While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.

As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.

If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.

For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own -  whether less than ordinary folks or elite.

…............

I doubt that it is too far fetched and too daring to say that we need some sort of coordination if not organization of our peoples if we are to defend ourselves. We are not stopping individuals from running into the woods and starting break away communities with the belief that any coordination will only facilitate dead weight and the unworthy. We wish them well. We still believe we can coordinate with them, as we commend separatism, that is what we are about; we are not about to compromise their interests; but in fact, they needn’t participate with us; let them wish us well at the same time in our effort to coordinate our defense cross-contextually.

In organization and coordination, several units are typically proposed for peoples: The Race, The Ethnicity (sub racial classification), The Nation, The Region, The County, The Community (which would rubricize the tribe, though most communities would probably have differences from what is known as tribal organization).

These units are probably all parts necessary to one another and it is possible that they do not need to conflict in a manner that cannot be worked out in a win-win. You want a community of robust individuals who go into the woods to settle disputes in lethal combat for concern of eusociality? – you may be right, go for it; but others of us do not fear the peril to our individualism is a priority over our survival as whole groups and we might choose a different way.

Even so, this is the part that draws my concern as it seems to be those staunch on communitarian faction that are the most resistant to coordination and in fact, for my own experience, that part over which I have least confidence. Communitarianism seems to correspond with anarchism – a striving after the smallest unit of government. I have always found anarchism repulsive as it struck me as merely a form of liberalism negligent of organization of the few most essential matters – our racial capital and (wish to avoid) accountability thereof. I experienced America as anarchy of these terms, a dis-organization of these most important matters.

What has got me re-evaluating community is a piece that Colin Liddell wrote, wryly noting some needed but absent communitarianism – i.e. the community that will kick out those who abuse our communities. He was speaking of communities in a way that resonated with me for a change.

I have long looked upon “the community” suffix with more than skepticism, but rather sarcasm. Who can help it when terms like “the black community” and “the gay community” etc. are thrown around, while you would never hear of the community suffix appearing after any genetically based European subgroup.

However, this may be a case where I am the one who is falling for the Jewish trick of being repulsed by a useful term which has been made didactic by Jewish misuse and abuse. Anarchists – shish! In fact, I still recoil and cringe at the word community.

I probably should not. It seems to me that it would apply to a manageable sized population where everyone within the group can be known to the another. Personal and organic processes, family concerns can be fostered. It is a group which, as far as we are concerned, should share sufficient genetic commonality. However “community” seems to add critical elements of more specific versions of shared rules and practices – such that the idiosyncratic value of genetics and kindredness are made manifest and verifiable. Further, because it is a manageable size, it is more possible to account for and repay the human capital which the community fosters.

I don’t doubt for a second that those hostile to us would want to disrupt our community organization. By contrast, that communitarianism is something that should be endorsed as an indispensable part of our development and defense as a people.

In its primeval, genetic aspects, the community probably corresponds with “the tribe.” In agreement with Neil’s fine essay, we should pay attention to that, while allowing that some, probably most, communities will differ from traditional tribal arrangements.

However, community is still not enough to keep an eye on the essence of our Being. As anybody knows who has been through the gossip mill of a particularly hostile community, it may not be possible to get your authentic bearings where accountability becomes more like an interrogation by communist thought police or even a witch-hunt – more than a means to find and develop yourself through positive altercasting you find yourself transformed into the “bad guy”, as a byproduct of malevolent imagination of the jealous or unreasonably demanding. Even family cannot always be relied upon to render friendly interpretations. Some of us know that all too well too. On still more objective levels, there needs to be a certain size population, more than 14,000 I understand, ultimately, as necessary to healthy breeding. The broader context to the community is necessary to genetic and mental health.

Thus, while the community is necessary for the close personal concern that goes into full development as a rule, and kudos to those who have nothing but positive experience in their communities, there will be reasons and instances where the community does not suffice, where distance is necessary to full development. Some must go out and connect…... we would hope with others of the next largest classification – the ethnicity (correct me if there is a better way to describe the next biggest group) and failing that, with the natives of their evolutionary nation ....failing that, their race in broader terms still.

All these parts are apparently necessary. How to make these parts and wholes function harmoniously is one of the questions that has been asked of Dr. Lister, as a matter of mereology. With that, I have also been concerned as to how close genetic relations often break down into fratricidal conflict rather than amity for their shared E.G.I. (not to suggest that adding “diversity” would help of course) and what to do about it.

I have proposed the Euro-DNA Nation as a means to negotiate these parts and wholes, latching onto genetics as the essential matter to be organized for the sake of accountability and ecology.

DNA verification goes far to disallow any verbal pilpul that might wangle away into and against our E.G.I. However, it has been stated here, again, this proposition is not conflictual with lived organic developmental processes of family, community and individual endeavor. Indeed, communities are necessary to manifest things that DNA strands do not readily evince. There is no conflict. This is a motion to a necessary level of cooperation and coordination of our people – even cooperation in maintaining grounds of our individuality, for our separate distinctions as sub-categories of the race, but certainly in handling our adversaries.

It is my contention that win-win circumstances can be worked out for European peoples. That the laws of competition and struggle of nature can work themselves out on subterranean levels. Where simple evaluation is not the way, our deliberate competitions and proofs can be conducted on a non-lethal basis, a friendly manner to establish appropriate qualitative disbursement of resources. Our lethal venom ought to be reserved for those who will not allow for our sovereignty, resources and separate people but persist in imposing upon us despite fair warning. The most interesting means of correcting these impositions seems to me, to be the narrative of honor being accorded to those individuals who are most effective in sending interlopers, exploiters and antagonists from our midsts while creating harmony among our various communities, regions, states and race.

We have a common wish for separatism. I believe The Euro DNA Nation offers a basis for separatism and separatist alliance as it takes into account our fundamental interests:  1.Smaller, “communities”, both ancient maintained of virtue and those expressing prerogative of new formations where the virtue of the ancient has been surrendered by prior generations. 2. Ancient peoples, territories claimed as warranted. 3. Over-arching framework of European peoples altogether, to fund and coordinate our defense and advances on behalf of the smaller, the ancient and the diaspora.

It has been said by James that the Euro-DNA Nation is a fine idea, but that it lacks “operationalization.” I wasn’t clear on what he meant by this but have come to believe that what he means by this is a means of “conflict resolution” when words and persuasion may not be working.

Migchels and Bowery’s endorsement of the Swiss model, where the people of the cantons are armed, sounds reasonable enough as a basis for regional defense.

Nevertheless, I would try first when dealing amongst Europeans to argue that there are ways in which we can all win, that resources and reward can be allocated fairly, and that there can be fair coordination between “the cantons.”

Against coalitions infighting against each other and failing to eject non-Europeans, I imagine processes of incentives where again, other options are offered to facilitate harmony among European groups and coordination against foreign imposition.

If proof beyond words is necessary, I would first share a view of DNA, encouraging the reconstruction of these different kinds as distinct; further, with an eye toward maintaining national borders as they are in Europe, and rather than fighting over these borders, forging new sacrosanct territories on other continents as compensation for disputed territory in Europe; as alternative locations so that all of a gene pool is not precariously located in one place; and to provide a logical option for mixed Europeans where they might not easily enough fit into one of the more homogeneous nations.

On the more generic level of race, where gender emerges still more prominent a category distinction, there ought to be ways to accommodate both European genders in fair choice of partners for family formation.