What Is a Nation?


“What is a nation?” Ernest Renan famously asked in 1882 and concluded that it was a group of people who had decided to live together. The definition has stuck because it encapsulates the most cherished belief of all liberals, which is that human life is essentially about individual choice. The belief has remained popular for over a century and is today seen in concepts such as the German idea of Verfassungspatriotismus (patriotism towards the constitution of one’s country) and, more importantly, in the very widespread notion of multiculturalism.
Even Renan’s definition, however, contained a fudge – a fudge which was essential to prevent his idea from descending into obvious absurdity. He said that a nation was a group of people which had done great things in the past and which wanted to do more in the future. The use of “wanted” was essential to preserve his key notion of choice, but his reference to the past made a nonsense of it. The people who have done great things in the history of the nation are not the same people (not the same individuals) who are alive now. It is therefore wrong to elide the two uses of the word “people” into one. A people cannot be defined by choice: if members of a nation find or believe that their country has a glorious past, then that past is precisely something inherited and not chosen, like one’s parents. One’s parents determine an individual in a way the individual has not chosen and cannot control.
The doctrine of multiculturalism derives directly from Renan because it affirms that people can live together in a state on the basis of simple choice. The idea is that individuals can come from all over the world and live peacefully and in harmony while preserving elements of their various different cultural backgrounds.
However, much hostility to multiculturalism is also fundamentally liberal and Renanian. As it happens, although multiculturalism has been a left-wing shibboleth for many years, it was formally abandoned in Britain in keynote speeches given by Tony Blair and one of his ministers in 2006. In the heat of the “war on terror” to which they had given energetic support, and which raised the temperature of feeling against Muslims in Britain, the Prime Minister and Ruth Kelly – who was at that stage “Minister for Communities” – said that in fact multiculturalism was now out of date. They argued that immigrants needed to conform to basic British values if they wanted to stay in the country, and they attacked multiculturalism for having undermined social and national cohesion.
Kelly said, “In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation of each other, with no common bonds between them?” (Speech, 24 August 2006). And Blair’s speech, entitled “The Duty to Integrate: Shared British Values” (delivered on 8 December 2006) concluded with a muscular and rather aggressive sentence which, only years previously, would have marked him out as extreme right: “Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here.” [My italics]
Gordon Brown has continued in this vein with his rather lumbering emphasis on Britishness and the need to promote it. He has even introduced a rather Soviet and American-sounding “Veterans’ Day” celebration to reinforce it. Yet in spite of their conservative appearances, these views remain fundamentally liberal. This is because, although they have inverted the multicultural paradigm for social cohesion, they retain the key element of choice. Immigrants are told that they must choose to conform or choose to leave, while Britons generally are told that their nation is constituted essentially by values. But has recent experience shown that, in fact, the inculcation of a single set of values cannot create cohesion in multiracial soceities?
My thoughts on these matters have been stimulated by recent photographs of a large crowd of youngsters demonstrating against the murder of their friend, Ben Kinsella, stabbed to death in the streets of London ten days ago. There has been an explosion of knife crime in London, which is itself partly the consequence of a rise in knife culture among principally black gangs, and partly of the catastrophic collapse in policing and in social cohesion generally. As in many Western societies, ordinary people in Britain no longer respect the police and the police themselves hardly invite it. In my street in London, everyone knew the local shopkeepers but no one knew the local policeman because they were never anywhere to be seen. When they tried to investigate petty crime (such as the theft of my bike, which they did only under intense pressure from me, exerted over a period of many months) they typically found that people they questioned refused even to give their name.
The photographs of the demonstration are remarkable for the fact that almost every youngster in it is white. This is a rare sight in London, especially in the East End where immigration is particularly high. It strongly suggests that decades of preaching about inter-racial tolerance have failed to make people in Britain unite across the racial divide. Now, it is obvious that a street demonstration by group of youngsters outraged and saddened by a senseless murder is not a nation. But since I absolutely rule out the possibility that this group of white people actively chose to exclude blacks from their public meeting, their unspoken choice – their instinct – to rally together reveals a good deal about the nature of human action. It reveals, in particular, that choice and forms of behaviour are, in fact, partly determined by ethnicity – very often without people being aware of it.
The Renanian attempt to carve out a sphere for the liberal ideal of free individual choice is therefore doomed to failure. Just as Joseph de Maistre said that he had never met “a man” but only Frenchmen, Englishmen and so on, so our free individual choices are in fact influenced by factors we have not chosen. These include our parents, our nationhood and our ethnic background. They form part of what we are as individuals – we are all members of various human groups – and the human condition is unthinkable without them.
A nation, in other words, is not a “community of values” or an impersonal social construct governed by certain laws. A nation – as the word suggests, derived as it is from the verb ‘to be born’ – is a family. A family can be a source of great love, indifference or even fratricidal conflict, just as a nation can experience cohesion, social exclusion or civil war. Nations can certainly welcome into their midst people who are not originally members of it, just as a family can expand to include in-laws. Both can and should show tolerance and friendship towards them. But at the end of the day, nations like families are bodies of people related to each other by blood.
This basic fact remains, whatever choices the individuals themselves may make. It does not absolutely determine human choice but it does influence it. The experience of second and third generation immigrants in Europe, whose parents or grandparents have chosen to come to a new country, and who have themselves chosen to remain in it, often shows the truth of this: in spite of their individual choice, people’s behaviour often remains ethnically based and culturally separate from that of the host nation, especially if they are of a different race.
Through left-liberalism, European nations have systematically destroyed the values which, as extended families, they once embodied. The admission into their midst of very large numbers of people who will never be part of the family aggravates what is already a serious problem of social dislocation. The attempt to reverse this trend by emphasising values may be a laudable one, but it can never succeed because the liberal paradigm on which it is based is wrong. It assumes that human societies are comparable to private companies and based on contract, when instead they are in fact comparable to families and based on the principles of blood relationship and paternity. That is a something which no amount of political sophistry can hide.

Don't .....

...waste your time Atlanticist. The particular sentence Armor wants you to "translate" is NOT part of "Saguntese".   It was originally uttered by Maple Syrup, way back earlier in this thread.  But Armor is such a poor reader that AGAIN he is wrongly putting words in other people's mouths.

In any case, Sagunto (who is a much better reader and thinker than Armor) has already "translated" that particular sentence of Maple Syrup, by answering or exposing the false claim that it contains.  

Thank you MarcFrans

I’d be glad to explain what I meant by ‘normative views’. People feel more at ease criticizing current immigration policy on ideological grounds (i.e., the threat of radical Islam) than on racial or ethnic grounds (i.e., the ‘de-Europeanization’ of European societies). The latter criticism is damned as ‘Nazi’ by many people, including some on this list.

Or so I thought. Apparently, I was wrong, at least with respect to MarcFrans who states that this is a ‘false claim’.

Thank you, MarcFrans. You’re a decent man.


I just have to laugh at the truly bizarre way some people "think".



What Is a Nation?

First and foremost, a nation in essence is the coming together of peoples of the same race including skin colour - yes skin colour followed by the establishing of a common language.

Where one distinct peoples get invaded and thus overrun by alien races and cultures, that prior nation gradually ceases to be.

What has already occurred in parts of Europe and her enclaves, and what is presently occurring in Europe, is an illicit programme of genocide of white nations both biologically and culturally as a result of Marxist philosophy and its subsequent enactment(s).

In an opposite scenario, in relation to nonwhites resident in their respective homelands being invaded, racially diluted and culturally erased by millions of whites, there would be immediate worldwide condemnation and cries of genocide and holocaust by the Marxist Liberal elite and their fellow conspirators, ie, Conservative, Zionist and Christian bodies alike.

Yet there are no such cries and condemnations to be heard anywhere throughout the public arena and general media where this is happening to white nations in their own ancestral homelands.

How come?

Furthermore, why are non-white ancestral lands still 99% homogeneous? In view of what is happening to white ancestral homelands, non-white ancestral homelands have absolutely no rights to be permitted to remain homogeneous and moncultured. They must also the subjected to biological and cultural genocide through the enforced influx and territorial trespass by every diverse multi-ethnic group on the planet as are white nations against their collective wishes and natural human rights.

Reply to Sagunto

For the record: I’m just as opposed to immigration of religious Muslims as I am to immigration of non-religious ones.

In the last Ontario election, our ‘Conservative’ party called for the creation of publicly funded Islamic schools. I felt thoroughly disgusted. I voted for the Green party, as did many long-time Conservatives. Like them, I felt disenfranchised because no party really spoke to my concerns.

