Blood or Culture - What's Worth More?

[velvet]

The way I see it, the purpose of culture is to advance and preserve the collective, biological body (Nation). Culture is the means, while racial survival is the goal.

Actually, you need ideology to preserve both, since both race and culture are rather passives which are not consciously noted. To raise awareness, it requires ideology, and this is a pretty modern thing (19th century), specially in terms of race.
If culture alone would preserve race, or create a consciousness about race, there'd never had been race-and cultural mixing. History is however full of examples where both have been silently absorbed by numbers, even though the cultures (Greek, Persian, Rome, Egypt, whatever) have left lasting impressions and influences, while the original founding race has long disappeared.

So culture apparently does not create racial awareness, nor does it provide a "natural" immune system. It's only in the 19th century that race, the awareness about race and the will to preserve race has become an ideological topic, in the frame of likewise ideological nation-states. Culture, imho, is more about providing a frame for every day life and also to preserve mythology, but it is a also a fluid concept that adapts to circumstances. So much that it gets eaten by "civilisation", so again you need ideology to counter this and preserve both culture and race, by creating a political framework (what we call "Nationalism" today) in which both can thrive.

[Bärin]

I’ll just do a collective reply to posts 184-186 because they all miss/ignore/twist the point I was making and are largely irrelevant.

I was talking about an intra-Germanic hierarchy and how this is detrimental to us as a group. We cannot have a caste system on Skadi whereby some members are considered to be more Germanic than others. How we relate to OUTSIDE groups is a different matter altogether and my post didn’t touch on that. I was more concerned with the (potentially destructive) élitism we have within our own community, that’s all.

I should also point out that a lot of posts have been removed from this thread so the context in which I denounced the ‘racial purity contests’ is now lost. Please bear that in mind. I'd better not go back over this unedifying episode, except to say that IMO all Skadites are equal and should be treated as such, even by those with a superiority complex. Either we don’t have those with 'lesser DNA' on this forum in the first place or we afford them the same respect as everyone else whilst they're here.

This is not a promotion of 'racial equality', 'ethnic mixing' or any other silliness that I've just read - it's just common manners!

The example in question and where the whole debate stemmed is however not anywhere near 75% Germanic. She is 7/8 Romanian and 1/8 German. That in my book not Germanic. There you have it.

[Theunissen]

Blood creates culture but abandoning culture destroys the blood (as can be seen in our multicultural societies). It´s a cycle, so both has to be protected but in the end it´s only the blood that matters. Culture is just a means to an end.

Culture is in the end a derivative of Blood. Both are important for success.

[Bernhard]

The way I see it, the purpose of culture is to advance and preserve the collective, biological body (Nation). Culture is the means, while racial survival is the goal. If one's race is lost, it doesn't matter what parts of one's culture may live on in other races (or live on at all). Not for a Nationalist.

With culture as a means, it has only instrumental value. Aside from the point velvet made (which I agree with), this also implies that culture ceases to have purpose once we find a different means for biological preservation/survival. If we would manage to breed our people on farms, perhaps even with robots and computers in charge, this would also be a guarantee for racial/biological survival. Culture would have no place here. To me that doesn't seem very worthwhile though. One might interpret the other element in your definition of culture as a means, namely advancement, in such a broad way that it includes cultural life. I.e. cultural life is necessary to go beyond mere survival and also advance the collective body, taking it to a higher stage of being. I would agree with that. But there is a hidden premise here, namely that a life in culture is more worthwhile than a life without culture. And if that is the case, culture ceases to be solely a means (instrumental value), but becomes valuable for its own sake: it has intrinsic value. That should be the cornerstone of any type of preservationism in my view.

[Þoreiðar]

With culture as a means, it has only instrumental value. Aside from the point velvet made (which I agree with), this also implies that culture ceases to have purpose once we find a different means for biological preservation/survival. If we would manage to breed our people on farms, perhaps even with robots and computers in charge, this would also be a guarantee for racial/biological survival. Culture would have no place here. To me that doesn't seem very worthwhile though. One might interpret the other element in your definition of culture as a means, namely advancement, in such a broad way that it includes cultural life. I.e. cultural life is necessary to go beyond mere survival and also advance the collective body, taking it to a higher stage of being. I would agree with that. But there is a hidden premise here, namely that a life in culture is more worthwhile than a life without culture. And if that is the case, culture ceases to be solely a means (instrumental value), but becomes valuable for its own sake: it has intrinsic value. That should be the cornerstone of any type of preservationism in my view.

