Races are biologically different, thats why each race should should be confined to its own nation. Similarly, men and women are biologically different, and should be divided into wholly separate nations. This also applies to other highly legible genetic/biological traits: chromosomal conditions, hair and eye colour, IQ, age - populations should be stratified into hermetically sealed communities accordingly. This process should continue until every person is totally insulated from all but the most similar people in existence. Within each community, there will be zero disagreement as every individual will be almost identical in every way, sharing both the same genetics and environmental factors in their upbringing. It’s safer this way, because we’ll all be protected from those different to us.
I’m glad you found your clever pun amusing enough to like your own comment. Unfortunately I wasn’t quite so impressed, but I’m sure with more practice cracking jokes you’ll soon have everyone in stitches!
This comment is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum gone wrong—where the speaker tries to ridicule a position (ethnonationalism) by pushing it to an imagined extreme that is both logically incoherent and biologically irrelevant. Let’s unpack why the analogy collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
* Biological difference alone is not the basis for separation—functional relevance is.
Races differ not just in trivial appearance but in deep-seated behavioral and cognitive traits—such as IQ, time preference, aggression, impulse control, and trust—that causally affect the sustainability of institutions, norms, and high-trust societies. Hair color and eye color do not correlate with any meaningful behavioral or societal outcomes. So equating racial stratification with dividing people by hair color is a blatant category error.
* Sex differences are not a reason for separation—they are a biological complement.
Men and women are not just “different,” they are mutually necessary for reproduction and the continued existence of any nation. This is not true for interracial coexistence, which is not necessary and in many cases is actively harmful, especially when it leads to fragmentation, trust decay, and ethnic competition over scarce political and economic resources.
* Genetic clustering matters when it affects group-level behavior and cohesion.
No one is proposing “hermetic” isolation of every minor genetic variation. The point is that some inherited traits have high heritability and significant downstream effects on the viability of social structures. For example, societies built by high-IQ, high-trust, low-impulsivity populations look radically different from those built by populations lacking those traits.
* A nation is not a personality cult—it is a bounded, self-sustaining, intergenerational organism.
Disagreement and diversity of opinion within an ethnically coherent nation are natural and even healthy. What matters is a shared genetic substrate and long-term evolutionary interests, which provide a basis for trust, reciprocity, and cultural continuity. No serious nationalist is advocating for absolute uniformity or cloning people into personality doppelgängers.
* This line of attack conflates difference with degeneracy.
The speaker implies that if we separate over one form of biological difference, we must separate over all of them. That’s idiotic. We separate over meaningful differences—those that impact collective outcomes—not those that are aesthetic or neutral in consequence. It’s the difference between recognizing that wolves and poodles shouldn't coexist in the wild vs. saying that all dogs with different fur patterns need separate shelters.
* It also ignores evolutionary logic.
Human groups evolved in genetic and cultural isolation for tens of thousands of years. That was natural, adaptive, and stabilizing. The current experiment in mass diversity is historically novel, non-consensual, and demonstrably failing—marked by rising ethnic strife, declining social capital, and the breakdown of civic trust.
In short, the comment is either a deliberate misrepresentation by someone trying to discredit ethnonationalism through caricature, or it’s a genuine misunderstanding by someone who confuses the fact of difference with the functional consequences of difference. Either way, it contributes nothing of substance to the debate.
Well done Keith. Purchased.
Is there a way to bypass Amazon and pay you directly for the book? (I am not looking for a discount).
Not yet, just Amazon for now
Great work Keith - got my copy yesterday.
Great! Thanks
Congratulations Keith!! Will be buying forthwith!!
Thank you!
Bravo 👏🏻 I’ll purchase a copy and perhaps a few later as Christmas gifts.
I appreciate it!
K
Hey Keith, is there a pdf or kindle version available?
Kindle yes
Can't wait to read it. Well done!
Give this a SHARE.
Thanks for everything you do Keith.
