"If you had gone to Buddha and asked him: 'Are you the son of Brahma?' he would have said, 'My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?' I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man."

— CS Lewis

This is not a return to activity, merely a short polemic I thought would benefit a larger audience.

The Nationalists say that the nation is the family writ large, some talk of "the folk" as merely the utmost extent of the kin or clan community. However, as any etymologist would know, this sense is, at least in english, barely 300 years old. Prior to that point, the folk is more often than not the common mass of people, indiscriminate and general in its usage, and nearly just as often a military term of mobilization as it is a social one. It is, appropriately so in my opinion, also directly related to the Latin word "plebes".

The actual word for family in Old English is "cynn", the direct ancestor of the contemporary word "kin", which is (probably) also related (through "cyning") to the word "king". Kingdom is in this understanding quite literally "the dominion or rule of a family". Kin (compare: Genus) is also an originally discriminatory term, whereas "folk" does not have to be, the former indicating not only ones racial stock, but also ones classhood and gender (womankind, etc). It stems from the hypothetical PIE root-word for begetting and giving birth, and has a direct connection with, among others, the german word for child "Kind".

The Folk and The Kin are different species on a conceptual level. It is good to remember the original meaning of the word "tyrant", as the servants of the same can never know the difference between childrapist and childrearer. Being a Greek could not possibly ever mean more than being an Athenian or Theban, being a German could not possibly ever mean more than being a Bavarian or Saxon, or in my own case, being a Norwegian could not possibly mean more than being a Grenlander. When one looks at the Roman Familia, the Scottish Clann, etc. the absurdity of what we can call rigid nationalism in a historical time-frame stretching past the 1400s becomes clear.

Kinship and parochiality, not nationalism and imperialism.

“The individual in the framework and in the service of his race, the race in the framework and in the service of God and of the laws of the divinity: those who will understand these things will win even though they are alone. Those who will not understand will be defeated.”

— Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.

— Meister Eckhart

"The race of the man who keeps his oath is better afterward." ~ Herodotus, Oracle

"The race of the man who keeps his oath is better afterward."
~ Herodotus, Oracle

"Because I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man, he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans; in my heart he put other and different desires. Each man is good in the sight of the Great Spirit. It is not necessary that eagles should be crows."

— Sitting Bull

"Now it is obvious that in function of a mere will to power, all distinctions vanish: there are no more supermen or sheep-men, neither affirmers nor negators of life. There is only a variety of techniques, of means (far from being reducible to sheer physical force), tending to make one human class or another prevail; means that are indiscriminately called good in proportion to their success. If in life and the history of civilization there exist phases of rise and decline, phases of creation and destruction and decadence, what authorizes us to ascribe value to one rather than to the others? Why should decadence be an evil? It is all life, and all justifiable in terms of life, if this is truly taken in its irrational, naked reality, outside any theology or teleology, as Nietzsche would have wished. Even “anti-nature” and “violence against life” enter into it. Once again, all firm ground gives way." From Ride the Tiger.

"We will kill in ourselves the world in order to build another, a higher one reaching to the heavens."
— Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

If the Übermensch must operate beyond good and evil, the Übervolk must operate beyond blood and soil.