Granted, culture does have some intrinsic value. For example, I enjoy learning about the culture of the ancient Egyptians (or what's left of it). But from an ethnocentric perspective of these ancient Egyptians themselves, does it really matter if their culture lives on through the millennia, now that their biological collective is dead and gone? I would think not. Just like the event of Norwegian folk dance and folklore being practiced and revered by Blacks, thousands of years after the Norwegian People itself has gone extinct, would be completely useless and meaningless to me. In fact, I would rather have them leave our culture be, never to see the light of day again.

As for cultural life being more valuable than a non-cultural life, I think it depends on the properties of the culture. Namely that it is conducive to maintaining and developing a collective sense of self and a healthy folk soul. Even in the case of humans being industrially farmed by robots, it is vital for these humans to have their spiritual and psychological needs met. Needs which are biologically ingrained in us. Culture can provide that, and perhaps, in a situation where humans have been so distantly removed from their own nature (as industrial human farming would entail), culture would have an even more important role in fulfilling these needs.

Actually, you need ideology to preserve both, since both race and culture are rather passives which are not consciously noted. To raise awareness, it requires ideology, and this is a pretty modern thing (19th century), specially in terms of race.
If culture alone would preserve race, or create a consciousness about race, there'd never had been race-and cultural mixing.

I think the border between ideology and culture is rather blurry. And probably, both serves to amplify and influence the other. For example, I don't believe the modern Japanese have a particularly ideological consciousness nowadays. But their culture still compels them to keep Japan Japanese. Similarly, the degradation in European culture over the last century seems to walk hand-in-hand with the European Nations' biological displacement. It is no coincidence that the people who seek to make us an extinct species have been so ardently attempting to shape our culture to fit their global-homo One-World ideology.

And take the different groups of Muslim residing in Europe. If current trends continue, not a single European country which allow them settling, will have their native biological collective intact. The different ethnicities from Islamic parts of the World, however, would very likely still be intact, and even more numerous than today, simply because they compel their women to couple up with members of their own ethno-religious in-group. Whether this practice should be deemed to be 'culture' or 'ideology', I'm not sure. Probably a bit of both.

[Matrix]

I’ll just do a collective reply to posts 184-186 because they all miss/ignore/twist the point I was making and are largely irrelevant.

I was talking about an intra-Germanic hierarchy and how this is detrimental to us as a group. We cannot have a caste system on Skadi whereby some members are considered to be more Germanic than others. How we relate to OUTSIDE groups is a different matter altogether and my post didn’t touch on that. I was more concerned with the (potentially destructive) élitism we have within our own community, that’s all.

I should also point out that a lot of posts have been removed from this thread so the context in which I denounced the ‘racial purity contests’ is now lost. Please bear that in mind. I'd better not go back over this unedifying episode, except to say that IMO all Skadites are equal and should be treated as such, even by those with a superiority complex. Either we don’t have those with 'lesser DNA' on this forum in the first place or we afford them the same respect as everyone else whilst they're here.

This is not a promotion of 'racial equality', 'ethnic mixing' or any other silliness that I've just read - it's just common manners!

Problem is, without some sort of hierarchy system, you cannot really establish who is Germanic and who isn't. If 90% and 75% have the same value, then so do 50% and 45%, it's almost half after all. Once you go under 50% though, the Germanic risks to become inconsequential. So you have to draw a line somewhere, whereby one is no longer considered Germanic as opposed to those who are. Unless, of course, you want to accept anyone with the smallest hint of Germanic blood as Germanic, in which case you'd have to accept the entire "human race". In fact, that's the favorite argument anti-racists use, only they go in reverse. It may start with a small, some would say inconsequential amount, like 1/128. To reject it would mean you'd be an "elitist" or hypocrite since it's so tiny after all and we may are all mixed anyway. Once you accept it though, it goes down and down until they reach 1/2 and beyond. A 50% Germanic person is "still Germanic", after all, and will likely be accepted by many. The problem with that is that it can be used as an argument to justify ethnic mixing. If 50% has the same value as 100%, then there is nothing that speaks against a 100% Germanic person mixing with a 100% non-Germanic person, as the result will be a 50% Germanic after all. Unless of course 100% becomes the ideal, but then it must be assigned more value.

If the previous debate concerned a real or hypothetical example of someone who is 1/8 Germanic yet considers him/herself Germanic, then the argument stands to reason even more. How can you draw a line between Germanic and non-Germanic without assigning some definition and value to the term (fully) Germanic?

Anyway, as far as I've understood, Skadi already has such a system whereby some members are considered to be more Germanic than others:

1(b). The account of Members that are judged to be, even if only partly non-Germanic, may be unappealably terminated if their contributions, either individually or in combination with the contributions of other such members, either by force of their numbers or their impact, are increasingly considered a risk to the integrity of or a burden to Skadi Forum, its Mission Statement, or its Germanic community.