Hi there I have just gone onto Amazon UK and it’s not there.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nationalism-Politics-Identity-Keith-Woods/dp/1836543603/ref=sr_1_1?crid=196LA907MBX64&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1jc3-MGhCkgfsxW5qQsUXmVz4oTlE_vSxGrMTyW8BiMk2D53MlVeTeciJ7fT2Gv7gBzO-K0riC0l4-hrcgA_dN00mu1D1S35zWUDbNmTvLypuKgR_8CjTfFw3QZJJpw2HeRNknNxtGYW1eoYnku82OdPKPOKuqeT6iGa1gQX9UGYSxGNDMA_t8YHCjHvcLE_-OW6wOeFTUlNcAKC49-I3f3C-yWKg5-eUPNLeqzcEEQ.ML4mfdlLgFhDxguCqxS-xJR1MOtY1FFqY4UR1p9ETLE&dib_tag=se&keywords=nationalism+the+politics+of+identity
The cover art is pure fire!!! Who is/are the artist/s???
Just ordered my copy in hardcover.
How about posting a table of contents here and on Amazon?
“ChatGPT, compose a book length collection of essays inspired by RW tweets.”
Races are biologically different, thats why each race should should be confined to its own nation. Similarly, men and women are biologically different, and should be divided into wholly separate nations. This also applies to other highly legible genetic/biological traits: chromosomal conditions, hair and eye colour, IQ, age - populations should be stratified into hermetically sealed communities accordingly. This process should continue until every person is totally insulated from all but the most similar people in existence. Within each community, there will be zero disagreement as every individual will be almost identical in every way, sharing both the same genetics and environmental factors in their upbringing. It’s safer this way, because we’ll all be protected from those different to us.
Scarecrow....is that you? Between your name and straw man critique it just has to be!!!
I’m glad you found your clever pun amusing enough to like your own comment. Unfortunately I wasn’t quite so impressed, but I’m sure with more practice cracking jokes you’ll soon have everyone in stitches!
This comment is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum gone wrong—where the speaker tries to ridicule a position (ethnonationalism) by pushing it to an imagined extreme that is both logically incoherent and biologically irrelevant. Let’s unpack why the analogy collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
* Biological difference alone is not the basis for separation—functional relevance is.
Races differ not just in trivial appearance but in deep-seated behavioral and cognitive traits—such as IQ, time preference, aggression, impulse control, and trust—that causally affect the sustainability of institutions, norms, and high-trust societies. Hair color and eye color do not correlate with any meaningful behavioral or societal outcomes. So equating racial stratification with dividing people by hair color is a blatant category error.
* Sex differences are not a reason for separation—they are a biological complement.
Men and women are not just “different,” they are mutually necessary for reproduction and the continued existence of any nation. This is not true for interracial coexistence, which is not necessary and in many cases is actively harmful, especially when it leads to fragmentation, trust decay, and ethnic competition over scarce political and economic resources.
* Genetic clustering matters when it affects group-level behavior and cohesion.
No one is proposing “hermetic” isolation of every minor genetic variation. The point is that some inherited traits have high heritability and significant downstream effects on the viability of social structures. For example, societies built by high-IQ, high-trust, low-impulsivity populations look radically different from those built by populations lacking those traits.
* A nation is not a personality cult—it is a bounded, self-sustaining, intergenerational organism.
Disagreement and diversity of opinion within an ethnically coherent nation are natural and even healthy. What matters is a shared genetic substrate and long-term evolutionary interests, which provide a basis for trust, reciprocity, and cultural continuity. No serious nationalist is advocating for absolute uniformity or cloning people into personality doppelgängers.
* This line of attack conflates difference with degeneracy.
The speaker implies that if we separate over one form of biological difference, we must separate over all of them. That’s idiotic. We separate over meaningful differences—those that impact collective outcomes—not those that are aesthetic or neutral in consequence. It’s the difference between recognizing that wolves and poodles shouldn't coexist in the wild vs. saying that all dogs with different fur patterns need separate shelters.
* It also ignores evolutionary logic.
Human groups evolved in genetic and cultural isolation for tens of thousands of years. That was natural, adaptive, and stabilizing. The current experiment in mass diversity is historically novel, non-consensual, and demonstrably failing—marked by rising ethnic strife, declining social capital, and the breakdown of civic trust.
In short, the comment is either a deliberate misrepresentation by someone trying to discredit ethnonationalism through caricature, or it’s a genuine misunderstanding by someone who confuses the fact of difference with the functional consequences of difference. Either way, it contributes nothing of substance to the debate.
Wow, you sure saved me from wasting my money on this book!
Thank you!