”
Correct, but this mindset doesn’t build in empty space.
What you seem to neglect is the feedback: Over centuries culture enters the selection process – people preferably select partners having the same culture – and thus enters the genes.
From here, the debate is synonymous with the ubiquitously familiar not-quite Zen ko-an: which is first, chicken or the egg? As is natural for ko-ans, the best you can hope for is to throw some wild “lateral thinking” answer out there which creates a tragi-miracally brief spark of enlightenment. For the benefit of such a precious moment, I offer my honest attempt:
The chicken was inside the egg all along…!
Well, you have formulated a perfectly valid analogy. It may be that for over-theorizing philosophers this seems like an unsolvable problem, but from a scientific point of view the solution is very clear.
The answer is the same in this analogy as in the Identity-culture dichotomy: the genes come first. The egg comes before the chicken for the simple reason that the egg already contains all the genetic code of the future chicken, whereas the egg can only come from a different ancestor being.
“Beauty and the Barbarous: From Glorious Gold to Anatoly’s Anglo” June 6, 2023 article at Occidental Observer, comment section has links to: “Why is Sweden multicultural?” is a full length documentary that highlights the transition from a homogenous Sweden to a multicultural one. https://odysee.com/@QuantumRhino:9/Why-is-Sweden-multicultural–(2021):4
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/
Headline to read: “How England Went Back To Being a Homogeneous Nation”.
If the Spaniards took their homeland back, so can the English. Unless, of course, they’re not the men the Spaniards were.
“How Spain Went Back To Being a Homogeneous Nation.” Unless, of course, they’re not the men their ancestors were.
“How America Went Back To Being a Homogeneous European Homeland.” If the Spaniards took their homeland back, so can we. Unless, of course, we’re not the men the Spaniards were.
XIV VERBA
“coexistence in the same national home and under the same government tends to bring to the surface — and exacerbate — differences”
Before desegregation in America, blacks and whites had virtually the same first names. Just look at the old sports players born before it. They had names like John and James. After desegregation we see Jamal, Jaquan, etc.
Also, language, religion, state, class, etc. are not sufficient to create a nation or ethnicity, but they help. Knowing Spanish for example may help someone who has majority African ancestry to immigrate to Spain and intermarry with locals, but if he doesn’t know Spanish, he may be less likely to do so. Preventing racial aliens from knowing your language sort of discourages them from wanting to immigrate and integrate.
Having a state may help organize the ethnic group against invaders. if it is an ethno State then it seems to best help the ethnic group defend itself from being stuck in the same government, employment market, etc as racial aliens.
Regarding the correlation between religion and crime, most studies show there is either none or a negative one. One can imagine fewer crimes happening in a church service than at various other kinds of human gatherings.
Religion may inspire virtue in up to two future generations. Virtue is essential for cooperating within a group against another group. It gets people to put aside short-term impulses and selfishness and work toward the long-term survival of the group. While you are correct that this often leads to wars between races, it can also lead to solidarity amongst racial kinsmen against racially alien invaders such as what we saw at the Battle of Lepanto. Religions from races that are similarly technologically advanced such as that of Christian Europe and the Muslim Ottoman Empire lead to racial rivalry, but if one religion is much more developed than the other such as Christianity was over the Shamanism of amerindians, it may actually lead to conversion of and miscegenation with the inferior group.
I have more to say on religion, but it’s for another post.
“the same mistake that led to the fall of the Roman Empire”
the same mistake that led to the fall of the Roman Empire”
The following article covers a DNA study of ancient Rome and shows it was Italian before the Empire mixed with Middle East and other Mediterranean people’s during the Roman Empire and reverted back to it being Italian after the empire. I saw another study that indicated that most of the slaves were from Syria.
https://www.science.org/content/article/many-imperial-romans-had-roots-middle-east-genetic-history-shows
The historian Gibbon viewed Syrians as decadent, becoming obsessed with fashion, entertainment, etc much as we’ve become in the West. The Gibbon quote about Antioch seems like it could be written of modern America.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.