The New Nationalist Perspective: The Choice of Words

July 15, 2009

Dr. Sunic examines the redundancy and anarchronism of words and concepts such as ‘nationalism’ and ‘racialism’; a brief contrast of nationalism in Europe and nationalism in the USA; nationalism vs. racialism.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:


7 Responses to “The New Nationalist Perspective: The Choice of Words”

  1. Taliesen on July 15th, 2009 8:39 pm

    For some reason I couldn’t get the program to stream last night, so I just listened to it. Tom made some important points, regarding semantics and the use of words like, Nationalist, Nation, state, country, and patriotism.

  2. Richard on July 15th, 2009 9:19 pm

    I think we need to redefine Nationalism. I think “European Nationalism’ should mean all nationalists (French, German, Italian, etc.) that are European. Not as in the ‘European Nation’, but all Nationalists that are united together by them being European.

  3. Russ on July 16th, 2009 6:20 pm

    I just wrote a blog entry on the topic of Nationalism and it’s suitability as a response to Jewish hegemony.

    I plug VoR and this show in the comments.

    If anybody’s interested it can be read here:

    I appreciate any feedback.

  4. Listener on July 17th, 2009 3:20 pm

    Wihout even reading your whole article Russ, nor listening to this broadcast (yet), I can just add that Humanity, Humans, are a genus, not a species as you seem to put it. There have been several Human species over the course of history. Of course, this is in biological terms and everyday discourse is different.

    This discussion about race, and needing to show that we are one. I personally find the context of it interesting , and it is easy to show the differences by contrasting it not least to how other species are threated.

    Are you aware of that a genetic sequence (RRM2P4) that is common amongst Asians has its source from a two million year old Asian Homo Erectus? A Homo Erectus is not a racial clade of our species, it is (was) a different species of humans altogether. I am not saying that modern Asians are Homo Erectus derivatives, but you draw the conclusions.

    It is funny, it is ok to go on in lengths about how much genome we may have, and how much genome (like the above proves) some certainly do have without a doubt, from different humans species, let alone races. But at the same time the same people go apologetic to the extreme to avoid talking about racial differences today. If you follow these kind of studies and developments in anthropology and molecular biology, it appears like what it is; laughable. Studying reality but simulatenously being hell bent on trying to hide and avoid parts of it, motivating their research in every way possible so as to try to evade the obvious, and the further obvious inferences that naturally follow from it. Lets not forget that one of the most usual ways for a species or race to die is >>extinction through assimilation<<. It is ok to talk about the genetic integrity of domestic species of Gastropods which are being threatened by hybridization with alien ones , and delve into how horrible of a loss this is. But the same people don’t say a peep about their own people, their own lifeform, their own complex society. Building a society on lies and actively avoiding truth cannot in anyway be sound.

    But whether differences between clades of humans are such that they need to be called racial, or not (There is no doubt about it in my opinion), is not crucial in a social perspective. Be it as it may, there are remarkable differences that need to be considered. As the important factor they are in our common, democratic interests. There is a difference between changing and being replaced, and our race, and indeed all its subclades, is risking to be replaced, with everything that our race entails.

  5. Listener on July 17th, 2009 5:53 pm

    I do not agree that nationalism is a new phenomena, maybe the terminology is, but not what it entails. Ethnic nationalism can be traced back much further, for example resistance against the Roman Empire in populations across Europe, is certainly one sense of that. We should remember, that nation is not the same as state. Which you described yourself.

    Interethnic wars have been an issue in Europe, again for longer than 200 years, how about 2000, or more.

    “Fight for the better world”. What does that mean. I am not fighting for a well defined absolutistic utopia, To try to encapsulate my thoughts instead of giving examples; I am proposing practical things that need to be done, that is what my Nationalism is about. Nationalism for me, is basicly a form of Democracy, it is about the issue of what needs to be considered. Examining what is happening and what is important, what needs to be known for people, communities and nations to be able to run their societies soundly. Exposing the things things that are bad in todays society and more importantly showing the implications of the alternatives. I want realities to be considered instead of ignored and thereby creating issues. I am a racial realist.

    I hold on to things I find important; that of democracy and freedom of expression. That of what we are as very beings.

    Open consideration of ethnical issues based reality, because >>it matters<<… Practically everyone would oppose forcedly replacing any select Asian or African people in their own country. Why should we not apply the same reasoning to ourselves. This IS a RACIAL issue. It is literally an issue of survival of our peoples in their most fundamental, racial meaning. That the culture carried by us might be an issue as well, so it may be, but the racial issue is considerably more basicly important to every aspect of our lifes and our future.

