"The middle class is in search of an identity...

[The Ripper]

...any identity."

The quote is from a movie review / social analysis of a new Swedish movie called Snabba Cash ("Fast Cash"), by a person by the name of Hynek Pallas. The original quote speaks of the Swedish middle class in particular but I think the idea applies to all European middle-classes, who find themselves in the position of the statistical backbone of our consumer societies (they consume and pay taxes, support the welfare state and vote for the usual suspects, they foot the bill).

I was wondering, after all the whiggers, the emos, the goths and other sub-cultural identities that the middle class is so quick to adopt only to abandon with the next fad, would it not be possible to market a chic, radical nationalist sub culture, do we not have a niche here? Instead of having to resort to completely foreign or artifical group identities, would they adopt an identity that is based on their own ethnic history and identity? How could such an identity be marketed, and is it being marketed?

Do you know of any interesting projects that work in this field of kulturkampf?

[Brännvin]

One of my favorites books though, already didn't see the movie. Yes I identify myself with that reality... :(

I've no time now but later I'll post a comment later.

[nisse]

I was wondering, after all the whiggers, the emos, the goths and other sub-cultural identities that the middle class is so quick to adopt only to abandon with the next fad, would it not be possible to market a chic, radical nationalist sub culture, do we not have a niche here? Instead of having to resort to completely foreign or artifical group identities, would they adopt an identity that is based on their own ethnic history and identity? How could such an identity be marketed, and is it being marketed?

I don't think so. Firstly, all of those cultures are "outward" cultures that don't really require you to believe anything, just to look the part, and are highly symbolic (i.e. require some major clothes shopping :D), which appeals to the consumerist mind. Secondly, they create a divide not only between people of the same age group, but also between generations, with the gap being wider the bigger the age differentce - nationalism would not accomplish than because in many cases, it will likely be a return to the "subculture" of the grandparents. I think the second point is the mroe important one - subcultures exist (imo) to allow children to define themselves as opposed to letting their family define them.

To get nationalism closer to being a subculture, I think it would need to:
1. Become more symbolic (i.e. distinctive style, music, literature, hangouts, activities, stereotypes - hopefully nothing too negative)
2. Represent a break with family tradition - radicalization or may be play up the ancient side.

IMO best bet for nationalism as a subculture is to tie it to paganism/tribalism.

The only "nationalist" subculture I can think of are skinheads. It's debatable how successeful that subculture is though.

[The Ripper]

I don't think so. Firstly, all of those cultures are "outward" cultures that don't really require you to believe anything, just to look the part, and are highly symbolic (i.e. require some major clothes shopping :D), which appeals to the consumerist mind. Secondly, they create a divide not only between people of the same age group, but also between generations, with the gap being wider the bigger the age differentce - nationalism would not accomplish than because in many cases, it will likely be a return to the "subculture" of the grandparents. I think the second point is the mroe important one - subcultures exist (imo) to allow children to define themselves as opposed to letting their family define them.

I'm sure that this varies, there are people who jump from one fad to another, but there are also people who seek something permanent, i.e. identity, that they can relate to and use to express themselves. It would not have to be a return to the generation of our grandparents, it could be 'modern' and sexy. ;)


To get nationalism closer to being a subculture, I think it would need to:
1. Become more symbolic (i.e. distinctive style, music, literature, hangouts, activities, stereotypes - hopefully nothing too negative)
2. Represent a break with family tradition - radicalization or may be play up the ancient side.
The most important thing would be to infuse the prevalent cultural atmosphere with nationalist motifs and themes. We need authors, painters, musicians, like you said. We basically need people who can articulate the zeitgeist in nationalist terms and in a way that significant numbers can in some way relate to. One way would be to take up typically "good" things, like opposing the negative effects of globalization in the Third World to opposing them at home. It needs to be anti-elitist, rebellious and chic, we need to show who is the true opposition, the true counter-culture in these times. ;)

What do you mean "break with family tradition"?


IMO best bet for nationalism as a subculture is to tie it to paganism/tribalism.
Interesting. Why?


The only "nationalist" subculture I can think of are skinheads. It's debatable how successeful that subculture is though.

Well, it depends what you mean by skinheads exactly, it is a pretty misportrayed subculture. Its a passing phenomenon.

[nisse]

I'm sure that this varies, there are people who jump from one fad to another, but there are also people who seek something permanent, i.e. identity, that they can relate to and use to express themselves. It would not have to be a return to the generation of our grandparents, it could be 'modern' and sexy. ;)
If it's going to be sexy, there won't be any lack of followers :P :D



The most important thing would be to infuse the prevalent cultural atmosphere with nationalist motifs and themes. We need authors, painters, musicians, like you said. We basically need people who can articulate the zeitgeist in nationalist terms and in a way that significant numbers can in some way relate to. One way would be to take up typically "good" things, like opposing the negative effects of globalization in the Third World to opposing them at home. It needs to be anti-elitist, rebellious and chic, we need to show who is the true opposition, the true counter-culture in these times. ;)
Hum...that's counter to the example of all other subcultures - they do strive to be elitists, they just want to redefine the elite. If nationalism is too widely appealing, youths won't go for it - in my experience, they like nothing better than the opportunity to feel superior...even if it's because they've got more dark makeup on. :rolleyes:


What do you mean "break with family tradition"?
Interesting. Why?
If nationalism is modelled on subcultures, it has to fill their function of representing a rejection of mainstream society and of values that are seen as "good" by authority figures. Because of the tie it has with older generations (grandparent and up), nationalism can accomplish this by radicalization (skinheads) or by a rejection of some value that was also very important to the older generations. In that case, I think the most dispensible value is religion, provided it is replaced with a suitable substitute....

Retro is not bad, you just have to make sure you go far enough that it's retro and not just outdated. I think bringing in an ancient element, such as paganism, or some sort of rites and ceremonies (not necessarily religious), could push nationalism from "outdated" to "retro".

Imo, if you want nationalism to become mainstream, subcultures are not good examples to follow, they only exists as long as there is something to oppose them.