I suspect many Europeans feel the same way. Like me, they cannot voice these concerns without being denounced as ‘Nazis’. So they look and look for some way to legitimize their concerns and thereby halt immigration. One way is by presenting it as an ideological threat. This is easier for Europeans because most of their immigrants are Muslim.

Is this strategy working? For the past seven years, the U.S. and Great Britain have been leading the ‘War on Terror’ and yet both countries are receiving as many Muslim immigrants as ever.

If you wish to stop Third World immigration, you have to present it as a demographic problem --- and not as an ideological one. Yes, Islam is a real problem, but it is not the only one raised by Third World immigration. It’s not even the most serious problem (There! I’ve provided another quote you can take out of context).

Third World immigration is not wrong because it leads to ideological conflict. It is wrong because it causes irreversible change to the cultural and genetic basis of our societies. This change is so massive and so fast that it has no parallels in history. Even the European colonization of North America took place at a slower rate.

This is a radical social experiment that makes Lenin look like a piker. I remember as a child asking what would happen if the Communists won the Cold War. The answer was that we would have a different flag and a lot more government control. Today, that prospect no longer seems so alarming. A stupid economic system can eventually be dismantled. In contrast, population replacement is much more permanent, as permanent as death itself.

And it is happening with a minimum of debate! If I am wrong in my opinions, at least explain to me why I am wrong. And at least consider the possibility that you may be the one who is mistaken.

Hey Vince, you actually try to talk to leftists?

Perhaps you should first try to tell them idiot leftists something new about socialism, for instance, that socialists where initially not at all in favour of the welfare State.


(source: George Watson: Take back the Past)

That'll soften them up ;-)




The Left wing idiots I talk to in America refuse to hear anything new about Islam even by accident.

Answer to Maple Syrup..

@Maple Syrup,


I'll briefly try to answer your latest.

Before doing that, just a small disagreement remains about an earlier contention of yours, i.e.: that holding Islam accountable for its violent doctrines doesn't really challenge "our" normative views.

That's just plainly untrue: for many Westerners, treating a vaguely familiar monotheistic religion as something other than a more or less private conviction, proves to be quite a challenge to their normative views, shaped as they are by/through Christendom.


Now over to the Muslims in all grades, shades and hues of activism.

The Muslims I know include both "beards" and "gangsta's" and though you might not like it, there sure is a connection between the two, and it's growing stronger by the day, thnx in part to dedicated community/social workers who cherish their multiculturalist gospel. It would literally count as their "mission statement".
You'd search after a simple "correlation" (possibly a positive one, sort of a linear association) invoking "radical" Islam (I'd prefer to call it "activist" Islam, 'cause the doctrine remains the same; the most important variation being the level of activism). You'd say that research should show that when "radical" Islam goes up, the same will happen with criminality among non-mosque going Muslim youths. And should this pattern not be established, then you'd feel yourself vindicated in your belief that: "it has nothing to do with Islam".

You don't think I would let you off the hook that easy, now did you? ;-)
So, obviously I beg to differ.
If reliable data could be collected (not from welfare-state police records that are highly unreliable) and a reasonably independent team of researchers would get funding to really establish the correlation, then my informed guess would be that even a negative correlation is a real possibility. Due to what I described in my earlier post to counter your conviction that: "Islam has nothing to do with it"

A friend of mine is a social worker. A while ago I met with a collegue of her who almost proudly said that they had deviced a new strategy to seduce riot-prone Muslim youths to more agreeable behaviour: by bringing in "the beards" as role models and figures of certain authority (the ones you also described as more pleasant). All this social engineering is of course (welfare) State sponsored.
This grave error of judgement is understandable enough, as your own favourable remarks about orthodox Muslims indicate. Now suppose that those zealous new "rolemodels" would succeed for a while, what do you think our indep. scientists would establish as the correlation between orthodox Islam and crime rates among these youths, the main clients of our social workers?


So again, it is not that - in the simple way you suggest - all of it has nothing to do with Islam, but rather that Islam wants to have a lot to do with "it" all. Social workers effectively introduce the dream of Islamists in their bid to take over authority (literally) in clearly defined Islamic neighbourhoods in European cities.
My concern of course is, knowing a thing or two about the politico-religious doctrines of orthodox Islam, that the two immense problems combined, work to the advantage and creeping advance of Islam.


Perhaps you would see slightly less crime among Muslim youths, but at what cost? A rise in a host of other matters that don't sit comfortably with Western democratic values and the rule of Law.

Oh and just one more thing about the "pleasant company" of dedicated bearded Muslims. As a Westerner, you should first try to independently get a firm grip of the doctrines of Islam, before you can even begin to understand how easy one is deceived on superficial contact. Know the doctrine, probe just a little under the surface and it won't be long before you discover a less than agreeable outlook among these gentlemen.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

@Atlantic - Translation please!

I've seen you talking with Sagunto several times so I assume you know a fair bit of Saguntese.
Could you please translate the following sentence in common, plain, standard English :

*** holding islam accountable for its violent doctrines doesn't really challenge "our" normative views. ***



When a Muslim youth commits an act of violence against a non-Muslim he is practising his religion.


Reply to Sagunto


For what it’s worth, the young European Muslims I knew were either born in Europe and had immigrant parents or had come as young children. But you’re right. There is little evidence that succeeding generations of European-born Muslims are less inclined to violent behavior, especially young men.

Why? The left says it’s because they have not been sufficiently integrated into their host societies. Vietnamese immigrants, however, are much less integrated and yet exhibit lower levels of violent crime than those of indigenous Europeans.

So again, why? The right says it’s because radical Islam is conditioning young Muslim Europeans to hate Christian Europeans. Every violent crime, every rape, is an act of Jihad. And yet, we see this same pattern of violent crime, if not more so, among non-religious Muslims.

If radical Islam were the culprit, wouldn’t there be a correlation over time between the rise of radical Islam and violent crime among young Muslim men? Does such a correlation exist?

Almost half a century ago, in 1961, Frantz Fanon published his book Les damnés de la terre (The Wretched of the Earth). One chapter is interestingly titled “From the criminal impulsivity of the North African to the war of National Liberation.” He wrote:

Before 1954, magistrates, policemen, lawyers, journalists, and coroners unanimously agreed that the Algerian’s criminality was a problem. The Algerian, so it was affirmed, is a born criminal. …

The Algerian kills frequently. It is a fact, the magistrates will tell you, that four fifths of their cases involve blows and wounds. The rate of criminality in Algeria is one of the most serious, one of the highest, in the world, they affirm. There are no petty delinquents. When an Algerian, and this applies to all North Africans, puts himself beyond the law, it is always to the maximum.

The Algerian kills savagely. … The Algerian’s savagery is especially manifest in the multiplicity of the injuries and the uselessness of some of the ones inflicted after death. The autopsies incontestably establish this: the murderer gives the impression, by the equal gravity of the wounds inflicted that he wanted to kill an incalculable number of times.

The Algerian kills for nothing. Very often magistrates and policemen can say nothing about the motives of the murder: a gesture, an allusion, an ambiguous remark, an altercation over an olive tree owned in common, an animal that ventures into an eighth of a hectare.

It is a sign of how times have changed that Fanon could have reported these facts at such great length without casting any doubt on their truthfulness. At the end of his analysis, he concludes that this criminality is a product of colonial exploitation. Eliminate colonialism and the problem will be solved.

That was almost fifty years ago. Today, the cause is identified as ‘racism’ or ‘radical Islam’. No one wants to suggest that there might be a genetic cause. That would put us in the same basket as those evil racist magistrates of colonial Algeria. What did they know?

Well, O.K. If there is no agreement on the cause, why not be prudent? Why not simply halt Third World immigration until such time as we know what the cause is. If it is proven that there are no innate differences in intelligence and behavior among human populations, we can always open the gates and proceed as before.

But if such differences do exist, our children and grandchildren will curse us for doing nothing.

Racism and Multiculturalism, ugly twins in denial..?

There's something like the odd variety of the "law of communicating vessels" at work whenever you try to discuss the role of Islam as an enduring fanatical beliefsystem, seriously at odds with Western civilization.

I have to thank @Armor and @Maple syrup, for jointly illustrating the point I made earlier, about the peculiar "connectedness" between old-fashioned racism and still just fashionable multiculturalism, whenever Islam rears its ugly head in political discussions.

Both sides seem wedded to a similar preoccupation with so-called racial essentialism, all-exclusive or all-inclusive. The strange link becomes all the more clear, when both are conspicuously eager to leave Islam out of the picture in any discussion about immigration and integration. That would only "complicate things," since Islamic doctrine is not about race, but about religion and politics directed against unbelievers and bound up in a totalitarian and sometimes explosive package some would rather leave untouched.

