PDA

View Full Version : Question for Loki and Other Nordic/Nordish Preservationists



Prodigal Son
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 10:12 PM
This is a question for Loki and others on this board who are self-described 'Nordic-preservationists.' I do not mean to belittle your conviction or trivialize your ideology, but I would like you to answer a question that to me seems irreoncilable with most tenents of any volkish ideology. The question is - what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity? Since most White Americans have no real ethnic identity to speak of, the question is moot when regarding their loyalties; however, since Loki is a Boer, I will use the Boers as an example. There is no question that the vast majority of Boers would fit perefectly within a Northwest European sub-racial mould, but most are not Nordic, and a sizeable minority exhibit phenotypes that are more typical of Central Europe and would not even be termed 'Nordish'. For instance, do you see yourself as closer to a Nordic Finn or an Alpine Boer? A Nordic Portuguese or a Mediterranean-looking Boer? (both are rare, but by no mean nonexistent). Again, no offense intended, simply curious.

Regards.

Loki
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 10:28 PM
This is a question for Loki and others on this board who are self-described 'Nordic-preservationists.' I do not mean to belittle your conviction or trivialize your ideology, but I would like you to answer a question that to me seems irreoncilable with most tenents of any volkish ideology. The question is - what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity? Since most White Americans have no real ethnic identity to speak of, the question is moot when regarding their loyalties; however, since Loki is a Boer, I will use the Boers as an example. There is no question that the vast majority of Boers would fit perefectly within a Northwest European sub-racial mould, but most are not Nordic, and a sizeable minority exhibit phenotypes that are more typical of Central Europe and would not even be termed 'Nordish'. For instance, do you see yourself as closer to a Nordic Finn or an Alpine Boer? A Nordic Portuguese or a Mediterranean-looking Boer? (both are rare, but by no mean nonexistent). Again, no offense intended, simply curious.

Regards.

Hello Henry,

Good few questions. Let me try to answer...

1. what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity?

For myself, it would be the former. But I can only speak for myself, and not for others.

2. For instance, do you see yourself as closer to a Nordic Finn or an Alpine Boer?

The former.

3. A Nordic Portuguese or a Mediterranean-looking Boer?

Again, the former (hypothetically speaking)


The thing is, "Boer" ethnicity is much more superficial than race, or even subrace. This ethnicity is but 300 years old. Further than that, I gladly accept a greater form of ethnicity, such as the Low Countries Germanics. The Boer people are mostly derived (more than 80% slice) from the Low Country peoples, whether it be Netherlands or Lower Saxony.

But even further than this, I feel at ease within the concept of a greater Germanic ethnicity - taking into consideration all people speaking Germanic languages (this is not necessarily all racially Germanic). Even further (but perhaps closer in a sense) I would embrace the Nordish concept, as worded by Richard McCulloch.

I personally find more delight in feeling a kinship with race than ethnicity. The latter is more superficial than the former, and subject to political changes.

Kind regards

Loki

Vojvoda
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 02:06 AM
This is a question for Loki and others on this board who are self-described 'Nordic-preservationists.' I do not mean to belittle your conviction or trivialize your ideology, but I would like you to answer a question that to me seems irreoncilable with most tenents of any volkish ideology. The question is - what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity?Wel, I am not a "Halstatt Nordid" nor am I from Northern Europe so therefore I am not a nordic preservationist.My ethnic identity is more important to me.There were many different "sub-racial type" Serbs that have died and fought for their fatherland and that's all that matters.

Anyway, I like your avatar :)

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 09:00 AM
I'm with providenje on this one. Perhaps it's because like him I'm not Hallstadt Nordid, but for me my ethnic group is more important. I do feel an affinity with my own sub-racial type, but no-where near as close as my ethnic kin.A Med or Alpine or Nord Irish or Scot has more in common with me than the same kind from Scandinavia, central, eastern or southern Europe. And even though they may not be a similar phenotype, they are probably genetically more similar.

The avatar is nice, I agree :)

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 09:28 AM
I'm with providenje on this one. Perhaps it's because like him I'm not Hallstadt Nordid, but for me my ethnic group is more important. I do feel an affinity with my own sub-racial type, but no-where near as close as my ethnic kin.A Med or Alpine or Nord Irish or Scot has more in common with me than the same kind from Scandinavia, central, eastern or southern Europe. And even though they may not be a similar phenotype, they are probably genetically more similar.

The avatar is nice, I agree :)

It is easier for an Irish person to feel a close affinity with his ethnic group, and because of several reasons:

1) The Irish are one of the most homogenous ethnicities in Europe -- so ethnicity almost equals race.

2) The Irish ethnicity is very ancient, and has deep roots -- not like the Boer one which is merely 300 years old (not even).

I am also not "Hallstatt Nordic" (who is?), but I do fall within the broader Nordish category, and look northern European (at least everyone who meets me thinks this).

Milesian
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 11:09 AM
Yes, that's very true Loki.
I suppose what ethnic group you belong to influences your answer to that question. If I was a Boer then I would likely have given the same answer that you did. Perhaps those who live in an ethnic group that is colonial in it's origin or at least not native to where they reside, feel more attached to their race and sub-race as it points to back home where they feel they most belong in a sense.
Did that make any sense?