Well, it depends what you mean by skinheads exactly, it is a pretty misportrayed subculture. Its a passing phenomenon.
See...most people just know the negative stereotypes :(

[Eldritch]

It is possible to organise (cynics would probably use the term machinate) a whole youth movement from above. However that would require a bold, outspoken and charismatic leader -- a real Alpha male. See yesteryear's Hitler Jugend and today's Putinjugend.

[I know, I know: Hitler was short, dark and squat, but his drive makes up for that and qualifies him as an Alpha male]

Young people may be inexperienced, but they have keen instincts and very sharp BS detectors. So you better really mean what you say if you want your scene to get off the ground.

Then again, some "youth movements" happen spontaneously, as a reaction to the general apathy and superficiality of outside society. I'm sure you remember the horror in the mainstream press a few years back, when Finnish youngsters did what the police, security guards, urban planners, social workers, politicians etc. had been unable to do: they "took back" Helsinki's central railway station.

http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135234378502.jpeg

[The Ripper]

If it's going to be sexy, there won't be any lack of followers :P :D

But how to make it sexy without losing the essence, that is the question. There needs to be some change to the general atmosphere so that nationalist ideas can become 'hip' in the first place - an effective kulturkampf in the fields of literature, popular culture and academia is required.


Hum...that's counter to the example of all other subcultures - they do strive to be elitists, they just want to redefine the elite. If nationalism is too widely appealing, youths won't go for it - in my experience, they like nothing better than the opportunity to feel superior...even if it's because they've got more dark makeup on. :rolleyes:

By anti-elitist I mean that they oppose the current '68 elite - or can you say that the radical leftists of the 1960's and after were not anti-elitist while at the same time they had very clearly an elite of their own?

I think there will always be "popular" or "vulgar" culture that is prevalent among the masses, but I think it is quite a marked difference if it is anti-national hip-hop and MTV or nationally minded folk-rock or something similar. It is basically a war of ideas and values, that needs to be fought on several fronts.


If nationalism is modelled on subcultures, it has to fill their function of representing a rejection of mainstream society and of values that are seen as "good" by authority figures. Because of the tie it has with older generations (grandparent and up), nationalism can accomplish this by radicalization (skinheads) or by a rejection of some value that was also very important to the older generations. In that case, I think the most dispensible value is religion, provided it is replaced with a suitable substitute....

I see, and I agree that in a sense, pointing out thát it is our parents generation who have been most active in dismantling our cultural institutions and identities. I think that NPD's slogan, a party of grandparents and grandchildren, is quite fitting and it explains the theme quite well. Perhaps we should portray the '68ers as an anomaly that took a turn towards insanity? :D


Retro is not bad, you just have to make sure you go far enough that it's retro and not just outdated. I think bringing in an ancient element, such as paganism, or some sort of rites and ceremonies (not necessarily religious), could push nationalism from "outdated" to "retro".

Imo, if you want nationalism to become mainstream, subcultures are not good examples to follow, they only exists as long as there is something to oppose them.
It has to begin somewhere - the hippies and student radicals were a subculture, who became dominant. They were against the dominant culture and they over came it. Nationalists should attempt the same. I think there is definately a niche for such a nationalist-inspired youth culture, we simply need the poets, the musicians, the authors to articulate it so that is captures the imaginations and hopes of those who are already receptive.


See...most people just know the negative stereotypes :(
Thanks to the media.

[nisse]

It is possible to organise (cynics would probably use the term machinate) a whole youth movement from above. However that would require a bold, outspoken and charismatic leader -- a real Alpha male. See yesteryear's Hitler Jugend and today's Putinjugend.
...and resources ;). All those camps and meetups aren't free.


It has to begin somewhere - the hippies and student radicals were a subculture, who became dominant. They were against the dominant culture and they over came it.
For them, it was rather easier to convice others - the new subculture released you from responsibilities and promised free love and drugs...I'm afraid responsibility and nationalism would be harder to "sell".


Nationalists should attempt the same. I think there is definately a niche for such a nationalist-inspired youth culture, we simply need the poets, the musicians, the authors to articulate it so that is captures the imaginations and hopes of those who are already receptive.

Thanks to the media.
Even if the art is there, you need to popularize it, which is hard without the media...not to mention that creating the art requires time, talent, and resources.

I think a more likely approach is to somehow facilitate the formation of a nationalist subculture, which, once established, can move into the mainsteam (the way hip-hip has done). I think this is more feasible because at first stages it would not even need its own cultural artifacts - you can either subvert what is already out there (say Avatar, I think it could have a nationalistic message with the right twist to it) or try to repopularize older works or commonly known folk traditions, and could rely heavily on word-of-mouth. If it grows gradually, it is also more likely to maintain it's ideaology, instead of having that be diluted out by the symbolism. Plus, this way there will be a strong base for the assault on the mainstream :)

Another important point to keep in mind is the hostility of the media and the political elite to nationalistic undertakings. I think that's a nother good reason for incorporating the pagan element - this way any media opposition will look like religious prosecution, and will be less likely to gain the support of the PC public ;)

P.S. @ Eldritch: could you link the train station story for those unfamiliar?

[Murphy]

Nationalism should not be a sub-culture.

Regards,
The Papist.

[The Ripper]

Nationalism should not be a sub-culture.

Regards,
The Papist.

But it is.

[Murphy]

But it is.

I said it shouldn't be, I never said it isn't. Quite frankly, nationalism as a sub-culture sort of depletes the point of nationalism in my opinion.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Jamt]

I am waiting on Ulexs take on this. I know he will make some sense and seriousness on all of this.

[Nationalitist]

Middle class is gay.

[The Ripper]

I said it shouldn't be, I never said it isn't. Quite frankly, nationalism as a sub-culture sort of depletes the point of nationalism in my opinion.

Regards,
The Papist.

So is nationalism pointless, or should something be done to promote it as a counter-culture against the current soulless consumer culture? No matter how hard I try, wanting nationalism to be mainstream instead of a ridiculed and marginal political outlook has not helped so far.

Which is why we as a (meta)political tendency should attempt to develope a nationalist alternative within various areas of society, in high culture and popular culture alike.

[Murphy]

So is nationalism pointless, or should something be done to promote it as a counter-culture against the current soulless consumer culture? No matter how hard I try, wanting nationalism to be mainstream instead of a ridiculed and marginal political outlook has not helped so far.