Racism and Multiculturalism.
Funny, but not surprising, to hear both seemingly opposed camps declare almost unisono:


".. but Islam has nothing to do with it!"


Kind regs from Amsterdam,



Reply to Sagunto

Sagunto calls me a racist, which doesn't mean anything precise. But if we define racism as racial aggression, then it is obvious that the western policy of racial-replacement should be characterized as racist, and I should be described as anti-racist.

Sagunto said: " Racism and Multiculturalism, ugly twins in denial..?"

in denial of what?

" The strange link becomes all the more clear, when both are conspicuously eager to leave Islam out of the picture in any discussion about immigration and integration."

I think nothing is clear in most of your messages. It would be easier if you clearly said that you want to stop immigration, or on the contrary, keep immigration going.

- It is true that islam has little to do with my refusal to be replaced by immigrants. But islam should be one more reason for us to refuse immigration. I resent the duplicitous behavior of the neocons who lead the "counter-jihad" propaganda on the internet, but still denounce opponents of immigration as nazis!

- It is probably true that some self-styled "multiculturalists" say that islam is not an obstacle to integration into western society, which is obviously a lie. Maybe some "multiculturalists" say that immigrants should be allowed to live in separate communities. I think having them live in separate communities is a lesser evil for the whites than authoritatively inserting a few third-worlders into every assembly of white people, as you probably would like to do.

• When you mention the 2 sorts of "racial essentialism", all-exclusive or all-inclusive, I am not sure what you mean. What is the relation between muslim immigration and "all-inclusive racial essentialism" ? Your messages are really difficult to understand.

Since you make use of fuzzy words like racism, multiculturalism, and racial essentialism, allow me to make up a new word and call you a "racial-replacist". Racial replacists are a sect of fanatical people who believe in replacing white people with non-whites. Racial replacists and counter jihadists are sometimes the same ugly coin.

@ Maple Syrup

MS said: " If it is proven that there are no innate differences in intelligence and behavior among human populations, we can always open the gates and proceed as before."

Whether it is in their genes or not, the behavior of third-world immigrants is enough to justify their expulsion. An even better justification is that most Europeans are opposed to being displaced as a result of mass-immigration. The worst thing about having imported millions of immigrants is not the destruction of our civilization and the damage to our daily lives, but the destruction of our future. Who seriously thinks we can consider third-world immigrants as our children? There is no reason a minority of people like Sagunto should dictate their choices to the majority. He won't even condescend to give his arguments in favor of people-replacement !

PS for Sagunto: when addressing you, I try to remove any "we" or "us" in my comments so you won't ask who it is I am talking about. But what I usually mean is: we, healthy-minded white people. It doesn't necessarily include you.

Ernest (but not earnest) Renan

This afternoon, I read Renan's speech "What is a nation" (the full 8 pages!). It looked to me like a comment by Sagunto: vaguely poetic, completely incoherent.

Here is an English translation.

For a good description of what is a nation, I have been told I should read Fichte. Fichte was prompted to explain the obvious about nationality after hearing the appalling nonsense spewed by the french revolution.

Renan did not advocate a policy of racial replacement when he read his "what is a nation" speech, in 1882. It was too early for that. So, there must have been another reason why he felt he had to tell so much nonsense. The reason was Alsace. Alsace had remained under french occupation for a long period until Napoleon III decided to attack Prussia in 1870. But he lost the war and Alsace was reunited with the rest of Germany.

Had Renan told that Alsace had its rightful place in Germany, I suppose his job as a french civil servant would have been at risk, just as today, a university professor making a stand against the immigration propaganda would be in deep trouble. Renan knew that Alsatians spoke German, looked like Germans, had German traditions, and were part of German history. That is why he said that race and language had nothing to do with what constitutes a nation. However, he also said that people living in a border region should be consulted when there is contestation over the border. I find it difficult to believe that in 1870, Alsatians would have chosen france over Germany. In any case, they would have chosen Germany in 1882. In 1919 too, I think Alsace would have chosen Germany had it been consulted. In 2008, with all the brainwashing, maybe they would choose france. What I know is that many Alsacians are now leaving Alsace because of mass immigration from the third-world. Crazy propaganda by the likes of Renan has made it easier to switch to the immigration propaganda of the 20th century.

Mr Renan did not only mourn the loss of Alsace to Germany. He defended the french state and the french administration against all nationalities. He was a Breton. Two years after this speech, he wrote a book called "Recollections of My Youth" where he writes things like this: "The characteristic feature of the Breton race is its idealism". If he was conscious of belonging to the Breton people, why did he feel he had to betray it? I think he was a liar and knew perfectly well that his speech about what makes a nation was hokum.

what's new ? (two)

"Whether Napoleon, Stalin, Casar, Churchill or Hitler were nationalist or imperialists is of no matter...".


Of course history matters, you idiot.


If you believed that it didn't matter, why did you feel the need to post this
















Again, kappert, explanation please.

Common Values / Common Ancestry

The end of J.Laughland's essay :

"Through left-liberalism, European nations have systematically destroyed the values which, as extended families, they once embodied. The admission into their midst of very large numbers of people who will never be part of the family aggravates what is already a serious problem of social dislocation. The attempt to reverse this trend by emphasising values may be a laudable one, but it can never succeed because the liberal paradigm on which it is based is wrong. It assumes that human societies are comparable to private companies and based on contract, when instead they are in fact comparable to families and based on the principles of blood relationship and paternity. That is a something which no amount of political sophistry can hide."

There isn't necessarily a contradiction between emphasizing values and emphasizing blood kinship. A problem occurs when we try to dissociate the two. In the past, blood kinship is what made European societies based on common values possible.
European traditional society was not the same in every country. In Sicily, I think clans and extended family links were important, and the existence of the Mafia meant that you could not trust everyone outside of your clan (I know nothing about Sicily –it may be that clans were a specialty of Scotland rather than Sicily). But in many other countries, there really was a kind of universal society where everyone was treated the same way according to common values and traditions. It didn't matter very much whether someone was a removed cousin or a complete stranger. Strangers were never completely foreign. What made society run smoothly was the racial kinship behind the common values, but people probably did not think too much about the racial kinship. It probably felt as if human relations were mainly based on common values and traditions.

Today, our governments have decided that we should attempt to recreate a universal society based on common values. But we are ordered to do it in a multiracial society. And our "common values" are now dictated to us by the leftist bureaucracy: you will like everyone as much, whether he is a fellow European or an Arab immigrant. You will accept the government policy of racial replacement, and you will like it, or shut up.

@Maple S: What Islam's got to do with it..



How nice of you to associate places you visited in Europe with "tribal" or "clan societies", in which it is only natural for youths... et cetera.
Never mind that most of them are 3rd gen "home grown" gangsta's with little connection to Somalia or other clan societies. Sadly enough there's some degree of thruth to your observations, though it doesn't translate automatically into sound analysis it seems ;-)

Among comments you contributed earlier in this thread, I happend to stumble upon the cast-iron formula of culturally sensitive islam apologism, i.e.:

 ".. but it has nothing to do with Islam".


From that vantage point (and from there only) your "clan"-comments about agressive Muslim youths actually begin to make some sense, although you should ask yourself why inner-city youths from many other "tribes" or "clans" (Hindu, Sikh) don't exactly share the same violent characteristics. Could it be that the "cultural"/tribal argument primarily serves to leave Islam conveniently out of the picture?


Still not all you say is necessarily untrue. I took a little sample from an essay by Theodore Dalrymple, "When Islam breaks down", that perhaps contains some of the points you wished to highlight. Notice that nowhere he says that "it has nothing to do with Islam". Pay special attention to the inter-generational angle for the connection to this fine religion:


"..One sign of the increasing weakness of Islam’s hold over its nominal adherents in Britain—of which militancy is itself but another sign—is the throng of young Muslim men in prison. They will soon overtake the young men of Jamaican origin in their numbers and in the extent of their criminality. By contrast, young Sikhs and Hindus are almost completely absent from prison, so racism is not the explanation for such Muslim overrepresentation.

Confounding expectations, these prisoners display no interest in Islam whatsoever; they are entirely secularized. True, they still adhere to Muslim marriage customs, but only for the obvious personal advantage of having a domestic slave at home. Many of them also dot the city with their concubines—sluttish white working-class girls or exploitable young Muslims who have fled forced marriages and do not know that their young men are married. This is not religion, but having one’s cake and eating it.