Loki
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 11:41 AM
Perhaps those who live in an ethnic group that is colonial in it's origin or at least not native to where they reside, feel more attached to their race and sub-race as it points to back home where they feel they most belong in a sense.
Did that make any sense?

Absolutely. And this is probably one of the reasons why racialism is more important in America than in Europe.

Evolved
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 09:19 AM
People who are ethnically mixed are more inclined to prefer their subrace, people who are subracially mixed are more inclined to prefer their ethnicity. Not in every case, but generally among "white nationalists" (for lack of a better word). But I'm not implying anyone is mixed. ;)

Loki
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 09:36 AM
People who are ethnically mixed are more inclined to prefer their subrace, people who are subracially mixed are more inclined to prefer their ethnicity.

I agree and have observed this trend. I think in most cases, this is what happens, with few exceptions. I mean, people generally support that cause to which they can best identify with in all honesty.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 05:26 AM
People who are ethnically mixed are more inclined to prefer their subrace, people who are subracially mixed are more inclined to prefer their ethnicity. Not in every case, but generally among "white nationalists" (for lack of a better word). But I'm not implying anyone is mixed. ;)

Good point! I've never had problems with my looks, especially with the opposite sex;), although I have been "criticized" because of my nationality, comes in one ear and goes out the other:)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, October 19th, 2003, 04:51 AM
Coon says that northern Europeans who are, for instance, predominately UP, can have children of other racial northern sub-types. So, parents and children can be of different racial sub-types in the old classic terms Coon. This should be of significance to us all because it really means that all northern types are closely related. I am not Hallstatt Nordic but my daughter is. My son looks like Coon's description of the Anglo-Saxon type. My other daughter looks neo-Danubian. My wife is UP, her father was a six foot, sandy-red-haired blue-eyed, ruddy-skinned Irish Catholic with a powerful body. All northern European people have unique and special value. We should do everything we can to preserve them all.

I find all the idenity issues raised above to be logical and valid but we should be thinking inclusively rather than exclusively when it comes to northern Europeans.

Allenson
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 08:51 PM
This is a question for Loki and others on this board who are self-described 'Nordic-preservationists.' I do not mean to belittle your conviction or trivialize your ideology, but I would like you to answer a question that to me seems irreoncilable with most tenents of any volkish ideology. The question is - what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity? Since most White Americans have no real ethnic identity to speak of, the question is moot when regarding their loyalties; however, since Loki is a Boer, I will use the Boers as an example. There is no question that the vast majority of Boers would fit perefectly within a Northwest European sub-racial mould, but most are not Nordic, and a sizeable minority exhibit phenotypes that are more typical of Central Europe and would not even be termed 'Nordish'. For instance, do you see yourself as closer to a Nordic Finn or an Alpine Boer? A Nordic Portuguese or a Mediterranean-looking Boer? (both are rare, but by no mean nonexistent). Again, no offense intended, simply curious.

Regards.

I'm a little late on this thread (I don't know how I missed it) but I can offer a couple of cents worth from an American perspective.

You're somewhat right in that Americans of whatever race or sub-race, don't really have an ethnicity. I like to say about my own family, that we've been here so long that we've forgotten exactly from where we come. Also, we are from several national origins...again, taking away from any sense of ethnicity. The closest thing we have to an ethnicity is more of a regional affiliation and loyalty; we are New Englanders. I certainly advocate the organic preservation of rural New England in the cultural sense as well as the sub-racial one. I find it difficult to untangle the two as they are inextricably linked. While there is no one sub-racial type that is solely associated with being a New Englander, there are dominant types amongst the old-stock folk which reveal their NW European origins: Brunns, Anglo-Saxons, Kelts, Borrebys and the New World selected type I call the "Nordi-Brunn". I wish to see the preservation of both the New England culture (or neo-ethnicity if you will) and our local breeding population which carries the seeds of many types originating in NW Europe.

21wqre2
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 09:23 PM
1. what is more important to you: your sub-racial identity or your ethnic identity?

For myself, it would be the former. But I can only speak for myself, and not for others.


Does this mean you think genetic preservation is more important than cultural heritage?

Loki
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 09:34 PM
Does this mean you think genetic preservation is more important than cultural heritage?

Yes. Absolutely. But cultural heritage preservation comes a close second.

21wqre2
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 09:52 PM
Would there be exceptions? For example:

If you had the choice between a female of the same genetic heritage but of a different (european) culture and a woman of the same culture but of a different european genetic heritage, which would you choose?
You can elabourate on what you accept in both culture and genetics, obviosuly you don't have to answer this question or say neither in the scenario.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 09:54 PM
You're somewhat right in that Americans of whatever race or sub-race, don't really have an ethnicity. I like to say about my own family, that we've been here so long that we've forgotten exactly from where we come.


I think that is more common in the US than Canada. I know what parts of France my ancestors came, Limousin, Brittany, Normandy. And where my Scottish ancestors came: Johnstone, Stirling. Most Canadians either came from the UK or France.

Loki
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 09:54 PM
Would there be exceptions? For example:

If you had the choice between a female of the same genetic heritage but of a different (european) culture and a woman of the same culture but of a different european genetic heritage, which would you choose?

I would probably choose the one who is genetically the same, if procreation is intended. If only for socialising, then perhaps the other one rather.