Which is why we as a (meta)political tendency should attempt to develope a nationalist alternative within various areas of society, in high culture and popular culture alike.

Then nationalism is doomed when you relegate it to selective parts of society. Exactly what our political enemies have already done sadly.

Regards,
The Papist.

[The Ripper]

Then nationalism is doomed when you relegate it to selective parts of society. Exactly what our political enemies have already done sadly.

Regards,
The Papist.

Relegate it to selective parts of society?

You did not answer my question: is nationalism pointless?

[Murphy]

Relegate it to selective parts of society?

Wxactly what happens with sub-cultures.


You did not answer my question: is nationalism pointless?

This isn't a simple yes or no.

Regards,
The Papist.

[The Ripper]

Wxactly what happens with sub-cultures.

[qoute]You did not answer my question: is nationalism pointless?

Eh, perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough.

The message needs to be formulated differently for different audiences. I'm trying to discuss strategies how to do this, how to make nationalism mainstream, not how to make into an isolated sub-culture, which it is now.

You cannot preach a nationalistic outlook to academic types in the same way you would preach to unionized metal workers. For young people the message would have to be broadcast in a different manner than you'd broadcast it to families with children.

By making inroads at all levels of society via popular culture, literature, art and so on, nationalism becomes more mainstream.

The thread started by discussing the identity crisis or lack of identity of the middle-class, which then desperately clutches at artificial or foreign identities marketed and pre-packaged. Give them a powerful, deeper nationalist alternative.


This isn't a simple yes or no.

Regards,
The Papist.
I could quite simply say "no".

[Murphy]

Eh, perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough.

The message needs to be formulated differently for different audiences. I'm trying to discuss strategies how to do this, how to make nationalism mainstream, not how to make into an isolated sub-culture, which it is now.

You cannot preach a nationalistic outlook to academic types in the same way you would preach to unionized metal workers. For young people the message would have to be broadcast in a different manner than you'd broadcast it to families with children.

By making inroads at all levels of society via popular culture, literature, art and so on, nationalism becomes more mainstream.

The thread started by discussing the identity crisis or lack of identity of the middle-class, which then desperately clutches at artificial or foreign identities marketed and pre-packaged. Give them a powerful, deeper nationalist alternative.

Aah, I understand where you are coming from now. Well, I have no ideas for you, so I shall bow out of this portion of the discussion :)!


I could quite simply say "no".

It really depends. At times I think not, at times I think it is.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Nationalitist]

I've already said once that Zeropean racism (call it "nationalism" if you want) is trying to mobilize the middle class just like socialism tried to mobilize proletariat. Not surprising as both ideologies are inherently egalitarian and have the same origin. In other words, both racists and socialists are egalitarian idiots. :p

Neither middle class nor proletariat never had any real national identity so how should we expect them to respect something they never had? They can only have 'race' and 'class consciousness'.

I don't care about Zeropean mass and what they think about my (not theirs, as they have no homeland) nation and it's future and I reject all political and social anomalies of 19th and 20th century (individualism, liberalism, democracy, parliamentarism, socialism, bolshevism, fascism, nazism, racism, etc.) and their products, including middle class; whoever builds political projects on middle class builds on shit.

[The Ripper]

I've already said once that Zeropean racism (call it "nationalism" if you want) is trying to mobilize the middle class just like socialism tried to mobilize proletariat. Not surprising as both ideologies are inherently egalitarian and have the same origin. In other words, both racists and socialists are egalitarian idiots. :p

Neither middle class nor proletariat never had any real national identity so how should we expect them to respect something they never had? They can only have 'race' and 'class consciousness'.

I don't care about Zeropean mass and what they think about my (not theirs, as they have no homeland) nation and it's future and I reject all political and social anomalies of 19th and 20th century (individualism, liberalism, democracy, parliamentarism, socialism, bolshevism, fascism, nazism, racism, etc.) and their products, including middle class; whoever builds political projects on middle class builds on shit.

So.. let's have nations without nationals?

[Nationalitist]

That's your idea, not mine.

[The Ripper]

That's your idea, not mine.

I was simply trying to divulge what you are after. You reject egalitarian idiotism, the middle class and the working class. What would you found the nation on?

[Rachel]

I was simply trying to divulge what you are after. You reject egalitarian idiotism, the middle class and the working class. What would you found the nation on?

I don't live in the country for which you are talking about but just out of a general understanding what is the diffrence from the middle class to the working class, because you mention them both it seems that you think they are seprate.

If they are seprate what makes them that way.

Thanks

[The Ripper]

I don't live in the country for which you are talking about but just out of a general understanding what is the diffrence from the middle class to the working class, because you mention them both it seems that you think they are seprate.

If they are seprate what makes them that way.

Thanks

I would say that the line separating the two has become very unclear here at least from an economic point of view. But I suppose the difference would be higher education, from a non-economic point of view. The middle class consists of doctors, lawyers, public officials, management positions, teachers, etc, while the working class would consist of professions that don't require a higher education or significant specialization.

It is an interesting question, actually.

[Nationalitist]

I was simply trying to divulge what you are after. You reject egalitarian idiotism, the middle class and the working class. What would you found the nation on?

Since the traditional social structure has been destroyed it's impossible to found the nation on any class or on class society as such.

Those who have national values today don't want to be associated with that Zeropean mass called middle class and subcultures. This is what I consider as rejection of middle class, just like for example in 20th century some honest workers rejected proletarian mentality and socialism.

Basically I agree with you that nationalism is now nothing more than subculture, but this is because nationalism has been degraded to appeal to the middle class. I don't want to be part of mainstream nationalism because it represents either anti-immigration hysteria or state patriotism. Restoration of national values is only possible if there will be a restoration of traditional spiritual values first. Most "nationalists" only want to preserve nation as it is and kick the immigrants out.


I don't live in the country for which you are talking about but just out of a general understanding what is the diffrence from the middle class to the working class, because you mention them both it seems that you think they are seprate.