What I think these young Muslim prisoners demonstrate is that the rigidity of the traditional code by which their parents live, with its universalist pretensions and emphasis on outward conformity to them, is all or nothing; when it dissolves, it dissolves completely and leaves nothing in its place. The young Muslims then have little defense against the egotistical licentiousness they see about them and that they all too understandably take to be the summum bonum of Western life.

Observing this, of course, there are among Muslim youth a tiny minority who reject this absorption into the white lumpenproletariat and turn militant or fundamentalist. It is their perhaps natural, or at least understandable, reaction to the failure of our society to induct them into the best of Western culture, kowtowing to absurd and dishonest multiculturalist pieties.

[emphasis added]



Perhaps you'd like to maintain that all of "it" still has little or "nothing to do with Islam", and by all means do. But the problem is that Islam increasingly wants to have a lot to do with "it". Furthermore, you might want to take notice of the fact that professional social workers, progressively use your experience of the "pleasant company" of orthodox Muslims as an argument to use Islam as a tool for social engineering purposes, i.e. to pacify these criminal youths. Example of yet another way "it" already has a lot to do with Islam (and elitist hubris), thnx of course to multiculturalism and other soixante-huitard's dogmas as moral vehicles for progressive society-building, tailored to this New Age ;-)

zeroth gen

I'm replying to the first part of Sagunto's reply to MS.

Sagunto said: "How nice of you to associate places you visited in Europe with "tribal" or "clan societies", in which it is only natural for youths... et cetera."

Maple Syrup is right: immigrants tend to live in a tribal way, compared with Europeans who tend to live as separate atoms in a society that looks increasingly like a supermarket. You would expect the contrary. You would expect immigrants who arrive in the West to feel isolated. In fact, they tend to live in tight-knit communities. I think Europeans are more lonely than third-world immigrants, and European loneliness is made all the worse by third-world immigration.

" Never mind that most of them are 3rd gen "home grown" gangsta's with little connection to Somalia or other clan societies."

This is not true: I think most third-world people living in Europe were probably not born in Europe.

Please explain what is a 3rd generation person living in Europe. I think an immigrant who was born in Northern Africa and moves to Europe is zeroth generation "Europe grown". His children born in Europe are the 1st generation born in Europe, not the second one.

A Somali living in Europe has more in common with Somalis living in Somalia than with Europeans, for the simple reason that he IS Somali. I certainly have nothing in common with Somalis living in Europe. I think third-world immigrants usually remain part of a community of people from the same country. And they usually try to keep relations with their family in their home country. If the connection with their family and ethnic group is broken, they will still tend to identify with their fellow non-whites living in Europe. For example, immigrants from Cameroon will probably feel some kind of connection with immigrants from other African countries.

I wonder why you (falsely) claim that most third-world people living in Europe are 3rd generation. Does it have anything to do with your disagreement over the role of islam in the immigration problem? This 3rd generation argument is usually made to imply that it would be cruel to expel immigrants. In that case, why is it not cruel to let 1000th generation Africans move to Europe? The truth is that immigrants are here for the money and the comfort, not because they love white people or feel a connection with white society. I don't expect them to care at all that immigration is destroying white society, but I wish YOU would care. The fact that third-world people tend to be much more clannish than Europeans makes it all easier to expel them without any guilt.

Stalin # 7

@ pvdh

Sorry to say, I found your latest piece one of the worst I ever saw coming from you.  Your extreme relativism is truly amazing, probably worse than De Gucht's. There is so much 'confusion' in your piece, I will arbitrarily limit myself to two specific points.

1)  Armor and myself can NOT be "both right of course".  We have expressed very different views on the subject of 'nationalism', and we can either be (a) both wrong OR (b) one of us makes more sense than the other (i.e. has a better claim on the 'truth' about that specific subject).  It is disappointing to read what you wrote after I put serious effort in explaining my views on "nationalism" in the Blut-und-Boden exchange(s) with Kapitein Andre (another 'race' worshipper like Armor) under this same thread.

2) No, "the Germans THAT did those hideous crimes during the war" WERE different from "the AVERAGE Flemish, French or American citizen".  There were numerous Germans who did NOT commit hideous crimes during the war, and there were also many Flemish, French and Americans who DID commit hideous crimes during the war.  You take away the individual's FREE WILL to act as best as he/she can in any situation.  You have been so indoctrinated by this naive-left worldview that sees people always as 'victims' of some ideology, be it 'nationalism', religion, or whatever...that you fail to hold individuals responsible for their actions.   I am not saying that circumstances do not matter, but I am saying that individuals have to be held responsible for their own actions.  And a sensible person should easily be able to make the distinction between what was 'voluntary' and what was involuntary in any particular crime. 

I know it is an old refrain of mine, but the extreme moral relativism that afflicts much of western society today, including multiculturalists like yourself, and many ethnic nationalists like Kapitein Andre as well, leads to the destruction of the civilisation.  It is all over De Gucht's latest interview (on freedom and democracy) as well.  Individual responsibility must be recognised and upheld always.  A civilised society sees people as individuals, with rights as well as duties, and not as automatic 'victims', nor as automatic claimants of special entitlements.

Stalin #8

I must say, you are more or less right with your critic. My post was very badly written. (Didn’t had much time)
1) Where I did blame nationalism in a few historical cases, Armor contributed it to imperialism, and you said that Stalin didn’t misuse nationalism but communism. So you both were using arguments on the definition of “nationalism.” Only in that point I ment you were both right. We had to clarify the term nationalism. But it was very badly written.

2) Yes of course, I mend “The Germans were no different from the average Flemish, French or American citizens." Yet under pressure of nationalism a part of them could be easily persuaded into doing these hideous crimes. Again very badly written.

I’m certainly keen on holding individuals responsible for their actions. But I’m realistic. There is a monster in all of us. And great leaders are capable of getting it out of weak people; People that are afraid of the liberty to think for themselves. People that need nationalism or some ideology to “identify” themselves as Kappert puts it. That's why I don't like extremes, be it left or right.

3) Where can I find the De Gucht interview, you’re always talking about.

Reply to Vincep1974

I don’t doubt that Islam can mobilize young male aggressiveness to serve its goals. But the aggressiveness would still be there with or without Islam. It’s a general characteristic of clan societies where every young man has to fend off other young men, either by himself or, preferably, in alliance with others.

I have lived in Europe and have known young European Muslims (largely of Afghan or North African origin). Most of them were nominal Muslims at best. They drank heavily and chased after non-Muslim women, and one kept material from the Jehovah’s Witnesses at his home. Very few of them held steady jobs, and most engaged in hooliganism of one sort or another. They would often brag about their macho exploits: “See the blood on my coat? It’s not mine!!”

I did know a few religious Muslims. They were better behaved. Frankly, I preferred their company to that of the non-religious ones.


Neo-nationalists have nothing to prove

In 100 years there won't be Europeans in Europe.

nationalists have nothing to prove.. Multiculturalists have proved our case for us.

You'll be extinct. We (in America) will still be here (unless we're vaporized)


what's new

I hope you realize that you are talking about HISTORY, not the future, not even the present. Whether Napoleon, Stalin, Cesar, Churchill or Hitler were nationalists or imperialists, is of no matter. Rather more important is the identification each one of us puts on the line. And identity is an extreme complex issue, which involves birthplace, education and social values.

Correction(s) # 2

Let's restate this as clearly as is humanly possible:

1) Armor puts words from Marcfrans in the mouth (or pen, or keyboard) of PVDH.  When confronted with that fact, he responds by saying that "most of what he (pvdh?, marcfrans?) writes is rubbish".  Pauvre Bretagne...

2) Armor absurdly limits the term "nationalism" to people under foreign domination. When this is pointed out to him he responds with the nonargument that "words that end in -ism have elastic meanings".  As an excuse for not having to think before speaking/writing, that is a fantastical 'argument'.  Pauvre Bretagne of 'white' people.  

Stalin #6

There seems to be some animosity between armor and Marcfrans. Let’s try not to get involved.
You’re both right of course: It’s rather difficult to discuss nationalism if one tries to avoid the discussion of the definition. Perhaps I should broaden the scope a bit and discuss the “unconditional loyalty to a group”. In that way imperialism backed by the population or the gathering of the biggest part of the population around communism fall within the concept. That might seem a big step, but just read your discussion on the subject. Most of you are convinced nationalist, but you don’t seem to able to reach a conclusion what the definition of a nation should be. On the other hand my scoop is so broad that it even entangles the fan club of a football team, Or the gathering of Muslims around there faith. It is indeed a very difficult task.