    Awareness of insitutionalized, and private power misuse. Things need to be able to be motivated with that they are good for the society, for the community. A free market development is, private enterprise that can do what they want is not. Delegated rule can be, to enforce things amongst a people against their will is not. Democratic rule is needed, breaking other peoples rights is not.

    Competing banking can be good, private monopolized currencies are not. Why not then just have the banking sector public, due to its special nature.

    If I would for some reason not be sure about any of it, what I do is that I take a look at nature and reality and consider it again. I am in essence a realist. I love nature, science, research and advocate a society, which makes it possibe for us to have an active and aware consideration of the very environment, not only in a biospherical sense but in its complete sense of the reality we live in. How can it be good to not base things from the very nature we live in, and consider things from how they pertain to that very reality, if that is where we are to achieve and be.

    In contrast to some of the things expressed, I have been in contact with many American Nationalists, and find they have a profound understanding for the implications of what is going on, far beyond that of modern state constructs and nationalism (if that is even possible) tied to them (not that I am against the concept of state constructs as such, which I find are needed). They are realizing first hand that what it is they hold important goes beyond, way beyond the concept of a state.

  6. Luis Magno on July 17th, 2009 8:44 pm

    Ethno-racialism seems to me the most appropriate name and concept in an American context. It accepts the current multi-racial reality while fully embracing the multi-ethnic character of the majority European-American population. We can then talk of European-American ethno-racialism and other racial groups, the minority racial groups, can create their own identities around that concept if they wish.

    Ethnicity embraces ancestral culture and re-enforces the explicit mention of race in ethno-racialism while broadening and extending the group identification with race to include ancestral cultural heritage, a necessary ingredient of an explicit HUMAN identification.

  7. Listener on August 3rd, 2009 2:08 am

    I have some comments to post about the term “Race”, which should be interesting here given that Dr. Sunic does like to delve into semantic.

    But first…


    We have had some discussion earlier and I cant say that I agree with everything you post. But I agree that the situation in Europe and the New World, respectively, is quite different. Europeans are indigenous in their nations. And that is one huge difference which shouldnt be underestimated. White communites have the same rights in say the US, to decide over themselves, but lets not kidd ourselves in that the same arguments can be used.

    I do not like to throw around the world culture, I am again at loss of what you mean.


    Now to the semantics of RACE…

    Race is a term used to describe different breeds which are the result of active, deliberate human breeding and/or molecular manipulation. Different breeds of dogs are races, the same is true for different breeds of domesticated horses. Arctic Wolf and Gray Wolf however, are not races, they are two sub-species of Wolf. That is what we are as well. Different human branches are not races, we were not bred by someone; we are different sub-species, that is the very least we can be.

    Surely people understand what we imply with ‘Race’. And if you are not completely PC indoctrinated, you will also understand that it is a factor whose effects permeats every aspect of society. But the previous segment is a reason why the use of the term Race is fallacious. It does not encapsulate the full implications of our situation. We should know better today. Once this diversity, in its true sense, and for us, our unique qualities are lost, they can practically never be regained. It is to undo something of ancient origin. Everyone understands these things when it comes to the Arctic Wolves, or the Siberian Tigers. The same thing applies to humans, it is no different. But using a different terminology does not make that clear. Thus, the use of the term ‘race’ is not only fallacious, it is an ineffective means of getting our thoughts and concerns through.

    Another thing I want to bring forth is that sometimes our antagonists shoot themselves in the foot. And for the observant that happened not too long ago, when the ancestral makeup of Scandinavians was molecularly investigated. The authors scewed the results to fit their PC agenda and concluded with that they had “disproved the myth of a pure Scandinavian race”. In fact what they had done for anyone with any knowledge in lineage genealogy, was that they had actually proven what is already obvious, that Scandinavians are overwhelmingly pure, and likely one of the absolutely last more or less pure-breed examples of a certain type of human. They proved themselves, altough, of course they didnt offer this obvious conclusion and interpretation, that 90+ percent of the ancestral makeup of Scandinavians was from groups descendant from Paleolithic Europeans. This makes Scandinavians one of the PUREST example of the EUROPEAN SUB-SPECIES. No matter how much they try to avoid this approach.

    Which also shows that the groups of Paleolithic Europeans shared to at least a big extent those features which are defining for the European sub-species, whatever model we apply to its appearance. And that this seems to be more an issue of Scandinavians being an example of people overwhelmingly descendant from these groups of Paleolithic Europeans, rather than such a thing being traceable to one specific clan in Paleolithic Europe. Albeit differences naturally would have developed there between as well, there was nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly clear, shared a basic “pool” of European traits. And those are/have been/risk to be largely lost through general influx of non-European gene pool, rather than some specific European makeup changing.