I think we can hardly speak about working class today. Notice how majority of people will declare themselves as part of middle class, with exception of few extremely rich or extremely poor. There is no more working class consciousness only "middle class identity" which is the identity of the slaves of "the system". We're all supposed to have simmilar "middle class" ideals. This is in contrast with traditional social structure of estates, where each estate had a consciousness of its own and its particular ethos. Nation was an organism and not mass; nation as mass is the result of satanic French Revolution which destroyed the old estates and didn't create new ones. Political and social anomalies of 19th and 20th century I mentioned before (individualism, liberalism, democracy, parliamentarism, socialism, bolshevism, fascism, nazism, racism, etc.) are also result of that godless revolution.

[nisse]

Since the traditional social structure has been destroyed it's impossible to found the nation on any class or on class society as such.
What do you mean by that? What is "traditional social structure"?


Those who have national values today don't want to be associated with that Zeropean mass called middle class and subcultures. This is what I consider as rejection of middle class, just like for example in 20th century some honest workers rejected proletarian mentality and socialism.
It doesn't much matter what people want, actually. That is the down side of all -isms, but unless you live in isolation, which none of us do, you're going to be part of an -ism. Willing or unwilling. Better pick the least offensive -ism.


Basically I agree with you that nationalism is now nothing more than subculture, but this is because nationalism has been degraded to appeal to the middle class. I don't want to be part of mainstream nationalism because it represents either anti-immigration hysteria or state patriotism. Restoration of national values is only possible if there will be a restoration of traditional spiritual values first. Most "nationalists" only want to preserve nation as it is and kick the immigrants out.
What a defeatist attitude. Why let others define your words?
The definition of nationalism you gave as "current" above, is precisely why it's failing, but I would never call that nationalism, and I doubt anyone who's given more than a cursory thought to the subject would. I doubt anyone on this board is advocating for kicking out immigrants and leaving it at that, and I doubt that's what Riippumaton meant, otherwise any talk of nationalist art is useless...not too many songs/books/pictures can be made if you're only writing about kicking immigrants out :rolleyes:

Labour-market protectionism is what wanting the immigrants out is, nationalism is about reviving the traditions of your culture.



I think we can hardly speak about working class today. Notice how majority of people will declare themselves as part of middle class, with exception of few extremely rich or extremely poor.
No one calls themselves ugly either, doens't mean people aren't...The three classes are alive and well, just that the middle class has grown...but not to the proportions you suggest.


There is no more working class consciousness only "middle class identity" which is the identity of the slaves of "the system". We're all supposed to have simmilar "middle class" ideals.
Again, supposed to doesn't mean do. There is plenty of stratification and although everyone is materialist and no one really dares break the major commandments of the politically correct, there are significant differences in mentality and behaviour between the classes.


This is in contrast with traditional social structure of estates, where each estate had a consciousness of its own and its particular ethos. Nation was an organism and not mass; nation as mass is the result of satanic French Revolution which destroyed the old estates and didn't create new ones. Political and social anomalies of 19th and 20th century I mentioned before (individualism, liberalism, democracy, parliamentarism, socialism, bolshevism, fascism, nazism, racism, etc.) are also result of that godless revolution.
I agree, but imo it was the Industrial Revolution and urbanization that caused everything. Economic climate dictates social and political climate, not the other way around....now might be an exception with all this "financial engineering" and stockmarket business :mad:

[Nationalitist]

What do you mean by that? What is "traditional social structure"?

I described it briefly in the previous post. It's enough for the sake of this thread.


It doesn't much matter what people want, actually. That is the down side of all -isms, but unless you live in isolation, which none of us do, you're going to be part of an -ism. Willing or unwilling. Better pick the least offensive -ism.

Now this is what I call defeatist attitude.


What a defeatist attitude. Why let others define your words?
The definition of nationalism you gave as "current" above, is precisely why it's failing, but I would never call that nationalism, and I doubt anyone who's given more than a cursory thought to the subject would.

There are many types of nationalism and this is why I pointed out I'm talking about mainstream nationalism. Of course, you may say that this is not nationalism in the true meaning of this word (I would actually agree with that), but this is irrelevant for this thread. You're missing the point.

Btw, I'm nationalitist anyway. :D


I doubt anyone on this board is advocating for kicking out immigrants and leaving it at that,

I was talking about European type of mainstream nationalism and most members of this board are Americans. And yes, they do.


Labour-market protectionism is what wanting the immigrants out is, nationalism is about reviving the traditions of your culture.

Once again, I was talking about mainstream nationalism.


No one calls themselves ugly either, doens't mean people aren't...The three classes...

Indeed, but my point was that the mentality of middle class - which is a product of modern world - should be rejected instead of adopting nationalism to that mentality. Ultimately, class society has to go and middle class with it. At least if we want to be in touch with tradition.


Again, supposed to doesn't mean do. There is plenty of stratification and although everyone is materialist and no one really dares break the major commandments of the politically correct,

Which pretty much confirms what I said.


there are significant differences in mentality and behaviour between the classes.

Between which classes?

I was reffering to simmilar mentality in one class.


I agree, but imo it was the Industrial Revolution and urbanization that caused everything.

No, the process started long before industrial revolution by humanism and reformation. Individualism - which has its roots in despiritualized humanism - started atomization of society. Socialist collectivism was indeed against it, but it was based on class and thus tried to connect society on classist basis and not on that of the estates. This is how twin evils of liberalism and socialism ruined traditional organic structure of nations. Reformation marks the begining of secularization which destroyed spirituality of nations. Of course industrialization helped to speed up the process, but it was not the cause.

Without organicist social structure and spirituality nations are worthless. This is another thing that mainstream nationalists don't understand. Nations are overrated.

"The most civilized people are as near to barbarism as the most polished steel is to rust. Nations, like metals, have only a superficial brilliancy." (Antoine de Rivarol)


Economic climate dictates social and political climate, not the other way around....

Not true. Otherwise "capitalist spirit" wouldn't be present in economically backward countries. Read Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. :)

[nisse]

I described it briefly in the previous post. It's enough for the sake of this thread.
If it were enough, I wouldn't have asked you for a more detailed explaination. But as you like it.