Armor tries to limit his loyalty, to his credit. He is not a part of the game anymore if nationalism turns into imperialism: e.g. the suppression of other nations. I’m sure Marcfrans would do the same. (Again there is no clear separation. Did the “pieds noirs” had a nationalistic claim on their grounds in Algeria, or were they part of an imperialistic move of the French?)

fact is however that most of the people don’t make those distinctions. Fact is that Napoleon as well as Stalin (It is not the case for Hitler) Seem to be nationalistic hero’s, as the election of the most important historical figure in both countries show. Just like Ratko Mladić is a Hero to a lot of the Serbs. Considering that these figures were mass murderers, this tells something about the easiness ethical considerations are set aside in favor of unconditional loyalty. That is an undeniable fact. This loyalty thing is a powerful arm that can easily be misused. The Germans that did those hideous crimes in the war were no different from the average Flemish, French or American citizen. They were just very easily turned into monsters by using nationalistic rhetoric. It is probably this knowledge that made nationalism politically incorrect in Europe after the war. It’s the same knowledge that makes me look worrisome to his revival the last decade. I hope the neo-nationalists can proof me wrong.



It was not PVDH who said that "Let's ajust agree that there are good and bad natinalists". That was said by Marcfrans. Anybody who reads pvdh seriously (which Armor does not) on a regular basis could not possibly expect such a statement to originate from him.

It is also patently absurd to limit the term "nationalism" to "people under foreign domination".  Nationalism can just as much be applicable to people who are truly independent or 'sovereign'.

But Armor's point about Napoleon seems to have some merit.  


"It was not PVDH who said that "Let's ajust agree that there are good and bad natinalists". That was said by Marcfrans."

Then, I have to make something clear. Just because I criticized one particular statement made by Marcfrans doesn't mean I approve of the rest of what he says. Let's face it, most of what he writes is rubbish.

"It is also patently absurd to limit the term "nationalism" to "people under foreign domination". Nationalism can just as much be applicable to people who are truly independent or 'sovereign'."

In fact, words that end in 'ism' have elastic meanings. You give them whatever meaning you want to give them. It's like multiculturalism. There should be a law to forbid any discussion of multiculturalism that does not begin with a precise definition of the word.

Stalin # 5

@ pvdh


1) I think it is not wise to "love" Flanders' "ugly aspects".  But your love might well 'tolerate' some of them.  I am also uncomfortable with your belief in biology as a "science".  It sounds a lot like the recent nonsensical ponderings by the Belgian foreign minister on "freedom" and "democracy".  I am more than ever convinced that there is a disease (let's call it 'simplistic scientism') that has infected the ruling elites in Belgium. There are numerous observable cases of "lack of parental loyalty" that do not require more than "three degrees away".  And, conversely, there are many manifest cases of parental loyalty that do not require any biological link whatsoever.  I fear that both you and Karel De Gucht do not understand human "free will", and he does not understand the concept of "personal responsibility". Let's just agree that there are good and bad 'nationalists', socialists, Chinese, etc...But the distribution between good and bad is, observably, not uniform across times and specific places.

2) Any ideology can be used and misused for all sorts of purposes, including abuse of people.  In the case of Stalin, clearly communism was being used to abuse people, not nationalism.  So your specific example did not fit your claim. Today, 'antiracism' is being used in Europe to undermine liberty, etc...Also, no serious American "conservative" has abused nationalism to accuse opponents of the Iraq war of "disloyalty".  Such claims have been made, and deservedly so for 'acts' of disloyalty.  Nobody has been blamed for expressing an opinion on a particular policy, or for a particular vote in Congres or the like.  But people who explictly want their country to fail in its policy (derived at in the ways of a democratic polity) , or who take specific actions (especially abroad) in order to undermine their country's policies, are definitely disloyal.  They show that they put themselves, their interests or their party's interest before the interests of the nation.  And they should be called what they are:  small-minded, short-sighted, and disloyal to the nation.


Blut und Boden # 2

1) Indeed, "Mercs and Beemers" are clearly distinguishable by many things.  But in the minds of people the distinction goes way beyond what people can physically 'see'.  It concerns as much what people 'know' about these distinctive cars and about what they 'typically' can do, and cannot do well.  And, yes, people can be misled by 'marketers'. How else could one explain the behavior of European politicians in general concerning Middle Eastern 'cars'.

2)  Multiculturalism is certainly NOT predicated on any belief that "civic nationalism could overcome ethnic nationalism". Au contraire (as the Kapitein likes to say), multiculturalism is a form of nihilism spawned by western extreme moral-relativism.  Foolishly, it does not recognise a need for civic nationalism, and certainly does not respect ethnic nationalism.  Both of these attitutes attest to its otherwordliness or lack of sense of reality.

3) Nationality can be "associated" with many factors or "ties", including genetic ones.  But, no single factor can assure a social contract, and without the 'contract' (living in people's minds) the 'nation' cannot endure.  Also, knowledge of a particular language can be an external or observable indicator of a 'national adherence' but, indeed, it does not guarantee civic nationalism.  Fluency does not make "an Englishman more French or Greek etc...". I repeat, it is ultimately a matter of individual choices. Nationhood requires an implicit or explicit social contract.  People must consciously choose adherence to a national 'culture', or the nation will not survive.  Genes, language, religion....they are all elements that will enter the equation of human decisionmaking.

4)  True, culture is always 'in flux', and should not be static.  We certainly hope that Americans have outgrown the 'far west', the Germans nazism, and the Indians 'suttee', etc...We should know that many parts of the world have not outgrown similarly bad 'traits'.  And, true, cultures can grow closer (isn't that what European integration is about, to some extent?).  It is also true that "globalisation will ensure that advantageous cultural traits cannot be kept secret". But it is NOT true that such traits could or would necessarily be recognised as "advantageous".  In fact, in many places people are not even allowed to publicly recognise that certain traits are advantageous and others are not.  Which goes to show again the folly of contemporary 'European' attempts to curtail freedom of (political) speech. It is an example of the wrong kind of cultural 'flux' or evolution. 

stalin # 3

"Unbreakable union of freeborn republics, Great Russia was welded forever to stand. Created in struggle by will of the people, united and mighty, our Soviet land".




If Stalin had been a genuine nationalist, surely he would have fought tirelessly for the right of the Georgians to be free from the yoke of the Soviet-Empire.


Thanks to all for this article and discussion representing the best of what the excellent Brussels Journal has to offer. I think the question of nationality is best looked at through the “traditionalist conservatism” advocated by Lawrence Auster on “View from the Right,” www.amnation.com/vfr , which I think most readers of Brussels Journal would find congenial. Traditionalist conservatism does not reduce our human essence to our race, nationality, religion, culture, etc., but sees humanity as inherently consisting in these multiple dimensions. Thus affirming the reality of nationality does not require you to deny or exalt the realities of race or culture. The problem with liberalism is that it ultimately does deny the reality of these dimensions under the banner of equality. It is scarcely a good thing to treat people “equally” if that means annihilating them as they are while pretending to re-create them as nationless, race-less, religionless, genderless, and so on.

I have attached a few excerpts and citations from View from the Right I hope you will find of interest. I look forward to seeing your contributions at View from the Right.

Society consists of human beings, and race is a part of what human beings are, just as sex and family and nationality and religion are a part of what human beings are. Therefore society cannot be made race-blind, any more than it can be made sex-blind or family-blind or nationality-blind or religion-blind. The cost of trying to do so is the destruction of the legitimate liberty and cultural particularity upon which human flourishing depends.

From: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003436.html

By contrast, traditionalism acknowledges that we as human beings are not just individuals possessing rights and desires, that there are things about us that matter that do not come from ourselves. Our nature as men or women is not created by ourselves; it is a given that comes from outside ourselves and that structures our existence. From the point of view of traditionalism, such larger categories as sex, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and race (not to mention species) matter. How much they matter varies. In some cases they may not matter at all, and the issue can be determined on a pure basis of individual rights; in other cases they may matter very much, and liberal rights must take a back seat to other considerations. How much they matter in any case is something to be determined by prudence. As President Kennedy once said about brains, there is no substitute for prudence.

From: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010509.html

See also:


stalin # 2

@ pvdh

I am afraid that you have to try think this through. Two points:

1) If you are not in a position to discuss "nationalism", then you are not in a position to declare yourself a "non-nationalist" either. I think that you must have a proper understanding of "nationalism" and of "nation", before you can judge yourself to be anti or pro.  I consider myself a nationalist (as opposed to a 'globalist' or a woolly internationalist), but definitely not a misguided nationalist of the Laughland-type and even less of the Kapitein-Andre-type.  And I suspect that you are a nationalist too, given your social concerns, but that you are not aware of it, because you have been 'taught' to worship the wrong god/dogma of multiculturalism and to abhor a strawman of 'nationalism'.

