Blood, Soil, and Faith – The Fundamental Building Blocks of a Nation, Part II: Soil

Author’s Note: This is the second part in a three-part series on how genetics, geography, and religion together form nations.

Continuing our three-part series on the fundamental building blocks of nations, this entry will examine the impact of the soil, i.e., how geography and climate play a role in developing national cultures. In addition to genetics, a nation must be united by the soil, meaning the land of a nation must be similar enough that a single culture is able to be established. This is part of the problem with massive, far-flung empires, they are too geographically distinct for this to happen. Because their geographies are so different, their cultures will be as well. Thus, a coherent nation cannot be formed.

In order to understand the importance of geography, it helps to review the strategy employed by one of the greatest empires in history, an empire that excelled in creating a single unified culture for its empire – Rome. If one looks at a map of the Roman Empire, one thing that stands out is how “Mediterranean” it is, the Romans focused on conquering the Mediterranean and the land around it. Because the vast majority of the Empire had a climate that could be described as “Mediterranean,” it made sense that a single, dominant culture could be formed.

The one exception to this rule is the Roman conquest of Britain, but this is the exception that proves the rule. For one, the fact that Rome even made an attempt to conquer Britain is due to a fluke of history – Roman Emperor Claudius wanted conquest as a feather in his cap and thought that a conquest of Germania, to say nothing of the Parthians, would be far too difficult. So, he settled for Britain instead. Even more telling is the fact that Britain remained the least Romanized part of the Empire, Rome was never able to fully rule and had to constantly rely on its military to enforce subjugation. And, even then, this was often ignored. When Rome fell into a major crisis and was forced to withdraw from Britain, Germanic barbarians wasted very little time conquering, as the native people there saw little value in remaining Romans, which is in stark contrast to the rest of the Roman Empire – the people considered themselves as Romans and did try to defend their lands.

What is more, Britain is the only part of the former Western (European) Roman Empire that does not speak a Latin-based language. English is derived from the language of the Germanic invaders that came in the wake of the fall of Rome – most of the words with a Latin root in English do not come directly from Latin, but rather from French via the Norman Conquest. Despite all the success Rome had in making good Romans out of various Mediterranean-based tribes, they were unable to do so with the Britons, there was just too much difference between the warm and sunny Mediterranean and cool and rainy Britain. Contrast this to the Germanic invaders that came in the wake of Rome: the Germans were nowhere near as effective at “Germanifying” the Western Roman Empire as the Romans were, but they were able to have success in Britain because Germany and Britain have a similar climate.   

The geographical reality that coherent nations must abide by can be viewed in how Dixie and Yankeedom, although both English, came to be distinct nations. Dixie, with its hot and humid weather, was going to be very different than cold New England. While the poor soil of New England meant shipping, and later manufacturing, would be a major component of its economy, the far better soil of Dixie meant that agriculture would play a larger part in our economy, and society as a whole. There is a reason why the traditional elite of New England were shippers and merchants, while Dixie’s ruling elite were planters. Though some regional differences in England can explain the separation of Anglo New England and Anglo Dixie – see David Hackett Fischer and Colin Woodard – with New Englanders largely hailing from East Anglia and Southerners hailing from southern England (in the case of the Deep South and Tidewater) or the borderlands (Appalachia), the geographic differences were critical as to why English settlers in New England and Dixie eventually formed two separate nations.   

The Knights of the Golden Circle understood this well, hence why they had no desire to expand Dixie northwards, but rather southwards. Southern culture is a product of its climate, and that culture cannot thrive in a place like Iowa or Idaho. It can, however, thrive in the Caribbean, as the climate is similar to that of Dixie (especially, in the Deep South). Furthermore, the local Spanish ruling elite were similar to the South’s. This means that the Golden Circle could have potentially worked, and geography was a uniting force behind the project. Drawing from this, there is a group of historians that do consider Dixie as part of a distinct hierarchical civilization based in the Caribbean and aligned more with the nations south of Dixie than to our north.  

None of this is to endorse the “magic soil” theory of normiecons, there is a reason Dixians and blacks remain two distinct nations, despite having lived together for centuries. Even two genetically related people – the old stock Yankees and Southerners – will form distinct nations if placed in wildly different climates. This can be observed again with the British that settled Canada and Australia, and how quickly they took on unique national identities. The climate of Canada and Australia are far too dissimilar for them to have remained a single nation (to say nothing of the vast distances between them).

Nations must have a coherent geographical area and share a similar climate for them to work as nations. The Romans were excellent at Romanizing the people they conquered, but this skill was dependent upon the Mediterranean. When they attempted to move beyond their base, they had a significantly harder time Romanizing other populations (such as the Britons and, to a lesser extent, northern Gaul). Likewise, we have seen nations with a common English origin – Dixie, Yankeedom, Australia, and Canada – all break up into new nations due to their wildly different climates.