Now this is what I call defeatist attitude.
Nah, that's realism - exile is always an option and you can make the -ism ok-ish if you try ;)


There are many types of nationalism and this is why I pointed out I'm talking about mainstream nationalism. Of course, you may say that this is not nationalism in the true meaning of this word (I would actually agree with that), but this is irrelevant for this thread. You're missing the point.
It's very relevant to the thread. The thread is about how to shape a nationalistic culture....as understood by a european member of this forum, who understands and appreciates the importance of cultural artefacts.

What is irrelevant is talking about something that, by your own admission, is not nationalism.


I was talking about European type of mainstream nationalism and most members of this board are Americans. And yes, they do.
I doubt too many people missed the first word in the self-definition of this forum.

The Apricity Forum: Cultural & Ethnic European Preservation.


Indeed, but my point was that the mentality of middle class - which is a product of modern world - should be rejected instead of adopting nationalism to that mentality. Ultimately, class society has to go and middle class with it. At least if we want to be in touch with tradition.
That would require a revolution, which doesn't happen without numbers. To gain numbers members of the mainstream need to be subverted. Nationalism Lite isn't interesting, rather making nationalism proper "mainstream" by making more and more people its supporters :thumb001:


Between which classes?

I was reffering to simmilar mentality in one class.
Between all classes...and so what if mentality is similar within a class? Mentality is similar among all people living in similar conditions.


Individualism - which has its roots in despiritualized humanism - started atomization of society.
...the emergeance of which coincided with the Industrial revolution...


Reformation marks the begining of secularization which destroyed spirituality of nations. Of course industrialization helped to speed up the process, but it was not the cause.
I disagree...You can be spiritual to the teeth and still work in a textile factory, live in a city, etc.

Today came about by the ruination of human communities. There is a theory that humans can only effectively socailize with ~150 people - you put them in a city and they are overwhelmed. The only way I see spirituality factoring into this is by churches acting as centres of community life, which still doesn't really do much if the parish is urban and thus large.


Without organicist social structure and spirituality nations are worthless. This is another thing that mainstream nationalists don't understand. Nations are overrated.
If you define "nations" as political entities, yes (in most - not all - cases).
The advanatge of a grass roots, nationalist subculture is that it would rely on specific communities and word-of-mouth popularization, effectively making it very local and representitive of the immediate community where the organization was established.

Obviously, the various communities would have to coordinate to act on a political level, as would have been the case always.


"The most civilized people are as near to barbarism as the most polished steel is to rust. Nations, like metals, have only a superficial brilliancy." (Antoine de Rivarol)
I hope that's true. Barbarism is the perfect solution to the culture crisis. But hoping for the elements to do their job is not too much fun...rather add some corrosive substances :D


Not true. Otherwise "capitalist spirit" wouldn't be present in economically backward countries. Read Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. :)
The most backward countries exist within the context of the more advanced ones. A basic analysis of the two factors - cultural response vs. wealth (stochastic event) - is enough to make it obvious that it can't be the other way around.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Eh, perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly enough.

The message needs to be formulated differently for different audiences. I'm trying to discuss strategies how to do this, how to make nationalism mainstream, not how to make into an isolated sub-culture, which it is now.

You cannot preach a nationalistic outlook to academic types in the same way you would preach to unionized metal workers. For young people the message would have to be broadcast in a different manner than you'd broadcast it to families with children.

True. The problem is not so much in the message, as in the means to convey it. Due to the wide variety of media available today, we'll probably never return to the monoculture that prevailed in the 1950s-1970s or the patchwork of local homogenity which preceded it. Now especially with the internet, society by nature will be broken up into subcultures.

The first order of business would be to make these subcultures not actively promote political correctness and multiculturalism, which we have already had some success in.

A big problem I think is that much nationalist oriented material focuses on being nationalist first and entertaining almost as an afterthought, whereas if you look at the successful endeavors of the left and also the mainstream right (evangelical churches, Rush Limbaugh, etc) they have these priorities reversed.

Also, the various subcultures need to work together more and share talents, and especially resources, for example production studios for music, venues for shows and meetings, etc. Coordination of this should become the main purpose of modern nationalist organizations, instead of the 'membership orgs' which never really got anywhere.


...

Ok, so you basically want to return to medieval feudalism, no doubt with yourself as some kind of overlord. Problem is, the other 99.999999% of society doesn't want to be your peasants.

[Nationalitist]

Nah, that's realism - exile is always an option and you can make the -ism ok-ish if you try ;)

Well, take a look at the original post you quoted where I was speaking about rejection of middle class (and by that I meant rejection of middle class mentality and mentality of the mass) and socialism. Your comment doesn't make any sense. We don't live in Socialist Yugoslavia where rejection of Socialism could indeed mean exile and even back then people rejected it like my family, only that they couldn't brag about it.


It's very relevant to the thread. The thread is about how to shape a nationalistic culture

He said subculture if I remember correctly.


as understood by a european member of this forum, who understands and appreciates the importance of subcultural artefacts.

Fixed.


What is irrelevant is talking about something that, by your own admission, is not nationalism.

I said it's not nationalism in the true meaning of the word (deriving from word nation), as it doesn't fight for nation as I define it. The same is with liberal nationalism, but the people still use this term and so do I, to avoid confusion. The rest is hairsplitting.


I doubt too many people missed the first word in the self-definition of this forum.

The Apricity Forum: Cultural & Ethnic European Preservation.

Most members of this forum are uncultured and primitive. How can they preserve something that they don't have?


That would require a revolution, which doesn't happen without numbers. To gain numbers members of the mainstream need to be subverted. Nationalism Lite isn't interesting, rather making nationalism proper "mainstream" by making more and more people its supporters :thumb001:

I have no intentions to mobilize the mass. And history has shown us that revolution can happen without significant numbers of the party that started it.

Anyway, I understand how unlikely the revival of national values is going to happen, but if nationalism is once more degraded to a level of a populist ideology, the chances are zero.


Between all classes...and so what if mentality is similar within a class? Mentality is similar among all people living in similar conditions.

Follow the discussion.


...the emergeance of which coincided with the Industrial revolution...

Industrial revolution: 18th century. Humanism: Renaissance (14th century).


I disagree...You can be spiritual to the teeth and still work in a textile factory, live in a city, etc.