2) You like to hold up Joseph Stalin as a hero of "nationalism".  But does that make sense?  It does not! Stalin certainly was not a nationalist who cared about the Russian nation.  Stalin cared about his own power, and he was a product of an explicit anti-nationalist ideology called communism(or 'international socialism', which is much the same thing), with goals of becoming a global or world system.  Stalin did unspeakable things to the Russian nation in the name of an international ideology, but in truth in pursuit of personal unlimited power.


As a non-nationalist I'm not in a position to discuss what you all understand under the term “nation”. But I can of course empirically observe what “nationalism, the commitment by heart and soul to the nation” does in this world. One thing is sure: nationalism is blind. Right now, election of the biggest hero of all times is being held in Russia. Joseph Stalin is in first position. And indeed, for Russia as “a nation”, in terms of influence, Lebensraum and power he was a big hero. Ethnical cleansing, deportation and the murder of millions and millions of opponents can hardly be taken into account then isn’t it?


stalin # 4


1) Well, I’m certainly not the kind of utopian globalist as kappert is. And I do love Flanders in all his aspects. (The ugly ones and the more beautiful ones) So if I’m entitled to a nationalism where thinking for your self is allowed, I’d probably would with some reluctance (The term has indeed a negative connotation) call myself a sort of nationalist. Nationalism has some deep psychological grounds. We do adhere to a group, and if the group wants to be able to provide a level of security and certainty there is need for some loyalty. We shouldn’t mix this up with the loyalty of a parent towards his children. This is entirely biological. Our genes are doing the trick there. But it’s scientifically shown that this effect disappears when the affiliation is more then three degrees away. Nationalism is not genetically based. Probably, it’s more the other way around. Nationalism creates in the long run genetic difference. As a proof, one can see people change from nationalism. The US is a good example, but closer to home Bretons and Alsatians becoming French also. It is however true that people that look like us (and that’s genetic) have it much easier to become accepted within the group.
2) The problem is that nationalism creates opportunities to misuse people. Of course Stalin was only interested in his own glory and power. He wasn’t even Russian, yet he used Russian nationalism in his struggle to oppress the other people in his empire. Funny enough, Hitler wasn’t German, and Napoleon wasn’t French either. (Is there some rule in it?) One can easily declare each form of criticism towards the leading person or the political ruling entity as a form of de-loyalty, the biggest crime for nationalism. That’s what the three of them did. And true enough that’s what some conservatives tried to do to the Americans that were against the war in Iraq. American democracy proved strong enough to not fall into the pitfall. The curious thing is whoever that one doesn’t need to do so much to change people into non-ethical machines in the name of nationalism. Ratko Mladić did terrible things. But in the name of nationalism a majority of serb Bosnians do see him as a hero. That’s an often returning story. A frightening fact, that makes me shiver for the word nationalism.

@ PVDH - Nationalism

PVDH said: " Let's just agree that there are good and bad 'nationalists', "

A distinction must be drawn between nationalists and imperialists. For example, Tibetan insurgents are nationalists, whereas China is imperialist.

According to my dictionary:
- imperialism = A policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
- nationalism = The aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination
(My personal definition of nationalism is: loyalty to one's country/people)

Napoleon cannot be called a nationalist. I don't think you can say he used "French nationalism" to wage war either. I think he used the dictatorial organization and the french paranoia and fascination for dictatorship. But most French people probably did not feel like invading Europe. Would you say that the Romans were nationalists? They are usually called imperialists.

re: no future for nations # 2

Indirect support of coercion, in this instance, means being prepared to share  any supposed material benefit obtained from violence committed by others to achieve your common objectives.


Please explain away this behavior:



"More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lost to the old faith."

 Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, pp. 7-8;

Reply to oncecent


I’m not a neo-Nazi or a southern segregationist. Just someone who is worried about the direction our Western societies are taking. My background is left-liberal and it is only with extreme reluctance that I have changed my thoughts on this matter. I now owe it to myself, and to others, to say so. I’m not someone who will keep going down a dead-end street because he’s too ashamed to admit he was wrong. Are you?

You say that Muslim youth behave the way they do because of “the inherent dogmas of Islam which is both a religion and a political entity.” I suspect many other people on this list share your views. It’s a seductive explanation because it doesn’t really challenge our normative views. Just get rid of Islamofascism and the problem will go away.

It won’t go away. Muslim youth are not violent because they are Muslim. Most, in fact, are superficially Muslim. Their subculture has more to do with hip-hop and heavy metal than with Islam. Nor is it true that they target only non-Muslims. They also beat up on each other. When they go after non-Muslims, it’s because they see them as an easy target. Muslim youths beat up Inuit Greenlanders in Copenhagen because they know the Inuit won’t fight back. And they beat up white Europeans because they know they won’t fight back. It’s the logic of the schoolyard bully, and it has nothing to do with Islam.

Why is bullying so much more common among young North Africans, Somalis, and Afghans? Because they come from clan societies where every young man had to fight to keep his position in society. All the time. In those societies, even minor slights, which we would consider trivial, can lead to full-scale confrontations. Endemic warfare was a way of life, and often still is. It was seen as something positive, as a way to enhance one’s social standing, to be looked up to, and to get sex.

Evolution did not stop when Homo sapiens came into being. It has shaped different populations differently, lowering anger thresholds in some and raising it in others. Getting rid of Islam will change nothing in this respect. So stop kidding yourself.

re: no future for nations

@ kappert



How do you and your ilk propose to create this Utopian society without the use of coercion (i.e. Violence)?


And if it takes coercion to achieve your goal, and it will, would you be prepared to support that coercion, either directly or indirectly?


Be sure that your answers are consistent with the answer you eventually get around to posting in response to this question I posted previously.


see: www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3379#comment-26677




no future for nations

The history is national only as history of the past, but not of the future. From now on there will no longer be more French, German, Brazilian, Chinese history... The historical concretion in the immediate referential space of the world society will no longer refer in the future to the particularities and the national contexts, but to the transnational ones. That is also applied to cultural identities, social movements and post-political conflicts, as well as to nationalistic mythologies.
The forced national community is not the only essential characteristic of the past that becomes obsolete. The spatial structure of the national particularities, the universe of the nations, was an universe of historical no-simultaneity. Considering that the modern system producer of goods had only extended gradually from Europe in the XIX and XX centuries, the diverse ages were followed immediately one after another. What was still the future for some, was for others the present or the immediate past. That unevenness of the historical time caused by itself the paradigm of the development that was presented in the capitalist categories like a recovery race of the historical retarded ones. Great Britain, Germany and other continental European countries during the XIX century went through a similar recuperating modernization; in the XX century, in front of the West, Russia, China and the ex-colonial countries of the global south confined themselves to repeat the same thing. The nation became the specific space of the historical no-simultaneity.
The right of universal and equal vote, women’s juridical equality, strike right, association freedom, meeting freedom and the autonomy in the wage negotiation were important contents of that recuperating modernization bound to the internal social relationships; was only reached, even in the most advanced western countries, during the XX century. Under the globalisation conditions, all of them have nothing else to do but to administer in a more or less repressive way the capitalist crisis.
In the philosophical aspect, a similarly anachronic expectation determines the thought of the unsatisfied ones. Because the philosophy of the so called Illuminism which foundations were settle in the XVIII century, it is still considered the impassable horizon of the ideas. They pretend that the world, also in that sense, would continue its development within the frame of the bourgeois modernity. But the paradigm of the Illuminism is equally used up by the economy of the modern system producer of goods, of which it was simply the philosophical expression. The main ideas of Illuminism, "freedom", "equality" and "self-responsibility" of the "autonomous individual" are, according to their concept, carved for the form of "abstract work", of the owners´ economy, of the totalitarian market and of the universal rivalry. The Illuminism philosophy is historically completed with that. It does not make any sense to invoke again the idealism of the bourgeois freedom, because for that kind of freedom there is not further space for emancipation.


What is the Christian aspect of the background of a MS13 barbarian?


'Nation of immigrants'

jstanley01: "Didn't the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes become a nation, not by common descent"

As if there's as great a genetic distance between those groups as there are between Englishmen and blacks or Arabs! An East Anglian's DNA is no different from a Dane's.

Vincep1974: "But nations like those in Europe are absolutely highly built upon ethnicity. This is a fight I get in with some Americans who view any acknoweldgement that ethnicity should have any basis for the political makeup or decisions of a government."

It is only relatively recent for (white) Americans to claim ethnicity doesn't matter. The Founding Fathers were clear about the common British origins of their nation and talked about preserving it for their posterity - not for the "huddled masses" so beloved of Emma Lazarus.