[Finnish Swede]

Anyway, as far as I've understood, Skadi already has such a system whereby some members are considered to be more Germanic than others:

More Germanic? Yes. More valuable as human being? I will leave that to others. But of course we could also start to wonder is for example Atlantid (phenotype) germanic "similar" to Nordid type germanic? Is dark hair dark eyes germanic "similar" to blond hair light eyed "germanic"? Do we want to open this "Pandora box"? I would't...

[SaxonPagan]

But of course we could also start to wonder is for example Atlantid (phenotype) germanic "similar" to Nordid type germanic? Is dark hair dark eyes germanic "similar" to blond hair light eyed "germanic"? Do we want to open this "Pandora box"? I would't...

Sól has already done this in post #160, where she informed us that the National Socialists considered Nordids to be more valuable than Dinarids, Alpinids, East Baltids and others.

Asked whether she felt superior to other Skadi members, her reply was that she doesn't believe in equality.

[velvet]

I think the border between ideology and culture is rather blurry. And probably, both serves to amplify and influence the other. For example, I don't believe the modern Japanese have a particularly ideological consciousness nowadays. But their culture still compels them to keep Japan Japanese. Similarly, the degradation in European culture over the last century seems to walk hand-in-hand with the European Nations' biological displacement. It is no coincidence that the people who seek to make us an extinct species have been so ardently attempting to shape our culture to fit their global-homo One-World ideology.

Well, with ideology I meant a political-ideological system that is condensed from the culture and Volk-characteristics in order to preserve it, and in the age of nation-states, also to protect the nation-state with its biological Volk. Read: Nationalsocialism.

Japan does indeed have a racial and cultural ideology that circles only around themselves. They're not particularly happy about immigrants, not even those which could be deemed similar to them culturally and racially, that is Chinese, Vietnamese etc. While they have some, and when you ask Japanese people most think they're too many already, there are no efforts to "integrate" them or even to make them feel overly welcome, because they are not. They're quite consciously kept seperate and foreign.

And take the different groups of Muslim residing in Europe. If current trends continue, not a single European country which allow them settling, will have their native biological collective intact. The different ethnicities from Islamic parts of the World, however, would very likely still be intact, and even more numerous than today, simply because they compel their women to couple up with members of their own ethno-religious in-group. Whether this practice should be deemed to be 'culture' or 'ideology', I'm not sure. Probably a bit of both.

Their "ethno-preservation" is indeed a "passive" side-effect of their culture, which we should avoid to follow, because they often are compelled to marry their 1st, 2d or 3d grade cousins, which is considered inbreeding here and actually illegal in European countries. Do they consciously preserve their ethnos? Likely not, it's just a side-effect of an overall negative aspect of their religious-cultural ethics.

Look at Iceland. There are people who keep track of who belongs to which family, because they're such a small population. Before people get married there, they consult one of the learned elders to find out how far removed they are from each other so that it be safe to marry and reproduce without inbreeding. So the exact opposite of Muslim culture.

And well, for the immigrant problem in Europe, to get rid off them, you will have to implement an ideological-political system to physically remove them from our countries again. They will not leave voluntary the land of milk and honey.
In turn, you likewise need an ideological-political system to promote our own culture to our people again, a system that provides the space for culture to florish and thrive, with the consciousness about the detail that civilisation erodes culture and measures to counter this effect in order to preserve both and promote and further a healthy race and Volk.

Of course the seperation of the different aspects is blurry, still, imho without ideology that holds it all together, the different aspects remain different aspects that tend to disperse, instead of forming a holistic whole where those aspects reinforce and strengthen each other.

[Finnish Swede]

Japan does indeed have a racial and cultural ideology that circles only around themselves. They're not particularly happy about immigrants, not even those which could be deemed similar to them culturally and racially, that is Chinese, Vietnamese etc. While they have some, and when you ask Japanese people most think they're too many already, there are no efforts to "integrate" them or even to make them feel overly welcome, because they are not. They're quite consciously kept seperate and foreign.

Japaneses don't even trust South-Koreans. That can be seen via business. Photography is one hobby of mine. Today's mega size company Samsung (South Korean) tried once buy much smaller but old traditional Japan optic/camera company (Pentax) .... other Japanese companies ''run to help'' and eliminate that ''chance''.

On the other hand I have never heard about any developed Asian ethnic/culture/nation which would someway think that their ''responsibility'' would be to help world's weaker/poorer humans. Opposite to our leftists/globalists in Europeans.