Today came about by the ruination of human communities. There is a theory that humans can only effectively socailize with ~150 people - you put them in a city and they are overwhelmed. The only way I see spirituality factoring into this is by churches acting as centres of community life, which still doesn't really do much if the parish is urban and thus large.

You disagree with what exactly? If you think that loss of spirituality is not the cause of industrialization and urbanization - I never said that it is, I was actualy refuting that, since you said that industrial revolution and urbanization caused "everything" quoting my post about godless revolution.


If you define "nations" as political entities, yes (in most - not all - cases).

No, I don't.


Ok, so you basically want to return to medieval feudalism, no doubt with yourself as some kind of overlord. Problem is, the other 99.999999% of society doesn't want to be your peasants.

You don't understand the meaning of the estate, which is not surprising as you are American and you never had anything simmilar in your country (one among many reasons why America is worthless).

For us, Slovenians, it has spiritual meaning. It's interesting that word estate (stan) in our language means the same thing as vocation, for example teacher "estate" (učiteljski stan) or military "estate" (vojaški stan) which was extremely important, even though it was not really a social estate in our society. Slovenians fought bravely for rotten Habsburg monarchy because they fought for their estate and not for their state. :)

As far as social estates are concerned, due to the tragical historical circumstances "peasant" estate became the backbone of our nation as from about 16th to 17th century on bourgeoisie and nobility were slowly becoming more pro-German. Though it should be pointed out that they always had their particular national consciousness, as they were mostly loyal to their Slovenian lands (Carniola, Styria, Carinthia...), even though some of them were of German blood.

The name "peasant estate" (kmečki stan) is decieving since this estate included wide range of vocations. Many members of this estate were involved in all kinds of "non-peasant" business activities, as it was pointed out by one of the most respected Slovenian ethnologists while he was refuting socialist myths. One Slovenian nationalist said that truly noble people make a noble estate out of the most simple of all estates. The image of bunch of peasants working for some feudal lord is socialist propaganda. Certainly society of estates wasn't perfect all the time, especialy before French revolution, but this doesn't mean we should say no to estates as such.

Medieval? Once again, you're showing your ignorance on the subject. In my homeland estates existed until socialist occupation which started in 1945. My grandparents were born in such society. Before and during 2nd world war Slovenian nationalists supported this type of society and wanted to improve it. The problem was that newly created capitalist and working class had no ethos of the estate and were internationalist by default, that's why many Slovenians fought for foreign ideals. After decades of violent secularist socialist regime the notion of estate vanished. Revival of national values includes revival of this ancient traidition.

[nisse]

Well, take a look at the original post you quoted where I was speaking about rejection of middle class (and by that I meant rejection of middle class mentality and mentality of the mass) and socialism. Your comment doesn't make any sense. We don't live in Socialist Yugoslavia where rejection of Socialism could indeed mean exile and even back then people rejected it like my family, only that they couldn't brag about it.
Who ever mentioned Yugoslavia or anything else? We all love in highly developed societies - thus societies that rely on -isms. A rejection of the social order while you live comfortably by the products of that social order is not a true rejection of it. No matter how much you dislike and disagree with, say socialism, as long as you live in it and function in it, you are just as much a tool of the system as the person who loves it wholeheartedly.

The only way to truly reject that -ism is to remove yourself from its sphere of influence.


He said subculture if I remember correctly.
Subculture is culture. On a smaller scale. talk about hair splitting.


I said it's not nationalism in the true meaning of the word (deriving from word nation), as it doesn't fight for nation as I define it. The same is with liberal nationalism, but the people still use this term and so do I, to avoid confusion. The rest is hairsplitting.
ROFL...you make all these statements about how nothing is adequate and nothing is the way you think it should be, but you are very reluctant to actually go into what is right in your opinion and how it can brought about. Instead of trying to look for similarities and how they can be exploited to further what you might consider a worthy cause, you just lable everything a hopeless enterprise.


Most members of this forum are uncultured and primitive. How can they preserve something that they don't have?
Are you the first one on that list?


I have no intentions to mobilize the mass. And history has shown us that revolution can happen without significant numbers of the party that started it.
Clearly you have no such intention. Seems the only intention you do have is to insult and discourage people. Productive.

Being the uncultured brute that I am, history hsa not shown me this, and common sense suggests to me that the greater the number of the "starting party" the higher the likelihood of revolutionary success.


Anyway, I understand how unlikely the revival of national values is going to happen, but if nationalism is once more degraded to a level of a populist ideology, the chances are zero.
ROFL...Didn't you say there is already 2 nationalisms that exist in parallel? The "bad" one that everyone (except you) on this forum believes, and the "real" ones you formulated for yourself?

What's stopping this duality from existing with the "common" nationalism becoming "reduced" to the level of populist ideology while your nationalism survives? Afterall, how can it become populist when you are the only one complex enough to understand what it even is?


Follow the discussion.
Follow real life. Seems to me you are too busy looking down on people and making sweeping generalizations to have anything close to an accurate idea of what people actually do while.



Industrial revolution: 18th century. Humanism: Renaissance (14th century).
Humanism proper seems to be attributed to the 18th century. Renaissance humanism seems to be considered a separate movement.



You disagree with what exactly? If you think that loss of spirituality is not the cause of industrialization and urbanization - I never said that it is, I was actualy refuting that, since you said that industrial revolution and urbanization caused "everything" quoting my post about godless revolution.
...your post about the godless French Revolution.
And I disgaree that secularization is the cause of the distruction of the "organic structure of nations".


You don't understand the meaning of the estate, which is not surprising
...considering you never bother explaining any of your terminology and just spring definitions on people whenever it's convenient for you.

Thanks for the story btw.


The problem was that newly created capitalist and working class had no ethos of the estate and were internationalist by default
...because society with the level of complexity we see now necessitates a globalist point of view and specifically precludes the sort of low level social organization and social fragmentation that arises in the case of these small farms/estates....the closes to which is subcultures in modern society.


Revival of national values includes revival of this ancient traidition.
:thumbs up
I don't see why you are against individualism though. Individualism doesn't have to mean just "you"...more like "you and yours" ;)

[Nationalitist]

Who ever mentioned Yugoslavia or anything else?