Americans have come down with "Ellis Island syndrome" over the past half century due to mass manipulation through media, academia, and pop culture. Previously Americans saw themselves as an "Anglo-Saxon race" - as they described it. That was made clear during the immigration debate of the 1920s. The "nation of immigrants" propaganda was pushed mostly by ethnic groups that settled in the US from the 1850s onwards. It was the predecessor of today's West-hating multiculturalism. It's apparent success in "breaking" the Anglo-American nation should concern all the authentic European nations, especially those that tend see the US as an ally.

Nations of Inbreds


"jstanley01: 'Didn't the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes become a nation, not by common descent'

"As if there's as great a genetic distance between those groups as there are between Englishmen and blacks or Arabs! An East Anglian's DNA is no different from a Dane's"

Obviously, the descent of those I mentioned was uncommon enough that they belonged to separate tribes. On account of which they spent their time, for some number of centuries, "whopping the be-jeepers out of each other," as I posted before.

By the way, was it "genetic distance" that caused the 100 Years War, the 7 Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, or World War II?

Your warning that, "Americans have come down with 'Ellis Island syndrome'," merely exposes the depth of your ignorance. The Melting Pot, which Ellis Island represents, in the real world is diametrically opposed to Multiculturalism.

The fact that the pot in the USA remains plenty hot is illustrated to me by the children of two of my friends. He is a Mexican American, she is a Mexican immigrant (originally illegally). Yet none of their four children speak Spanish. And all four are just as much Americans as anyone on my lily-white family tree.

The fact is: The notion of genetic distance being determinate of nationality not only has no basis in scientific or historical fact (the appeal to the etymology of the word "nation" in the main article being nothing short of silly). It also represents, itself, a particular brand of Multiculturalism. One that "races" that fancy themselves "dominant" like to buy into.

Not to mention recycled Eugenics. Anything to cover for the essential bankruptcy of their national cultures. A bankruptcy which is being exposed by not caused by the influx of Muslims. An influx, by the way, that's required to somewhat prop up their bankrupt welfare states economically. Because not enough of their Übermensch unt Überfrau care to have children.

So Zeig Heil! all you inbred Canuk and Eurotrash dorks.

Have fun.

-jstanley01, San Antonio, Texas

jstanley01 On the subject of


On the subject of race, are Negroes and Semites the same race?

Do 99.9% Negro populations resident in Negro ancestral homelands, regularly procreate with any other race(s) except themselves?

Are Mongoloids and Semites (specifically Arabs) the same race?

Do either of these regularly procreate with each other in their 99.9% Mongoloid and 99.5% Semites territories?

Are the tribes of say, Borneo, the same race(s) as white Caucasian Europeans?

Do such tribes regularly procreate with other races in their 99.9% homogeneous ancestral territories?

Can you furnish us with a run-down of the cultures and human achievements of the abovementioned?

Now, if I was devoid of correct knowledge regarding what is really meant by inbreeding, I would say that all of the above were according to your definition of what the word means, actually engaging in inbreeding.

Take, for instance, a country in South America such as Brazil. It is believed Brazilians are comprised of a mongrel assortment of races and not just one race in the true sense of the word.

Don't you think that over centuries, interracial procreation which has thoroughly mongrelized these once distinct peoples, that the end result is bound to be a return to your notion of what is meant by inbreeding?

Procreation within an already racially-mixed population eventually also leads to your idea of what is meant by inbreeding.

To put it another way.

A kennel full of hundreds of already mongrelized canines, over time would also result in your definition of inbreeding, would it not?


You're way off base, throwing wildly absurd comments around about the US, and like your friend maple syrup, I'm assuming another Canadian, riddled with racist garbage.

Assigning negatives to a person by race or skin color alone is repulsive.

I would've have thought that

I would've have thought that rather obvious in the context of my post!

They come from a Christian background and don't they often wear large crosses? They are not Muslim troublemakers.

It's not the Muslims...

onecent - "Racialist thinking is dead wrong and ends very badly. Let's start with the fact that Muslims, too often maladaptive in secular democracies, aren't behaving that way because of DNA or race as Islam encompasses many races. It's the inherent dogmas of Islam which is both a religion and a political entity that's the problem and threat to us."

You seem to have the strange idea that if it weren't for Muslims multiethnic societies would be just fine. That's the convenient American neocon Little Green Footballs meme.

The article refers to knife killings in London. Those are being carried out mostly by blacks - correct me if I'm wrong - and a significant number of them would be of Christian and animist backgrounds.

Black Americans are not usually Muslims either yet the same problems that Europe has with multiculturalism are present in the USA. Then there are the the MS-13 (or whatever they are called) and similar (Christian) Hispanic gangs...

@Maple syrup

It is equally as ridiculous to argue that differences in physical characteristics have absolutely no correlation with physiological ones, as it is to argue that physical characteristics determine or correlate exactly with physiological ones. Of course, at stake here is not the size of one's nose or the kinkiness of one's hair - rather one's psychological capacities.


Hardline feminists are content that the phallus is inherently male - as well as indicative of sexual violence - and therefore acknowledge the effect of hormones such as oestrogen and testosterone. However, they refuse to consider the possibility that hormonal differences between males and females impact psychology as well, and consider that gender is merely a social construct, an attitude that ignores objective scientific research. Of course, hormonal differences do not mean that women are to be maintained as sex slaves in forced marriages anymore than men are supposed to always earn more and be the breadwinners of their families.


The same is true of race. The indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, Australasia and Polyesia are mere decades or centuries behind those of Europe - as can be said of the Arabs, Turks, Persians and South Asians - their underdevelopment is in the order of millennia. Unless one were to accept the multiregional hypothesis of human origins, one is forced to admit that there were few helping hands for primordial Man and yet, to quote Bram Stoker's Dracula, "they have been losing now for 2000 years".

RE: Blut und Boden

I. Mercs and Beemers are easily distinguishable from one another visually, and not by their coloring, but by their external branding. Their branding impacts everything from the shape of the cars' bodies, headlights, grilles, tailights, logos and ornamentation. BMW's logo that highlights the Bayern coat-of-arms and Daimler's unique symbol are the key trademarks for this branding, and these trademarks - not corporate cultures - are what identifies these cars when they cruise down a street. Every marketing executive knows that a product's branding can be worth more in the drive for market share than its quality. Perhaps if we all gouged out our eyes like Oedipus and began telepathically communing with cars to discern the mood in the board room and on the assembly line, "culture" might come into play here.


II. Multiculturalism is predicated on social contractarianism and the belief that civic nationalism based on adherence to the rule of law and participation in politics can overcome ethnic nationalism and its emphasis on physical characteristics, genetic lineage and affinity, and seemingly irrelevant customs pertaining to dress, cuisine, spirituality and religion, arts, etc. Multiculturalism collides with nationality as its ethnic foundations cannot be extricated - lest all national sovereignty and boundaries be rendered arbitrary and obsolete. Given that progressivism - whether in its liberal or egalitarian forms - is linear, it follows that the right political and socio-economic systems can be divined - right for all. Culture would be an instrument to achieve this utopia, and would have an ideal breadth and substance - with anything less not sufficient to uphold this model society and anything more (e.g. religion) an encumbrance to it. Of course, progressivism makes the same assumptions as Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs & Steel...


III. It is more reasonable to associate nationality with genetic ties - and their concomitant physical manifestations - than with language. Indeed, Western anthropology did so until it became dominated by members of a certain minority ethnic group, who emphasized linguistic ties for self-evident and self-serving reasons. Europeans were once expected to be fluent in several languages in order to participate fully in European commercial activities, to and appreciate other nations' artistic and intellectual products. Nor did this fluency make an Englishman more French or Greek, or a Russian more German. Indeed, nationalism was in fact stronger than at present - and it has little to do with the proliferation of English. Religions also expand beyond nations, as Islam and Christianity both attest.


IV. Culture is always in flux and is never static. Therefore, it is improbable to believe that every nation can maintain a "distinctive culture" given that it may be permeated by other cultures, and that these foreign influences may be more conducive to development and/or advancement. Globalisation will ensure that no advantageos cultural traits can be kept secret.

Err. Uhh. Didn't the Angles,

Err. Uhh. Didn't the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes become a nation, not by common descent, but after they got tired of whopping the be-jeepers out of each other? That was sort of a social contract, eh? Until William burnt his boats. And don't get me started on Germany. Modern nation-states are about as organic as plastic fruit. All the towel-heads need is the regular application of a 2x4 upside their heads -- for say, oh, the next 200 years, or until they find Jesus, whichever comes first -- and they'll fit in with all the rest of us mongrel dogs just fine.

