Very nicely put. Going back further in history, there is the thesis that the Anglos are descended from a self-selected substrata of the wider German population - marauding young men whose spirit of adventure carried them over the sea to plunder and conquer the British Isles.
This explains differences between Anglos and Germans, and also the origins of the common law system, as these warbands were bonded by contractual loyalty to a chief and to one another, rather than being bound to blood and soil or a specific tribal lord. From here we get to modern British and American jurisprudence, the mercenary spirit of mercantile capitalism and even the modern liberal refusal to ever get into pure ethnic politics. That's certainly how a lot of 20th century German thinkers saw the Anglos.
"...rather than being bound to blood and soil..." My thinking on these subjects was recently turned upside down by reading "Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings". Our past is not what I thought it was. More blood and a lot less soil. The ground underneath our ancestors' feet changed a lot more than I imagined.
I rather like this article, and its help me put together some thoughts I had on the matter of blood and soil. I’ve always found the “white nationalism” debates in American circles cringe on the Right because it puts blood and soil first in a country where blood and soil are incredibly mixed. Whose blood and whose soil? To whom does my home state Missouri belong to? Does it belong to the Indians, who lost it by Right of Conquest to the French? Does it belong to the Spanish and the Mexicans because they bought it off the French? Does Missouri belong to the English, who mass migrated the Spanish and French cultures present into oblivion? What good is blood and soil nationalism when America has never properly completed an ethnogenisis, as is commonly believed by many in our sphere?
I love the idea that America has an operating system. It's true. Maybe there is no system that does not have an operating system. There are no blank slates. Maybe things don't begin, they only change.
There is much talk of "deracinated" Americans, but as someone who was deracinated generations before my birth I have trouble understanding how to rally behind an ethnic identity that I have no real organic connections to. It seems obvious that we can identify "our guys" even bearing no organic connections to them for this exact reason.
'English Maritime Liberalism thus required no dogmatic blood quantum, and could suffer plenty of elasticity and opacity without any serious danger to itself.'
This sure sounds like assimilation is the solution you're proposing. And that's just one of a number of similar statements leading to a presumption of assimilation as the solution. And we know assimilation has failed for non-Whites.
The failure of non white “assimilation” is exactly the point. Those who can become American do so, those who cannot make it immediately obvious. You don’t need some complex equation, you just need the eyes to see. Prior to the last half century we all knew what an American was, and what it was not. Even now when you get beyond some vague liberal platitudes people in this country will be happy to tell you how not American they are.
No, 'America' as a problem started long before a half-century ago.
'America' as problem was at least part of the reason for the War of Northern Aggression.
'America' was an illusion from the start. It was a way of trying to keep various Old World Whites from each other's throats, a light-house signaling how various Old World Whites might occupy the same continent without the endless sectarian and 'national' wars of the Old World.
And, as you point out, that idea of 'America' worked pretty well as the target for 'assimilationism'.
Still, Whites hung on to their 'ethnicity' pretty well in many places...until the philosophy of 'assimilation' started to include Negros and masses of Southern Hemisphere non-Whites.
Then, the only way for non-White assimilation to work was for Whites to assimilate to non-Whiteness, in other words, to cease to exist.
Which has, for all practical purposes, actually occurred.
As a consequence, I think that 'assimilation' is not a policy that Whites should put any faith in, not any longer.
Which is why, I think Whites are increasingly embracing various form of particularism and separatism.
Very nicely put. Going back further in history, there is the thesis that the Anglos are descended from a self-selected substrata of the wider German population - marauding young men whose spirit of adventure carried them over the sea to plunder and conquer the British Isles.
This explains differences between Anglos and Germans, and also the origins of the common law system, as these warbands were bonded by contractual loyalty to a chief and to one another, rather than being bound to blood and soil or a specific tribal lord. From here we get to modern British and American jurisprudence, the mercenary spirit of mercantile capitalism and even the modern liberal refusal to ever get into pure ethnic politics. That's certainly how a lot of 20th century German thinkers saw the Anglos.
"...rather than being bound to blood and soil..." My thinking on these subjects was recently turned upside down by reading "Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings". Our past is not what I thought it was. More blood and a lot less soil. The ground underneath our ancestors' feet changed a lot more than I imagined.
I rather like this article, and its help me put together some thoughts I had on the matter of blood and soil. I’ve always found the “white nationalism” debates in American circles cringe on the Right because it puts blood and soil first in a country where blood and soil are incredibly mixed. Whose blood and whose soil? To whom does my home state Missouri belong to? Does it belong to the Indians, who lost it by Right of Conquest to the French? Does it belong to the Spanish and the Mexicans because they bought it off the French? Does Missouri belong to the English, who mass migrated the Spanish and French cultures present into oblivion? What good is blood and soil nationalism when America has never properly completed an ethnogenisis, as is commonly believed by many in our sphere?
'White's is an aspirational race. All this 'mixing' you're talking about is irrelevant to the aspiration of White nation for White people.
Yeah I don’t buy any of this.
That's why you're not a White Nationalist and I am.
"Our operating system..."
I love the idea that America has an operating system. It's true. Maybe there is no system that does not have an operating system. There are no blank slates. Maybe things don't begin, they only change.
There is much talk of "deracinated" Americans, but as someone who was deracinated generations before my birth I have trouble understanding how to rally behind an ethnic identity that I have no real organic connections to. It seems obvious that we can identify "our guys" even bearing no organic connections to them for this exact reason.
Assimilation of non-Whites continues to fail. It's hard to see how that's the solution.
It’s not and you totally missed the point if you think that’s what I’m saying
'English Maritime Liberalism thus required no dogmatic blood quantum, and could suffer plenty of elasticity and opacity without any serious danger to itself.'
This sure sounds like assimilation is the solution you're proposing. And that's just one of a number of similar statements leading to a presumption of assimilation as the solution. And we know assimilation has failed for non-Whites.
The failure of non white “assimilation” is exactly the point. Those who can become American do so, those who cannot make it immediately obvious. You don’t need some complex equation, you just need the eyes to see. Prior to the last half century we all knew what an American was, and what it was not. Even now when you get beyond some vague liberal platitudes people in this country will be happy to tell you how not American they are.
No, 'America' as a problem started long before a half-century ago.
'America' as problem was at least part of the reason for the War of Northern Aggression.
'America' was an illusion from the start. It was a way of trying to keep various Old World Whites from each other's throats, a light-house signaling how various Old World Whites might occupy the same continent without the endless sectarian and 'national' wars of the Old World.
And, as you point out, that idea of 'America' worked pretty well as the target for 'assimilationism'.
Still, Whites hung on to their 'ethnicity' pretty well in many places...until the philosophy of 'assimilation' started to include Negros and masses of Southern Hemisphere non-Whites.
Then, the only way for non-White assimilation to work was for Whites to assimilate to non-Whiteness, in other words, to cease to exist.
Which has, for all practical purposes, actually occurred.
As a consequence, I think that 'assimilation' is not a policy that Whites should put any faith in, not any longer.
Which is why, I think Whites are increasingly embracing various form of particularism and separatism.
I know I have.