I mentioned rejection of socialism, which happened in Yugoslavia (and before that, too).


We all love in highly developed societies - thus societies that rely on -isms. A rejection of the social order while you live comfortably by the products of that social order is not a true rejection of it. No matter how much you dislike and disagree with, say socialism, as long as you live in it and function in it, you are just as much a tool of the system as the person who loves it wholeheartedly.

The only way to truly reject that -ism is to remove yourself from its sphere of influence.

I was talking about the rejection of certain mentality promoted by different ideologies, and ultimately rejection of those ideologies. If you believe that everyone living under, let's say, socialism is also a socialist... Well...


Subculture is culture. On a smaller scale. talk about hair splitting.

It's a degradation of culture. Nothing to do with real national culture.


ROFL...you make all these statements about how nothing is adequate and nothing is the way you think it should be, but you are very reluctant to actually go into what is right in your opinion and how it can brought about. Instead of trying to look for similarities and how they can be exploited to further what you might consider a worthy cause, you just lable everything a hopeless enterprise.

Sorry, but I can't possibly see how you came to that conclusion by reading this:

I said it's not nationalism in the true meaning of the word (deriving from word nation), as it doesn't fight for nation as I define it. The same is with liberal nationalism, but the people still use this term and so do I, to avoid confusion. The rest is hairsplitting.


Are you the first one on that list?

Who knows, lol. I'm the first on soon-to-be-banned list, that's for sure. :D


Clearly you have no such intention. Seems the only intention you do have is to insult and discourage people. Productive.

No, but I discourage people to consider populist nationalism as an alternative. We Slovenians can learn a lot from catholic and traditionalist groups from the 30is, which were anti-populist and small in numbers but when the time came they managed to mobilize honest people to fight bolshevism. They also left a lot of ideas about the revival of traditional social structure and unmasked individualism, judaism, socialism and liberalism. If they would concentrate on mobilizing mass from the begining all that would be left would be propaganda and slogans.

Actualy, the Finns had something simmilar AFAIK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Karelia_Society

In Slovenia we had Academic club Straža (Guard) and Mladci Kristusa Kralja (Youth of Christ the King).

And I don't look down on anyone, I hope that more Slovenians will revive the national and spiritual values that we once had. I despise those who rejected those values in favour of foreign ones. Actualy, individualists tend to look down on other people, not Christians. ;)


Being the uncultured brute that I am, history hsa not shown me this,

I wasn't reffering to you. You're new on this forum anyway.


and common sense suggests to me that the greater the number of the "starting party" the higher the likelihood of revolutionary excess.

Fixed.


ROFL...Didn't you say there is already 2 nationalisms that exist in parallel? The "bad" one that everyone (except you) on this forum believes, and the "real" ones you formulated for yourself?

What's stopping this duality from existing with the "common" nationalism becoming "reduced" to the level of populist ideology while your nationalism survives? Afterall, how can it become populist when you are the only one complex enough to understand what it even is?

Nationalism that was degraded was our traditional nationalism (the one that I support) first by liberalism and masonry, then by socialism. What needs to be done is to remove those foreign influences and return our nationalism the noble character that it once had. There is also the other option to try to make it popular again and degrade it even more.

In other words, those degradations - liberal, socialist, modern zeropean - are what subculture is to culture. I'm sure you understand the point.


Humanism proper seems to be attributed to the 18th century. Renaissance humanism seems to be considered a separate movement.

Yes, but I think we should rather search the roots of humanism (of 18th century) in renaissance than in industrial revolution.


...your post about the godless French Revolution.
And I disgaree that secularization is the cause of the distruction of the "organic structure of nations".

I actualy meant that secularization destroyed the spirituality of nations. The destruction of organic structure of nations was product of liberal individualism and later socialist collectivism.

It is true, however, that they all came in the same package.


...considering you never bother explaining any of your terminology and just spring definitions on people whenever it's convenient for you.

I meant that it's not part of his tradition. I didn't mean that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word as such, but it's importance to our people. If he would, he wouldn't mock it as 'medieval feudalism'.


...because society with the level of complexity we see now necessitates a globalist point of view and specifically precludes the sort of low level social organization and social fragmentation that arises in the case of these small farms/estates....the closes to which is subcultures in modern society.

Hmmm... The estates I was talking about (definition 6 and 7, not 1, though they are wrong labeling it 'class'):

1. A landed property, usually of considerable size.
2. The whole of one's possessions, especially all the property and debts left by one at death.
3. Law The nature and extent of an owner's rights with respect to land or other property.
4. Chiefly British A housing development.
5. The situation or circumstances of one's life: A child's estate gives way to the adult's estate.
6. Social position or rank, especially of high order.
7. A major social class, such as the clergy, the nobility, or the commons, formerly possessing distinct political rights.
8. Archaic Display of wealth or power; pomp.

You're probably familiar with estates of the realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm)

Look, there's even a wikipedia article about social estates in the Russian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_estates_in_the_Russian_Empire)


:thumbs up
I don't see why you are against individualism though. Individualism doesn't have to mean just "you"...more like "you and yours" ;)

It's godless. :mad:

[nisse]

I was talking about the rejection of certain mentality promoted by different ideologies, and ultimately rejection of those ideologies. If you believe that everyone living under, let's say, socialism is also a socialist... Well...
Not saying they are, just saying that they might as well be...for all socialism cares. Even if you don't believe in socialism but are forces to work and live within its framework for your entire life, contributing to its hold on society and (even if only inadvertantly) furthering its goals, what makes you different from a socialist, really?


Sorry, but I can't possibly see how you came to that conclusion by reading this:

I said it's not nationalism in the true meaning of the word (deriving from word nation), as it doesn't fight for nation as I define it. The same is with liberal nationalism, but the people still use this term and so do I, to avoid confusion. The rest is hairsplitting.
You talk about definitions but rarely define anything. You say "nationalism" as defined by others is nothing like your definition - but there must be similaries...or do you not have *any* intermediate goals in common?