Though soil is not the sole criteria of a nation, it is essential. Without it, a nation has no real sense of itself.

8 comments

  1. Agree. And add …
    1. When creating CSA II we’ll need to slightly expand the old southern borders to include where a lot of southern “spill over” happened ( southerners fleeing the war area ), thus including some of our lost kith and kin AND gaining more land, some of which is mineral rich.

    2. We’ll need to buy or take most islands in the Gulf except Trinidad. All those darkies will need to be relocated to South America … and some to blue Republics in the restructuring.

    3. We will need to become known for manufacturing ONLY THE best products in the world. Since we don’t want a lot of pollution, we’ll need to think carefully about which things we want to manufacture … then import THE best of what we don’t make. CSA II will literally become the greatest nation in world history AND safe haven during the rule of antichrist. GOD, is on our side!

  2. Good article, a worthy companion to the first. You can see a similar dynamic at work in the case of South Africa, in how the combination of harsh terrain far from civilization but abundant natural resources that required both a rugged lifestyle and extreme resourcefulness to thrive and develop European-style civilization within it produced a people (the Boers) that were just as smart and skilled as their Dutch, German, and Huguenot forebearers but were oft not only larger and more physically powerful than those of the old country but were temperamentally more dedicated to national and ethnic independence and the struggle to preserve it. Such examples well illustrate the intimate link between genetics and geography.
    By the way, Harmonica, I enjoyed your recent article on the strategic use of song by Irish independence fighters. In fact, it inspired me to write my own article (which I’ll be sending to the ID site soon–after my next one) on a strategy I call info-parody, with an illustrative example that I first posted on Walt Garlington’s blog. You can read the parody itself now if you want. And if the ID editors post the full article/parody I would greatly appreciate your giving me your opinion on it. Thanks.

  3. I agree with the consensus: this is an excellent article, and series of articles.

    Some of you might like to read Prof. Smith’s July, 2018 essay-length article in this connection, titled Blood and Soil Nationalism in Sidney Lanier’s “Corn”. It is a great piece of writing, as most of Prof. Smith’s stuff is. I’d forgotten about it until I read this article. Here is an excerpt from the article to help wet the ol’ appetite:

    But one thing, at least, is clear. If one of these elements is missing, we do not have a nation. If there is nothing but doctrine, we have a church. If there is nothing but soil, we have an empire. And if there is nothing but blood, we have something of interest only to a zoologist. To have a nation, we must have all three elements, and we must not expect to define these elements with any great exactness.

    Obscurantism is evil, but obscurity is not. It is wrong to intentionally obscure what is in fact clear, but it is also wrong—and perhaps in the long run more harmful—to clarify what is in fact obscure. When we do this, we squeeze the bar of soap and it shoots out of our hand.

    Here is the link to the article:

    https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/blood-and-soil-nationalism-in-sidney-laniers-corn/

    1. Thanks for that excellent link! I thought it provided a brilliant rejoinder to Christopher Hitchens’ razor: i.e. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

      OR, as D.H. Hill put it:

      “Intellectual vanity betrays men into an overweening confidence in the certainty of the deductions of reason, and a disregard for its proper limitations. Most speculative errors may be traced to an unwillingness to acquiesce in inscrutable mystery as one of their sources. The crowning absurdity of this intellectual conceit [is] the axiom that nothing can be believed which is not also intelligible. Men forget that, while the evidence on which we believe must be intelligible in order to produce rational belief, the proposition evidenced may be in large part unintelligible and yet be most manifestly true. There is nothing so familiarly known that it does not involve an incomprehensible mystery. [It is] not known what is the incomprehensible tie which connects the conscious spirit with the corporeal senses, through which alone [one] studies and observes.

      The limited domain of any finite mind may be aptly compared to a circle of light bounded by darkness. Let man increase his knowledge—he has increased also that circumference of ignorance by which his knowledge is bounded. “With the lowly is wisdom.” In the numerous gradations of wisdom and excellence, any person who is neither in the lowest place of all nor in the seat of divine perfection has both superiors and inferiors. Since it is the nature of humility to measure itself by things nobler than itself, and of pride to compare itself only with the viler, humility is the ennobling, aspiring temper, and pride the abject and degrading. And, it may be justly concluded of every system of education, or of social or religious institutions, that just in proportion as they generate conceit, they are mischievous and corrupting.” pp. 192-5.

      D. H. Hill, ‘Concerning Conceit’, ‘The Land We Love’, Vol. 1

Comments are closed.