@MF: BluBo und Multi-Kulti, two faces of the same coin?

Kelly said, “In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation of each other, with no common bonds between them?” (Speech, 24 August 2006). And Blair’s speech, entitled “The Duty to Integrate: Shared British Values” (delivered on 8 December 2006) concluded with a muscular and rather aggressive sentence which, only years previously, would have marked him out as extreme right: “Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here.”


Mr. Laughland deduces an "attack on multiculturalism" from these political statements, but is it, really? To me it just sounds like both esteemed gentlemen would like to "row the boat [of MC'ism] without making waves".

When no longer able to deny the seriously negative consequences of multiculturalism, members of the political establishment will always maintain that they never ment it to go the way it went. But as Mr. Laughland doesn't care to mention, MC never really was simply about groups of separate peoples "deciding to live together," was it?

With its emphasis on racial or ethnical "identity" MC has always been a "well intended" elitist ideology, more akin to so-called "ethical colonialism". More or less the same mentality i.m.o. continued to inform the high-minded attempts at massive social engineering labeled "foreign aid" or "development aid", after most of the colonies were abandoned by Western powers.

So the same pattern returns, over and over. The self-styled good guys are always posing as the all-overseeing neutral benefactor, a benevolent party with the power to grant rights, or privileges actually, on behalf of the State to the celebrated "tribes" that together constitute that dreamed of and wonderfully "diverse" collection of ethnicities, sort of a well assorted stamp collection.

In short: to understand the mentality of the well-meaning ethical colonialists of the early 20th century, is to get a good feel for the closely related mentalities of the elitist self-colonizers of this new century, as well as the foreign aiders who participate in the international development industry. I agree with MF's point 5 and concluding remarks, which could be stretched just a bit further into the supposition that multiculturalism shares a nasty feature with B-und-B ideology, in sofar as both are based on "racial essentialism," the main difference being the one a dogmatically inclusive and "positive", and the other a dogmatically exclusive and "negative" variety.


Kind regs from Amsterdam,


A strawman

“If one were to compare a blue BMW with a black Mercedes, then no sensible person would say that it is the color blue that 'defines' the BMW, and the color black that defines the Mercedes. It is the different - sometimes contrasting - 'qualities' (cultures?) that define these different 'types' of cars.”

This comment strikes me as a straw man. English people feel an affinity to each other because they share a sense of common kinship, skin color being only one indication among many of this commonality. Whether this psychological bond has a cultural or genetic basis is beside the point. It is real.

You’re still creating a straw man if your comment is meant as an attack on racialist thinking. The racialist argument isn’t that differences in skin color are the be all and end all. It’s that human populations differ statistically in a wide range of mental traits: intelligence, sexual behavior, ability to defer gratification, etc.


Even if immigrants affirm their commitment to British values, nothing will change because we do not choose to be the kind of people we are. Many aspects of human behavior are inherited.

@Maple syrup

You are dead wrong. Racialist thinking is dead wrong and ends very badly. Let's start with the fact that Muslims, too often maladaptive in secular democracies, aren't behaving that way because of DNA or race as Islam encompasses many races. It's the inherent dogmas of Islam which is both a religion and a political entity that's the problem and threat to us.

You last sentence is stupid and betrays a Third Reich or pre-Civil Rights southern segregationist mentality, both removed from decent societies now. I don't have issues with Muslims because of their ethnicity or race, I do have issues because of their fascist primative religion with its political agenda which they would impose on me. Big difference.

You really need to move along and find a neo-Nazi site to your liking.

all cultures are not equal

Subjugation defines the order of the Enlightenment: subjugation of nature by human intellect, colonial control through physical and cultural domination, and economic superiority through mastery of the laws of the market.
David Goldberg


I'm really trying hard, kappert, to understand the relevance of your quote to what constitues a nation or to your subject title. You really can do beter than that. Take your time.

Blut und Boden

1) If one were to compare a blue BMW with a black  Mercedes, then no sensible person would say that it is the color blue that 'defines' the BMW, and the color black that defines the Mercedes.  It is the different - sometimes contrasting - 'qualities' (cultures?) that define these different 'types' of cars. 

2)  If human societies are not based on a "contract", either explicitly or implicitly, they simply do not survive for long.  Unless enough people in a particular geographic space are willing to pursue certain common purposes that are central to 'society', that society will not survive as a separate entity.  It is of course true that "blood relationship and paternity" - what about maternity? - typically are important factors underlying the needed social 'contract', but they are neither essential nor sufficient.  While blood relationship CAN be an indication of common purpose (or contract), many other factors - such as language and religion/nonreligion - can be just as important as indicators.  But none of them, in and of themselves can guarantee nationhood.  It is the 'social contract' that is the essential requirement, i.e. the willigness to live under common 'rules/customs'.  

3) Obviously 'multiculturalism' is at odds with nationhood, because it undermines the necessary social 'contract'.  It divides the polity into different "nations" (or cultures). But, it doesn't necessarily follow that the nation is based on blood relationship.  If the Northern and Southern Irish do not want to live together under common 'rules', then they do not have the social contract that makes a 'nation' and they cannot form 1 single sovereign country.  The same applies to Iraqi shia and sunnis, etc... There may be numerous 'blood ties', but the social contract is an essential requirement.

4) Ideally, perhaps, a nation coincides with a country or a polity, but there are many countries in the world containing several 'nations'.  The survival of a nation, either as a separate country or as part of a larger political entity, requires a minimum willingness to retain a separate identity (usually made visible through a distinct language and/or other 'customs' (religious or otherwise) and behavior patterns as part of a social contract.

5) Mr Laughland himself wrote that "Through left-liberalism, European nations have systematically destroyed the values which, as extended families, they once embodied".   Indeed, it is these "values" (in total) that define their separate culture or nationhood.  They were formed over many centuries (involving numerous 'paternities', events and sacrifice), and losing them means losing identity and nationhood.  Blood relationship cannot guarantee adherence to them (left-liberal Europeans prove that every day). Common values need to be transmitted/inculcated to the young; if they are not, then the nation will fracture and disappear into another or into many other nations. Ultimately it comes back to many individuals and the choices they make. 

The Blut-und-Boden view of nationhood is just as destructive for any society as the illusion of multiculturalism is.  They both lead to oblivion of the nation. Nationhood requires common values, i.e. a distinctive culture.

RE: "What Is a Nation?"

Laughland: A nation – as the word suggests, derived as it is from the verb ‘to be born’ – is a family. A family can be a source of great love, indifference or even fratricidal conflict, just as a nation can experience cohesion, social exclusion or civil war. Nations can certainly welcome into their midst people who are not originally members of it, just as a family can expand to include in-laws. Both can and should show tolerance and friendship towards them. But at the end of the day, nations like families are bodies of people related to each other by blood.


Excellent definition.


Renan's perspectives on the nation seem to draw upon Hobbes' concept of the social contract, and are remarkably similar to Karl Deutsch's - the latter positing that a nation is but "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours". Indeed, Rawls' A Theory of Justice also relies upon the Hobbesian social contract, a concept intended to justify conservative authoritarianism. Were Locke's idea of reason employed instead, one could argue that nations are inherently natural and the culmination of socio-political organisation.


When arguing for the primacy of the nation, one must prove that it is a superior polity than any sub-national or supra-national alternative, incl. the extremes of anarchy and the global state, respectively. In doing so, the nation comes into conflict with the individual as much as class or race, even if one's involuntary and automatic membership in a nation does not preclude loyalty or affinity to or with one's self, etc.

PC Nation

A nation(state) is a non-white collection of individuals with a common cultural and political identity. 


I argue about the concept of "nation" quite a bit , and I think the most clarifying thing to do is to consult the etyomology of the word nation.

The American Heritage Dictionary claims:

[Middle English nacioun, from Old French nation, from Latin nātiō, nātiōn-, from nātus, past participle of nāscī, to be born; see genə- in Indo-European roots.]


To be born

A Nation is a group of people who are blood-bound.

There are some exceptions when it comes to history-less countries like the US.  But nations like those in Europe are absolutely highly built upon ethnicity. This is a fight I get in with some Americans who view any acknoweldgement that ethnicity should have any basis for the political makeup or decisions of a government.

That view may be valid in the US, but I think it's absolutely ill-equipped when having any discussion about Europe.. and to me, it's a sign of belligerant ignorant sanctimoniousness when folks like some verdant colored reptile clones get on their high horse because someone has a picture of a 129 year old European politician standing in front of a cross with a groovy design