Who knows, lol. I'm the first on soon-to-be-banned list, that's for sure. :D
Well, you've tried hard to get on it, and you seem like the sort of person that can get things done ;)


If they would concentrate on mobilizing mass from the begining all that would be left would be propaganda and slogans.
This is something that has already been addressed in this thread - i.e. nationalism as a "worldview" should not become too big too fast, imo.


And I don't look down on anyone, I hope that more Slovenians will revive the national and spiritual values that we once had. I despise those who rejected those values in favour of foreign ones. Actualy, individualists tend to look down on other people, not Christians. ;)
:rofl:
Sorry, I forgot - by calling everyone on here stupid and uncultured you were just saying what is objectively true, not being derogatory and insulting. My bad.


There is also the other option to try to make it popular again and degrade it even more.
If a lot of people believe it - it will be popular...


In other words, those degradations - liberal, socialist, modern zeropean - are what subculture is to culture. I'm sure you understand the point
No, I don't get the point.
subculture: a social group within a national culture that has distinctive patterns of behavior and beliefs.

How is this different from your idea of estates? Each one must have had its own subculture.


I actualy meant that secularization destroyed the spirituality of nations. The destruction of organic structure of nations was product of liberal individualism and later socialist collectivism.
Secularization destroys spirituality by definition...so no insight there...

And I obviously disgree with your take on what disrupted the organic structure of nations, it might have made people less resistant, but essentially I attribute that to urbanization and industrialization which always culminate in the dehumanization of people.


I meant that it's not part of his tradition. I didn't mean that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word as such, but it's importance to our people. If he would, he wouldn't mock it as 'medieval feudalism'.
I don't know what he thought or didn't, but I understood your initial explaination of "estates" to be a reference to land (1. on your list), something similar to the norwegian farms posted recently - large farms that are essentially self-contained. Which, to me, represents the ultimate goal of nationalism - a return to very basic agrarian times when nationalism was basically loyalty to your kin and community.

The idea of estates that you speak of (now that that's finally clear) seems like one of the first steps in the direction of modernity.


It's godless. :mad:
Depends on who follows it :D.

[Nationalitist]

Not saying they are, just saying that they might as well be...for all socialism cares. Even if you don't believe in socialism but are forces to work and live within its framework for your entire life, contributing to its hold on society and (even if only inadvertantly) furthering its goals, what makes you different from a socialist, really?

Not subscribing to that rotten worldview (ie. not being a socialist).


You talk about definitions but rarely define anything. You say "nationalism" as defined by others is nothing like your definition - but there must be similaries...or do you not have *any* intermediate goals in common?

With mainstream nationalists? No.


Well, you've tried hard to get on it, and you seem like the sort of person that can get things done ;)

Thanks. I'm working on it.


No, I don't get the point.
subculture: a social group within a national culture that has distinctive patterns of behavior and beliefs.

How is this different from your idea of estates? Each one must have had its own subculture.

It was not 'subculture' (at least nothing simmilar to what is understood by that term today). It was culture.

In any way, it was something totaly different to subculture(s) of middle class.


The idea of estates that you speak of (now that that's finally clear) seems like one of the first steps in the direction of modernity.

Ok.... What???

[Nationalitist]

Ok, so you basically want to return to medieval feudalism, no doubt with yourself as some kind of overlord. Problem is, the other 99.999999% of society doesn't want to be your peasants.

This is what I ultimately want to accomplish: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12751

[nisse]

Ok.... What???
You already establish class and greed.

[Nationalitist]

You already establish class and greed.

Estates established class and greed? Estates mark begining of modernity? Is that what you're saying?

[nisse]

Estates established class and greed? Estates mark begining of modernity? Is that what you're saying?
Among other things, yes. I don't think they mark any beginning, but represent a step towards, as I said before.

[Nationalitist]

Step towards modernity.. Middle ages - which gave birth to estates -were step towards modernity? Estates IMO can be seen as evolution of pagan society which was based on castes, so if you reject estates you must also reject pagan caste society I guess. The Romans had caste society (flamines, milites, quirites), is Roman Empire a step towards modernity too?

So to what 'basic agrarian times' do you want to return then? "Primitive communism"? That are pre-agrarian times. ;)

[nisse]

Step towards modernity.. Middle ages - which gave birth to estates -were step towards modernity? Estates IMO can be seen as evolution of pagan society which was based on castes, so if you reject estates you must also reject pagan caste society I guess.
Well technically everything is an evolution - renaissance humanism is as much an evolution of castes as castes are an evolution of simple peasant societies....etc. etc. till we get to today.


The Romans had caste society (flamines, milites, quirites), is Roman Empire a step towards modernity too?
Of course! It was a "civilization", just like ours.


So to what 'basic agrarian times' do you want to return then? "Primitive communism"? That are pre-agrarian times. ;)
If you care, read the thread about the norwegian farms (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=156417&postcount=1). That concept was around all over Europe for ages. IMO that's exactly the way things should be. With small market towns that support craftsmen as appropriate.

[Nationalitist]

Ah, agrarianism. Some people supported it here... Like 80 years ago. There were some agrarian parties. Needless to say, they were completely marginal as liberal, socialist (communism & social democracy) and catholic (political catholicism, traditionalists) camps got all the votes and support.

This farmers you idealize were still part of social estate (peasant estate) and thus the society of estates which, by your opininion, "established class and greed".

[nisse]

This farmers you idealize were still part of social estate (peasant estate) and thus the society of estates which, by your opininion, "established class and greed".
Obviously - we are here now, after all - but they shouldn't have been. There should not have been any estates for them to be a part of.

In particular, there should not have been any clergy or aristocracy. Those classes produce nothing but often get the most, and they are the most succeptable to corruption and greed.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The name "peasant estate" (kmečki stan) is decieving since this estate included wide range of vocations. Many members of this estate were involved in all kinds of "non-peasant" business activities, as it was pointed out by one of the most respected Slovenian ethnologists while he was refuting socialist myths. One Slovenian nationalist said that truly noble people make a noble estate out of the most simple of all estates.

So...basically...you are saying it was a 'middle class' :D


Step towards modernity.. Middle ages - which gave birth to estates -were step towards modernity?

...is Roman Empire a step towards modernity too?

Sure was! Look at the advancements of the Roman Empire, some of which were not achieved again until the past century or two, how can it be otherwise?